July 19th, 2010
Tuesday morning at 9:30am (U.S. EST), Jim Keady, founder of Team Sweat, will be attending the annual meeting of TIAA-CREF. TIAA-CREF currently owns about a quarter of a billion dollars in Nike stock, making them one of Nike’s largest institutional investors in the world. Given this, Team Sweat believes that they have a moral responsibility to hold Nike accountable for the well being of Nike’s factory workers.
DO YOU WANT TO JOIN JIM KEADY IN TAKING ACTION TOMORROW?
1. YOU can send a personal message to TC CEO Roger W. Ferguson at RWFerguson@tiaa-cref.org and send a copy to trustees@tiaa-cref.org. We have provided sample copy immediately below, with more details in the release.
2. YOU can have even more impact if you also call 800-842-2733 or 212-490-9000 and ask for CEO Roger Ferguson. You most likely will have to leave a recorded message.
3. YOU can cut and paste the press release below and send it to any media contacts you have and/or you can make it a note on your Facebook page and share it with your friends.
SAMPLE EMAIL/PHONE SCRIPT
“I am concerned that TIAA-CREF is a major investor in Wal-Mart, Nike, Coca-Cola, and Costco in Mexico, companies that are involved in ongoing human and labor rights abuses, as well as other irresponsible corporate behavior. I want TIAA-CREF to put these corporations on notice that if they do not clean up their bad practices, TIAA-CREF will find other companies in which to invest. TIAA-CREF needs to either get more aggressive with these companies to improve their practices or to divest from their stock.”
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NO KILL DATE
CONTACTS
Pat Clark: 718-852-2808; stopkillercoke@aol.com
Jim Keady 732-988-7322, info@teamsweat.org.
At The Annual CREF Meeting, Shareholders Call on TIAA-CREF to Walk its Talk on Social Responsibility
(July 14, 2010 – New York) TIAA-CREF, the nation’s largest pension system and self-proclaimed leader in corporate social responsibility, has come under fire from a coalition of academics and activists who are questioning TIAA-CREF’s commitment on a range of social responsibility issues.
“TIAA-CREF’s tagline is ‘financial services for the greater good,’ but it seems like the only good they are concerned about is the bottom line,” said James Keady, Director of Educating for Justice and long-time active member of the coalition that is attempting to hold TIAA-CREF publicly accountable on these issues.
Coalition reps will be at the upcoming CREF annual meeting on Tuesday, July 20, 9:30 AM, at TIAA-CREF’s NYC headquarters and they plan to publicly pressure the group to stop outsourcing jobs overseas; to stop firing whistle-blowers; to stop investing in sweatshops; and to stop paying its CEO 10 million dollars a year.
“After years of member lobbying, TIAA-CREF finally agreed to talk to some of the companies we have focused on,” said Keady. “Unfortunately, TIAA-CREF’s method of ‘quiet diplomacy’ over the past five years has not led to any substantive changes.”
The coalition believes that TIAA-CREF can and should do more. Its Policy Statement on Corporate Governance reads, “While quiet diplomacy remains our core strategy…the TIAA-CREF engagement program involves many different activities and initiatives, including engaging in public dialogue and commentary… engaging in collective action with other investors… seeking regulatory or legislative relief… commencing or supporting litigation.” “It is time for TIAA-CREF to get aggressive with these companies.”
###
July 13th, 2010
By adelie Chevee
The Jakarta Post
Sun, 07/04/2010
Jim Keady has spent times living with workers of PT ADIS Dimension, a footwear factory, and found out that they have lived in an appalling condition.
Keady said that the company, one of 37 Nike’s subcontractors in Balaraja, Tangerang, conducts incineration of waste from rubber shoes in a nearby location without considering its impact on the environment.
The practice exposed workers living nearby to emitting toxins from the incineration.
“Nike signed agreements with organizations protecting the environment. But it is not monitoring. If their subcontractors don’t respect it there are no penalties.” Keady said.
The unlawful incineration process is not the only criticism Team Sweat leveled against to the Nike. The not-for-profit organization denounces what it considered “an exploitation of workers” in developing countries including Vietnam or Indonesia.
In Indonesia, the highest minimum wage is Rp 1.1 million (US $120) but according to Keady this is not enough to secure a decent life.
After their rent, charges and cost of transportation, workers only take home Rp 700,000 ($77), says Keady.
To make matters worse for workers, they have to pay the cost of drinking water and two additional meals per day and child care, he said.
Keady explains that basic items such as soap, toothpaste or hygienic pads for women are hardly affordable with this amount.
Workers can’t save money and some even have to send their children back to the village so that they can live with relatives. This way they spend less.
With the amount of money, there is no way workers will have a chance to improve their lives and escape the cycle of poverty. Team Sweat’s research concluded that it would take Rp. 3 million per month for workers to meet their basic needs — which means three times higher than the existing wages.
Nike made $19 billion in revenue in 2009 with a 10 percent net profit margin. It is the world’s number one brand of athletic footwear and apparel.
Keady has talked to a number of Indonesian workers and persuaded them to build a unionized worker movement. But it is hard to make the workers organize if they face pressure at work.
“Nike exploits their fear,” he says. “It knows that their employees are desperate for work,” he said.
Keady knows a lot about workers’ woes as he has lived with the workers of a Nike’s subcontractors and lived off the same amount of money they receive, around $125 a month. He lost 25 pounds, and learned first hand that the living conditions are beyond what he could deal with.
Back in the States, Keady shared his experience at dozens of universities. What started as a limited tour turned out to be endless journey now that he is still on the road. Eventually his campaign, with the help of other NGOs, was enough to pressure Nike to make changes in some of its policies.
Team Sweat hopes that campaign against Nike bad practices could now be rekindled with the arrival of the soccer World Cup. “People should know the origin of the jerseys and shoes worn by their favorite players,” says Keady.
Nike and its contractors employ 800,000 workers in 1,000 factories across 52 countries. Indonesia is the firm’s third-largest manufacturing site after China and Vietnam, Keady said.
Responding to Keady’s accusation, a company spokesman said issues such as salary for workers in its disparate production chain are best dealt with “by negotiations between workers, labor representatives, the employer and the government”.
Erin Dobson, Nike’s senior manager for global public affairs, was quoted by the Los Angeles Times which published a story on Keady on Wednesday as saying that the company participated in efforts to improve the overall workers’ welfare.
“We believe there is ample room for innovation in this area,” she said, “And that progress must occur throughout the industry, and at the governmental level, not only in Nike’s supply chain.”
She said Nike’s code of conduct mandates that the company pay the minimum legal wage in each country, which in Indonesia is $122 a month, one of Asia’s lowest.
The Nike representative in Indonesia did not return a call from The Jakarta Post for this story.
In the past, Nike has repeatedly denied claims regarding labor issues in Indonesia.
