Start Date: April 28, 2002 Finish Date: June 25, 2002

"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." -- Karl Marx [The Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, 1848.]

Section I: Introduction

     In the previous chapter, I discussed the plight of the Proletariat in the United States. I showed how some families can barely make it past the poverty level, even when working overtime for 2 to 10 hours each day. However, the Minimum Wage laws as they stand are Socialist laws -- they govern the economy. I am happy that there is at least a Minimum Wage law that regulates wages in some respect, however, I am unhappy with the pitiful, small amount of money that is considered a wage. $2.00, $2.65, $3.61, or $4.25 certainly are not minimum wages that allow their workers to live with any sort of comfort. The following is a view into the chilling, dark world of international workers in Third World countries that have no such Socialist laws. The following workers live in a Capitalist economy, where no regulation is enforced over labor or industry. In particular examination will be the Nike company.

Section II: Wage Slavery in the World

     On May 12, 1998, Nike's CEO and founder Mr. Phillip Knight spoke at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. concerning the practices of Nike in foreign nations. At this National Press Club, he made numerous promises regarding the conditions of the workers around the world employed in Nike contract factories. One of the promises, however, was not decent wages. Tim Connor comments....

Nike has rejected demands that it ensure that Nike workers are paid a living wage -- that is, a full time wage that would provide a small family with adequate diet and housing and other basic necessities. Instead, the company has used statistics selectively and in a misleading fashion to give the false impression that wages currently paid to Nike workers are fair and adequate. Meanwhile those workers struggle to survive on wages that are barely enough to cover their individual needs, let alone those of their children. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 4.]

     Nike did, however, make numerous promises that supposedly were to help the plight of the international worker. One of the promises was, "Nike will expand its worker education program, making free high school equivalency courses available to all workers in Nike footwear factories." However, as Tim Connor comments...

The education program has expanded, but wages paid in Nike factories are so low that the great majority of workers cannot afford to give up overtime income in order to take one of the courses. Payment of a living wage would give Nike workers with an interest in achieving a high school education the time and the means to do so. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 2.]

     Another vain promise to try and make it look as though Nike was actually improving worldwide conditions was, "Nike will expand its micro-enterprise loan program to benefit four thousand families in Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand." Yet, as one journalist comments...

It is much cheaper for Nike to give micro-loans to several thousand individuals outside Nike factories than to ensure that the 530,000 workers producing the company's products are paid a wage that would allow them to live with dignity. Nike's first responsibility is to the workers in its production chain. The company should commit to a living wage before it seeks public relations kudos by funding charitable programs like this. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 2.]

     Again, another promise: "Funding university research and open forums on responsible business practices, including programs at four universities in the 1998-99 academic year." A criticism...

The company has refused reputable academics access to Nike factories to conduct research, and that research it has funded seems geared to providing private information to Nike rather than stimulating academic debate and increasing knowledge. If Nike is genuinely interested in investing in credible academic research into responsible business practices, the company should establish an independent committee made up of reputable and independent academics to determine which research should be funded. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 2.]

     What should set up red flags for those who are scientifically minded is that Nike has made many promises to offer charities yet not one of their promises is actually directed toward giving a decent wage, working hours, or safe conditions, for their workers. Concerning academic research, Nike has selectively only funded academic studies that pertain towards its own industry One study was by students that studied the wages that Nike gave to its workers. To quote Connor...

Nike funded some academic research before 1998, but that research had been heavily criticized for lacking academic rigor. In 1997, Nike funded MBA students from the Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College to investigate wage levels for workers making Nikes in Indonesia and Vietnam. The report suggested that workers' wages were adequate to meet their needs, but the students' methodology was heavily criticized by academics with expertise in conducting research in those countries. Dr. Peter Hancock of the Centre for Development Studies at Edith Cowan University wrote a damning critique of the methodology used in the Indonesian section of the report (Hancock 1997), and Dara O'Rourke (now an Assistant Professor at MIT) was equally critical of the research methods employed in Vietnam (O'Rourke 1998). Professor David Boje from New Mexico State University was able to obtain the students' original data set and do a re-analysis of the empirical results. His conclusions were different from those reached by the students, and suggested that workers in Nike contract factories were facing serious economic hardship. *8 [For a copy of the Dartmouth students' report see www.rpi.edu/~huntk/tuck/dartmouth.html . For a copy of Boje's analysis of the student's data see cbae.nmsu.edu/mgt/handout/boje/bnike/index.html .] [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 19.]

     As the quote from Connor indicated, the students used a poor methodology when determining that the wage of Nike workers allowed them a savings. The criticism by Boje stated...

About 35,000 workers at five Vietnamese plants - more than 90 percent of them young women - put in 12-hour days making Nike shoes. Though labor costs amount to less than $2 a pair, the shoes retail for up to $180 in the United States. The Vietnamese workers earn $2.40 a day - only slightly more than the $2 or so it costs to buy three meals a day. It is a common occurrence to have several workers faint from exhaustion, heat and poor nutrition; during their shifts beatings are common. Nike clearly is not controlling its contractors, and the company has known about this for a long time workers interviewed by VLW say they are not allowed to use the bathroom more than once in an 8-hour shift and are allowed to drink water only twice per shift. Both the water and the bathrooms are controlled by card or hat systems -- workers must request the card or hat from their supervisor before they are allowed to use the facilities. The VLW report notes that the number of cards or hats are limited to 3 cards for 78-person assembly line and 4 cards for a 300-person line. Violating this rule three times can result in dismissal. (VLW report). [cbae.nmsu.edu/mgt/handout/boje/bnike/index.html]

     These workers only make $2.40 a day, which is $0.25 less than the minimum wage in Kansas per hour. Some Nike factories work by paying the work per item made. To quote Connor...

