Bruin unfairly reported on sweatshop charges

Published: Friday, October 31, 1997

Friday, October 31, 1997

NIKE: Editorial was based on rumors

rather than the facts

By Nicole Luque

Although I applaud The Bruin's editorial board and USAC for their concern of human rights, I completely disagree with the manner in which they expressed these concerns and their blatant disregard for facts in their report on Nike's labor relations. This next part may shock some of you, but here it is: Nike does not manufacture shoes in sweatshops. How can this be? Well, please take a few minutes to read on and I will tell you what I know.

Nike knew that its manner of production in Asia was not what it should be, and decided to voluntarily enlist services of neutral outside agencies to monitor their labor practices. Also, earlier this year Andrew Young of Goodworks International was sought out by Nike to do a completely unbiased assessment of its labor practices. A former mayor of Atlanta and co-chair of the Atlanta Olympic Committee concerned with labor unions and workers' rights, I believe that Young was qualified to make the assessment.

Before Young went to Asia, he had Nike promise him access to all factories, to talk to any employee without factory or Nike employees present, to review confidential audits and documents and that no matter what the outcome of his assessment was, it would be made public.

Earlier this summer, Andrew Young released his findings at a press conference, but unfortunately not many people were aware of the results. One of the first things he said was, "It is my sincere belief that Nike is doing a good job in the application of its Code of Conduct. But Nike can and should do better." There it is, plain and simple, and if you look at http://www.info.nike.com, this is one of the first things you will see. Nike is addressing and trying to remedy the problem, rather than shying away from the situation.

As an intern at Nike, I also had the opportunity to hear Dr. Tien Nguyen, a former nuclear engineer who works in Nike's labor-relations department, speak of Nike's manufacturing in Asia. Some of you may recognize him as the Nike spokesman depicted in the "Doonesbury" comic strip earlier this year. Nguyen has visited the factories in Asia and is sincerely interested in the labor practices in Asia and especially in Vietnam.

Nguyen stressed that one of the problems of this whole situation is that the incidents, which had happened a long time ago, were blown out of proportion by the media. Many of the incidents have been long resolved, and even though over in Asia they have moved on, people over here are still mulling over it. Some instances that you may have heard of are workers being forced to work overtime and run laps around the factory or being hit for not meeting production quotas. However, it must be emphasized that these are all isolated incidences and not policy within the factories. Since then Nike has fired those managers and implemented measures and policies to prevent any future incidences.

The factories themselves are not owned by Nike, but contracted to manufacture the shoes for Nike. According to Nguyen, it is common to find different shoe brands manufactured in the same factory, such as Nike and Reebok, which he saw in one case. He also noted that many of the problems stemmed from the fact that the managers in the factories do not speak the same language as the workers. For example, a factory in Vietnam has Taiwanese managers, which makes communication difficult. Steps taken to improve this situation include encouraging the managers to learn the native language, providing language education for the managers and hiring more national managers.

Many of the workers that Nguyen talked to said that they "felt good about working for Nike," and "didn't want to go to another factory." The workers earn twice as much in the factory than they would farming, and many workers support their families through their wages in the factories.

The Bruin's article states that workers only make $1.60 a day, but how can that be compared to wages in the United States? That is like comparing apples and oranges. People must realize that the cost of living in Asia is not even close to the cost here. The Bruin article also states that $1.60 is "not nearly enough to compensate for their time and labor," but how can this be if they are the ones supporting not only themselves but the rest of their family? I believe that the root of these problems do not lie within Nike but in the Asian countries themselves.

You may have heard that the factories are sweatshops with poor lighting, crowding and underage workers. After seeing pictures of and reading reports of the factories, they can hardly be what I would call a sweatshop. In Andrew Young's unannounced visits to various factories, he found adequate lighting and working conditions, and in many factories there were cafeterias, dormitories and exercise areas provided for the workers. There have been instances of underage workers, but it occurred because they showed false identification to obtain their jobs.

One of the points made by the USAC resolution is that we as students have been "manipulated into spending in excess of $100 for a pair of shoes made under sweatshop labor conditions." Yes, it is true that many Nike shoes cost more than $100, which may seem ridiculous when the costs of producing those shoes are much less. But understand that your money not only pays for the materials and labor of the shoes, but the research and development, advertising, and endorsements for those shoes. You are not only buying a pair of shoes, you are buying a brand name. It is the same thing as someone paying $80 for an Armani T-shirt which looks the same as that $15 one at the Gap.

Getting back to my main point, contrary to what The Bruin and USAC may think, Nike is doing something about this concern. Not only did Nike admit that there is some sort of an issue, but they also took a chance by having a third party audit their operations trying to do something about it. Only a few weeks ago the Los Angeles Times reported that Nike stopped manufacturing in four factories in Indonesia that did not comply with their Code of Conduct. As Nike says, "there is no finish line," and they are continuing to better the situation.

I implore each of you to educate yourselves on the situation and learn the facts before believing everything that the media (including The Bruin) say. A good source is the Web site http://www.digitalrelease.com/cgi-shl/entry.pl?|@goodworks|ib, which contains the complete report conducted by Andrew Young.

I support the selling of Nike products in the UCLA Store as Nike complies with their no-sweatshop policy. And I ask The Bruin's editorial board and USAC this: Don't condemn one company for the problems of an entire industry, and if you decide to do so, please get all of the facts first.