July 7th, 2010
The pension fund, TIAA-CREF, currently owns approximately $230,000,000.00 in Nike stock and to date, they have done nothing significant in terms of pressuring Nike to pay living wages, negotiate union contracts, and clean up their environmental damage in the countries where Nike products are made. TC has also placed Nike in their “social choice for social change” account, which is a signal to their investors that they believe that Nike is “socially responsible.” Clearly the facts show that Nike is anything but socially responsible.
That is why on Tuesday, July 20th at 9:30am - when TC holds their annual meeting of participants at 730 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 - TEAM SWEAT will be there!
We will be asking the TC Board of Directors to take the following actions:
* TC should make a formal request to Nike to pay the $2.6 million dollars in back wages and severance owed to 1,700 Honduran Nike workers. If Nike refuses to pay, we will recommend that TC divests some of its holdings with Nike. This would be in line with similar actions take by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Cornell University, who recently cut their contracts with Nike over this issue.
* TC should make a formal request to Nike to create a pilot project in which Nike would take part in tri-party collective bargaining with a Nike shoe factory in Indonesia. The result of this bargaining would be legally-binding and enforceable labor agreement that was signed by Nike, the factory management and the trade union at the plant.
* TC should make a formal request to Nike to pay for an independent assessment of the environmental damage done by the burning of scrap shoe rubber in Indonesian villages for the past 20 years.
If you would like to attend the TIAA-CREF annual meeting and take part in pressuring them to hold Nike accountable, please email Jim Keady at jim@educatingforjustice.org no later than July 10th as arrangements will need to be made to get member proxies so you can enter the meeting.
May 18th, 2010
By Ellie Faulkner
Staff Writer
Published: Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Vista, University of San Diego
In a search for the truth about Nike’s labor practices, Jim Keady spent time in Indonesia to see what working as one of Nike’s factory workers was really like. He lived on $1.25 a day and resided in what he described as a “9 feet by 9 feet cement block” worker’s slum. Huge rats were frequent houseguests and the open sewage system flowed right next to the sidewalk outside. Over the course of a month there, he lost 25 pounds. His reasoning for embarking on the crusade in Nike’s sweatshops stems from his studies as well as his interests.
Back in 1997, Keady was a soccer coach at St. John’s University while simultaneously working towards his masters in theology. A class assignment led him to research how Nike’s labor practices violate human rights. Concurrently, St. John’s was negotiating a $3.5 million endorsement deal with Nike, meaning that he, as a coach, would be required to wear and endorse Nike. Keady realized that it would be hypocritical for a Catholic school, supposedly an institution of Catholic social thought, to partner itself with a transnational sports empire that was violating human rights. This realization turned to activism and he lost his coaching job because he refused to drop the issue and wear Nike. Soon after, he embarked on his life-changing trip to Indonesia and formed Team Sweat, an organization committed to changing Nike’s labor practices.
Nike currently employs a million workers in 1,000 factories across 52 different countries. When Keady tried to ask Nike about their labor policies, he was met with subterfuge and lies. He pursued answers through many different divisions of the company, and even tried to set up a meeting with Phil Knight, the former CEO of Nike. Often he was turned away, and when he did receive an answer, the information was often conflicting. Nike would like to have the public believe that they have cleaned up their act, but Keady said he went to Indonesia, saw the reality of Nike sweatshops with his own eyes, and made a short film about his time there. It can be viewed at vimeo.com/6109896.
It should also be noted that Nike is not the only company that uses sweatshops; sweatshops are the reality of most modern apparel production. Nike was simply the company that first caught Keady’s attention and he chose to make an example of it for four reasons, as listed on his website, teamsweat.org.
First, Nike is the leader in the sportswear industry. They control roughly 45 percent of the global market. Second, Nike led the push into low wage countries with poor human rights records. They exploited, and continue to exploit, these countries for their cheap labor. Third, labor abuses in Nike factories have been extensively and reliably documented over a 15-year period. There is no other company for which there is this much objective research. Finally, as the company with the largest profit margins in the industry ($1.5 billion in profits in 2008) Nike can more easily afford to ensure living wages and fair working conditions in their factories.
However, the mission is not to boycott Nike. Although Keady feels it would be effective, the factory workers themselves have not asked for a boycott. The mission is to put continued pressure on Nike to change their labor policies by educating people about the sweatshop situation.
If Keady’s organization, Team Sweat, is able to put enough pressure on Nike to clean up their act, then the same model of change can be replicated to change other companies and eventually the entire industry.
“The thing that I took away from the talk was that Nike is simply a case study and the largest corporation that owns sweatshops,” junior JaRae Birkeland said. “Plenty of other companies do the exact same thing. Adidas, Puma, Abercrombie, etcetera, all have sweatshops in Southeast Asia and other third world countries. Advocating against the Nike company is important but so is putting up a front against other companies as well and leaning towards purchasing fair trade products.”
When Keady presented this breakdown to a manager at an Indonesian factory, the manager said, “Hang on, they [Nike] only pay us $10 to $11 for a pair of shoes?” Even worse, upon further examination and number crunching, Keady found that to double the workers wages, in essence paying them about $5 per day instead of $2.43 per day, it would only cost Nike about seven percent of their advertising budget. There was silence in the room after Keady shared this.
Nike is a $18.6 billion dollar corporation, and if Nike would spare 7 percent of their advertising budget, they could double the wages that their workers receive and hence pay them a fair livable wage.
“One example that really shocked me and stuck with me was about how much Tiger Woods makes in one game of golf just by wearing Nike,” Birkeland said. “Tiger Woods is worth more than 700,000 workers and makes enough in one second of time to buy an Indonesian worker a house.”
It would take a Nike factory worker in Indonesia 9.5 years to make as much as Tiger makes for playing one round of golf clothed in Nike. Students wondered what this says about how North America measures the worth of a person.
Another poignant moment during the presentation was when Keady displayed a picture of Nike’s logo emblazoned alongside our school’s logo on merchandise from the bookstore.
“It was not the most comfortable part of the presentation because it shocked me,” junior Ryann Berens said. “The entire room as well kind of gasped and shifted in their seats. This is when the reality of the situation hit home and made it personal.”
Keady said that Nike is aiming to partner itself with Catholic schools because they want to associate themselves with places of Catholic teaching; it is a strategic public relations move.
So what can USD students do? Keady emphasized that the wrong question to ask is, “Okay where can I buy garments that are sweat free?” or “What brand can our athletics department wear instead?” He said that Team Sweat’s campaign is “not about assuaging your Catholic guilt.”
The campaign is not about helping you feel better about what you buy. What he would instead like people to ask themselves is, “How can I build solidarity with the workers and put pressure on Nike that will eventually eliminate sweatshops?” He encouraged the audience to write the current Nike CEO, Mike Parker, an email telling him about their concern for Nike’s factory workers (at Mike.Parker@nike.com). Tell people you know, hold demonstrations, and donate to Team Sweat so they can get the message out to more people.
Join the facebook group at facebook.com/teamsweat. In this campaign, education is power and the more people that know about Nike’s human rights violations, the more pressure it will put on Nike to change.