Why couldn't Nike pay 22 cents for that sweatshirt and double its workers' wages? [Nike spokesperson Vada] Manager contends this would lead to disaster--for the workers! "If you exponentially increase labor costs, that impacts on the cost of production, which then means the retail cost may increase which then reduces the amount of [items] sold" -- and leads to worker layoffs (Skenazy 2001).[Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 57.]

     Would any logical person consider this reasoning to be true, that increasing the amount of money paid to workers by $0.11 would result in layoffs? Connor makes a comment on Nike's claims...

But would increasing workers' wages lead to a big jump in production costs? According to figures in Nike's website *58 [*Refer to: nikebiz.com/labor/faq.shtml] the average breakdown for a Nike product that sells for $65 looks roughly like this:

Consumer pays: $65
Retailer pays: $32.50 to Nike, and then doubles the price for retail.
Nike pays: $16.25 and then doubles the price to retailers for shipping, insurance, duties, R&D, marketing, sales, administration and profits.

The $16.25 price paid the factory includes:
Materials: $10.75
Labor: $2.43
Overhead + Depreciations: $2.10
Factory Profit: $0.97 [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 57.]

[...]

Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee has calculated that for a sweatshirt that sells for $23 the cost of production line labor is only 11 cents (Skenazy 2001). Doubling those labor costs to 22 cents could increase the price of the shirt to $23.22, hardly enough to drive consumers away, particularly when it has the added attraction of being made by a worker paid a living wage. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 58.]

     To defend itself for giving such a poor wage to its workers, Nike claimed that doing so was in benefit to the worker. If it was any higher, they claim, then the price of the products would increase, thus resulting in layoffs. Nike also makes the following claim...

In countries where the per-capita income is only a few hundred dollars each year, a salary of $50-60 per month is actually a good income. One must always remember to judge salary and income status by the local environment. If you don't judge American or French living standards in terms of rupiah or dong, it also makes little sense to try to measure Indonesian or Vietnamese standards in dollars or francs. -- from Nike's Website [nikebiz.com/labor/faq.shtml] [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 59.]

     Again, trying to swindle its way out of responsibility, Nike claims that $0.11 will go significantly further in Vietnam than it will in the United States. Such a claim is absurd. When the Nike workers are paid, they are paid an amount of rupiah or dong that is equal to $0.11 cents, which means it can only procure the same amount of food, water, clothing, or shelter as $0.11. Nike also claims that it is important to the Vietnamese economy...

Nike's presence in Vietnam is in many respects critical to the country's economy. The company is Vietnam's largest private employer, and factory jobs pay about twice that of teachers and considerably more than that of a young doctor. [Los Angeles Times, April 18, 1999, p. C1.]

     One should be suspicious of a company that boasts of paying factory workers considerably more than doctors. Connor comments...

Nike has promoted this statistic to the media on a number of occasions. The company claims this information is based on a comparative wage study it has conducted in Vietnam, but has declined to publicly release that study.

The author suspects that to make this comparison Nike has included the income Nike workers gain by working excessive overtime and has compared this with the base wage paid to doctors and teachers employed by the Vietnamese government. It is true that Vietnam is not a full market economy and that standard wages paid to doctors and teachers employed by the government are extremely low. Almost invariably government doctors and teachers supplement their income by taking on private students and patients, and by doing so they are able to earn wages substantially higher than those paid in Nike factories. [Source for this information is Thuyen Nguyen, coordinator of Vietnam Labor Watch.] [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 60.]

     It is important to understand that what workers are paid is important -- a wage is the only thing a worker has to survive on. Nike has made the following claim concerning minimum wage and how much they pay their workers...

In the countries where we have studied wage issues in detail, the typical profile is as follows: approximately 35% of workers are minimum wage earners, usually in their first year of employment. The remaining 64% of the workforce earns substantially more than minimum wage. With other bonus incentives and related cash allowances add on, the typical minimum wage earner is actually taking home, in cash between 15% and 40% more than the minimum wage, before overtime is calculated. -- From Nike's website [nikebiz.com/labor/faq.shtml]

     However, what much of Nike has claimed is of dispute. Tim Connor has made the following comment on Nike's claim...

Again, Nike makes this claim without providing evidence for it. Independent research indicates that lack of seniority pay is a major grievance for Nike workers. In December 1999 the Urban Community Mission released a report based on a survey of 4,000 workers from 13 Nike contract factories in Indonesia. The survey indicated that the basic monthly wage of the great majority (84 percent) of the shoe workers interviewed was concentrated in a narrow band between 251.000 ($US25) and 300.000 rupiah ($US30) per month, even though the length of service of workers who earned wages within that band varied from one month to fourteen years (UCM and PFC 1999) [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 63.]

     In the United States, we have seen that the minimum wage in some states is barely enough to get by when only one person is working to support themselves, and often times it is not enough to support a family with even two working adults. However, Nike feels safe to make the following claim of its workers...

Continued research into the well-being of the people making our products reveals that minimum wage earners are usually able to meet their basic needs as well as to assist in supporting other family members or building modest savings. -- From Nike's website [nikebiz.com/labor/faq.shtml]

     By making this claim, Nike instrumentally is making the claim that foreign nations -- in particular those nations which have not developed or Third World nations -- have better economic conditions than the United States. If the United States minimum wage is barely enough for an American worker to survive, how is it likely that the minimum wage in Third World nations will be enough for their workers to survive? Connor comments again on Nike's claim...

Again, Nike makes this claim but provides no evidence to support it. If anything, what little information Nike has recently released on the issue suggests the opposite -- that workers trying to survive on a minimum wage alone (i.e. without overtime) are unable to support anyone or save any money. The recent Global Alliance report in Indonesia reported that "more than half" of the focus group participants indicated that their before-overtime wage was too low to meet their living costs (GAWC 2001). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 63.]

