Nike Contract
Posted by Richard Birgel on June 16, 1998 at 14:30:10
Bill Guthridge has been a devoted employee and supporter of UNC athletics for a very long time. He deserves everything he's now getting.
Last weekend I went to replace my 3 year old Nike basketball shoes. I was planning on trying another brand, I tried on some Reeboks, Fila and Adidas. I ended up buying Nikes, they were the best fitting, supportive and had the best cushioning of the 5 pairs of shoes tried on. If I can get 3 years out of these I call it a bargain at $80. I did think about the controversy of the overseas manufacturing. However, all the other brands (I would consider) are produced in the same countries and often the same factories so I bought what felt and looked good to me. Nike is getting a lot of heat, but from what I can see they are also doing the most to better working conditions than the rest of the industry. A long way to go I might add, but a start. This morning I put on my shirt made in Bangladesh, my pants made in Nicaragua, my shoes made in China and climbed into my Volkswagen and headed to work. Along the way I stopped for coffee grown in Sumatra that was poured by a Korean. I guess it is hard to get away from this global thing. I am a more aware consumer today than I used to be. I shop with a conscience and therefor boycott ESPN (owned by Disney).
*** U.S. slaps fine on Texas grower for using child labor 10 children aged 6 to 11 were picking onions in the fields of Texas grower Pemelton Farms Co. one Saturday last month when a Labor Department strike force moved in, one of 50 sweeps planned this year. "We actually saw them, watched them do it and we have pictures," said one official Tuesday, noting while the Labor Department often received tips about children in the fields, illegal child labor violations were hard to prove. The department found child labor violations at Pemelton, located near McAllen, Texas, on the RioGrande, and five other growers during its two-week strike force in April, and collected fines totaling $34,200 from the agricultural firms. See http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2554020233-62d
In reply to US Labor Practices - And You Criticize Nike in Vietnam? posted by Onion Man on May 06, 1998 at 10:36:54
As I said before, CLEAN OUR HOUSE FIRST. Thanks for this article.
The New Australian Target Hanoi -- not Nike No. 73, 20-26 April 1998 The Left has a number of ideological hobby horses that it mounts when the opportunity presents itself -- or when it creates one. The latest has been the moral crusade against Nike. It has accused the company of exploiting 'cheap' Asian labour, especially child labour. That many 'journalists' cheerfully joined the campaign came as no surprise to interested observers of that degraded profession. The Australian Financial Review's San Francisco-based Eric Ellis was one of those who mindlessly hitched himself to the Left's nauseating cavalcade of rotting moralistic baggage by writing an apologia (it does not deserve to be called news) for the latest anti-capitalist struggle. Using the left-wing tactic of portraying multinationals as unpatriotic as well as callous, Ellis accused Nike of exploiting "14-year-old Vietnamese and Indonesians in sweatshops while Americans in Flint remain out of work," even though the company made "gigantic profits." (Incidentally, these gigantic profits amounted to 8 per cent of sales revenue.) Ellis' information on Nike's so-called exploitation of Asian labour came from Michael Moore, a left-wing film maker. Like most 'journalists', Ellis seems all too eager to suspend his critical faculties (assuming he has any) when it comes to leftwing criticism of capitalism, especially when it targets an evil multinational. Having condemned the company for exploitation Ellis then had the nerve to finish with a complaint that Nike will be forced to sack 7 per cent of its global workforce, most of which is in Asia, "at a time when they need jobs most." Readers will no doubt have noticed the hypocrisy. After having supported a vicious campaign of vilification against the company and complaining about it not creating jobs in America, the likes of Ellis are now shedding crocodile tears over Asian unemployment. The irony is that he and most others on the left cannot even make the connection. Several things need to be understood (apart from the Left's sickening hypocrisy). Child labour was the natural order of things in Britain -- as well the rest of world -- until the Industrial Revolution rendered it obsolete, irrespective of left-wing propaganda to the contrary. What once made child labour frequently vital to a family's economic welfare was the low marginal value of labour's product. This meant that incomes for the vast majority were so low that children, despite their horribly low productivity, had to supplement the family income by working. In a sense, everyone had to man the economic lifeboat. The appalling level of poverty in eighteenth century France, for example, was reflected in the mortality figures. Life expectancy for males in 1800 was 24 years and 27 years for females. In 1780 (9 years before the revolution) more than 80 per cent of French families spent over 90 per cent of their incomes on bread. (The situation was not as severe in England where industrialisation was well underway. Industrialisation had the effect of significantly raising the value of labour's marginal product which by definition meant a rise in living standards. This phenomenon was completely domestic in origin and unique. Fortunately for the rest of the world, industrialisation is a process that can be emulated. Unfortunately, many countries suppressed capitalism, the only thing that made industrial possible, in favour of socialism. The result was 100 million or so deaths and incalculable misery for hundreds of millions more, none of which is ever referred to by the Left's moral crusaders. This brings us to Nike's operations in Vietnam. The communist government in Hanoi is responsible for the appalling level of wages in Vietnam, not Nike. It was that government's socialist policies that kept living standards at an abysmal level. A free market, even a badly hampered one, would have seen significant increases in real wages as capital accumulation go underway. Instead, socialism's totalitarian hand was laid over the country with the most dreadful consequences. So do not blame Nike. On the contrary, applaud it. By investing in the Vietnam it is creating more job opportunities and helping, even in a small way, to raise the demand for labour. It completely eludes the company's critics that to attract workers it has to pay at least asmuch as any Vietnamese company, including state 'enterprises'. But the likes of Ellis and Garry Trudeau never attack Hanoi for paying lousy wages, exploiting cheap labour, running sweatshops, using child labour, etc. In fact, they have never attacked the Hanoi regime fo anything -- including mass torture and murder. To a certain degree, Indonesia is similar. President Sukarno's socialist policies severely crippled economic progress. Though he was deposed by the military in 1965 the damage was done and immense. Those who followed are certainly an improvement and living standards clearly exceed those of Vietnam -- something that left-wing crusaders ignore -- but corrupt economic policies and gross interventionism have clearly kept living standards much lower than they would have otherwise been. Yet, once again, the Left and its media mates cynically lay the blame for low wages at the door of another dreaded multinational. It is not Nike that should be indicted but those left-wing crusaders who have given unstinting support to every murderous socialist regime that has cursed this century. It is not multinationals that have kept wages low in Vietnam but a socialist government. This is the real story and it is one the Australian media will never tell.
In reply to Australian news article worth reading. posted by Aussie on May 04, 1998 at 15:02:34
Thank you for this article. It is sad we Americans cannot have a debate without stupid comments, bigotry and overall lack of knowledge of the real issues.l
In reply to Re: Australian news article worth reading. posted by Naomi on May 04, 1998 at 19:35:29
Don't worry you Americans do not have the market cornered on morons, we have our share as well. Cheers,
I just returned from a trip to China and found a couple of Nike articles in their local press worth sharing. The first one was from a local paper in Qingdao where the Samho factory which makes Nikes won an award for having the best relations with their Chinese workers of any foreign joint venture. This award is based on working conditions, wage, and advancement opportunities. Samho is a Korean based company and won this award out of 1357 foreign businesses. The next article was found in Putien, a city outside of Fuzhou. The local Fuzhou government has asked Nike to assist the other footwear manufactures to make the switch from solvent based cements to water based cements. Nike leads the way in eliminating harmful chemicals in their contract factories. According to Dong Song and Nam Pao chemical (largest suppliers of cements), factories that make Nikes purchase all most all the water based cement while their competitors still use harmful solvent based cements. Dong Song reported that Adidas and Reebok have no desire to switch to the water based cements. On my flight back to the USA I saw a report where Nike contract factories in Indonesia have given their workers an 16% pay raise to help combat the devaluation of the Rupiah. No other footwear manufactures have done this. Nike still needs to work on the conditions of their contract facilities but it is evident they are doing something, a lot more than the rest of the shoe business.
I am a senior at Immaculata High School in Somerville,NJ. We have set up a website against child slave labor. I hope all forum participants will visit us. We also ask that,if you maintain a similar site that you add a link. our site is located at http://www.immaculatahs.org
In reply to CLEAN OUR OWN HOUSE FIRST posted by Naomi on April 25, 1998 at 22:23:52
The Mexicans want to be abused as bad as the Vietnameese. They both are paid for the work they do. Just shut up about it. They do jobs you wouldn't do. Who cares what they are paid, if they are paid. Either way, THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Just people being compensated for their labor.
In reply to Who cares? posted by LA Businessman on April 26, 1998 at 01:17:39
Are you for real? What kind of idiot thinks that way? Oh, I see, one like you.
In reply to Re: Re: Who cares? posted by LA Businessman on April 29, 1998 at 22:02:57
Sick, sick, sick. That kind of talk will take you far from civilization.
In reply to Who cares? posted by LA Businessman on April 26, 1998 at 01:17:39
Are you for real? What kind of idiot thinks that way? Oh, I see, one like you.
In reply to Who cares? posted by LA Businessman on April 26, 1998 at 01:17:39
It's not a matter of how much "compensation" workers get for the work they do-- it's a matter of right and wrong. But you're right: the Vietnamese do in fact do some jobs I wouldn't do. For example, I wouldn't work in a place where the glue fumes threaten my health. I also wouldn't work in a place where there is verbal and physical abuse of it's workers by the management. Too bad the Vietnamese workers don't really have as many other employment opportunites like we do here in the USA, or else I'm willing to bet they wouldn't take those jobs, either. One other thing: trust me, America's "own house" is very clean by comparison to Vietnam and Mexico. I think one of the things that needs to be cleaned up most in this country is the overwhelmingly self-centered attitude that has been displayed so well by people on this message board. People tend to forget that America was founded by people trying to ESCAPE persecution and prejudice, but now look at us. We've come full-circle.
In reply to Re: No problem? posted by Naomi on April 28, 1998 at 23:51:40
I said the same thing to get into a girl's pants once too. It worked. Get a clue. He just wants to get with a girl who has led a sheltered life, like yourself. Later. The Player President Over 1000 women served
In reply to You are gullible posted by The Player President on April 29, 1998 at 22:06:44
Not a "girl", but a physician with a successful practice. How about that "little boy''?
In reply to Re: You are gullible posted by Naomi on April 29, 1998 at 23:21:41
Listen baby, I have no problem with strong independent women. God knows I have had enough of them. But if there is one thing I am not, it is a little boy. Women come to me because their men can't please them. It sounds like you could use some of my "therapy." You are so busy trying to prove yourself to the world, that you push away and prospective suitors. Or the ones you do have, you put through so much crap, it isn't worth it to try to develop anything with you. It is true and you can't deny it, though try as you will to do so. Don't worry about trying to do everything now. Relax. Go to the country. Read a book, while sipping on a nice vintage wine. Take a guy. Have some fun. Just loose that I'm an unstoppable bitch attitude. Then, maybe the thing that is stuck up your ass will come out, and you will be able to enjoy life more. If anyone should value life, it should be you. Try it, and you will see that I am right. Now if you will excuse me, I need to fax some poetry over to one of my women, who had a bad day. Love, The Player President Over 1,000 women pleased
In reply to Re: Re: You are gullible posted by The Player President on April 30, 1998 at 23:10:30
Dear"sir". I am very happily married, to a wonderful human being who's not intimidated by a woman with a brain. My husband of 10 years is also a physician and yes, we know how to "sip some wine'', go to the countryside,(vacation home in Napa Valley) and support worthwhile charities which help educate our youth. God knows after reading this web site, it is greatly needed in our country. So, if you excuse me, I am going to meet my husband for dinner.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: You are gullible posted by Naomi on May 03, 1998 at 15:19:19
You GO, girl! I have to take harassment like this all the time. I am a 6'5'' 200 lb proud black womyn. All the men try to front like they don't want me - but I know they do. If you like wine - then maybe you would like Crystall. That's what I drink. Your just like me - you like to get away (to Napa Valley)- well I like to get away to Shaolin. I sit on my stoop and sip Crystall and let all the worries of the world pass me by. But I eventually have to go home to my seven little children (do you have children, my sista? My precious little children increase the amount on my welfare check so can buy more Parliaments and lottery tickets). I'm coming out to Cali this Summer - maybe we can meet up. I'll be staying in a motel 6 (or some nice high class place like that) on Crenshaw in LA. All right, I must leave but keep it real and..... SISTAS UNITE!!!