Slowly but surely, Keady said he has seen this approach create progress over the last 13 years.
May 18th, 2010
Teagan Dooley sits on his staircase with his 48 pairs of shoes. Many consumers are unaware of the labor that goes in the production of their purchases.
By Patrick Okocha, II
Published in The Clipper, Everett Community College
Nike ads are on television and billboards everywhere: what is not so apparent is the process behind the construction of Nike products.
Nike owns 31 percent of the athletic footwear market worldwide, followed by Adidas with 16 percent, according to anti-sweatshop activist Jim Keady. The company’s yearly revenue is over 19 billion and it generates profits of 1.5 billion, yet factory workers in Indonesia can barely afford noodles.
Keady spent a month in 2000 working in a footwear factory in Tangerang, Indonesia and spoke at EvCC on Feb. 2.
During his speech, Keady described the poor living conditions he endured, including sharing small bathrooms with five to ten other people in a small village. Keady became so ill during the trip that he lost 25 pounds.
“Nike is in Indonesia for one reason, cheap labor,” said Keady. “In Indonesia there are 37 contract factories with 123,000 factory workers. Those workers earn $1.25 per day. Most of the workers must work overtime just to get by.”
There is a major disparity between the athletes Nike uses in their ads and the factory workers who produce their products. “Tiger Woods makes more money in one round of golf than a Nike factory worker makes in 9.5 years,” said Keady.
The issue is not with how Nike merchandise is made, but how the workers must live.
The workers “don’t want [Nike] to pull out the jobs, (they) like to work and we are proud of what (they) do, but don’t want to be exploited,” said Keady’s partner, Leslie Kretzu, in a pre-recorded video presentation.
Teagan Dooley, an EvCC student and member of the men’s basketball team is an avid sneaker collector. He owns over 80 pairs of shoes worth around $10,000.
“You spend most of your life either sleeping or on your feet so if you are on your feet for half of your life, why not spend money for good shoes,” said Dooley. “I love Jay’s and rare shoes that no one else has.”
It costs Nike approximately $16.25 to make one pair of sneakers, which can retail for over $150 in stores, meaning Nike has made $8,700 just from Dooley.
Keady has founded an organization called Team Sweat, whose goal is to win a collective bargaining agreement against Nike which will include better wages.
Indonesia is not the only country in the world suffering social injustice, says Keady. There are over 1,000 factories with 1 million workers in 52 countries. Keady’s goal in Indonesia is to create a model for change that can expand to these other countries.
To donate or join Team Sweat, visit Keady’s web site at teamsweat.org.
February 9th, 2010
TEAM SWEAT:
We are making a focused effort this year to get Nike to disclose the wage rates for all of their overseas factories.
How has Nike responded?
To date, Nike has refused to disclose the wage rates for all of their overseas factories.
What does Nike say about factory workers wages?
As I like to say, “Nike is a little schizophrenic on the factory worker wage issue.” Check out the statements below and you will understand why I feel this way.
Nike Founder and Chairman of the Board, Phil Knight on Nike Workers’ Wages
When asked by a PBS reporter if he felt comfortable that Nike factory workers were making a living wage, Phil Knight responded:
“Absolutely. No question about it.”
Mr. Knight was emphatic that workers are paid a living wage, however, he provided no data to back up his claim.
Nike’s 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report on Nike Workers’ Wages
When discussing the issue of living wages, Nike’s 2006 CR Report stated that:
“Some worker advocates suggest that a living wage should be paid. We do not support approach.”
Wait a second. Didn’t Phil Knight say that workers were “absolutely” being paid a living wage, “no question about it”? If Nike’s founder and Chairman of the Board said that workers are being a living wage, why would Nike release a statement in their CR Report saying that Nike does not support living wages be paid to factory workers?
Vada Manager, Former Nike Director of Global Issues Management on Nike Workers’ Wages
When asked by a reporter from HBO Sports about wages for Nike’s factory workers, Vada Manager, Nike’s Director of Global Issues Management said:
“(Nike) raised wages 70 percent in Indonesia. We have a code that applies globally and that provides wages that far surpass regional or national minimum wages.”
In this statement, Nike’s Director of Global Issues Management said that Nike has the power to raise workers wages. (Remember this when you read the next Nike statement.) He also said that Nike’s Code of Conduct “provides wages that far surpass regional or national minimums.” This is a lie. Here is what Nike’s Code of Conduct actually states with regard to worker compensation.
“The contractor provides each employee at least the minimum wage, or the prevailing industry wage, whichever is higher; provides each employee a clear, written accounting for every pay period; and does not deduct from employee pay for disciplinary infractions.”
Where exactly in this paragraph does Nike provide for “wages that far surpass regional or national minimum wages?”
Hannah Jones, Nike Vice President for Corporate Responsibility on Nike Workers’ Wages
In response to a letter from me, Hannah Jones, Nike’s VP for Corporate Responsibility, wrote the following on April 19, 2009.
“Nike does require that factories manufacturing our products comply with local legal minimum wages, and this is something we aim to verify in our auditing process. However, because factories are not Nike-owned, it is not possible for us to mandate what wages should be paid by the factories to workers. Moreover, this data is not something that we collect; it is owned and managed by factories, which is why Nike cannot disclose workers’ wage rates.”
So, Ms. Jones, Nike’s VP for Corporate Responsibility is saying:
1. That Nike gathers wage data to “verify” that factories are paying the legal minimum wage. This means that Nike has the wage rates for all their production plants.
2. That Nike cannot “mandate what wages should be paid.” But didn’t Vada Manager say above that, “Nike raised wages 70 percent in Indonesia”? If Nike raised wages, doesn’t that mean that they can mandate what wages should be paid?
3. That data on wages “is not something that we (Nike) collect.” But didn’t she say in her first sentence above that Nike audits factories to ensure that they “comply with local legal minimum wages”? When you audit something, don’t you collect data on it? How could Nike be sure that factories are in compliance if this data is “not something we collect”?
4. That based on her statements “Nike cannot disclose workers’ wage rates.”
Clearly Nike wants consumers and investors to remain in the dark on the issue of workers’ wages in their overseas production plants.
So, what do we do to get this information from Nike?
In their 2006 CR Report, Nike said that “transparency is the first step to open-source problem solving.” Given this and the information above, don’t you feel that Nike has a responsibility to their consumers and investors to be transparent and publicly disclose the raw data on factory workers’ wages?
Do you want to join us in demanding that Nike publicly disclose wage rates?
If you said, “yes,” here is what you can do.
1. Send an email right now to Nike CEO, Mark Parker at mark.parker@nike.com and demand that he publicly disclose wage rates for Nike’s overseas factories.
2. Cut and paste your email to the TEAM SWEAT fan page wall on Facebook for all our supporters to see.
3. If you feel like having some fun with your video camera, make a short (10-20 second) video of yourself making your demand of Nike and post it to the TEAM SWEAT fan page wall on Facebook.