     Nike still fails to provide a wage to its workers that is fair and adequate enough to meet the basic necessities. Instead, Nike has opted for a wage that will force the worker to work overtime to get enough food. To make an attempt to cover for its actions, it has made available micro-enterprise loans and high school education, as well as supporting academic research (which is directed towards its own ends), to make it look as though Nike is a responsible company.

Section III: Inhumane Working Conditions

     Another promise made on May 12, 1998, by Nike founder Mr. Phillip Knight was, "All Nike shoe factories will meet the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) standards in indoor air quality." However, as Tim Connor comments...

Nike was the subject of considerable scandal in 1997 when it was revealed that workers in one of its contract factories were being exposed to toxic fumes at up to 177 times the Vietnamese legal limit. Although Nike claims that its factories now meet OSHA standards, it gives factory managers advance notice of testing, giving them considerable scope to change chemical use to minimize emissions on the day the test is conducted. Nike is also net yet willing to regularly make the results of those tests available to the interested public. Rights groups have challenged Nike to put in place a transparent system of monitoring factory safety standards involving unannounced monitoring visits by trained industrial hygienists. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 1.]

     One of the demands made by Human Rights activists was, "Safe and healthy workplaces." Nike has done anything but that. As Tim Connor reports...

Nike has made important progress in reducing the use of toxic chemicals in sportshoe production. Unfortunately, on the few occasions in recent years that genuinely independent health and safety experts have been allowed access to Nike contract factories, they have found serious hazards including still dangerously high levels of exposure to toxic chemicals, inadequate personal protective equipment, and lack of appropriate guards to protect workers from dangerous machinery. There is also considerable evidence of workers suffering stress from spending large amounts of time in high pressure and frequently abusive work environments. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 4.]

[...]

Nike was the subject of considerable scandal in 1997 when one of the company's own factory monitoring reports, conducted by accounting firm Ernst and Young, was leaked to The New York Times (Greenhouse 1997). The report documented serious health and safety issues in the Tae Kwang Vina factory in Vietnam, including exposure to dangerous levels of toxic fumes from organic solvents. Particularly concerning was exposure to Toluene at between 6 and 177 times the Vietnamese legal limit (TRAC 1997). Toluene is a chemical solvent that can cause central nervous system depression, damage to the liver and kidneys and skin and eye irritations. There is also a body of scientific evidence linking exposure to Toluene vapors with miscarriages. [Information regarding the dangers of Toluene is summarized in the Toxicological Profile for Toluene, Updated, published by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and disease Registry (Atlanta: ATSDR, 1998).] The leaked report noted that exposure to Toluene and other chemicals had resulted in "increasing the number of employees who have disease [sic] involving skin, heart, allergic, throat" (TRAC 1997). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 7-8.]

     Even when independent monitors found serious health violations in Nike factories, the company still refused to do anything about it. Others were allowed to visit some of the factories in Vietnam, and this is what they saw...

Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 66.]

     There has been a flurry of Human Rights activists and professors investigating the contract factories of Nike, and all of them appalled by the brutality and cruelty of what they find. Two more monitors report on what they have found...

Yimpraset and Candland found similar issues with inadequate safety equipment and exposure to dangerous chemicals in the Thai sportswear factories they investigated. They concluded:

Many manufacturers still seem to think that it is acceptable for workers in stitching lines to have their hands cut by sewing needles, for workers in the pressing line to be struck by heavy machines, and workers in assembly lines to have solvent spit into their eyes. Every day, workers complain of rashes, headaches, stomachaches, and nausea. Medical check-ups attract queues of hundreds of workers. Serious accidents are also common. Most management turns a blind eye as they do with other such occupational health and safety issues (Yimprasert and Candland 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 66.]

     Aside from the horrendous conditions in factories, they provide inadequate medical care, if any at all. The purpose of a doctor is to heal those around him. The Hippocratic Oath is the foundation of many modern medical teachings. Written in 400 BC by Hippocrates, the founder of medicine, it reads, "I will apply dietetic measure for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice." [The Hippocratic Oath, by Hippocrates, translated by Ludwig Edelstein.] Take a look at the operation of Nike's factories and compare it to this oath...

A worker from the Kuk Dong factory described her attitude to the factory clinic in a recent interview:

My feet are getting varicose, and I have a strong pain in my hips. When I felt sick, I sued to go see the nurse, but now I don't. There is another nurse now; and I saw the way she treated a co-worker who was very sick. My supervisor asked me: 'Bing Nancy to the nursery, because she feels terrible.' So I brought her, and the nurse didn't believe she was sick. She (the nurse) told her: 'You are always sick. Am I going to believe it?' So the nurse didn't help her, and my co-worker had a fever for three days (quoted in Behind the Label 2001). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 67.]

     The purpose of the doctor in Nike factories is to convince workers that they are not sick, to convince them to work beyond what the frail sick body, afflicted with a fever, can work. The doctor has been turned into a hypocritical monster, devoid of humaneness and remorse. Only the screams of the sick and wounded, writhing without attention, will fill the dreams of these so-called doctors. It is also legal that female workers are allowed to take menstruation leave. Yet this process is degrading...

This is from the audio tape of an interview with a female worker from the PT Nikomas Gemilang factory:

Tim Connor: What happens if workers try to take menstruation leave?

Worker (through interpreter): Intimidation. The worker can't just leave like that, they have to go to the clinic to get proof. The clinic is already in Nikomas. If they don't prove they can't take.

Connor: So it's quite a humiliating process?

Worker (through interpreter): Yes.

Connor: If they do prove it can they take the leave?

Worker (through interpreter): Yes. The workers have to take off their pants.

Connor: Are they male or female doctors?

Worker (through interpreter): Some women, some men. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 67.]

     Since workers need their wage to survive, they will work in any condition for any pay. Their wage is their life line and they have no other option. This is what makes them the Proletariat class. Yimprasert and Kaewleklai noted on some of the conditions of the Par Garment factory...

