SF NIKE PROTEST:A REPORT

[cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On the occasion of Suharto's Burma visit, this item on NIKE from the
home streets of San Francisco. ds
> 
> From: Keith Hearn <hearn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,"Conference labr.party" <labr.party@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I figured this would be of interest regarding the Nike protests.  It's a
> good backgrounder from someone who went to the Nike Indonesia factories.
> 
> Keith Hearn
> Calif. Assn. of Psychiatric Technicians
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Following is an op-ed column from the February 20, 1997 San Francisco
> Chronicle.  Accompanying it was a photo of Niketown, with a caption
> reading "The glitzy Niketown store in Union Square gives no hint of the
> sordid conditions under which Indonesians and others produce its wares."
> 
> The article is a co-founder of Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based
> human rights group that recently led a delegation to Indonesia to meet
> with Nike workers.
> 
> Niketown -- Just Don't Do It
> By Kevin Danaher
> 
> As you travel around the San Francisco Bay Area, it is hard to avoid the
> many ads promoting the new Nike store that is opening at Union Square.
> How ironic that Union Square (as in trade "union") should be the home of
> a store owned by a company that has grown fat off the labor of workers
> in countries, such as Indonesia, China and Vietnam, where free trade
> unions are prohibited.
> 
> Thanks to billions of dollars in advertising, the Nike symbol and Nike
> products are known throughout the world.  Celebrities such as Michael
> Jordan, Andre Agassi and Tiger Woods are paid millions every year to
> lend their names to the promotion of Nike products.
> 
> Less well-known, however, is the story behind the symbol.  Nike has been
> a global corporate pioneer in exploiting the low-wage labor of workers
> in other countries.  The mere pennies per hour earned by Nike workers in
> Asia are the main reason that Nike Chief Executive Officer Philip Knight
> is one of the richest people in the world, estimated by Fortune magazine
> to be worth $5.2 billion.
> 
> Isn't it just a bit disgusting to accumulate that much money off the
> backs of people who can't even feed their families -- much less buy a
> pair of Nike shoes on the miserable wages Nike is paying?
> 
> During the 1970s, most Nike shoes were made in South Korea and Taiwan.
> When workers there gained new freedom to organize and wages began to
> rise, Nike looked for "greener pastures." It found them in Indonesia,
> where it started producing shoes in 1986.
> 
> Indonesia has a repressive regime that outlaws independent unions and
> sets the minimum wage at rock bottom.  Even the Indonesian government
> admits that the minimum wage there does not provide enough for one
> person -- let alone a family -- to survive.  In 1996, the entry-level
> wage was a miserable $2.20 a day.  Labor groups estimate that a livable
> wage in Indonesia is about $4.25 a day.
> 
> Compare this with the pay of Nike's celebrity promoters.  Michael Jordan
> gets $20 million a year to promote Nike sneakers.  Jordan's compensation
> alone is more than the annual income of 20,000 workers who make Nike
> shoes.
> 
> Despite Indonesia's repressive government, workers in the shoe industry
> have been rebelling against low pay, forced overtime, abusive treatment
> by managers and lack of health and safety standards.  When the foreign
> press publicized these abuses, Nike denied responsibility.  It insisted
> that Nike did not own the factories but simply contracted the work to
> independent contractors.
> 
> Yet with mounting criticism, Nike relented and in 1992 came up with a
> code of conduct that set standards for its contractors.  But abuses
> continued; workers demanding better conditions were dismissed, and
> independent organizing was still prohibited.
> 
> Jeff Ballinger, who worked with Indonesian workers for five years,
> writes that Nike suppliers in Indonesia rely on "management by terror,"
> rampant corruption of government officials to keep labor inspectors at
> bay, forced overtime and illegal "training wages" used as a subterfuge
> to steal thousands of dollars from workers.
> 
> Since it has come under increasing pressure from labor and human rights
> groups, Nike has mounted a counter-offensive.  Through slick promotional
> materials, Nike tries to defend itself against a growing list of
> critics.  Yet in its own promotional material, Nike admits that its
> labor costs for producing a pair of shoes that will sell for $80 here
> the United States are just $2.60.
> 
> Nike could take just 1 percent of its advertising budget ($280 million
> per year) and use the money to raise the income of all the workers in
> its six Indonesian factories above the poverty line.
> 
> Opinion polls show that a broad majority of Americans believe that
> businesses have a responsibility to treat their workers well, even if it
> means making less profit.  It is up to us, the citizens of the country
> in which Nike is incorporated, to bring pressure for fundamental change.
> 
> Labor, religious and consumer groups have increased their anti-Nike
> organizing.  They are demanding that Nike agree to independent
> monitoring of their factories by local human rights groups, that the
> company settle claims by workers who were unfairly dismissed, that
> independent organizing be allowed in Nike factories, and that wages and
> working conditions be improved.
> 
> Until these conditions are met, the Niketown on Union Square will be a
> focus of human rights protests.