4. If you want to organize students at your school or in your community to put more grassroots pressure on Nike, email me at jim@educatingforjustice.org and I will tell you how to get started.
I’m looking forward to reading your emails to Mr. Parker, seeing your video clips, and hearing from you about organizing your campus with TEAM SWEAT.
Peace, Jim Keady
January 12th, 2010
Team Sweat:
Check out the article below about the 8-year endorsement deal Maria Sharapova just extended with Nike. She get’s $70,000,000.00 and the factory workers that make the gear that she wears and promotes continue to live in poverty.
You can contact Ms. Sharapova on Facebook by clicking TELL MARIA TO SUPPORT NIKE’S WORKERS. Just become a fan of her page and start posting.
Peace, Jim Keady
Sharapova nets $75m Nike deal
The Sydney Morning Herald
January 12, 2010
Former Wimbledon champion Maria Sharapova extended her sponsorship agreement with Nike by eight years for $US70 million ($75 million), just days before the start of the Australian Open.
The deal takes effect this month said a person with knowledge of the contract and includes a line of dresses designed by the former top-ranked tennis player.
The 22-year-old will also get a percentage of sales, said the source who asked not to be identified because the terms are private. Nike spokesman Derek Kent declined to comment.
Nike is the world’s largest athletic-shoe maker, and has worked with the Russian for 11 years. Since winning Wimbledon in 2004 at the age of 17, Sharapova has become one of the biggest draws on the WTA Tour and the world’s best-paid female athlete. She has also won the Australian and US Opens.
”Sharapova is one of those stars whose name transcends sports, similar to David Beckham,” said Stefan Szymanski, an economics professor at the Cass Business School in London. ”She’s become an international celebrity first, and an athlete second.”
Sharapova is the fourth favourite to win the Australian Open, which starts on Monday. Kim Clijsters and Serena Williams are co-favourites at 3-1, ahead of Justine Henin at 4-1, said British bookmaker Ladbrokes. Sharapova is 8-1, the gambling site said.
Sharapova makes close to $US22 million a year in prize money and from endorsing companies including Tiffany & Co, Sony Ericsson and Canon, Sports Illustrated has reported. She was the only woman in the magazine’s July list of the top 20 highest-earning non-US athletes.
Nike ‘family’
”She’s very happy to stay with Nike, to stay with the family she’s been with since she was 11,” Max Eisenbud, Sharapova’s agent at IMG Tennis, said in a telephone interview from Coral Gables, Florida.
Venus Williams extended an agreement with Reebok in 2000 that the clothing maker said at the time was ”the most lucrative for a female athlete”. The five-year contract was worth about $US45 million, the player’s family attorney said at the time.
Sharapova, who has nine sponsors, might drop some endorsements in favour of agreements that give her a percentage of sales, Eisenbud said in an interview in September.
”She has wealth,” Eisenbud said at the US Open in New York. ”She wants to focus on deals where she has equity, where she helps designing, gets a percentage of the sales.”
Sharapova already had an equity agreement in place with Cole Haan, a wholly owned Nike subsidiary and US clothing, shoe, handbag and accessory designer.
Shoulder injury
The extension of the Nike deal comes less than a year after Sharapova returned from a right-shoulder injury that sidelined her for nine months and forced her to undergo surgery.
The injury led her to miss the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2008 US Open and the 2009 Australian Open. Ranked outside the top 100, Sharapova returned to the WTA Tour in May.
She made the quarter-finals of the French Open - the only major she has yet to win - and then lost early at both Wimbledon and the US Open. Her play improved late in the year, when she won her 20th Tour title in Tokyo and ended the season ranked No. 14.
Bloomberg News
January 12th, 2010
By Nina Shapiro in Business, Education
Seattle Weekly
Tuesday, Jan. 5 2010
UW Provost, Phyllis Wise
It’s clearer than ever that University of Washington Provost Phyllis Wise stepped into a minefield when she accepted a seat on Nike’s board of directors.
The faculty association yesterday issued a statement calling on Wise to give the position up. Although individual professors had previously griped about the Nike affiliation, which pays up to $200,000 a year, this is the first time the faculty has formally objected to it.
Meanwhile UW President Mark Emmert has written to Nike warning that the company’s relationship with the school–which includes a $35 million contract that makes Nike the exclusive supplier of Husky sportswear–is at risk.
Much of the controversy surrounds treatment of workers at two Nike factories in Honduras run by subcontractors. According to Emmert’s letter, the factories closed after they were unionized, and workers were denied severance pay.
In a statement by the UW branch of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), faculty say that Wise’s presence on the Nike board creates a conflict of interest, given the university’s efforts to ensure that its sweatshirts and other apparel conform to fair labor practices.
The faculty group also claims that Wise’s Nike connection undermines academic freedom by discouraging faculty from speaking out about Nike’s labor practices. “It may not be Provost Wise’s intention to silence criticism from labor experts,” the statement acknowledges. “But when faculty report to a provost who is on Nike’s payroll, institutional incentives favor tolerance for sweatshop abuses.”
Emmert is seemingly trying to show that no such tolerance exists in his letter to Nike (see pdf), which he wrote right before Christmas. Much of the letter is fairly tame, asking for the company’s “perspective” on the Honduran situation and “information on the remediation” due workers there. It stops short of putting the company on “notice” for labor violations, as recommended by his faculty and student Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing.
However, he ends by saying that “a continued relationship between the University of Washington and Nike is very much contingent on your appropriate resolution of this matter.”
Because of this implied threat, Margaret Levi, a political science professor who co-chairs the advisory committee, calls it “a very strong letter.” The question is whether the university will follow through on this threat–despite Wise’s foot in both camps.
Nike spokesperson Kate Meyers says the company is in “close consultation” with the university. In an e-mail sent to the Weekly through a university spokesperson, Wise avoids responding directly to the AAUP’s complaints but says that university leaders can serve on corporate boards in “ethically responsible ways.”
January 12th, 2010
By Pete Jackson
Originally published at crosscut.com
UW Provost, Phyllis Wise
The saga over University of Washington Provost Phyllis Wise’s November 19 appointment as a paid director at Nike took another twist Monday, as the UW chapter of the American Association of University Professors(AAUP) issued a formal statement calling for Wise to step down from the board of the Oregon corporation.
The AAUP announcement comes exactly one week before the start of the 2010 legislative session and a machete-knife budget that could compromise the university’s standing as a top-tier school.
“In my view it is simply inappropriate for a full time, highly paid public servant to personally benefit so handsomely from a corporate board position that she unquestionably gained because of her leadership of one of the most prestigious public universities in the world, “Rep. Reuven Carlyle said Monday. “While I certainly respect her right to privacy, surely she realizes that she is a public official by the very nature of her public role, position, and salary, and her fiduciary obligation is therefore to the people of Washington.”