The Par Garment workers remaining in the factory have no job security since they are working under constant fear of uncertainty, not knowing when they will be laid off. They also work under deteriorated conditions in a poor working environment with cracked walls, no fire alarm system, no emergency lights, locked emergency exits, an electricity controller that occasionally explodes, dirty toilets, and the constant stench of animals near the factory area that permeates into the work area. Being confined inside a solid block building with poor ventilation makes the work environment unbearable hot, dusty and stuffy. The factory does not even provide clean and cold drinking water to the workers (Yimprasert and Kaewleklai 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 76.]

     Nike is not the only company that has endorsed slavery as a method of producing and developing products. Adidas also has supported some of those factories...

Sweatshop conditions at the Formosa factory, which produces for both Nike and Adidas first came to public attention in mid-1998 when a European television station did a story exposing labor abuses in the factory (Carisch et. al. 1998). In June 1999 Adidas responded to lobbying from European organizations involved in the Clean Clothes Campaign and employed the monitoring organization Verite to conduct an audit at Formosa. The audit found evidence of systematic humiliation and verbal abuse of workers by factory supervisors, as well as instances of physical and sexual harassment. Verite also found that workers' right to organize was strongly repressed in the factory and that any worker who tried to form a union was dismissed (Verite 1999). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 77.]

     With such inhumane conditions, bad air quality, dangerous machinery, among other abuses, we see the worst of humanity in Capitalism. We see a complete and total disregard for the value of any human life. Some people may say that the inhumanity rendered by Nike factories cannot be compared with American economy. They excuse one as Human Rights violation and the other as Capitalism. But both are simply this: slavery. Capitalism itself is the greatest Human Rights violation.

Section IV: Inhumane Working Hours

     One of the demands made by Human Rights activists was, "Reasonable working hours." Tim Connor comments on this...

Independent research indicates that in many factories Nike workers are still being coerced into working up to 70 hours per week and are being humiliated in front of other workers or threatened with dismissal if they refuse. Nike workers also frequently report that it is extremely difficult to obtain sick leave and that the annual leave to which they are legally entitled is often refused, reduced or replaced with cash without the worker having any choice in the matter. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 4.]

     Nike has been paying its workers below a living wage. This has forced them to work the amount of hours they work a week. In defense, Nike hes responded...

There is no common, agreed-upon definition of the living wage. Definitions range from complex mathematical formulas to vague philosophical notions. Using a whole range of studies and inputs, Nike will endeavor to ensure that factory workers making Nike products earn a fair compensation package, mindful always of the need to balance creation of jobs and fair compensation. -- From Nike's website [nikebiz.com/labor/faq.shtml]

     The reasoning by Nike here is false. It responds by claiming that there is no way to discover a living wage. Its workers being paid less than 1/100th of the wealth they produce -- and this they will call "fair compensation." One of the workers made the following comment...

Nikomas Worker (through interpreter)--Workers [are] often required to work more than 70 hours per week... If female workers refuse they are generally shouted at or scolded. In some cases they have been forced to stand in front of all the other workers for a day to humiliate them, or can be forced to wash the toilets (Connor 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 64.]

     The brutality of Capitalism can clearly be seen in its actions. Had a law been made that disallowed attacking individuals, from killing them, or from robbing them, -- laws such as a minimum wage, safe working conditions, decent working hours -- the Capitalists would explode in an uproar. "That is theft!" they would claim. Yet, be it through any exchange of coin, it is the Capitalist whose wealth is created by the labor of others. Connor reports more on the inhumane working hours and how workers are often disallowed from annual leave...

In October 1998 a recently fired Nike worker from the Formosa factory in El Salvador, Julia Pleites, reported that workers at Formosa were required to work from 7 a.m. in the morning until 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m. at night almost every day and were denied the entire day's pay if they refused to work overtime (NLC 1998).

[...]

In addition to being forced to work overtime, Nike workers frequently report that their annual leave is refused, reduced or replaced with cash without the workers having any choice in the matter. In all three Indonesian Nike contract factories investigated by the author in March 2000, workers were allowed to take Muslim religious holidays but it was very difficult for them to take any other annual leave, even though they were theoretically entitled to 12 days annual leave each year. Line supervisors put a great deal of pressure on workers not to take leave on days other than religious holidays. This is because supervisors are required to meet particular work targets and no allowances are made if one of their workers takes leave (Connor 2000). In the recently released Global Alliance study on Indonesia, Nike workers reported similar issues on seven of the nine factories investigated (GAWC 2001, p. 25). There have also been reports of Nike contract factories making it difficult for workers to take maternity leave and sick leave (See WRC 2001, Yimprasert and Candland 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 65.]

Section V: Violation of Freedom Of Association and Workers' Rights

     Another demand made by Human Rights activists was, "Protect workers who speak honestly about factory conditions." Tim Connor comments on this demand...

Nike's track record in protecting workers who blow the whistle on sweatshop conditions is very poor. The company has turned its back on individual workers who have been victimized for speaking to journalists, and has cut and run from other factories after labor abuses have been publicized. Until this changes, Nike workers will have good reason to keep silent about factory conditions for fear that speaking honestly may result in them and their fellow workers losing their jobs. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 3.]

     Another demand that is important to the same degree is, "Respect for workers' right to freedom of association." Tim Connor again remarks on this...

Nike has objectly failed to prevent the suppression of unions in a number of its contract factories, including the PT Nikomas Gemilang and PT ADF factories in Indonesia, the Sewon and Wei Li Textile factories in China, the Formosa factory in El Salvador, the Natural Garment factory in Cambodia, the Savina factory in Bulgaria and factories owned by the Saha Union group and the Bangkok Rubber group as well as the Nice Apparel, De-Luxe, Lian Thai and Par Garment factories in Thailand.