In reply to Stand Proud my sista!!!! posted by LaQuisha on May 04, 1998 at 12:03:03
Is this suppose to be funny?, because I am laughing. Thank you so much!
In reply to Re: Re: Re: You are gullible posted by Naomi on May 03, 1998 at 15:19:19
OK, if you are married, then I should send your husband my tape on how to please women. You sound like you are trying to convince yourself that you are in love with this "man", when all you are is disgusted with him. It's a shame really. I would have loved to have had a conversation with an intelligent woman like yourself, in the Napa Valley. Especially this time of year. When you finally stop kidding yourself about your "love" for this supposed man, let me know. I'll show you how great the Napa Valley really can be. The Player President
In reply to No problem? posted by An Angry Uncle Sam on April 26, 1998 at 14:36:36
Hey, Uncle Sam. I love that song you sing, "I don't ever want to see you again," it's the bomb! I can see why you call yourself "angry". I mean, your girl left you and why did it have to be your best friend? You know I feel that pain, dogg. Check ya later!!
I think we should all boycott the final episode of Seinfeld because NBC supports the NBA which uses Michael Jordan as its main marketing tool. Nike is the most oppresive company ever. Oh yeah, in case you were wondering I AM a gay faggot.
In reply to Boycott posted by Boycottman on April 23, 1998 at 16:10:52
We should boycott all the products that advertise during that time too. And maybe even all of t.v. itself. Think of what an improvement that would be...BOYCOTT TV!!!!!
In reply to Boycott posted by Boycottman on April 23, 1998 at 16:10:52
We should boycott all the products that advertise during that time too. And maybe even all of t.v. itself. Think of what an improvement that would be...BOYCOTT TV!!!!!
In reply to Boycott posted by Boycottman on April 23, 1998 at 16:10:52
We should boycott all the products that advertise during that time too. And maybe even all of t.v. itself. Think of what an improvement that would be...BOYCOTT TV!!!!!
From USA TODAY 4/21/98, p. 4b A civil suit is filed in San Francisco Superior Court charging Nike with deceiving consumers about working conditions is Southeast Asia in a bid to protect profits. Nike's response is that the suit raises issues already addressed by the company. Most curiously, at least to me, Vada Manager said, "This action apprears to be more of a press release dressed up as a lawsuit. . . . (the lawsuit is) "somewhat frivolous." What intrigues me is Manager's use of the modifier "somewhat." So, Nike, which part of the lawsuit is NOT frivolous?
As a fther of two and more so as a consumer is an embarrasment and a hardship to me & my kids to pay 150.00 to 200.00 for apair of blood sneakers,when the company itself don`t give a damn about what goes on with the production of it(apparel).Nike should be ashamed of ripping everybody of here and abroad , not everyone makes$2,000,000.00 a day.Sowith this we leave you with apiece of our mind. thank you : concerned,yes
In reply to Where`s Michael ?on this Idon`t hear you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! posted by Efrain(Father of 2) on April 20, 1998 at 23:06:36
Dear Efrain, Learn to use me. I am the big long key at the bottom of your keyboard. Putting spaces between your words is the accepted way of writing. You may disagree or be some sort of anti-spacebar person. To earn respect of the other readers of this page I suggest using me, you illiterate mutherfucker. Thank you for your time.
we only have ourselves to blame for the mess the course of corp. america has taken take a good look at the prouducts you have purchased in the last year. For me the last 4 pairs of sneakers I have bought were new balance that are made in U.S.A. and by the way they are the best shoes I have good job new balance. Now don't get me wrong everything i buy is not made in America but I try . next shoe try N.B. you will like how your feet feel
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
In reply to Re: nike posted by Wanda Vanderveer on April 20, 1998 at 16:54:52
I don't care what you say, but the consumers are not to blame. Sure, we all want cheap shoes, but let me explain what I'm trying to get at. Remember the story about when the serpent told Adam & Eve to eat the apple? Sure the serpent made it look real nice and made it seem like it was an OK thing to do, but it was still THEIR fault (NOT the serpent's) for deciding to eat it. The point is this: no matter what consumers are willing to pay for shoes, and no matter what wage the Vietnamese are willing to work for, Nike still did something many believe to be morally wrong. You can't blame consumers, workers, or governments for a decision Nike made all by themselves. They chose to hire these subcontractors, we didn't. Sure, I want low prices just like the next guy, but not if this is how it has to be done. Plus, when Nike says that moving the factories to the US will triple or quadruple costs, thats only if they want to make the same amount of profit. God forbid Nike's profits going down! Oh wait, that already just happened, my bad... Seriously, though. There has to be way to get it done. Nike might not make the same enormous profit, but it could be done. Another thing that has gone somewhat unnoticed in this discussion is that Jordan is not the only NBA player under contract. Dang near every NBA player has some type of shoe contract with some company! Is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson a shoe contract?? "Like Derek, if I could be like Derek"...I'm sure Derek's contract is not as ludicrous as Jordan's have been, but add these "small" ones up and I bet it adds up pretty fast...
In reply to Be Like Derek posted by Dan F. on April 21, 1998 at 12:31:44
Hey Dumbass!!! Guess what shoes Derek Anderson wears? He wears Jordan, the Brand, ironically enough made in association with Nike, probably at one of these "factories." Get a fucking clue before you start shooting your mouth off, hokey white motherfucker. Everybody gets a shoe contract for exposure of the company. Jackass.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Re: Be Like Derek posted by Razzle on April 21, 1998 at 17:14:27
Looks like someone managed to miss my point, as hard as that may have been to do. OK, I'll spell it out for you "Razzle": my point was that is it really necessary to give Derek Anderson ANY shoe contract (REGARDLESS of which shoe company it is)?!? I bet a lot of people reading this don't even know who Derek Anderson is!! How much exposure could giving Derek Anderson a shoe contract get ANY company??? One other thing "Razzle": I might not have known which shoe company Derek Anderson signed with (God forbid!), but I think my decent, civilized vocabulary more than makes up for that. If "Jordan, the Brand" shoes are made in those sweatshops, my opinion of MJ even will get lower than it already was. Say it aint so "Razzle"! Oh wait...On second thought just don't say anything.
In reply to Be Like Derek posted by Dan F. on April 21, 1998 at 12:31:44
Hey Dumbass!!! Guess what shoes Derek Anderson wears? He wears Jordan, the Brand, ironically enough made in association with Nike, probably at one of these "factories." Get a fucking clue before you start shooting your mouth off, hokey white motherfucker.
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
In reply to nike posted by Patrick Wildman on April 17, 1998 at 18:52:45
Nike signs up a player ( Michael Jordan) to endorse thier product.That costs the company millions of dollars. The dream of these extraordinary athletes is to sign endorsement contracts that pay as much if not more than thier player contracts. And these players have earned the status of American heros who have triumped over obstacles such as poverty and discrimination to become the best at thier sport. So don't they deserve the rewards? And doesn't Nike have the right to use these athletes for advertising strategies? Well, who must absorb these costs but the consumer. The need to stay competitive and make that profit margin as large as possible leads Nike to produce the sneakers overseas where the costs are the cheapest. And why is that? Well we Americans will not and really can not live on .40 cents an hour wages. And is our goverment involved in giving business incentives to companies willing to set up shop in third world countries? America brings industries and aid to these countries in exchange for what? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We could boycott the companies who setup sweatshops overseas, but are we willing to pay double or triple the price for the same product made in America in union shops? We have a paradox at play, do we follow our conscious or our pocketbooks? In the future we will see global business laws that will make every company competitive on the same grounds. International human rights will ensure that all humans be respected in the workplace as well as in the global society. But evolution takes time, and in the mean time what do we do? Buy those Nike sneakers? Or voice our opinions and and make concrete efforts to change the way we are willing to shop. Or maybe those athletes will give up those milions of dollars to build better equiped factories and better the wages for the third world sneaker slaves.
It does. You pay some punk b-ball player 50 million to hawk some shoe when he is all ready making 10 mil a year for the sport he plays, then some poor kid saves up all his cash to buy his "heros" shoes for a 125 bucks!! It just goes to show you how ignorant and pathetic the American consumer is. Mike J is a thief in my eyes and a greedy basterd. Just wear sandles!
Dear seminar group at North Carolina, As you know, the American industries are abusing people all over the world. It's not only NIKE. Unless people quit to go shopping at malls every weekend to get cheaper things, things don't change. American people's mody taste for material desire is so influencial that it affects the economy of the weaker countries badly. It has been changing the countries ecomony and what they produce so much. For example, In the Philippines, they used to produce sugar cane which was mostly exported to the US, however, in the 80's in the US, people started to be interested in losing their weight. American no more needed the real sugar. They started to use the substitute. Then tragedy happened. The sugar workers in the Philippines lost their jobs because of the selfish American's favors for food. It's necessary to cut off the vicios circle, but we need to prepare the alternate job market for the people who will lose their job if we boycott NIKE. It's too bad that people in the developed countried created the situation that the developing countries have to keep what they are doing now to get little money even though the condition of the job is really bad.
Certainly the greatest contribution ESPN made to the sneaker controversy was to provide this forum. The show was really a fine act of tightrope walking. . . . They are so good at it. For more "missing the real point" tune in tomorrow to ESPN's show on race and sport . . . aside from Nathan McCall and, perhaps Clinton, there's no one on the show who could possibly have anything outside of autobiography and anecdote to lend to this discussion. As Vonnugut said, " And so it goes . . ."
A sincere thank you to the UNC-CH, ESPN, and everyone for bringing this issue the sunlight and serious reflection that it deserves. What a contribution. Since the almighty dollar does riegn supreme, I would like ESPN to know that I will forever have a different perspective towards the station. PEACE. My Nikes are burning my feet.
Kenny this is reality speaking directly to you. I do in fact know what it is like to work at manual labor. I am in fact, right now, working my way through school. My credit card came not because of my credit history, but rather the school I attend. And if you really are related to those people that work in the factories, then you of all people should realize that the wages Nike pays them are well above the average salary of the local worker. I am motivated by money. I will be the first to admit that. Do you know why I am motivated by money? Because I have seen so little of it in my 20 years on earth. I long to make myself better, and richer. And if I can do that at the expense of people who I can pay well and keep overhead to a very low minimum, then so be it. To survive in this world, you need to know when to use your emotion, and when to turn ice cold. It just happens that I can turn a lot colder then most people. And that is why I will one day be on the cover of Fortune 500. And that is why everyone who voiced a similar opinion to my own will succeed. And that is why you Kenny will fail. All of you "concerned people" are some of the reasons that we as a nation are held back. Sometimes ya gotta say F@*k 'em and screw over everyone to advance yourselves. When that killer instinct is gone, then this country will be in peril, and ripe for a fall from greatness. While we aren't there yet, we are getting close. To be number one, you have to have the F.U. mentalilty. Phil Knight has it. Bill Gates has it. MJ has it. All great men have it. To be great, you have to find yours. I have mine, and have been doing ten times better since developing it. Nice guys really do finish last. Everyone with that killer instinct can follow me to the top. All of you other clowns, who don't want to be the best, who think that being average is enough, can just get the hell out now. There is a country's greatness to continue, and you hindering its growth. There is no room for mediocrity in a world economy, or in my country. You can now return to your own personal little fantasy worlds.