“I have talented high school seniors in my Seattle district graduating with 3.5, 3.6 grade point averages who can’t get slots at UW,” Carlyle continued, “and their parents are justifiably resentful about that lack of access. That is the real higher education issue, and we need to refocus attention back on what’s important for real people living real lives.”
Opposition to Wise’s appointment largely revolves around the directorship’s annual six-figure compensation, the university’s public image, and Nike’s pattern of bullying universities affiliated with the Workers Rights Consortium and anti-sweatshop activism.
In addition, the University of Washington’s Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing voted last month to put Nike on notice for disregarding the university’s code of conduct. Violations include Nike’s various failures to abide by mandated disclosure standards as well as its refusal to pay severance to workers at two Honduran factories.
The committee’s December 3 recommendation prompted UW President Mark Emmert to notify Nike poobahs that, “The failure of NIKE to properly respond to these current issues will inevitably jeopardize our business relationship.”
In a strongly worded letter written on Dec. 23 but just released, Emmert wrote, “I believe it is important to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the Code of Conduct and emphasize NIKE’s obligation to fully comply with it. I value the University’s relationship with NIKE, but I also value highly the rights of laborers in NIKE’s manufacturing plants.”
The following is an excerpt from the AAUP statement:
Phyllis Wise clearly was not simply plucked from obscurity as a “private individual” by the Nike Corporation. Nor is it clear why she or President Emmert, both of whom are also members of the UW faculty, should be any more free to act “as a private individual” outside the existing regulations than any other member of the faculty. Since Phyllis Wise is a member of the faculty, her consideration of a position on Nike’s board should be subject to the same mechanisms already in place, for review and approval of the outside activities of faculty members, including service on corporate boards.
When companies seek to work with university faculty, however, it is generally on the basis of the faculty’s expertise in particular areas of research relevant to the company’s activities. It is difficult to see what special interest the Nike Corporation could possibly have in Phyllis Wise’s research expertise in obstetrics and gynecology. Rather, it seems clear that, as the Seattle Times suggests, it is “in her capacity as Provost” that she is being offered this position and is accepting it. In other words, the specialized knowledge and insight that Phyllis Wise has to offer to the Nike Corporation is not her research expertise, but rather her knowledge of (and association with) the University. The Provost’s decision may have been reviewed by legal experts and deemed legally permissible, but it is clearly not in accord with established governance mechanisms, nor is it the right thing to do.
AAUP-UW submits that it is not in the interest of the University for its top administrators to offer up knowledge about the institution, gained in the course of serving in a leadership position within it, to the Nike Corporation or any other private company in the form of a consultancy or service on a corporate board — especially when income from that consultancy goes not to the university itself but into the pocket of the administrator. This holds not only for the Provost but for the President as well.
The University spends a significant amount of money to pay its top administrators, and it is only fair for the University to expect that the individuals receiving that compensation act on behalf of the University and avoid even the appearance of conflicts. In this respect, the salaries of UW’s top administrators might be understood in terms of the argument made regarding police, legislators, and public servants more generally: that they must be compensated fairly in order to avoid creating conditions conducive to corruption. The obligation that this places upon such public servants is crystal clear: they must not enter into any agreement or accept any position that creates even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.
Pete Jackson, a former gubernatorial speechwriter, lives in Everett, Wash. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.
January 12th, 2010
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - Portland, Ore. Business Journal
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
An organization of professors at the University of Washington has asked Provost Phyllis Wise to step down from her recent appointment to Nike Inc.’s board of directors.
In a statement issued Monday, the Seattle university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors said Wise’s position on the Nike board is rife with conflicts of interest.
“I understand that reasonable people hold differing views on whether university administrators should serve on corporate boards,” Wise said in a statement published Tuesday by The Seattle Times. “I believe universities and corporations have much to learn from each other. Corporate leaders serving on university boards of trustees and regents and university leaders serving on corporate boards can benefit both and can do so in ethically responsible ways.”
The faculty cited several conflicts of interest, including the Beaverton, Ore.-based sportswear company’s (NYSE: NKE) $35 million deal to outfit the university’s athletic department.
But they seem more riled about the direct association between the university’s second-in-command and a corporation tied to claims of unfair labor practices.
A university committee on trademarks and licensing recently voted that Nike was in violation of the university’s code of conduct. The committee said Nike failed to take effective action after two contractors in Honduras closed factories a year ago without paying workers after they unionized.
Nike issued a statement Tuesday saying the contractors, VisionTex and Hugger, were forced to close due to insolvency. Regardless, the company said it has been working to resolve the issue regarding severance for the employees.
“Nike believes that factories which directly employ workers are responsible for ensuring that their employees receive their correct entitlements,” the company said.
Nike announced Wise’s board appointment in November. Nike Chairman Phil Knight at the time said her experience as a respected leader and administrator of a multibillion-dollar budget “is a rare combination that makes her an ideal addition to our board.”
The faculty also stated concerns about academic freedom on a campus where students and faculty have openly criticized Nike’s labor practices.
“It may not be Provost Wise’s intention to silence criticism from labor rights experts. But when faculty report to a provost who is on Nike’s payroll, institutional incentives favor tolerance for sweatshop abuses,” the faculty wrote. “This is not in the best interests of academic freedom nor of the university.”
January 12th, 2010
Jim Keady speaking at Willamette University (WA)
Team Sweat:
I am writing to let you know that my speaking tour calendar is filing up for the spring semester. I am currently booked to speak in Washington, Arizona, Missouri, New Jersey, Indiana, New York, and Florida. I am also in discussions with schools in Rhode Island, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana.
If you are interested in bringing “Behind the Swoosh: Sweatshops and Social Justice” to your campus, please email me at jim@educatingforjustice.org or call me at 732.988.7322.
I hope to hear from you soon!
Happy New Year!
Peace, Jim Keady
January 12th, 2010
UF Students get a glimpse of new Gator football uniforms
By Nathan Crabbe
Staff writer
The Gainesville Sun
www.gainsville.com
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
University of Florida students gathered Tuesday to get a glimpse at new Gator football uniforms, but some questioned whether such clothing was being produced in sweatshops.
Nike displayed its new Pro Combat jerseys and related “Finish the Mission” merchandise on campus. The alternate uniforms, which are lighter and have different colors and designs than the typical Gator uniforms, will be worn by the team for the first time during Saturday’s game against Florida State.
While students lined up to win free shirts and see the uniforms, few expressed interest in buying the $80 jerseys and $24 T-shirts.
“For a regular college student, a lot of it is too expensive,” said Alex Mollengarden, a 19-year-old engineering major.
Students with UF Amnesty International expressed quite a different concern — that UF merchandise might be made with cheap labor in poor working conditions. Group President Emily Flynn called for UF to join the Worker Rights Consortium, an independent group that monitors conditions at factories making merchandise.
“UF would be taking a stand for human rights,” she said.
UF athletic association spokesman Steve McClain pointed out the fact that UF is a member of the Fair Labor Association, another monitoring group.
“The FLA works closely with apparel companies and factories to ensure that workers’ rights are protected,” he said in an e-mail.