On those few occasions when Nike has taken any steps to advance this right in specific factories, it has done so grudgingly and after considerable public pressure. While elements of Nike's eventual response to the current dispute in the Kuk Dong factory in Mexico have been positive, Nike's actions on the issue [have] been characterized by unnecessary delays, lack of follow through and failure to actively promote the urgent need for a free and fair union election. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 5.]

     The freedom of association means that workers are allowed to stand with whatever unions that they wish to be with. Not only has Nike denied its workers that right, but they have denied them any consideration of any of their rights. Quoting Connor again...

The Urban Community Mission survey of 4,000 Nike Indonesian workers in 1999 confirmed that this was a major issue when 57 percent of Nike sportshoe workers and 59 of Nike clothing workers reported that they had seen workers being shouted at or subject to cruel treatment by their supervisors. The punishments include wage deductions, having their ears pulled, being pinched or slapped on the buttock, being forced to run around the factor or having to stand for hours in factory yards (being "dried in the sun"). The verbal abuse included the Indonesian equivalent of phrases like "Fuck You!" "You Whore!," and "You Dog!" (UCM and PFC 1999). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 68.]

     Verbal abuse in Nike factories has been a problem for some time and has affected numerous workers. One worker comments...

According to a number of different sources, verbal abuse is also common in the Formosa factory that was until recently a Nike supplier in El Salvador. According to Julia Pleites who worked in the factory:

Everything is by piece rate. The supervisors scream at you to go faster. If they think you are working too slowly, they come up to you and smash your table with their hand, yelling at you to work faster (NLC 1998). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 68.]

     China is a Communist country, but it is hardly a country founded on the rights of the Proletariat. Unions can be considered to have done the best for the advancement of the rights of the workers. And, in this nation of China, "nation of the Proletariat and for the Proletariat," unions are illegal...

In February 2001 China ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), but the official Xinhua news agency made it clear that this step would in no way change China's existing labor laws. Amnesty International described this restriction on rights to form trade unions as "very disappointing" and noted that:

Many individuals are currently imprisoned solely for exercising and promoting the economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in the covenant. These include the right to organize free trade unions, the right to strike, or simply for speaking out and organizing around livelihood issues. Some have been sent to re-education through labor camps or forcibly detained in psychiatric hospitals (AI 2001). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 70.]

     Through the systematic threatening and repression of the rights of the workers, Nike and its contract factories manage to keep an iron fist on those who produce society and its goods...

In April 2000 the National Labor Committee released reports on a number of factories producing for Nike, including the Sewon factory in Jiaozhou City and the Wei Li Textile factory [Also known as the WDI Supercap factory.] in Guangdong Province. The report noted that there is no union at Sewon and that workers who attempted to organize one would put themselves in danger of arrest and imprisonment without trial. There was a 'workers' committee' at Wei Li but the 'workers' representatives' on the committee were selected by factory management and not by workers themselves (NLC 2000). In its reply to the report Nike indicated that "Wei Li Textile and Sewon factory are current partners that we are proud to work with" (Nike Inc. 2000a). No response was given to allegations that the "workers committee" at Wei Li is controlled by management and that workers' right to freedom of association is not respected at Sewon nor at any other Chinese factories producing for Nike. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 71.]

     The Human Rights activists are working valiantly and ardently to secure Socialist laws and practices in any nation. In one case, the case of Haryanto, a worker fired from a Nike factory for independent union activity, activists arranged for him to tour the US. To quote Connor...

In September 1998 Haryanto like many Indonesians he only has one name) was fired from the PT Lintas factory for his involvement in independent union activity. In October 1998 Campaign for Labor Rights (a NGO based in the US) arranged for Haryanto to tour the US to speak at universities about conditions in his factory. While he was in the US his mother received an anonymous phone call warning her that if her son valued his life he should stop criticizing the factory. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 71.]

     In the 1800's, a group known as the Anarchists would form. They would come to oppose government as much as they opposed Capitalism. They struggled and worked for a better society, without religion, without ruling class, without Capitalists. The means of production would be equally owned by everyone. They were right, however, when they said that the ruling class walked side by side with the Capitalist class. In the following report, Indonesian soldiers backed up factories against union activity...

In September 2000 Oxfam-Community Aid Abroad released a report documenting extensive repression of union rights in Nike contract factories in Indonesia [Tim Connor was the author of that report.] (Connor 2000). Based on taped interviews with union organizers at the PT Nikomas Gemilang factory in Serang and two other Nike contract factories, the report documented how attempts by workers to set up a new independent unions were being vigorously repressed. Workers involved in new unions reported receiving death threats and other threats of violence, being subject to more scrutiny and harassment than other workers and being discriminated against in promotion and job opportunities. They believed that most workers would have been interested in joining independent unions were it not for this harassment and intimidation. Some workers reported that they had been called away from private interrogation by factory managers and Indonesian soldiers, with warnings that if they don't stop organizing workers and publicizing conditions in their factory they would be attacked by 'Preman', the Indonesian term for hired hit men. All of the workers interviewed took these threats seriously and one worker indicated that he was afraid for his life (Connor 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 71 to 72.]

     The abuse to those who attempt to form unions and work for a better workplace is excruciating. There is no sympathy, no pity, no affection. Connor comments again on the brutality of an unrestricted factory and unionization...

Mr. Julianto (like many Indonesians he only has one name) had helped to organize a workers demonstration at the factory in December 1999, calling for better pay and conditions. He was subsequently subject to such extreme intimidation and harassment that he was unable to continue working at the factory. In his own words:

After the demonstration ended most of the workers who organized it were called by the company and were threatened that if they continued to organize workers they would have to resign or else they would be attacked by hired thugs. I was called away from my work and taken into an office and there were two managers and a soldier from the Indonesian army. They were very angry. They shouted at me and slammed the table. They told me that we had to disband the workers committee. I told them that we did not want to. And then they said if you organize another demonstration we will take you to the police or you will be visited by hired thugs. The same thing happened to my friends (Julianto 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 72.]