In reply to a return to reality posted by reality on April 12, 1998 at 23:21:04
The reality is: If it wasn't for all the concerned people whose made law to protect the worker, people like you would be working for people like me for less than the current minimum wages. I employ people like you. Many of my employees are student working part-time. I can't abuse my employees because of all the concerned people in Congress passed laws to protect them. If you ever make it to the top, which I doubt that you will, remember that you get there because people care. I am not at the top yet, but I am much higher in the food chain than you are. And I am grateful for all the concerned people. P.S.: In your reality, you would break your back working for me for $2/hours for 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. And you will never have a opportunity to get to the top. Aren't you glad the world is my reality.
In reply to Re: a return to reality posted by This is the reality (Kenneth) on April 13, 1998 at 12:54:28
Whoever wrote the previous message really does need to return to reality. If "many of your workers are part time college students", then I doubt highly that you are really that successful. You also state that if it weren't for the current labor laws, that you would make your workers work the same schedule that Nike does. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? You wouldn't want me working for you. I would take over your pathetic little company in a few weeks. That is, if you really do have a company. I'll make sure to add a special F.U. in my aritcle in Fortune in a few years. Keep an eye out for it. That is, if I can remember the name of someone as meaningless to society as yourself. I will now let the imagination take over. Later.
I teach women's studies and focus on this very issue in terms of U.S. history. Its important to link the overall and continuing impact of the cold war not only in terms of war in Vietnam, but the socio-economic condition of Vietnamese women today who suffer from economic exploitiation. Fist our army, now our corporations. Vietnamese women who fled here are often discriminated against and those who stay behind are exploited. The irony is that Americans have and continue to benefit from first the murder of the Vietnamese (the military industrial complex economic boom during the cold war) and now their labor exploitation so we can have certain shoes. The only end to this continued human rights violation is to inform the American public like ESPN has. Why doesn't the media cover this issue, why don't our political leaders speak on this isssue? Its frustrating.
In reply to made in vietnam posted by padilla on April 11, 1998 at 17:07:23
Are you aware that the corporate parent for ESPN has apparel made at thousands of factories around the globe. This includes "ESPN" logo apparel. If the problems ESPN reported finding from factories which have representatives from Nike & Reebok present on a daily basis, think of the hell holes that must make ESPN product?
In reply to made in vietnam posted by padilla on April 11, 1998 at 17:07:23
It's even more frustrating if they are yours cousins, sisters, aunts.
I plan on opening up sneaker factories world wide in order to end unemployment as we know it. Soon everybody will be working at a Nike plant. Sports will be the only culture the world will know. We will abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward Nike. There will be no love, except for the love of the game. There will be no laughter, except the laughter of triumph over a losing team. There will be no art, no literature, no science. All competing pleasures and factories will be destroyed. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a Nike sneaker stamping on a human face-forever.
After satching the "Outside the Lines" report on ESPN about Nike and Reebok's manufacturing practices I have vowed to never again buy any product featuring the Nike or Reebok logo. In fact I am taking anything and everything in my home, that is made by Nike, to a shelter in downtown Atlanta to be given to the needy. In the future I plan to buy ONLY New Balance athletic shoes (with the Made in the USA logo). Nike has hung itself with its mistreatment of workers.
In reply to No More Nike (or Reebok) For My Family and I posted by Mike on April 11, 1998 at 13:17:36
So the fact that 75% of New Balance product is made in Asia, most of it at the same contract factory that makes Nikes does not bother you? Buying one of their "made in USA" products may make you feel at ease, but it is hypocritical. While you are rounding up those Nikes for the needy you might as well grab all your family's clothes, appliances, TV, stereo, children's toys, bicycles, sporting goods, automobiles, and the computer you posted your message with and also donate these to the needy. All of these listed were either made or had components made in conditions worse than you saw on ESPN. Speaking of ESPN, which is owned by Disney, has a horrible track record in where it has its products produced. ESPN logo apparel is made in the sweatshops with conditions as bad as anywhere. At least Reebok and Nike have representation in their facilities to address the issues. ESPN does nothing, how dare they report on another company when their practices are so deplorable.
The oppression of the Nike workers is very much the same as the oppression of the homosexuals in the US. This is an important issue and I would like to address it for a moment. The most striking parallel is the fact that both groups are pathetic fucking losers. Down with the fags!!!! I also support the repeal of the assault weapons ban. Please give me your feedback.
In reply to Issues posted by The Activist on April 10, 1998 at 17:18:00
That was extremely ignorant and shows your lack of intelect.
Remember that this country was founded on capitalism and that is what made this country great and powerful. If people will work for so little, then let them. If they want to stand up and fight for thier equal pay then I'm all for it. But as long as they're not boycotting Nike then why should I. And don't blame Nike for trying to make a buck. That is the essence of capitalism. I respect everyone's opinion on this page, but if you don't like American capitalism and its labor practices take it to the government, Not to Nike.
In reply to Don't blame Nike! posted by Tiger on April 10, 1998 at 14:30:46
You seem to have forgotten what this country was founded on. Here's a little refresher: truth, justice, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom in general, liberty, and last but not least, equality of all men. Capitalism just happened to be a popular economic system at the time, so we chose it. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that what Nike is doing coincides with the ideals our country was founded on, and I find your suggestion insulting.
I would love to say that due to this latest controversy I am going to stop buying Nike shoes, but the simple truth is that I will continue to buy Nike shoes, along with most other Americans, because they are a quality shoe company. I would love to say that I care about those workers in Asia, but the simple truth is that I, along with a majority of Americans, don't care enough to do anything about it. As long as the shoes on my feet are durable and comfortable I will continue to buy from Nike.
In reply to Nike for life posted by Kup on April 10, 1998 at 14:20:40
I'm glad to hear you are so motivated, and care so much for other people! Thanks for sharing that with us. We all learned something about what kind of individual you are...Now if everyone in America just had your same attitude, Nike would never have to take responsibility for its actions! Yay!
I am a very rich, white, conservative son of a corporate CEO. My father's company depends on overseas workers and the lower wages the better. The lower the wages the lower the product costs. The lower the wages the more prosperous my family is. I couldn't bear to live without my butler or without my Ferrari. I know I'm spoiled but that is just a by product of a succesful business. If the U.S. wants to be prosperous we have to continue to do all we can to maximize profits and that is what Nike is doing. Remember what they are doing is not illegal. I know all the prissies out there are going to call me insenstive or immoral or racist or some crap like that. The U.S. was built into the most prosperous country in the world not because of compassion but with ruthlessness. So if you don't like the way Nike does their business then you don't belong in the United States. Please feel free to post your lame ass followups and call me all the bad words you know because these followups are usually very immature and amusing and I really get a kick out of them.
I am a very rich, white, conservative son of a corporate CEO. My father's company depends on overseas workers and the lower wages the better. The lower the wages the lower the product costs. The lower the wages the more prosperous my family is. I couldn't bear to live without my butler or without my Ferrari. I know I'm spoiled but that is just a by product of a succesful business. If the U.S. wants to be prosperous we have to continue to do all we can to maximize profits and that is what Nike is doing. Remember what they are doing is not illegal. I know all the prissies out there are going to call me insenstive or immoral or racist or some crap like that. The U.S. was built into the most prosperous country in the world not because of compassion but with ruthlessness. So if you don't like the way Nike does their business then you don't belong in the United States. Please feel free to post your lame ass followups and call me all the bad words you know because these followups are usually very immature and amusing and I really get akick out of them.
In reply to Support American business posted by The Truth on April 10, 1998 at 11:40:29
Quote----------- The U.S. was built into the most prosperous country in the world not because of compassion but with ruthlessness. So if you don't like the way Nike does their business then you don't belong in the United States. ------------ So only ruthless people belong in the US? I don't think ruthlessness is what the US stands for...but I may be wrong. After all, even a moron like you can be right once in a blue moon.
In reply to Support American business posted by The Truth on April 10, 1998 at 11:40:29
The Truth is reality. As sad as it is he is and that's why I love this country. Knowing that I can someday become a millionare by outsmarting other people has led me through high school and college. Why else would I be here. Just so I get that degree and begin my journey to the top. That is what made this country great and if you don't like it LEAVE!
Might we initiate a discussion of the lessons of this most interesting experience? You might also wish to compare it with our own much more staid (and unsuccessful, if more ambitious) scientific teleconference at http://www.the-commons.org/ze2 I look forward to this. With all good wishes, Eric Britton EcoPlan International -- Technology & Social Systems Email: mailto:eric.britton@the-commons.org or mailto:partnerships@csi.com http://www.the-commons.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, F-75006 Paris, France Main Tel.+33 (01) 4441.6340 Fax +33 (01) 4441 6341 Data: +33 (01) 4441 6342 ISDN/videoconferencing/groupwork: +33 (01) 4441 6340 (1-4)
The Nov. 17 '97 front page NY Times article was the first public exposure of health hazzards at Nike producing factories. The toulene level at one Nike producting factory can reach 177 times the legal standard. Nike recently said that information from the E&Y report was inaccurate. E&Y got the information from the a VN govt. health dept, and surely the Vietnamese health dept must not know what it's doing and so its test produce erroneous results. But Nike said, they went ahead with many fixes and modifications anyway, because Nike is a great company. (When ESPN filmed at this same factory in Feb. 98, the ESPN camerman suffered two days of headache after filming in this factory for 8 hours because of the fume.) My response is that they are still just Nike claims. Nike once claimed that it let 4 factories in Indonesia go for violating its code of conduct without releasing the factories names and locations. One of the factory later told the Indonesian press that Nike told them it was due to production slow down. No one can verify Nike claims. Nike does the test. Nike does the PR. Nike does not release the backup data for for independent verification. Vietnam Labor Watch consulted with 2 OSHA experts and 3 industrial hygenists, the two recommendations by these experts for getting rid of toulene and alleviate the chances of health hazzards are: 1. Install a localized, exhaustive filtering system. The current exhaustive fans at these Nike producing factories are useless and do more harms because they pull good air out leaving heavier carcinogens trapped inside the factories. 2. Give workers charcoal-filtered masks. Nike factories in Vietnam has not even taken one of these recommendations. We also would like to ask Nike as to why these factories are build, just as recently as 1995, with a cheaper ventilation system that was known to be useless in getting rid of carcinogens. Was the factory cutting corner at the expense of the health of the workers? Were Nike and its contracts assume that no one would be concerned about workers health anyway? The Nov. 17, 97 front-page NY Times article was the first public exposure of the health hazzards in Nike factories. Nike knew about toulene poisoning for many years and knew how to get rid of them and I'm so perplexed as to why brand new factories dedicated only to producing Nike shoes were built with such horrible filtering systems. Regards, Thuyen Nguyen Vietnam Labor Watch
In reply to Taking a closer look at Nike claims on fixing toulene problems posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 10, 1998 at 10:58:30
Firstly I'd just like to point out that toluene is NOT a carcinogen. It does have real health effects through respiratory absorption and skin absorption but it is not linked to cancer. Lets keep this discussion factual please Thuyen Secondly the best way to deal with any chemical hazard is to avoid its use in the first place. Extraction only moves the risk around and PPE is notoriously difficult to properly police especially in Asia.