But some — including the group United Students Against Sweatshops, which is affiliated with Amnesty’s campaign — have accused the Fair Labor Association of being beholden to industry. Flynn noted that a Nike executive is part of the association’s board.
“Nike is on the board of an organization that monitors Nike,” she said.
A Nike representative did not return calls seeking comment. Fair Labor Association Executive Director Jorge Perez-Lopez said his group’s board includes industry representatives as well as university and non-governmental organization representatives.
“It has companies because we think companies are the ones that can fix things,” he said.
He said the association rigorously monitors factories through about 150 random audits each year and also responds to complaints. But Flynn questioned the transparency of the association’s audits, which lack information such as the names of the factories.
She said her group’s campaign was not calling upon UF to drop Nike, although it included the “Finish the Mission” slogan in fliers questioning whether UF merchandise was made using sweatshop labors.
While students readily took the fliers, most proceeded to a line where they were given a chance to win shirts and see the uniforms.
Students were given a code that they used to open a vault. Only certain codes opened the door to reveal a complete uniform on display.
Some students said they liked changes such as a white helmet, although a common complaint was the stitching on the jersey’s shoulders that looked like wings.
“I like the helmet, but the shoulder pads seem out of place,” said Paul Turner, a 19-year-old computer engineering major.
While several agreed with concerns about sweatshops, more students said their bigger concern was the cost of the clothing.
Public relations major Alex Glover, 19, said he would consider whether a clothing item was made in a sweatshop but might still buy it if another item was pricier.
“I hate to say it, but in the end, I’ll probably go with the cheaper shirt,” he said.
Contact Nathan Crabbe at 338-3176 or nathan.crabbe@gvillesun.com.
January 12th, 2010
by Todd Finkelmeyer
The Capital Times (Madison)
December 8, 2009
University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin has decided to
give Nike four months to clear up problems of reported workers’ rights
abuses at two factories that the sports apparel giant subcontracts with in
Honduras.
If the situation isn’t remedied, the university could end its apparel
contract with Nike — a deal which brings the university nearly $50,000
per year.
Martin said Monday that she hopes to build a coalition of interested
schools from the Big Ten Conference and other peer institutions to put
pressure on Nike. The success of these attempts may go a long way in
determining whether Nike is brought to its proverbial knees — or
continues with business as usual.
“I think in order to be effective it’s necessary to get other schools
involved, and I know there are other campuses considering and researching
what’s going on,” Martin said following a Faculty Senate meeting at Bascom
Hall.
Dawn Crim, a special assistant to the chancellor for community relations,
said that in discussions with Nike it has “become clear” the company is
working to rectify the situation.
“But we wanted to nail down a time frame,” Crim said Monday. “These issues
do take time, and the chancellor thought 120 days was reasonable. If, in
fact, (Nike) is working to solve problems, that’s enough time — but it’s
not open ended.”
The university first made the announcement about Martin’s message to Nike
in this press release.
If you think getting an apparel giant to stop its alleged anti-sweatshop
practices is simply a pipe dream, you haven’t been paying attention.
UW-Madison and student activists on campus played a key role in persuading
Russell Athletic — one of the nation’s leading sportswear companies — on
Nov. 17 to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who had lost their jobs when
Russell shuttered its factory shortly after workers unionized. In that
instance, UW-Madison was one of nearly 100 colleges and universities which
ended apparel deals with Russell — forcing the company to change its ways
if it wanted to get back into the profitable collegiate apparel-making
business. For more on that story, click here.
According to an October report produced by the Worker Rights Consortium,
two factories Nike subcontracts with in Honduras — Vision Tex and Hugger
de Honduras — closed in January without paying more than $2 million in
legally mandated severance and back pay to 1,800 workers. As a licensee of
UW-Madison apparel, Nike is bound by a university code of conduct for
producers that require payment of these legally mandated wages and other
benefits.
Martin first wrote a letter to Nike on Nov. 3 expressing concerns about
the allegations and asking the company to “provide us with detailed
information about your company’s remediation plans” by Nov. 11. According
to University Communications, Martin was the first college president to
write Nike to ask for a detailed remediation plan.
On Nov. 10, Nike sent a generic letter to all universities that had been
asking about the situation, stating the company is “deeply concerned about
the issues raised by the Worker Rights Consortium ….”
That letter also states: “It is important to note that, to the best of our
knowledge, none of the products manufactured for Nike at either Hugger or
Vision Tex was collegiate licensed apparel, aside from a one-time order of
800 units in 2007 for one university partner.”
UW-Madison administrators, however, were not satisfied with that blanket
response.
Crim said Nike has “since apologized for not getting back to us quicker
and now they say they’re glad to be working with us on this.”
UW-Madison’s Labor Licensing Policy Committee voted 7-2 on Nov. 13 to
recommend that Chancellor Martin start taking steps to end the
university’s apparel contract with Nike. (For a story on this, click
here.) The committee’s vote, however, is strictly advisory.
Late last week, Martin wrote to members of the committee to notify them
that she believes Nike is working in good faith toward a resolution.
Therefore, Martin plans to give Nike four months to solve the issue, make
“satisfactory, demonstrable progress,” or allow the company’s relationship
with the university to lapse.
But not everyone is happy with Martin’s timeline.
Jan Van Tol, a UW-Madison senior and a member of both the Labor Licensing
Policy Committee and the Student Labor Action Coalition, said: “We are
very disappointed with the Chancellor’s response. Not only has she given
Nike an absurdly long timeline, but she’s also set the bar very low. Let’s
be clear: Nike could pay its debts tomorrow — it simply doesn’t want to.
That’s why giving them four months just to make `progress’ is so bizarre.”
Adds Van Tol, who graduates later this month:
“Nike has been given ample opportunity to pay its workers, but continues
to stall. Giving them more time, after they’ve already had eleven months,
is simply irresponsible and is not an effective way to enforce the code of
conduct.”
January 12th, 2010
By: fflambeau
Originally Posted on www.firedoglake.com
Wednesday December 9, 2009 8:45 pm
Nike is one of the largest sports apparel companies in the world with most of its apparel being made in 3rd world countries for a song and then sold in the 1st world for huge mark-ups.
Recently, the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Carolyn “Biddy” Martin put Nike on notice giving it 4 months to clear up problems of reported worker rights abuses at subcontractor factories in Honduras.
From a press release issued by the university:
At issue is the treatment of workers at two apparel factories, Hugger de Honduras and Vision Tex. Both factories, at which it is believed that collegiately licensed apparel was produced, were shut down without notice in January.
Since then, their owners have allegedly failed to pay workers a combined total of more than $2 million in legally mandated severance and back wages. Nike is a UW-Madison licensee.
Employees are reportedly owed an average of $1,000 per person, a significant sum in the country, according to the Workers Rights Consortium, the university’s independent labor monitoring organization.
To begin to address the issue, on Nov. 3, Martin was the first college president to write to the corporation asking for a detailed remediation plan.