     In one incident, it appears that an independent union activist was attacked. To quote Connor...

Rakhmat Suryadi is a worker and union official from the PT Nikomas Gemilang factory. According to local Indonesian NGOs, an 21 March 2001 as he made his way to the factory gates to begin work, Mr. Suryadi was attacked from behind by persons unknown and suffered machete wounds to his head and legs. He required 18 stitches in the back of his head and was hospitalized for a week before he was able to return home. Those involved in the attack said nothing to him and made no attempt to rob him (Forum Anti Kekersan 2001).

The Urban Community Mission (a local Indonesian NGO) reports that Mr. Suryadi has been very active in advocating for workers' rights. He played an important role in recent campaigns to persuade the government to increase the legal minimum wage in West Java. His union work also involves representing workers at other factories as well as PT Nikomas, and early in 2001 he had been involved in representing workers in a dispute at the nearby PT Spindo Mills factory (Forum Anti Kekerasan 2001).

On 23 February 2001, he was quoted in the Indonesian newspaper Kompas describing labor abuses in Nike contract factories. Commenting on the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities' report into conditions in those factories (which had just been released), he told the Kompas journalist that it was normal for obscene words to be hurled at Nike workers by their supervisors and that there is also sexual harassment, toward both male and female workers. He claimed that the factory owners did not care about the fate of their workers because they only placed importance on maximizing production. He urged workers to be brave enough to demand their rights. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 72 to 73.]

     Although police claim to have some suspects and also claim that there is little evidence to support the statement that the factory management was some how responsible, that means quite little coming from a police force which has opposed unions in every area. The philosophy of Capitalism is cruel and heartless. It can be no wonder then that it has produced the worst brutalities seen on this planet, that its practitioners are generally without emotion, without capacity to understand any sort of kinship between themselves and those they enslave. If they had the slightest inkling of compassion in their blood, then they would not endorse any such slavery. Some more information on the anti-union sentiments of factories....

Two business conglomerates own Nike contract factories in Thailand -- the Saha Union Group (which owns Union Footwear, Union Shoes, and Unisole) and the Sahapathanapibul Group (which owns the Bangkok rubber Group and Pan Asia Footwear). According to Yimprasert and Candland, there are no unions in the entire Thai sportshoe sector because factory owners have crushed all attempts by workers to organize:

The Saha Union group is infamous in Thailand for its virulent anti-union activities. Several groups of workers in the Saha Union group who attempted to organize a union were dismissed as soon as the company learned of their intention to form unions. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 74.]

     So, it is clearly seen, those who do wish to form unions are immediately fired from their work. In a Capitalist system, this is entirely acceptable. No rights are given to the worker. If any are, then it is called "theft" by the Capitalist class. Connor comments another union suppression situation....

At the Nice Apparel factory in Bangkok which produces for Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Puma, Nike personnel told the journalists that they should not ask the workers anything about unions as it was a "sensitive issue," and will "upset the management of the factory." When they interviewed the manager of the factory he told them that "these associations have no impact on the company's strategy," and that he doesn't negotiate with them (cited in Devick and Bruyns 2000).

A woman who worked at the De-Luxe Company, which produces for Nike, Adas and Reebok, was also interviewed:

Worker -- If we don't do overtime, then we get into trouble. We must go and see the manager. And if we really can't do it, then we're sacked.

Interviewer -- Is it allowed to form trade unions, to organize meetings?

Worker -- No, it isn't. We are already afraid of our job when we say what we think. (interview in Devick and Bruyns 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 74.]

     Even when it is illegal to simply fire workers who are members of the union, the factory management will simply fabricate incidents to fire union members. To quote Yimprasert and Candland...

The company accused the union treasurer of stealing a T-shirt from the company, reported her to the police, and had her imprisoned. The union collected 100,000 baht from workers for her bail. The case is still pending. The chairman of the union reported that the treasurer, who has worked in the position for several years, has an impeccable reputation. Usually the company fines or fires alleged thieves, but does not bring these cases to court. Lian Thai union committee members believe that the company wants to show its power over the union. The company knows that the union's resources can be easily exhausted in a legal defense (Yimprasert and Candland 2000). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 75.]

     Fabricating incidents where the company may fire or prosecute workers is not an isolated incident. To quote Connor...

In September 1999 the Cambodian Labor Organization (CLO) released a report on the Natural Garment Factory in Phnom Penh. It described how, during a period when the factory was producing for Nike (April to July 1999), the president of the factory union, Miss Ken Chheng Lhang, suffered extensive harassment for trying to defend workers' right to have one day off in every seven. Miss Lhang was refused a time card, preventing her from working for several days. The factory criticized her for constantly making complaints to the labor ministry and put pressure on her to resign. The report also documented how on July 6, 1999 factory supervisors manufactured a problem with the work of the union treasurer, Chab Kunthea, as a pretext for firing her. The report concluded that "the case of Natural Garment demonstrates once again that the US footwear and apparel giant, Nike, is failing to take any pro-active steps to monitor or enforce compliance with its much-touted code of conduct, which provides that workers have the right to freely associate." [For a copy of this report see www.caa.org.au/campaigns/Nike/appendix_15_March_2000.html ] [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 78.]

     The formation of the union and its respect is a sign that conditions will improve for the worker. Within a union, the workers become a direct force, capable of advocating and creating change with their numbers. To quote Connor concerning the rights of workers from the Savina factory in the Sandanksi region...