In reply to Re: Taking a closer look at Nike claims on fixing toulene problems posted by Nikeman on April 10, 1998 at 17:13:27
This web site should be used to respond to the labor issues it addresses. Racist and ignorant comments that ridicule people's names and ethnic backgrounds are completely unnecessary and counterproductive to the intent of this site.
In reply to Taking a closer look at Nike claims on fixing toulene problems posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 10, 1998 at 10:58:30
I am suffering two days of headache reading the inaccuracies in your reporting. I have no problem with people criticizing Nike as they obviously have problems. However, twisting the story or printing "facts" that you can not verify is the same as Nike printing their claims. Let’s stay objective and not let out emotions cloud the picture.
Picture this: A woman is exposed to hazardous chemicals that causes her to become unable to give birth. In America, she sues her employer and gets a fat $100 million dollar settlement. In Vietnam, she is forced to live a life without ever giving birth, probably still working in slave-like conditions. The blame does not all fall on the Vietnam government. Every worker in a factory answers to the factory owner. The factory owner answers to Nike. NIKE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN FORCE THEIR PLANTS TO IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS.
In reply to YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Jay on April 10, 1998 at 06:41:35
Picture this: the woman does not like her job. The woman quits and goes to work somewhere else. The woman chose to work at the factory, no one, not the factory or her government made her work there. She works there because the job pays her better than other jobs she is qualified for.
In reply to Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by No Hypocrite on April 11, 1998 at 00:48:06
When is the last time you heard of a young Vietnamese woman taking Chemistry? Do you think they have any idea of what can happen while sniffing glue for 8 hours a day? She may choose to work at the factory, but don't assume that she knows what kind of dangerous conditions exist there. By the time she finds out that she can't have any children, it's too late to quit and work somewhere else.
In reply to Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by No Hypocrite on April 11, 1998 at 00:48:06
When is the last time you heard of a young Vietnamese woman taking Chemistry? Do you think they have any idea of what can happen while sniffing glue for 8 hours a day? She may choose to work at the factory, but don't assume that she knows what kind of dangerous conditions exist there. By the time she finds out that she can't have any children, it's too late to quit and work somewhere else.
In reply to Re: Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Jay on April 11, 1998 at 02:44:24
If the sneaker companies would switch to the water based adhesives that Nike uses we would not have to worry about the hazerdous chemicals as much. The other companies still rely on solvent based cements because they are cheaper and easier to use. Clearly indicates they have little concern for the workers well being.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Anonymous on April 11, 1998 at 14:28:24
do you people like wearing those sneakers? do you like the way they look? most importantly, do you want to sniff the glue for 8 hours a day? if no then, hey, let people do whatever they have to do to make a living and be happy with your sneakers and if you are opposed to it that bad, then do not buy such product. maybe you would like to pay twice the money for the same quality shoe, only which was made in USA i do not think any one else wants to
In reply to YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Jay on April 10, 1998 at 06:41:35
The owner of the factory answers to the Vietnamese gov't Nike and the othe shoe companies are simple businesses the VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT allows to operate within its country. It's the Vietnamese peoples job to make the government change. Nike can help by adding economic pressure but the fact of the matter is that without support from the Vietnamese this will all come full circle and Nike will be gone but the next company will take its place. Why can the woman in America sue for $100 million Hmmm, I'm just hazarding a guess but we have laws and legislation to allow her to. Remember that we paralleled this situation here in the U.S., Back with the Robber Barons and the Governmental policy of Laisse Fair or "Hands Off". When our governement took a hands off approach the workers got screwed. We the people made the government effect change, the Vietnamese need to do the same.
In reply to Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Sully on April 10, 1998 at 09:18:42
The Government in Vietnam is a Dictatorship. In the U.S. the workers have a voice in the government. In Vietnam, if they speak up, they go to jail or worse death. I blame the government of Vietnam as much as NIKE. But I cannot influent the Vietnamese gov't. Saddly as it may sound, the only entity I can influent is NIKE
In reply to Re: Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Kenneth Phan on April 10, 1998 at 12:57:02
Isn't that what happened here, people got killed for what they believe. You are right Vietnam is a Communist country If the people don't like the government overthrow it. Fact of the matter is it is not our business to influence Nike or Reebok, it's the Vietnamese peoples business. Let them start the process not American citizens.
In reply to Re: Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Kenneth Phan on April 10, 1998 at 12:57:02
Kenneth, may I ask you a question. Do you try to influence Reebok, Adidas and the non-name brand footwear factories in Vietnam or only Nike? If only Nike it seems a little unfair, watching the ESPN report it was a Reebok factory the workers complained of the fumes. Nike claims to be eliminating a lot of the hazardous materials, the others make no such claims. Adidas would not even let ESPN into their factories, why not? Don’t misinterpret my message, Nike has much work to do in improving working conditions but the other companies have more to do.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by John on April 10, 1998 at 13:16:18
John, Why am I trying to influent NIKE and not others corporations? Believe it or not, I find NIKE to be more reasonable than other companies. My purpose is to improve the relationship between NIKE and the Vietnamese people. I do not intend to make NIKE an enemy but a friend. I sincerely believe that the Vietnamese people and NIKE can be mutually benefit if the conditions are improved. As for other companies, I will get to them as soon as I finished with NIKE. I can only take one step at a time.
In reply to Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Sully on April 10, 1998 at 09:18:42
Correct me if I am wrong but we got our ass-kicked over there. That is probaly a good sign of they don't give a damn about what the hell we think over here. We need to mind our own damn business and stay the hell out of theres. We have the highest crime rate people dieing over the shoes in this country, your worried about some underpaid communist. Wake up you left-wing wacko!!!
In reply to Re: Re: YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES FOR SUPPORTING NIKE posted by Jason Rayl on April 10, 1998 at 10:24:25
You argue that we need to mind our own business and stay the hell out of there. Nike and other companies have chosen NOT to stay the hell out of there. Why? To make more money for their shareholders by using cheap labor. AMERICANS have chosen to get involved in the Vietnam. Yes, we did lose the Vietnam war. But that was 30 YEARS AGO. You need to learn a basic fact of life: MONEY TALKS. The people of Vietnam DO give a damn about what we think. They want most-favored nation trading status with us. Bottom line: they want American MONEY and investment. American companies have a huge negotiation advantage. If the Vietnamese government doesn't like what our policies are, then American companies can move their plants and their MONEY elsewhere. Therefore, Nike and other companies can demand that workers be treated like human beings. Trust me, the Vietnamese government WILL listen because there is MONEY involved.
Other than the fact that I had to borrow this computer because I can't afford one, am typing this by candle light while dirty water I boiled for drinking drips out of the pot to distract me, I love it. I realzie that I am but the first of many genreations of workers that after about 200 years or so, will finally have wages and work conditions that are civilized and compassionate. I am willing to die before then so that the economy in my country does not get too messed up. And I'm willing to sacrifice motherhood, and any possible relationships so that a bunch of pampered, lazy indoctrinated fat overfed people in the United States can have overpriced shoes that I couldn't afford on years salary. I am willing to accpet all this because I know it represents progress for me and my fellow workers to shorten our lives and not allow for quality of life for us, because, hey humanity and the world can't do any better. They have no imagination, can't think outside the narrow confines of the ideology of their capitalist religion, and this excuses and is rational justification for their lack of compassion. Thank you and keep buying them shoes, that we sacrifice our lives for, literally, so that you may have them cheaper.
In reply to I love this job!!! posted by Nike Worker on April 10, 1998 at 02:05:13
No vote or boycott is going to stop these money mongers from running these sweatshops over seas. They will continue to take advantage of people who can't take care of themselves. These slave drivers will always make the profit they want too. Ya they pay their sweatshop workers more.... they raise the price of the shoes here, and the government over there takes more of a bite out to there salery. You moan and complain about shoes being made by sweatshops. Stop you bitchen and open your eyes!!! There are children shooting each other over shoes. Children dieing on the street and your worried about some underpaid individual in a sweat shop....wake up you idiots.
Very intriguing. The first real bite of this discussion probably was a prank from some sheltered, immature idiot from South Park. I also noticed some enthusiastic supporters, but the COUNTERATTACK was overwhelming. So in response to all those who struck back at the post "Who the Hell cares", I say let's examine the truth the "jerk" unintentionally put to light. No one really DOES care. Many attacked Tiger Woods for endorsing Nike, and rightfully so. No matter how detrimental to his career as a "commercial role model", he should stand up for what's right. Question is, can we EXPECT him to? Not any more than any one of you who attacked him can be expected to leave your own sheltered lives and do the same. So do you really care, or are you just inflating your little moral bubble by attacking "the enemy"? Nike IS wrong, yes, because it's no secret that the average expense of a sneaker is $20 vs. a $120 price. At a profit margin of over 80%, I don't think doubling wages without raising prices would put Nike in abject poverty. But we have NOTHING on them right now, because so few of you have first acknowledged the rape money you spend right now. The guy's right. Most of you ARE only attacking Nike because it's "cool" to do so. If you cared, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. Fine, let's put me in the spotlight. Okay, go ahead and ask: "What have YOU been doing?" Well, nothing! Even worse, I'm literally a walking endorsement of Nike myself. I mean COMMERCIALLY, I'm not just an unwilling consumer. Do I have to be? Not really. Do I feel bad? Oh, yeah. Will I stop? Not yet! I have my reasons for this, but reasons aside, I WILL admit I'm living scum. Every now and then I remind myself, "I'm living a nice, fat life because of others' misfortunes." I HOPE to make amends later, but for now I'll save you the sob story. Point is, for those of you who claim you're NOT scum like those Nike bastards (or me, for that matter), please understand that it's that kind of resolve, not self-righteous hostility, that gives people the respect that will make others listen. Okay, so now I'm getting self-righteous myself, but I guarantee you're wasting your time if you think you can attack my morals under a fake halo of innocence. If you want to flame me for real, get down in the mud with me first. Scumbag to scumbag. Same goes for Nike. Before you can tell Nike to be responsible for their crimes, drop the self-righteous crap and admit you're just as bad as the jerk who wrote the "Who the Hell cares" post. Because until you do that, Nike KNOWS you're just as bad as they are. Owen the Henderson, Lord of Insanity P.S. Suggestion: If you already know the truth, STOP FEEDING YOUR DAMN EGO AND DO SOMETHING! I'm not saying book a one-way flight to Vietnam and crusade solo, but you certainly can help by funding whoever is and petitioning for their continued support. It helps a lot more than emotional masturbation in a forum.
If Nike paid workers the US minimum wage, the price of a pair of sneakers would be astronomical. What if all the workers who made all of the goods you buy were paid what you make? The computers we are using to carry out this discussion - many of their parts were made in free trade zones, where labor laws are suspended so that corporations can make huge profits. You as a computer user are part of a class whose wealth depends upon paying others much less than you are paid. Your clothes, the food you buy, your appliances, you would not be able to afford them without cheap labor. I object to an economic system that compells companies like Nike treat laborers the way they do, and where taking such a job is a person's best "option." If you object to the labor practices of multinational corporations, then maybe you should consider that our economic system itself is flawed.