Nike is a university licensee with sales generating almost $50,000 a year in income to U.W-Madison. Nike, when it entered into the licensee agreement, agreed to a code of conduct that stipulated its responsibilities in dealing with workers, factories, subcontractors and suppliers.
The Workers Rights Consortium in October, 2009 issued more details on the Honduran plants and Nike’s role in them:
The WRC found that both Hugger and Vision Tex shut down on January 19, 2009 without prior warning and did not pay workers legally mandated terminal compensation. In the case of Vision Tex, additionally we found that employees were not paid for their last week of work. The total amount owed to the workers of Hugger at the time of closure was $2,030,359.85, while the total amount owed to the employees of Vision Tex was $571,895.62. The workers of the two plants have since been able to generate fifteen percent and twenty-one percent, respectively, of the compensation owed to them through the liquidation of the physical assets of the factories. That liquidation process is now effectively over. The workers of Hugger are still owed $1,725,805.87; the workers of Vision Tex are still owed $450,459.49.
…WRC has recommended to Nike that it ask its contractors – which were the factories’ primary direct buyers prior to their closure – to provide the funds necessary to make the workers whole. The contractors are New Holland Lingerie (at Vision Tex) and Anvil Knitwear and Haddad Apparel Group (at Hugger). All three companies are based in the United States.
Nike is obligated under university codes of conduct to ensure that labor rights violations by its contractors are remedied.
…Nike has indicated that it has discussed the matter with its business partners. However, this has not led to progress on remediation; the violations remain outstanding. It bears noting that in communications with the WRC and at least one affiliate university, Nike has downplayed its role in the facilities, suggesting that its production was not substantial in either plant and that its responsibility for addressing the violations is therefore diminished. As detailed herein, the WRC has found, contrary to Nike’s assertions, that Nike was the dominant brand produced for a substantial period of time at both facilities.
Perhaps even more troubling to Nike is the information that Chancellor Martin is seeking to build a coalition of other Big 10 universities and peer institutions as well as the Workers Rights Consortium and the Collegiate Licensing Company on workers rights issues. Says Chancellor Martin:
“I think in order to be effective, it’s necessary to get other schools involved, and I know there are other campuses considering and researching what’s going on.”
Wisconsin-Madison alone has more than 40,000 students and with the other 10 Big Ten schools, mostly mega-land grant institutions (the conference actually has 11 schools) the numbers are large enough to put big pressure on companies like Nike: over 350,000 students who are lifelong consumers of athletic products.
Such tactics have worked in the past:
UW-Madison and student activists on campus played a key role in persuading Russell Athletic–one of the nation’s leading sportswear companies–on Nov. 17 to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who had lost their jobs when Russell shuttered its factory shortly after workers unionized. In that instance, UW-Madison was one of nearly 100 colleges and universities which ended apparel deals with Russell–forcing the company to change its ways if it wanted to get back into profitable collegiate apparel-making business.
Dawn Crim, a special assistant to Chancellor Martin, believes that it has “become clear” that Nike is working to resolve the situation. But not all are convinced or happy with the 4 month deadline. Jan Van Tol, a UW-Madison senior and member of the university’s Labor Licensing Committee said:
“We are very disappointed with the Chancellor’s response. Not only has she given Nike an absurdly long timeline, but she’s also set the bar very low. Let’s be clear: Nike could pay its debts tomorrow–it simply doesn’t want to. That’s why giving them four months just to ‘make’ progress is so bizarre.”
Van Tol also pointed out Nike already has had 11 months to clean up its act.
January 12th, 2010
By Jeff Ballinger
“On the Media” with Brooke Gladstone in the anchor chair at NPR is always a good deal more than a diversion while cleaning the garage or running week-end errands; she explores many topics that you won’t see covered, or didn’t even appear to one as problems, opportunities, etc. But, when you do an interview with someone like Nick Kristof – whose audience dwarfs your own – you ought to be especially prepared to “afflict the comfortable.” She needn’t have searched too long to find controversy in this man’s last decade of columns and, no, it is not because he practices “advocacy journalism” unless – and here’s the point – he’s advocating for sweatshops.
He “flinches” when he hears his work called advocacy (I believe that he meant “wince” or “cringe” but, hey, who gets the big bucks for putting words together?); she countered by pointing out that he often directs readers to his favorite charities when riding his Sudan hobby-horse. This is certainly not to say that we hear enough about Darfur or even to denigrate the notion of journalist-as-advocate, but there is a back-story here.
The brutality of the global, outsource-everything economy was being covered very well by Kristof’s colleague, Bob Herbert. In nearly ten searing anti-sweatshop columns in the mid-Nineties, he captured Americans’ disquietude about corporate-led globalization while pointing out the tone-deaf callousness of Bill Clinton’s team; the latter was summed up nicely by James Carville when asked about his Nike deal (by another journalist, not Herbert): he berated the reporter for deigning to ask, snarling, “I own stock in Royal Dutch Shell, too.”
This was just like saying that any Democrat who was internationalist and concerned with human rights ought to just get with the program; just go get “yours” and don’t worry about the other guy. Carville dismissed concern about abused workers as “protectionist.”
So, it was clear that Herbert was out of step — especially the trenchant truth-telling which left the named shoe and toy brands with nowhere to hide. When Phil Knight (Nike’s prickly CEO, at the time) asked for a meeting with the New York Times’ editorial board in 1998, the multi-billionaire was accommodated. Herbert never wrote another anti-sweatshop column and Nick Kristof reformulated the Times’ editorial page position to “pro-sweatshop.”
What do you think would happen if a consumer or anti-sweatshop group would demand a meeting with the Times’ editorial board to complain about Nick? This is the type of question one might ask to get down to the nitty-gritty (which OtM usually does). An additional quibble: Kristof explains his work as “reporting” and he is not challenged on it. In fact, he is an opinion-monger — with no need to apologize for advocacy, quite the opposite!
Jeff Ballinger is completing a Laborers-funded doctorate fellowship at McMaster University near Toronto. He can be reached at: jeffreyd@mindspring.com
January 12th, 2010
By Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian
December 30, 2009, 8:56PM
NIKE FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, PHIL KNIGHT
Phil Knight, two months shy of 72, has kicked into serious estate-planning mode, tapping a good friend and former University of Oregon athletic director to help out.
In his largest stock move to date, Nike’s chairman and co-founder on Wednesday gave 20 million shares of his company’s stock, worth about $1.32 billion, to three trusts in his name. Nike disclosed the move in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The person overseeing the trusts, according to the filing: Pat Kilkenny, who served as UO’s top athletics official when Knight donated $100 million to the department.
The filing does not say who ultimately will benefit from the trusts. But estate-planning attorneys say the move is a common way wealthy individuals pass on their fortunes to heirs while reducing their tax liability and still earning income from the assets.
Knight has two children, Travis and Christina. A second son, Matthew, died in 2004 and is survived by a wife and two sons.