In April and November 1999 representatives of the German and Bulgarian Clean Clothes Campaigns interviewed workers from the Savina factory in the Sandanksi region. [For a copy of their report see the following page on the Clea Clothes Campaign site - www.cleanclothes.org/companies/savina99-11.htm ] At that time the factory was producing sportswear for both Nike and Adidas. They were told that workers had managed to establish a union (KT Podkrepa) and that following a strike at the factory in the Spring of 1999 they had negotiated a 9 hour work day, less [than] half an hour for lunch. Unfortunately, work quotas at the factory were still "murderously high" and workers' pay depended on fulfilling their quota.

The formation of the union had not been welcomed by factory management. The factory owner, Hristos Karanidis, angrily told one of the researchers that he was considering closing the factory and leaving Bulgaria because of the union presence. The researchers noted that many of the workers' concealed their union membership from Karanidis in fear of losing their jobs.

In March 2000 labor rights groups wrote to Nike requesting that the company ensure that workers in the Savina factory were freely able to organize (Bissell et.al., 2000). Nike ignored the letter. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 79.]

     The Capitalist class is defined as those who are in ownership of the means of production, or capital. To compete with each other, the Capitalist class will often clash with itself, or harmonize, as long as they can maximize their own profits. If this means denying the workers their rights, then that is exactly what they do. In one incident...

When US student Karim Chrobog was allowed by Nike to observe PWC's monitoring of factories in the Dominican Republic in March 2000, workers at both factories he visited told him "that past attempts to form or join a union have led to the immediate dismissal of workers." (Austermuhle et al. 2000, p. 18). They also reported that management annually fires the majority of the work force in order to avoid paying legally required seniority benefits. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 79.]

     ... and with regard to the US student who was allowed to observe PwC's monitoring in Bangladesh...

The US student who Nike allowed to observe PwC's monitoring in Bangladesh, Shubha Chakravarty, also reported on repression of union rights. According to Ms. Chakravarty, one of Nike's suppliers in Bangladesh not only has located its factory in the Export Processing Zone where unions are illegal, but is one of the companies most actively involved in lobbying the Bangladeshi government to ensure that unions remain illegal in that zone. [Chakravarty S. 2000, pers. comm., 22 March.] Chakravarty also reported that Nike's monitors in Bangladesh are taking no steps to ensure that workers' right to organize is protected. She wrote:

In countries or regions where unionization is not allowed, such as the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) in Dhaka (where one of my factories is located), PwC monitors do not ask the interview questions related to unions or freedom of association...Even in the Bangladeshi factory that was not in the EPZ, workers were rarely questioned about unionization; PwC auditors felt that unionization was almost a non-issue in Bangladeshi, since so few garment factories are unionized (Chakravarty 2000, p. 9).

As with China, Nike appears to have no problem with its goods being produced in areas where workers who try to form unions are thrown into jail. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 80.]

     In one particular incident, workers were forced to join a union rather than given the chance to join one. This union, however, had devious intentions...

Unlike most attempts by workers to establish their own organizations in Nike contract factories, the recent push to form an independent union at the Kuk Dong factory in Mexico has been subject to extensive independent scrutiny. No less than three independent monitoring reports on the factory have been published in 2001 and numerous demonstrations have been held on university campuses across the US in support of the new union. This makes the case particularly important and worthy of careful analysis. If Nike is not willing to protect workers' right to freedom of association at Kuk Dong, then it will not be willing to do so anywhere.

In Mexico, a number of established unions have close ties with the former ruling party, the PRI. The primary purpose of these unions is not to represent workers' interests but to exert political control over them and use their union fees to further the interests of the party. It is common for such unions to negotiate deals with factory owners allowing them to operate in particular factories and to use violence and coercion to force workers to become members and to prevent than [them] freely choosing who will represent them. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 80 to 81.]

     The most brutal incident of Nike attempting to stamp out opposition comes from the Kuk Dong factory in Mexico. In this heartless factory, workers were paid so low, that they were dependent upon the food in the factory cafeteria, that was often rancid or rotten. Workers protested and they were dismissed. These workers, creators of our society and its products, demanded more. They wanted rights, freedom, liberty -- all of the things which were deprived from them in the Capitalist class. Life was not about being productive or happy or spiritual. Life was secluded to the depraved nature of Capitalism -- that is to say, of slavery. After work, they were denied their own profits. Only taken by the thieving Capitalist class, their blood and sweat supported the foundations of this hypocritical and infamous machine called Free Enterprise. Connor explains what had happened....

Austermuhle noted that management took down the names of the workers he interviewed, and that may explain why they didn't tell him that wages at Kuk Dong were well below the prevailing industry wage in Mexico (Justiani 2001). Wages were so low that workers were reliant on eating the food served in the factory cafeteria even though it was occasionally rotten or rancid and was commonly of very poor quality. On December 15, 2000 frustration with this and other issues lead five relatively senior workers (Marco Santiago Perez Mesa, Marcela Muñoz Tepepa, Josefina Hernandez Ponce, Mario Nicanor Sefina, and Eduardo Sanchez Velasquez) to protest by refusing to eat the factory food. Several weeks later those five workers were dismissed as punishment for this protest.

In response, workers at the factory put a list of demands to Kuk Dong, including the reinstatement of the dismissed workers, a change of union, and better wages and factory food. On January 9, 2001 these negotiations between the factory and the workers broke off and approximately 650 of the 860 workers at the factory staged a work stoppage to press their demands. They picketed the factory for two and a half days, during which time a number received anonymous threatening letters.