In reply to The US standard of living depends on this kind of exploitation. posted by Anonymous on April 10, 1998 at 00:43:14
This same argument has been used throughout this discussion. I for one am in agreement, almost every consumer good we own was produced or has components produced in regions of cheap labor and "poor" working conditions. I use the word "poor" when comparing these working conditions to conditions here in the USA. When compared to other manufacturing in the same country the conditions are normal or above. Since Nike is such an icon in today’s society most of their critics bury their heads in the sand with the issue that other industries also take advantage of cheaper labor markets to maximize their profits. They single out one company and act as if Nike is alone with these business practices. Does this make them hypocrites, I don’t know, at least they are taking a stand about something.
what a bunch of hippocrites, disney does the same thing with the people of haiti and dominican republic. substandard pay and working conditions which are deplorable.Iwill put you in touch with a film on the subject if your really interested. better yet espn should air it , but I dpnt think they have the BALLS.please excuse the typing as I dont.
In reply to outside lines show posted by Frank Rhodes on April 09, 1998 at 20:52:07
I am glad to see others point out Disney, corporate parent for ESPN has apparel made at thousands of factories around the globe. This includes "ESPN" logo apparel. If the problems ESPN reported finding from factories which have representatives from Nike & Reebok present on a daily basis, think of the hell holes that must make ESPN product? Hey ESPN how about opening the doors to these third world factories for us to take a look at. We would like to see how you treat your workers!
What I have found most interesting is the callousness of the execs who know about the conditions and obviously could care less. If they wanted to make less money, they could be politicians! My question is what moneys have these sneaker corps received from the federal gov't. to establish these overseas operations? Many American corps. get major corporate welfare dollars to do this sort of thing. Of course, they go to these third world countries to get the cheapest labor, and the working conditions are often not a concern of the law. I just can't believe a pair of sneakers can't be made here for a reasonable price, leather and all (which of course, in the summer time, gives some of us major toe jam). With the gov't.(however slowly) finally kicking the undeserving off of welfare and stockyards packed to the hilt in places like New Mexico, and paying even educated women here well less than $1.00 per hour, per male salary, you cannot tell me that this country can't get this market here...and with a profit. I realize the minimum (or that we have one)is set in stone, I just can't believe that few extra bucks will break the back of Nike/Reebok, etc. Maybe they should make have they're commercials featuring those who make the shoes (let us see how happy they are), instead of those who make money off of the shoes. And by the way, no college/university should enter into these contracts. After all, how much do the non-atletic students REALLY benefit? That's my two cents, Jacqui Brown
In reply to Nike/Reebok and Foreign Workers posted by Jacqui Brown on April 09, 1998 at 19:56:39
Non-athletic student benefit from the simple fact that without sponsors their tuition would be much higher. I for one am very happy to have Nike support college sports. Sorry to hear about your toe jam.
In reply to Re: Nike/Reebok and Foreign Workers posted by Anonymous on April 10, 1998 at 00:46:36
i imagine you are quite happy in your little bubble of a world, where the sun shines every day and the birds sing you songs about how great you are. WAKE THE HELL UP!!! THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU.
The National Labor Committee, the people who exposed Kathie Lee Gifford, has a new report released in March 1998, titled "Made in China: Behind the Label" . Here are some snippets about Nike producing factories: ---- 1. Yue Yuen (aka Pou Chen, Pou Yuen, Pao Yen depending on which countries) Here, depending upon rush orders, the work week varies between 60 and 84 hours. For a 60-hour week, a worker earns $11.12, or 19 cents an hour. Overtime is compulsory and no overtime premium is paid. Workers complained about excessive noise, pollution and fumes in the factory, causing some workers to suffer skin irritations, dizziness and constant headaches. 2. WellCo WellCo ran its production lines on 11-to-12 hours day shifts, seven days a week. If you did not stay for the overtime you would be fined up to two days' wages. The workers were given two days off a month, every other Sunday. ... Most of the workers had not been provided legal work contracts, and their first month's wages were illegally detained as a security deposit. As another form of intimidation, management sometimes confiscated the identity cards of workers, leaving them vulnerable for deportation back to their rural provinces. Workers reported that they were yelled and crused at, and there were even some cases of corporal punishment. There were cases in which pregnant women, or those "too old" -- over 25 years of age -- had been arbitarily fired. There were fines for talking while at work. ------ There's nothing here to be proud of. Regards Thuyen Nguyen http://www.saigon.com/nike
In reply to A new report about Nike in China posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 09, 1998 at 18:42:54
Very clever wording on this report, while Yue Yuen does make Nike shoes, they also produce Adidas, Asics and New Balance at this facility in China. Adidas and Nike are produced in separate buildings, the hours and wages you referenced are from the Adidas building. Adidas does not have any "code of conduct" or requirements on wage their subcontractors pay. I also read this report, you know who the NLC found to have the worst working conditions out of any of the factories they visited? Well let me tell you, it was All-American Kathy Lee Gifford. Factories that produce handbags for her brand were the winner (or loser) of the worst conditions. Remember just a year or so ago we all saw Kathy Lee Gifford on TV criticizing Nike and others, then we see her and Frank passing out money to the poor factory workers. As soon as the attention goes away from her she is back to abusing her workers.
Everyone who supposedly cares about this issue is lying. You are all doing not because you care, you just want to hop on the bandwagon and sound like it really matters to you. What's outrageous is that Nike charges what it does for shoes, not how the shoes are made. You all should have more things to do then to worry about what goes on in a Nike factory half a world away. Get something in that sac of yours and realize that Nike doesn't give a f@*k if they loose a few customers who are trying to get into the pants of some girl, by protesting against big bad Nike. Truth is, there are much greater unnoticed attrocities in the world today, that would be worth the effort. This country is all about what's trendy at the moment, not what the real threat is. Right now child labor is en vougue. It will soon die out as will this whole debate. Then no one will care where those shoes are made. Start going after the Indians and their treatment of the people of Kashmir, or the Iraqies. God knows they are a bunch of nuts just waiting to be nuked. These are legitimite problems. Who makes shoes for Nike isn't. Wake up. Get a hobby. Get a girl. Do Something. Just don't worry about who makes the kicks on your feet. Be a man for crying out loud. Everyone who complains probably hates South Park, loves trees, and can't stand a beautiful car like a '66 GTO because it pollutes too much and needs too much gas. True men of the US, unite with me to get these pu$$ies out of our country. The country of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Lee Marvin, and all other bada$$es I left off. Support Nike in thieir crusade against these loosers who probably like to hit from the other side of the plate, if you catch my drift. Niketown, I'm coming with my gold card, with only my credit limit to stop me. Until next time, this has been reality. Go back to your little surrealist lives. Later.
In reply to Who the hell really cares? posted by reality on April 09, 1998 at 18:12:48
Amen brother! Tell them how it is.
In reply to Re: Who the hell really cares? posted by Anonymous on April 10, 1998 at 00:10:01
You told it like it is bro...there is real issues out that need to be tended too. Leave it you a liberal to cry about everything and then sit there and do nothing.
In reply to Who the hell really cares? posted by reality on April 09, 1998 at 18:12:48
Thank you for telling the truth brother. Unless someone is personally involved in it they really don't care, they just want to make themselves feel good so they can pretend they're deep. It's like those cliques back in school, all the cool and popular people would once in a while pretend something really mattered to them just to make themselves feel like they were not shallow and immature little brats. Thank you.
In reply to Who the hell really cares? posted by reality on April 09, 1998 at 18:12:48
You would care if it is your relatives whose work in those factories as mine are. From your statement, I could see that you are a spoiled kid who never met any difficulty in his life. You are incapable of sympathy. Please understand that I am not offended by your statement. I am however sadden by your existence.
In reply to Re: Who the hell really cares? posted by Kenneth on April 09, 1998 at 20:35:42
Shut up gook!
In reply to Re: Re: Who the hell really cares? posted by Anonymous on April 09, 1998 at 23:44:56
no, you shut up, you stupid, ignorant, lazy, beer-guzzling, fat, underworked, godless, impotent piece of white trash!
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Who the hell really cares? posted by youareracist on April 10, 1998 at 01:14:27
Thank You for defending me. But I think this individual is uncapable of feeling. Do not be angry at him. I am not angry at him. I only feel sorry for him.
In reply to Who the hell really cares? posted by reality on April 09, 1998 at 18:12:48
You're so stupid, it's actually amazing. "True men unite..." Ahahhahaha grow up, little boy.
In reply to Who the hell really cares? posted by reality on April 09, 1998 at 18:12:48
I always wondered what it would be like to be so ignorant, uncaring, and obviously uneducated. Thank you for enlightening me. If you want to prove your ignorance more, just talk.
In reply to Re: Who the hell really cares? posted by Anonymous on April 09, 1998 at 19:00:30
You don't know anything so you need to shutup. Evidently you've never worked a hard labor job or else youd be more EDUCATED your self. If their willing to work for then let them. Nobody over here is, and everybody still wears the brand name shoes so fuck it. Are you willing to make shoes at or below minimum wage, I don't think so. So let them do it our money is like gold over there and is worth so much. It's the best thing they've got.
In reply to Re: Re: Who the hell really cares? posted by Anonymous on April 09, 1998 at 23:49:11
"It's not my problem" is your mantra. Well, the devaluation of a foreign culture is a major concern to me. And it is your concern if a fellow human is being mistreated. Wouldn't you want someone to act in your favor? These workers don't have a voice, but you do, and all you use it for is to defend your own false reality. Obviously you are a Godless, self centered individual. Oh, and learn to spell.
I've always though buying American was a good idea. The theory being that if we all did it we would be a self supporting nation. I'm also against slave labor and honestly don't see how anyone educated on the maner could be for slave labor. I think people buy these shoes and other things produced in this manor for selfish reasons, they care only for price, value and quality, not the impact on the economy. Untill the consumer, american or other wise, shows they care buy hurting the profit margin this will unfortunetly continue. Untill then I will continue to boycott these companies, hurting my own finances, to take a stand against imorality. I hope others will join as a result of these articles by ESPN. The responsibility is the consumers, we determine what the manufactures can and can't do. On a side note, I've always wondered how a retail store would do that carried products only made in the USA? I wonder if people would assume the prices would be higher? I wonder if there would be enough products availible for a department store seting?
In reply to buying American posted by Joshua Winton on April 09, 1998 at 16:24:44
Josh, Pull your head out. You think that buying American is the answer to all the worlds problem. Unfortunately you have no clue as to economics. American products are inferior. Period. Yeah right buy american, buy crap that is. American workers are overpaid cry babies that is why companies are forced to go over seas. We have an inflated view of what our servces actually bring to the table and force employers to up the salaries and wages without a corresponding increase in the production. Hence there is no increase in revenue, yet there is an increase in expense, forcing profits down. Accordingly to maintain Profit Margins the prices must increase in proportion to the the increase in expenses. What you say makes no sense. You will boycott these products to the detriment to your own pocket book. Hah! That's the issue here these are the expensive products not the cheaper ones. You're doing yourself a favor, easing your conscience and saving money to boot. If these products were cheaper we would not have had this Chat Room. Josh I suggest you read some of these strands before posting sanctimonious, holier than thou messages touting yourself as the lone matyr in a completely Immoral and unjust country such as the US.
In reply to Re: buying American posted by Joe on April 09, 1998 at 17:14:44
Joe: it's called prozac.
