Nike And The Like: The American Birth Of Globalization Nike and The Like: The American Birth Of Globalization My father saw the writing on the wall when he was in the work force in the nineteen eighties. This was the beginning of the switch from traditional American manufacturers to globalization being cheered on by the major corporations. The elite in power asked a daring question “why are we continuing to pay quality wages for Americans when we can make goods cheaper from foreign labor overseas?”. Many in power at the time of coarse knew the dreaded outcome of this. It would be sure to bring much disorder towards the honest working class families. The problem was that working class families wouldn’t benefit them with profit unlike the multinational corporate state. President Reagan symbolized the turn over from honest hard working America to a nation that sought to obtain the most wealth by whatever means necessary. He was known for taking rights away from unions and invited special interest groups to have a seat in power. Ever since then one by one, American factories shut down along with American hope. Goods went from being made in Pennsylvania or Detroit to China and Thailand. The wages paid, the quality of the products, and the quality of America were all lowered to put more money and power in the corporate pocket. This grave mistake has proven to cause harm in just about any way it’s looked at. These poor nations, especially China in particular have absolutely no consideration for human rights. No one will successfully achieve a rebellion in China without severe imprisonment or death by the government of their own country. You’ve probably heard recently about the democracy hero in Myanmar being released from prison. This was largely due to coverage from American media rather than the nations own decisions. Environmentally, flying and shipping goods all over the world leaves a tremendous carbon footprint that was unheard of years ago. Those who deem global warming as a myth have not paid enough attention. The Arctic ice caps have been melting at an ever increasing rate, and deserts across the world are expanding and lakes and rivers are shriving up to the bone. Anyone carefully looking at the consequences of globalization would consider it to be detrimental. One of the most powerful corporations playing a major role in this process is Nike. From shoes to basketballs to headphones Nike sells millions of products in the United States that are imported from China and many other third world nations across the globe. With soaring profits and relentless intimidating power, Nike along with others put personal gain over anything else. The following list represents some issues posed to the Nike corporation back in 1998 due to consumer interest. 1st Demand: Protect workers who speak honestly about factory conditions. 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. 2nd Demand: Regular, Transparent, Independent and Confidential Procedures for Monitoring Factories and Investigating Worker Complaints. Activists have repeatedly asked Nike to allow rights groups to educate workers about their rights and to ensure workers can make confidential complaints to independent monitors when those rights are infringed. Instead, Nike has made it the responsibility of each factory to educate workers about Nike's code of conduct and to establish a complaint mechanism. This deliberately ignores the interest factory owners have in keeping workers ignorant of their rights. All independent research indicates that the overwhelming majority of Nike workers do not understand their rights under Nike's code and do not believe factory owners can be trusted to resolve worker grievances. Rights groups have also called for a factory monitoring program which is independent and rigorous. In response Nike has set up an elaborate array of different schemes for monitoring and factory assessment. While this variety of programs looks impressive in a public relations sense, Nike has deliberately set up each of these programs so that they fail two or more of the key tests of effective monitoring: independence, transparency, regularity and a relationship of trust with workers. The quarterly program of S.A.F.E. (Safety, Health, Attitude, People, Environment) assessments, conducted by Nike staff, is obviously the least independent. There is no evidence that Nike staff actually interview workers as part of these assessments let alone attempts to establish a relationship of trust with them. Nike's program of annual factory monitoring by PricewaterhouseCoopers also lacks independence. PwC was selected by Nike, reports to Nike and conducts a monitoring program designed by Nike. To the extent that independent observation of PwC's monitoring practice has been allowed, it indicates that PwC auditors fail to establish a relationship of trust with workers and that the quality of their monitoring can be extremely poor. Dara O'Rourke (an assistant professor at MIT) recently observed several PwC factory audits first hand and concluded that they had "significant and seemingly systematic biases" in favor of factory owners and against the interests of workers (O'Rourke 2000). While there are elements of the Fair Labor Association's (FLA) proposed monitoring program that represent important improvements on Nike's current very poor system, the Association's ability to ensure that workers' rights are respected will be significantly undermined both by the questionable independence of its external monitors and by the long delays between factory monitoring visits--which will on average occur in each factory only once every ten years. The Global Alliance for Workers and Communities is an attempt by Nike to shift focus away from the human rights agenda promoted by the company's critics. The Alliance deliberately avoids investigating key human rights issues and its research methodology does not allow time for researchers to create a relationship of trust with workers. Nike has vigorously opposed the Workers' Rights Consortium, a factory monitoring program that is independent, transparent and makes it a priority to build relationships of trust with workers. In contrast, Nike's monitoring and factory assessment programs are not independent, lack full transparency and have so far made very little effort to win workers' trust so that they can speak honestly about factory conditions without fear of reprisal. 3rd Demand: Decent Wages Nike has rejected demands that it ensures that Nike workers are paid a living wage--that is, a full time wage that would provide a small family with an 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. 4th Demand: Reasonable Working Hours 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. 5th Demand: Safe and Healthy Workplaces Nike has made important progress in reducing the use of toxic chemicals in sport shoe 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. 6th Demand: Respect for Workers' Right to Freedom of Association So far Nike's promise to protect this right has been largely empty. A considerable proportion of Nike's goods are made in countries like China where independent unions are illegal. Nike has refused to call on the Chinese government to allow workers to organize and has actively opposed calls for trade pressure to be put on the Chinese government to encourage it to improve its record in this area. Nike has abjectly 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 been characterized by unnecessary delays, lack of follow through and failure to actively promote the urgent need for a free and fair union election. In some cases such as reducing toxic chemicals, Nike has made significant progress, but by and large, Nike continues to keep personal gain above individual rights. The fact that these issues are presented to Nike should be an indicator that a corporation like this has too much power and should either change its practices or be banned from doing business. Nike is not the only one like this of coarse. Walk into any Walmart, or Sears, and one will find ample multinational corporate products. I don’t know if America’s essential manufacturing goods will ever return. If they were to, it would take much effort, but I along with many others feel that it has too be done. Ideally, we should have never gotten to the point where we decided to ship the majority of our manufacturing bases overseas. Detroit was once famous for being one of the leaders in manufacturing automobiles, ever since Ford motor company moved its manufacturing base in Detroit overseas, countless families have been left without jobs, care and benefits packages, and hope. Just remember the next time one of the talking heads on Fox news or MSNBC boasts the benefits of unfettered corporate capitalism and globalization, remind them to look beneath the surface. It’s consequences are often disastrous, and are worth a second investigation. American Made Clothing Brands I Like .Texas Jeans .Akwa .Union Line .King Louie America .Cobblestones .WSI .Physique Bodyware .New Balance Shoes(not all are made in U.S.) .Bayside .Race Ready Sporting Gear
Copyright © 2010 Joseph Albrecht |