At around 10:30pm on Thursday January 11, 2001, the government of Puebla sent 200 police in full riot gear to attack the 300 workers then guarding the factory. According to workers interviewed by United Students Against Sweatshops, the leader of the CROC union and other CROC representatives were at the scene and pointed out strike leaders to police (WRC 2001). When the workers saw the police officers approach, they threw their arms up in the air to indicate that they would not fight, and they attempted to leave through the exits. Instead police surrounded and cournered them and violently drove workers out of the factory one by one. A number of workers were beaten severely with police clubs and at least four workers were hospitalized as a result of injuries sustained. Evidently two of the women guarding the factory were pregnant and lost their babies as a result of being hit with shields, cubs, and fists during the attack (Boje, Rosile. and Carrillo 2001). [This information is based on taped interviews by Professor David Boje of New Mexico State University with two workers and a labor lawyer who were present at the time the attack occurred (Boje, Rosile. & Carrillo 2001 and Boje D. 2001, pers. comm., April 16).] [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 82 to 85.]

[...]

The same point was made in a January 30 letter to Nike from the coordinating committee of United Students Against Sweatshops. The letter alleged that "the workplace has become a place of terror, with riot police stationed inside of the factory where there have been multiple reports of management screaming at and belittling workers for their attempts to come together to assert their rights." [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 86.]

     Yet the cruelty of the established government working with the established Capitalist class is not limited to the Kuk Dong factory in Mexico. The March 16 edition of the New York Times carried a story on union busting by Nike shoe contractors in Indonesia. One worker was "locked in a room at the plant and interrogated for seven days by the military, which demanded to know more about his labor activities." The October 17 edition of the CBS program 48 Hours had a segment on Nike's labor rights abuses in Vietnam, including: beatings, sexual harassment and forcing workers to kneel for extended periods with their arms held in the air. On November 3, an article by Australian labor scholar Anita Chan was published in the Washington Post. She described Chinese shoe factories -- producing for Nike and other companies -- where supervisors submit workers to a military boot camp style of control. On March 14 1997, Reuters had a report on a Nike factory, Pouchen in Dong Nai, forced 56 Vietnamese women workers to run around the factory’s premise, 12 fainted and were taken to the hospital emergency room.

Section VI: Child Slavery

     One of the most unfeeling actions of the Capitalist class is to employ children into the workforce. Not only were children simply employed into the workforce, but they were employed under the most merciless of conditions. Forced to work in factories where they may be maimed or killed. The second promise made on the May 12th, 1998, speech by Mr. Phillip Knight was "The minimum age for Nike factory workers will be raised to 18 for footwear factories and 16 for apparel factories." Connor commented...

Nike was severely embarrassed on the child labor issue in 1996 when a major story in Life magazine on the exploitation of child workers in Pakistan featured a photograph of a very young Pakistani boy sewing a Nike soccer ball (Schanberg 1996). Knight himself added to Nike's poor image on this issue when, while being interviewed for the film The Big One, he told filmmaker Mike Moore that it didn't bother him that children as young as 14 were employed making Nike products. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 11.]

[...]

In January 2001, the Worker's Rights Consortium interviewed approximately 30 workers at the Kuk Dong factory in Mexico as well as factory managers and other key persons and reported that even the factory management admitted that the factory "has employed children aged 13 through 15 for workdays of nine to ten hours" (WRC 2001). [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 12.]

     The reason why children are employed in Nike factories is because they are so poor that they need money to buy food for themselves and their family. Childhood is supposed to be an age of development and growth, so that generations can turn into mature, well-adjusted adults. It is not supposed to be a time of strife, turmoil, and brutality. Connor posed a solution to the situation...

Child labor is, however, a notoriously difficult area to monitor. Poverty is so dire in many of the areas in which Nike factories are located that young people will forge age certificates in order to get work. Nike could best contribute to the wellbeing of children in Nike production areas by ensuring that adult Nike workers are paid enough to provide for the basic needs of their families. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 12.]

     In the June '96 issue of Life Magazine, Sydney Schanberg (author of The Killing Fields) documented child labor being used in Pakistan in the production of Nike soccer balls -- for 60 cents a day.

Section VII: Conclusion

     As far as Capitalism is concerned, a Human Rights issue is just another Public Relations issue. Those in the Capitalist class have done everything that they could possibly do to maintain their power and their clutch of the working masses. In once instance....

Since January 1999, it has been extremely difficult to obtain independent information about conditions in any Nike contract factory in Vietnam. In that month Nike vice-president Joseph Ha sent a letter to Vietnamese labor officials claiming that Nike's critics had a secret agenda to overthrow the Vietnamese government and "create a so-called democratic society on the U.S. model". Vietnam Labor Watch, the main rights group monitoring Nike factories in Vietnam, vigorously denied this allegation and labeled Ha's letter "a crude attempt to stop the on-going cooperation between Vietnam Labor Watch and labor organizations in Vietnam...[by attempting to] paint anti-Nike activists as Americans harboring a hidden agenda to change Vietnam's political system." *18 [18 See: www.saigon.com/nike/pr14.html ]

Ha's letter was published in the official Laodong newspaper, indicating that the Vietnamese government endorsed his comments and regarded cooperation with Nike's critics an an act of treachery. Since then it has been politically dangerous for Vietnamese citizens to talk to outside organizations about conditions in Nike factories, and people who were formerly happy to pass on such information are no longer willing to do so. [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 27 to 28.]

     It is quite easy now to see the need of Socialism. Capitalism and its complete lack of humanity has shown itself to be brutal and heartless. It is a theft of the people, depriving them of their hard-earned profit, of their rights, of their liberty, of their freedom -- of the things which can make life pleasant. Yet, it is the strict doctrine of Free Trade that there are to be no restrictions in the economy; it claims that if workers work at a factory where they sign off their natural rights at the door, that such an action is perfectly acceptable. If a worker works at a factory and signed a contract that allows the boss to rape them or kill them at any time desired, then the Capitalist will boast, "Yes! We must enforce such contracts! We deserve our liberty, do we not?" But Capitalism is not about liberty; and it certainly is not about humaneness or justice.

copyleft notice and responsibility clause (read this first before reading anything else on the site)