It is a sad time we live in when the basic human rights this country has provided for us can be so carelessy abused in another country. We the people... thats where it started for us. It was continued in the Emancipation Proclamation. And it makes me angry that people, from our country, are still exploiting weaker countrys. You can argue that they are paid a wage which provides food as did Rich Sheubrooks. If thats what it takes for you to be able to sleep at night than so be it. Barely being able to purchase food is no way for anyone to live. We as Americans should recognize the huge injustice this is. Professional Atheletes should be more aware than anyone. They sign contracts giving companies permission to use their names to endorse a product. Which means They support these products from begining to end. These people are considered role models: Micheal Jordan, Tiger Woods, Anfernee Hardaway, yes even Ken Griffey Junior. All of them are BILLBOARDS. Choosing to represent the products they do is a slap in the face to everything this country has achieved. Slavery was a common practice a mere 150 years ago, in this country. Tiger Woods being as racial diverse as he is should really think about what he's doing. He has claimed he is a good Role model and he acts appropriatley because of it. Well what kind of message is he sending by endorsing Nike? Is that the way you want young America to think? Exploit the weak in order to gain personal profit. It makes me sick. Anfernee Hardaway has played less than 20 games this year and yet was still voted into the Allstargame. This is a prime example of how much influence these people have on the American public. How did he manage to make the Allsar game? Nike. Lil' Penny. These comercials are so popular he still got the votes. How can you sleep at night knowing that you make more in a year from your shoe contract than an entire factory of people. People who produce the shoes that produce YOUR paycheck. YOUR ALLSTAR game appearance. Micheal Jordan, the untouchable GOD. Because he is the best player in the league today he can do no wrong. Nike exploits it, the media promotes it, and I abhore it.When did an NBA Chamionship become more valuable than basic human rights. Rights to work in safe environments. Rights to earn more than just enuff to eat. Rights that people like Micheal Jordan, Penny Hardaway, Tiger Woods should recognize. But who am I? I have no outstanding athletic ability, why listen to me? The only ability I posses is the ability to think for myself. To see through the glamourus comercials, like the one with Micheal Jordan telling us all his Negative stats and ending by saying and thats what keeps me going. A very positive comercial untill you realize...Micheal Jordan never thought of saying these things. Someone else wrote it and he mearly read it thinking, Yeah I'm the greatest. I have two words for all profesional atheletes. HUMAN COMPASSION. Think about it. I do. http://www.mv.com/users/sos/Constitution.html Something else to think about. Thanks for your time, Nate
In reply to Nike! posted by Nate Groves on April 09, 1998 at 14:24:03
Nate, This sounds all well and good. In theory it's great. You are probably a Saint. But lets be real for a minute. Why is it Michael Jordon or Anfernee Hardaway or Ken Griffey Jr's job to effect social change in Vietnam. Why is it an American problem? Why are we the "Policeman" of the world. Yes it's sad, tragic, despicable but it's also in Vietnam. It is these people that have to effect change not you or I. Simply put no matter what we say or do unless the "People" take action nothing will change. I enjoyed reading your tirade but you are being emotional, Human Compassion will only go so far. Human Compassion and a $1.50 will get you a subway ride in New York City. As for professional athletes I can't say I'd be a better person in their positions so I'm not going to criticize.
In reply to Re: Nike! posted by Sully on April 09, 1998 at 16:14:54
Sully, It is the job of the person/group/nation with any type of power or voice to use their power/voice to stand up for their fellow human beings. Someday we all die... how can someone who had the ability to make a change, who didn't, defend themselves? You can't take money with you... but you can take the knowledge that you left the world a better place!
In reply to Re: Re: Nike! posted by Hmmm on April 10, 1998 at 01:05:01
You missed the point if what I said. In short we can not effect change there. Only the Vietnamese can. They need to demand social change within their country. What we do will be of no consequence unless it is back by not only the will of the people but also governmental policies to regulate things like minimum wage and foreign investment. I agree that it is the duty of the group or nation to make a difference, that group is the Vietnamese.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Nike! posted by Sully on April 10, 1998 at 09:09:37
Words of wisdom. Foreign companies can support these efforts but in no way drive them. It is as you said up to the Vietnamese people to bring about change. Having the athletic shoe companies have a higher standard then the rest of all manufacturing (and the government) in Vietnam may look good and make you Americans feel better about yourselves, but it is almost meaningless in the grand scheme of the economy and culture.
If the U.S. tries to hold companies in other countries to the labor laws that we have enacted in this country, the fallout will be tremendous. The back and forth litigation will uncertainly drive the price of all products much, much higher, including in the already overpriced sport-shoe market.
Sure Nike capitalizes on underpaid Asians. But the Nikes of the Worlds capitalistic traits also help us nonbusiness owning Americans live the good life and they don't hurt the workers who would otherwise have no source of income. Those of you complaining about this situation may be the same people that didn't support NAFTA or that complain about the poor service and expensive rates in the Bahamas. The simple solution for you is to not purchase the products - just leave the rest of us alone. Let's get real people. There is only United States and only way for the citizens of this great country to maintain our standard of living and help the rest of the world to achieve our level of development . . . slow and steady is the course. Nike doesn't exploit other peoples - it does, however, use its business savy to take advantage of a good situation.
In reply to Bleeding Hearts... Look at the realities posted by L. Robinson on April 09, 1998 at 11:19:56
you are correct. in a world dominated by capitalism, someone always has to lose so someone else can win. we can't all be even-- that would be communism. it's easy to support nike when you're on the side that's winning. but try and take the perspective of the loser-- (i.e. the workers). capitalism doesn't seem so great, does it?
In reply to Bleeding Hearts... Look at the realities posted by L. Robinson on April 09, 1998 at 11:19:56
I have a master's in American history, and my main interest was in the mid 19th c., US south. If you substituted the proper words from 1840 into L. Robinson's note, you'd get a nice synopsis of one of the major pro-slavery arguments. Does it therefore follow that slavery was OK? Or that Nike's current relationship with its overseas contractors is wrong? I didn't say either of those things. I just point out that L. Robinson is trying to make this a simple question, and it isn't.
In reply to I know he doesn't mean to, but L. Robinson is exactly mimicking a very tupical pro-slavery argument ca. 1840 posted by David Grigsby on April 09, 1998 at 13:42:29
David, you said you have a master's in history, I think you also have a master's in being a fucking dipshit.
Here's an important question... is anyone FORCING these workers to work at the Nike plant? If so... If it's Nike, Phil Knight should be tried for crimes against humanity If it's the Vietnamese government, they should suffer some sort of sanctions, or at LEAST be the ones bearing the brunt of this backlash. But if NOBODY is forcing them to work in these horrible conditions at Nike... tell the workers to GET ANOTHER JOB!!!! And if they can't get a better job, I guess Nike wasn't so bad, now was it?
I have never purchased a Nike product in my life and will definetely not now that I hear how they treat their workers. I do not support exploitation at any cost.
In reply to I have never bought Nike shoes in my life... posted by Mary Martelli on April 08, 1998 at 21:56:17
http://www.teleport.com/~scheller/china/ http://nikeworker.com Exploitation, yah right.
I don't think it's up to the athletes to take a stand on the labor practices of apparel and shoe companies. Perhaps the blame should be placed on the governments of the countries where the atrocities are allowed to take place. They allow such things to go on because they know that the only way they can attract international corporations is by offering up cheap labor. Of course, it would be difficult to justify enforcing any sort of changes in those Asian countries because that would be meddling in the affairs of a foreign country, which would be unacceptable on a practical basis to them and a moral basis to us.
In reply to look elsewhere when placing blame posted by Mark on April 08, 1998 at 21:46:29
This is actually a reall good post. It isn't Nike's job to look out for Vietnamese workers; it's the Vietnamese government's job. Nike's job is to make a buck, plain and simple.
Nike likes to say it is the leader in its industry in terms of labor practices. That's why Nike and its employees do not understand why people are criticizing them. Nike really believes that since fewer number of workers are exploited and abused in its contractors' factories compare to other shoe factories, we all should give Nike a hand. We all should ignore the sufferings and exploitation of these young women because they could have have suffered more working for another shoe factory. Just because a Nike-producing factory is better than some other factories in China, it does not mean that women are not being exploited or not being abused at these Nike contractors. Nike is a wealthy US corporation. It has to live up to the standards of a major US corporation such as Pepsi, CocaCola. Nike cannot simply be content to be a leader in an industry that is notorious for human rights abuses all over the world. My advice is for Nike to set a higher standard for itself comparable to other US corporations like CitiCorp, Proctor & Gamble, CocaCola, Pepsi, Ford etc. Nike's brand name still has cachet, goodwill and prestige but all of that would change quickly and the Nike brand will be viewed as a sweatshop product if the Nike refused to change. Nike producing factories are currently the lowest paid in Vietnam among all foreign enterprises. These factories also have the most number of strikes. Supervisors at these factories have been convicted of abusing workers. There have been at least 10+ "reported" incidents of physical abuse of workers. I cannot think of any other US corporations in Vietnam with such a record for its labor practices. With such a horrible record, Nike and its employees has nothing to be proud of. Thuyen Nguyen
In reply to Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 08, 1998 at 20:17:34
Let me get this right. You say Nike considers itself the "leader in its industry in terms of labor practices." You then say "Nike really believes that since fewer number of workers are exploited and abused in its contractors' factories compare to other shoe factories we all should give Nike a hand." If Nike is doing the best job of the footwear companies than we should give them SOME credit. You appear to be Nike's biggest critic but then you point out that Nike's labor practices are better than the other shoe companies. If this is the case then why aren't you criticizing Reebok, Adidas, Asics, Puma, New Balance and the countless non-name brand footwear companies? You said it yourself that Nikes labor practices are the best so why are you only picking on them? Your statistics about Vietnam also help make the picture clearer for me. You report "10+"reported" incidents of physical abuse of workers". This is from a workforce of 75,000 workers making Nike shoes alone. That is a percentage of only .01% of workers being abused. Don't get me wrong I would like the see 0% of the workers claiming abuse but .01% is lower than US worker claims against employers! I do not want to seem rude but in a previous message someone named Mark from Nike said everyone in Asia thought you were a "joke" and soon people in the USA would feel the same way. If you keep presenting these kind of facts and figures we will think this is a joke.
In reply to Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by JB on April 08, 1998 at 23:54:18
It's easy to see why Vietnam Labor Watch picked Nike. Nike is the larges shoe manufacturer in Vietnam. It employed over 35,000 workers. Prior to July 97 (before producing with Yue Yuen) Reebok was contracting with two contractors that we found to treat workers much better than Nike factories. Addidas presence in Vietnam is still very small. Second, about the 10+ reported incidents, remember these are "reported" incidents. The number of unreported cases of abuses are much higher. The most important fact is that there has been no incidents of worker abuses by any other US companies operating in Vietnam during the last 18 months. Nike has the distinctive honor of having the worst labor record among all US employers in Vietnam. It's interesting to see how people keep making up excuses for Nike instead of telling the company to shape up. The combination of denial and the power of justification often can exonerate every form of human rights abuse in the world. It's remind me of the kind of excuses that a slave shipowner would made to justify the practices of slavery: we're very humane in transporting the slaves; on our ships we have doctors and nutritious food for them; eventhough we've the largest number of slave ships but we're the best, don't pick on us when there are worse slave ships around. Regards Thuyen Nguyen
In reply to Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 09, 1998 at 10:28:50
I do not buy Nike products, Nike has a long way to go with it's factory improvements. However, I do believe that each side should present facts. Emotional opinions that distort reality only cloud the issue. Your slave ship story is mostly fabricated and in poor taste to mention. African slaves were kidnapped and enslaved, torn away from their families and home land. Workers in Asia stand in line for these jobs that pay them well above their peers. They can leave anytime they want too.
In reply to Re: Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Bob on April 09, 1998 at 12:00:49
The slavery analogies are actually right on target, IMHO. We as consumers, and as contributors to this msg board, should be asking ourselves: what are the proper conditions for these workers, what would be fair both for Nike and their contractors, and for the workers. Deep in their hearts, most of those involved with the slave trade and slavery understood that what they were doing was wrong. Their tortured logic, extreme defensiveness, wondrous paths of denial, all attest to that. Those who didn't realize that slavery was wrong were unable to lift their minds out of the society in which they happened to live, and move it geographically and chronologically to another place, where the questions of right and wrong are eternal. I understand that such a location is a place where humans can never go, but we should *strive* to go there. Does anyone believe that Nike is aiming for that place? Trying to be fair both to their stockholders, and to workers? My answer: no way. I wouldn't go back in history and judge someone who at least tried to move his or her mind to that place. Abe Lincoln said some things that would be considered horribly racist if they had been uttered even in 1950, let alone 1998. Even so, he tried to bring about a just world. He stepped beyond what was right and wrong in 1860s US. That is in pretty stark contrast to John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and even the (oddly) sainted Robert E. Lee. I hope that future generations will look at me, and us, as heirs to Lincoln, rather than Lee.
In reply to Re: Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Bob on April 09, 1998 at 12:00:49
I was not equating that Asian shoe factory workers to past African slaves. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I've been reading the book "The Slave Trade" and the content of this book does carry over to my day to day conversation. I was only pointing out that anyone can justify anything using some form of relativism. And there has been many justification on Nike's part instead of admitting to the problems. If Nike said publicly that there are serious, fundamental, structural labor problems in its contractor factories, and present the steps that it would take to correct the problems: independent monitoring, accessing the merit of a living wage standard, reducing overtime and wage cheating, addressing the level of carcinogens etc, Vietnam Labor Watch would stop its anti-Nike campaign. When other US companies in Vietnam has a spotless record on labor practices, and Nike has a horrible record, Nike cannot simply said we're the best in our industry and all the critics should leave Nike alone. Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself. It cannot compare itself to the shoe manufacturing industry. It needs to raise its labor practices to the level of a major US corporation i.e. CocaCola, Ford, Proctor & Gamble, Pepsi. Regards, Thuyen Nguyen
In reply to Re: Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 09, 1998 at 12:45:03
Actually in the Nike response to this issue they have admitted there are problems and that they are addressing these. It seems as if their efforts to reduce harmful chemicals and solvents is greater than that of their competitors. In an earlier post from you wrote; "Nike really believes that since fewer number of workers are exploited and abused in its contractors' factories compare to other shoe factories, we all should give Nike a hand" Not only is Nike claiming their record is better than other shoe factories you are also making this claim. I agree efforts can and should be intensified but I also give them credit for what they have done. They could be like the others shoe companies and do nothing. I am not entirely convinced that Nike should be compared to industries outside of the athletic industry. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, P&G etc. are completely different industries requiring different materials ,processing and manpower requirements. It is similar to comparing the working conditions in a US steel foundry or coal mine to that of a factory making silicon chips. In comparison one is very clean, quiet, air conditioned with pleasant surroundings. The other is dirty, hot, noisy, full of smells and toxic fumes.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by B.J. on April 09, 1998 at 14:59:28
So far I have not seen any admission of structural and fundamental labor problems from Nike. My guess is that there are financial considerations involved. If Nike admitted that its factories violated Vietnamese minimum wage laws and wage cheatings in 96, 97 and 98, it would have to compensate workers for lost wages. If Nike admitted that its factories violated overtime law, it has to compensated workers for that. About Nike's claims that it has reduced toulene level, they are still just Nike claims. No one has verified this. Nike does not relase the backup data for such claims for independent verification. Vietnam Labor Watch consulted with five OSHA experts and 3 industrial hygenists, the two recommendations by these experts for getting rid of toulene and alleviate the chances of health hazaards are: 1. Installed a localized, exhaustive filtering system. 2. Give workers charcoal-filtered masks. Nike factories in Vietnam has not even taken one of these recommendations. We also would like to ask Nike as to why these factories are build, just as recently as 1995, with a cheaper ventilation system that has been proven to be useless in getting rid of carcinogens. Was the factory cutting corner at the expense of the health of the workers? Were Nike and its contracts assume that no one would be concerned about workers health anyway? The Nov. 17, 97 front-page NY Times article was the first public exposure of the health hazzards in Nike factories. Nike knew about toulene poisoning for many years and knew how to get rid of them and I'm so perplexed as to why brand new factories dedicated only to producing Nike shoes were built with such horrible filtering systems. Regards, Thuyen Nguyen
In reply to Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 10, 1998 at 10:44:38
You wrote "If Nike admitted that its factories violated Vietnamese minimum wage laws and wage cheating in 96, 97 and 98, it would have to compensate workers for lost wages. If Nike admitted that its factories violated overtime law, it has to compensated workers for that." Actually under Vietnamese law Nike would not have to compensate for either of these claims. Nike does not own these manufacturing facilities, they do not employ any of the factory workers. If these violations were PROVEN to be correct the subcontractor would have to pay restitution. The working conditions must be improved, as for wages they will stay at the levels set by the Vietnamese government. No foreign based company is under any obligation to pay more than the going wage. If these companies artificially increase wages, local companies must do the same, many of which can not afford to do so. When the wages are increased sharply and artificially inflation of local consumer goods will also rise. Time and steady economic growth is the way out of the labor intensive, low income period that is currently in Vietnam. Most countries have had to struggle with the same issues. This does not necessarily make it "right", it is just the way it works.
In reply to Re: Re: Nike needs to set a higher standard for itself posted by Anonymous on April 10, 1998 at 12:57:54
I agree. It's not Nike that would have to pay workers. It's the Nike factories that have to pay workers back wages for violations of minimum wage laws, overtime law and for wage cheating practices. About the economic argument that Nike factories should not pay above the minimum wage of $40-45 per month. Are you saying that it's bad to pay workers high wages because it's good overall for them to receive starving wages? I have a hard time believing in that. All I can tell you is that Pepsi & CocaCola paid entry level workers (bottle washers) $80 per month in Vietnam. These companies paid their Vietnamese workers such wage because they know that is a living wage. Because they are much better corporate citizens than Nike. BTW, they are also not causing any sharp increase and artificial inflation on the Vietnam's economy. No one in Vietnam is demanding Pepsi and CocaCola to reduce its wages because they are destroying Vietnamese economy. Regards, Thuyen Nguyen
First by taking the average Vietnamese salary ($800+$500/2) yields $550 as the average yearly income. If NIKE pays $564 that is above the average. In the medias quest to make headlines they mislead the average American viewingthe program and tarnish the reputation of a company in the process. When headlines scream 23 CENTS A DAY many do not think to factor in the exchange rate of currency and most importantly standard of living. Wow what a concept! As americans we feel obligated to critique the rest o the world for not living up to our standards. To put things in perspective 80% of the world live in sub-standard housing, 70 % cannot read, 50% suffer from malnutrition, 1% have a college degree or own a computer. More shocking 50% of the worlds capital lyes in the hand of only 6% of the total population (GUESS WHO? You betcha the good old US of A). So next we as Americans, the ones who indulge in by far the most superior standard of living on the globe, must ask is our REALITIVE level of contrst first to use as a measuring stick for the rest of mankind. If one does'nt recall if everyone on Earth were to consume as much enrgy and expell as much waste our existance would be doomed within only a few years. I myself made $13,000 last year working in the summer at Owens Corning and part time at JC Penney while attending Saint Louis University full time. My wage in many world nations would equate to royality (I think you get may drift). But is money important in the issue? Yes but only to an extent, because money is relative. What's important is human welfare. If a penny allows me in a given socity to live a just and God fearing life, so be it. We as Americans get so caught up in monotary possesions we sometimes forget whats important, the human spirit. Is NIKE wrong? Well in the artice they said any industry is desparately needed in North Vietnam due to communist rule. If my memory serves me correctly nearly 1,000,000 North Vietnamese sacrifed their lives to implement a communist government. Sorry I'm babbling, but if NIKE were to pay as much as Pepsi or ten times Pepsi is that enough capital to draw more industry? I think not. Yes I wish NIKE were God as much as the next guy but it's not their duty to save North Vietnam or the world or the human race. The job is an unskilled labor and yes look at the U.S. workers who occupy these jobs, they get paid below the national average contrary to the North Vietnamese. Anyways if all athletic shoes were made in the U.S. we might have to morage our houses just to buy a pair. I suppose I'm bitter because I the these shoes and I here people complain about the wages and then turn around and buy the shoes. That's why they are so expensive because we pay the price. And also as consummers we are the one who demand low prices on most items driving neatly all companies manufacturing facilities off U.S. soil. So guess what if you want to complain point your finger at yourself.
SO, IN THE ABSENCE OF NIKE'S MANUFACTURING BASE, WHAT WOULD THE WORKERS IN VIET NAAM BE DOING? WE ARE ALWAYS INCLINED TO IMPOSE OUR STANDARDS ON THE REST OF THE WORLD. PUT ETHNOCENTRISM ASIDE, HOW IS IT PERCEIVED THERE? FOR YEARS, THOSE WHO TEACH ABOUT GLOBAL BUSINESS LONG HAVE PREACHED THE CONCEPTS OF ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. NIKE IS DOING IT ACCORDING TO THE TEXTBOOK, SOMETHING PHIL KNIGHT PROBABLY DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO, PAY MORE THAN MARKET OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS. HOW MANY OF THE READERS PAY MORE FOR THEIR NEWSPAPER BECAUSE THE POOR DELIVEY KID DOESN'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY? DO THEY GET MORTGAGES FROM BANS WITH HIGHER THAN MARKET ITEREST RATES IN THE NAME OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS? OF COURSE NOT SO DO WE BRING PRODUCTION TO THE U.S. WHERE IT COSTS MORE THUS DRIVING UP THE COST OF THE SHOES? WATCH THE EROSION OF MARKET SHAAARE IF THAT HAPPENS. LET'S NOT BE TOO QUICK TO IMPOSE OUR BELIEF SYSTEM ON THE REST OF THE WORLD; TRUST ME, MUCH OF THE WORLD DOESN'T CARE WHAT WE THINK. . .
Nike often pointed to Japan, S. Korea as cases in which Nike jobs have helped propelled these countries into first world status. These cases, on the surface, sound convincing but in reality how can minimum wage jobs ever help develop any economy. There are so many factors in economic development that Nike's claims are rather disingenous when the economic truth was that Nike left these countries because they found labor cost too high. Thailand is also a country with Nike factory jobs for many years. The recent Asian financial crisis caused many garment workers to lose their jobs in Thailand. The NY Times went to interview one of these workers who have been sewing Nike and other brands in the last ten years. She went into the job poor. She left poor. She did not save any money and did not join the middle class with her garment factory job. Enclosed please find a few paragraphs about this woman. Regards, Thuyen Nguyen ===== NY Times December 15, 1997 Thailand Economic Crash Crushes Working Poor by Seth Mydans ... Miss Suthasini, who came to work at the PAR Garment Factory a decade ago, has lived this side of Thailand's boom. "In these 10 years my country has grown rich," she said, "but not me. Nothing for me has improved." She earned the minimum wage on her first day of work 10 years ago, and she earned the minimum wage on her last day, last month. Far from making her wealthy, her salary of $3.50 a day was not even enough to cover her basic needs. Like the bankers and property developers whose profligacy helped cause the country's crash, Miss Suthasini has been left not only jobless but also in debt. She owes $40, or nearly two weeks' pay. Beyond this, she has little to show for Thailand's economic boom. The lives of the country's new middle class have been transformed by their new wealth. Even if they lose their jobs, they have new homes, new cars, a new appreciation for wine. But the people who worked at the PAR Garment Factory have been left with almost nothing. "The role of the poor in the boom has been to create the wealth," said Ji Ungpakorn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn. "Now when the boom turns to slump, some of them will be cast aside, and they have nothing to cushion them at all." Miss Song is one of 10 children in a farming family in Thailand's poor northeast, a region that suffers chronically from a cycle of drought and flood. All but one of her siblings also migrated to Bangkok -- the sisters as factory workers, the brothers as drivers. "These were the only jobs we could get," she said. "None of us finished elementary school." "I love sewing," she said. But she had only four years of schooling and she could not read the labels on the garments she made for Gap, Nike and London Fog.
In reply to Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by Thuyen Nguyen on April 08, 1998 at 17:18:56
I beg to differ, labor intensive manufacturing is one of the first steps to a country’s economic evolution. I highly doubt Nike is single handily trying to take credit for the success of Japan or S. Korea. As you mentioned there are many factors contributing to their success, but first and foremost is foreign businesses establishing manufacturing bases in these countries. Once labor prices increase labor intensive industries do leave in search of cheaper labor markets. Then higher tech industries move in. During this time the education level increases in the country and they are turning out professionally trained people who no longer want manual labor type jobs. Before too long you have another S. Korea or Japan with a self sustainable economy. Do you have a problem with Gap and London Fog or only Nike in this Thai garment workers situation?
In reply to Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by John on April 08, 1998 at 17:35:11
ACTUALLY. While it's true that Japan and S. Korea had heavy industry producing cheap goods (manufacturing and auto) as the foundation of their modern economy, there is a BIG difference when looking at countries like Vietnam or Tailand, some of the weaker democracies. The early industries in Japan and S. Korea (which, for logical social reasons copied Japan's growth plan and now suffers similarily) is that they were GOVERNMENT-run economies. Government dominated, decided, controlled, subsidized, owned. This is VERY far from a type of free-market economic arguement many people here make. The economies of Japan and S. Korea were contructed by the governments through massive involment. They were not the realization of some kind of free-market end-result. Certainly not any sort of capitalist wet-dream. Read up your history before stating "facts".
In reply to Re: Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by Yang C. on April 08, 1998 at 18:07:49
Vietnam a weaker democracy? Last time I checked they were communist and killed thousands of there own people to get there. Maybe you should brush up on your history.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by Anonymous on April 08, 1998 at 19:22:33
You wrote: "Vietnam a weaker democracy? Last time I checked they were communist and killed thousands of there own people to get there. Maybe you should brush up on your history." Out of everything I wrote, that's the only thing you have to say? Oh well. I was allowing for a general misconception to go by. Time magazine said they were more or less democratic a few years ago, I disagree but most of the countries in this area are not democracies (in any real sense). But the part about Vietnam "killing thousands of their own people to get there" I very much disagree with. The US are the ones to killed thousands of "other people". A major reason way they couldn't win in Vietnam was that almost every village they went to, small or large, supported the viet-cong. The US military was beat by a large, unified peasent force! So most supported the so-called "communists". I don't know much about Vietnam history in the 1970's or 80's.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by Yang C. on April 08, 1998 at 23:28:04
Actually the Vietnamese did kill thousands of their own people. Most of this occurred when the US forces left the country and the communist North Vietnamese eliminated everyone that they consider potentially dangerous from the South. It was free-for-all-killing spree. Today the southern portion of the country is much more open but the north is still hard line communist. (Very similar to China)
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by Anonymous on April 09, 1998 at 00:07:42
Vietnam is a very week democracy just like Yang stated (in any real sense)! I do not care what the Vietnamese government or any organization is saying. It may be difficult for you guys to really understand it. You just have to live there to realize it. Do you know how the officials from the lowest to the highest levels of the government are elected? Human rights in Vietnam is a joke. I do not know about other democratic countries but here in The U.S., if you do not like what the government is doing, you can stand up and speak your mind. I have seen people criticizing even saying things that I consider very inappropriate about the President on TV for the millions to hear and watch. Try that in Vietnam and the next thing you know you are in a "Re-education Camp," a prison actually. It is somewhat better now since the day foreign companies started investing in Vietnam, but it is still a way to go before you can call it a democratic country. "killing thousands of their own people to get there." Many Americans and westerners think that there was actually a war between Vietnam and The U.S. I have to disagree with this. In my opinion, it was a war of freedom versus communism between South & North Vietnamese. Of course, the South Vietnamese government was backed by The U.S. and the North Vietnamese government was backed by the Soviet Union, China and other communist countries. From what I learned, during the war, the Soviet Union alone spent at least 1 billion dollar each year to help the North Vietnamese government. The North VNese Government made it out to be the war between VN & The U.S. because of the presence of the American soldiers in VN in order to get support from other countries in the world and also from the American back here in The U.S. and they were very successful. Back to the thing I was saying earlier, if it was a war between South & North Vnese, I do not know if they could help "killing thousands of their own people to get there". "Most of this occurred when the US forces left the country and the communist North Vietnamese eliminated everyone that they consider potentially dangerous from the South. It was free-for-all-killing spree." It was NOT a "free-for-all-killing spree" like what happened in Cambodia. The communist government did eliminate many of these people by putting them in what they called "Re-education Camps", hard-labor prisons, and many of them did die from these camps.
In reply to Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by John on April 08, 1998 at 17:35:11
ACTUALLY. While it's true that Japan and S. Korea had heavy industry producing cheap goods (manufacturing and auto) as the foundation of their modern economy, there is a BIG difference when looking at countries like Vietnam or Tailand, some of the weaker democracies. The early industries in Japan and S. Korea (which, for logical social reasons copied Japan's growth plan and now suffers similarily) is that they were GOVERNMENT-run economies. Government dominated, decided, controlled, subsidized, owned. This is VERY far from a type of free-market economic arguement many people here make. The economies of Japan and S. Korea were contructed by the governments through massive involment. They were not the realization of some kind of free-market end-result. Certainly not any sort of capitalist wet-dream.
In reply to Re: Another Nike's myth debunked -- that Nike factory jobs helped establish a middle class posted by John on April 08, 1998 at 17:35:11
ACTUALLY. While it's true that Japan and S. Korea had heavy industry producing cheap goods (manufacturing and auto) as the foundation of their modern economy, there is a BIG difference when looking at countries like Vietnam or Tailand, some of the weaker democracies. The early industries in Japan and S. Korea (which, for logical social reasons copied Japan's growth plan and now suffers similarily) is that they a dominating GOVERNMENT run economies. Government controlled, subsidized, owned. This is VERY far from a type of free-market economic arguement many people here make. The economies of Japan and S. Korea were contructed by the governments through massive involment. They were not the realization of some kind of free-market end-result. Certainly not any sort of capitalist wet-dream.
All Micheal Jordan cares about is the money! To me, it is unconscionable that he allows the products that he endorses to be produced by slave labor...............what hurts even more is that he doesnt care about what poor inner-city minority children are doing to get the $170 a pop they need to buy his sneakers.....how much money does he need anyway???!!!!...... He hawks these products as if he never had a dime in his pocket before in his life, and will die if he doesnt make 10 million more dollars today!!! When I see him on T.V......it sickens me to my stomach!!
In reply to M.J. IS A FAKE posted by winn on April 08, 1998 at 16:26:17
winn, i agree. here is the most recognized man on the planet... more recognized than Jesus... and he doesn't use his voice to empower anyone, he doesn't shine a light on any problems... he just sells shoes. he really does have the power to change things, but he doesn't care about anything but his silly little game and money. When he dies, how will he explain himself to whatever great force awaits him?
In reply to M.J. IS A FAKE posted by winn on April 08, 1998 at 16:26:17
winn, i agree. here is the most recognized man on the planet... more recognized than Jesus... and he doesn't use his voice to empower anyone, he doesn't shine a light on any problems... he just sells shoes. he really does have the power to change things, but he doesn't care about anything but his silly little game and money. When he dies, how will he explain himself to whatever great force awaits him?
In reply to M.J. IS A FAKE posted by winn on April 08, 1998 at 16:26:17
winn, i agree. here is the most recognized man on the planet... more recognized than Jesus... and he doesn't use his voice to empower anyone, he doesn't shine a light on any problems... he just sells shoes. he really does have the pwer to change things, but he doesn't care about anything but his silly little game and money. When he dies, how will he explain himself to whatever great force awaits him?
In reply to M.J. IS A FAKE posted by winn on April 08, 1998 at 16:26:17
Damn... I must've MISSED the part of NBA that stands for "role model." Michael Jordan is an athlete. He is paid to entertain us. We pay the team (which indirectly pays MJ) to let us be entertained. Then, Jordan takes advertising money. This creates (I guess) an impression that if we do/drink/wear what Mike does, we can be like him. That's fine, if you buy into it. But MJ has no "responsibility" to care what's going on in Vietnam, any more than you or I has such a "responsibility." It all depends on what he WANTS to do... and if he doesn't care, that's well within his rights as an American citizen.
In reply to Re: M.J. IS A FAKE posted by JP on April 09, 1998 at 03:26:33
Athletes have taken the place in our society occupied by Theseus, Hercules, etc., in Greek society. People want to say that athletes are entertainers, but do these same people use the cast of Seinfeld to teach their children the importance of teamwork? I mean, you could say that the star of that show relies on the great contributions of his co-stars for the success of the show. And you could tell your kids that Seinfeld is like a family, where everyone has a role, and tries to contribute to the greater good, and that is why mommy and daddy have their own bathroom. But nobody does that, do they? They talk about how offensive linemen block well, contributing to the success of the team. Athletes are heroes, that is their job. Do we get upset at movie stars who break contracts? Is Kim Basinger a pariah due to the dispute centered on "Boxing Helena?" No. But Mike Piazza is getting booed in Dodger Stadium. We get upset when athletes put their own financial wants ahead of the team. What happens when a rock star gets busted with drugs? Is he drummed out of the profession? No; hell, it's usually a good career move. But an athlete--that's different. He's supposed to be above drugs, and so is hounded, often out of the profession (see Roy Tarpley.) If athletes are just entertainers, than why are athletes sought out for endorsements far far more than actors? If Bruce Springsteen moved (or when he moved--heck, I don't know where he lives) to LA from NJ, would the govt of NJ tax its citizens to provide a nice place for Bruce to work in, to keep him home? No. But they do that all the time for sports teams, b/c those teams are vital to the identity of those cities. When we try to teach schoolchildren about the difficulties faced by black Americans in the past, do we talk about Lena Horne or Jackie Robinson? Jackie, of course, b/c, as an athlete, he is a heroic figure. I could go on and on. (I know most of you are thinking, you already *have* gone on and on;-) But here are half a dozen examples of how we as a society treat athletes as heroes, not entertainers. JP can say this mess till he is blue in the face, but in real life, not the bizarro world he lives in, athletes are not entertainers, they are heroes. That is their job.
In reply to JP is wrong, athletes aren't entertainers, they are heroes posted by David Grigsby on April 09, 1998 at 09:37:06
Any so