Nike spokespeople did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday.
Knight has sold Nike stock on a fairly regular basis in the past, including about 5 million shares in October. But this is his largest single move, representing nearly one-quarter of his stake in the world’s largest sportswear company.
He still owns 65 million shares worth about $4.3 billion, the filing shows. Nike shares closed Wednesday at $66.14 on the New York Stock Exchange, just 29 cents off a 52-week high. The stock has gained 30 percent year-to-date.
Knight split the shares among three grantor retained annuity trusts. The so-called GRATs pay an annuity at a fixed annual rate, most likely, in this case, to Knight. The trusts can be set up for any amount of time or for the rest of Knight’s life.
When the trust ends, any remaining amount would be passed on to beneficiaries tax-free. And if Nike’s stock grows in value as it should, plenty should be left. Knight will pay taxes this year on the gifts but generally at less cost than if he waited or held on to the stock until death, attorneys say.
Knight’s choice of Kilkenny as trustee illustrates the close relationship between the Oregon alumni and Ducks donors. Attorneys generally discourage naming family members or employees as trustees and often appoint professionals or institutions.
Kilkenny, a former insurance company executive who presumably has little experience overseeing trusts, could not be reached for comment.
“If you have a really good friend that you trust, that’s the person you want as your trustee,” said Jonathan D. Mishkin, an estate-planning and tax attorney at Harrang Long Gary Rudnick in Portland. He also teaches at Oregon law school.
Kilkenny also gets the duty of accounting for trust income and deciding when to unload stock.
“He has to decide when to hold and when to fold,” said Kay Abramowitz, an estate-planning attorney at Ater Wynne in Portland.
Knight’s Nike shares give him authority to pick nine of 12 Nike board members. But he converted his Class A shares to Class B shares, which lack the same appointment authority, before donating the stock to the trusts.
December 17th, 2009
(I joined Team Sweat because I saw a ) very impressive presentation by Jim Keady at my school, plus my conviction in the principles of Catholic social justice teachings. I am a Catholic high school and college teacher.
- John Groch
Jim Keady spoke at my high school today and his speech was great. I saw Behind the Swoosh and listened to him and it changed the way I look at Nike as a company. I will be sending Phil Knight e-mails about the workers’ wages issue and try to help out your cause.
- Mac Ryan
I saw Jim’s presentation today and was astounded at the conditions that the workers live in. Any support I can give is worth my time a hundred fold. Human rights should not be so blatantly violated.
- Christopher Mulvey
Jim Keady came and visited Saint Joseph’s Preparatory School on November 17, 2009 and informed my peers and I the standards of people that work for Nike over seas and i want to make a difference in any way I can.
- John Antiskay
I joined team sweat because Mr. Keady came to my school, and made me realize what injustices are going on in the world, specifically Indonesia.
- Tom Pierce
I’m joining Team Sweat because as a student and consumer, I had no idea about this issue until I heard Jim Keady speak at the Ignatian Teach In in Columbus and I feel that everyone should know about this issue. I am joining because as a human being and Christian, I cannot be a part of keeping the Nike workers or any sweat shop workers in poverty, I must be a part of a group to help them because the more of us there are working for justice, the more swiftly it will arrive.
- Jasmine Schwartz
Hi Team Sweat, I am just a Mum in Australia (I live in northern New South Wales) and I was asked to talk about slavery and ethical sourcing at a recent church event. We had receivied permission to show part of `Behind the Swoosh’ - so 60 women at a church women’s breakfast saw this short and were moved by it. Thanks for making this documentary, I just wanted to encourage you that the message is still getting out - in places pretty far away from you!
-Megan
I am not sure how do describe it but I hate the injustice sweatshops have caused.
- Jeff Meckstroth
I saw your presentation at the Ignation Family Teach in and it inspired me.
- Kelly Dean
I listened to your interview with Steve Runner on his podcast and am interested in learning more.
- Annah Maynes
I attend Sacred Heart Prep, and we get all of our sports uniforms and sweats from Nike. I know that we have some deal cut so we get a discount with them but we also spend a couple of weeks first in personal ethics sophomore year and again in social ethics junior year learning about the injustices of sweat shops, watch documentaries, and learn about the conditions workers are put through, then we go out for sports practice that afternoon and suit up in documented sweat shop clothing, I mean come on! It wigs me out and I really want to get involved in learning more of how I can help stop sweat shops to just be allowed to continue the way they are. Its like the money is put before other people’s livelihood, WHAT!
- Sean Reidy
I am for the rights of all people - and the fair wages that all people deserve! I admire and support your efforts, I am giving a speech in my speech class at hocking college about why people should stop buying Nike products. I am finding all of your information very helpful. I hope to inform a lot of new people about Nike.
- Stephanie Renner
I want to do something to help the people that work in the sweatshops.
- Colin Dabagian
Dear Mr. Jim Keady,
I am a sophomore at St. Joseph’s Prep in Philadelphia, a school you spoke at a few weeks ago, and I was certainly moved by the speech you gave. Over the years, I have been attracted to Nike and other athletic apparel, and love finding the new Lebron’s, or the new Jordan’s, and get excited about buying them. My outlook has certainly changed, though, over the past few months. My religion teacher showed us the Behind the Swoosh video, and that was the first time I had heard of you and your organization. I knew it had to be a big deal nationally if you were talked about on Sportscenter!
I was amazed, truly amazed, at what kind of conditions you had to endure while you stayed in Indonesia. I think you showed tremendous courage to actually live among the people there to show people here what is going on with Nike. I knew who Phil Knight was before your video, but I certainly did not know of how he is exploiting his workers throughout the world.
I really looked forward to listening to your speech in person because I wanted to hear how you presented this kind of news to kids like us. I paid close attention to the speech and tried to picture myself in helping with this cause. During the speech, you did something that really got to me because of how I have been raised, and what true Jesuit education is. You had pulled out a poster that had the SJP logo, and said “Men For Others” on it. On the bottom of the poster was the Nike swoosh. I remember the whole theater sitting in silence, waiting for what you had to say. That moment had gave me a feeling of guilt, but I know you were trying to make us change to help the cause.
Again, I really think what you are doing to help those workers requires a lot of courage and I extremely admire that. I myself wish to do something in the future to help people who don’t have the opportunities that I have. Most of all, I wanted to thank you for coming to my school and giving that presentation. I really enjoyed it, and have been trying to do some of the things you told me to do. I have joined your facebook group and invited others to join it too! If there is anything else you suggest I could do I would be glad to hear from you.
Sincerely, Kevin Oberlies
Dear Mr. Keady,
I would just like to thank you and share some thoughts of mine about the talk you gave at St. Joe’s Prep a few weeks ago. When we were told by our religion teacher that someone would be coming in to talk to us about problems in sweat shops I thought it would be nothing new. I knew that many were mistreated and overworked, but as most people I thought they were lucky that they were able to get a job that pays anything in a third world country. After seeing your documentary though it changed me completely. These people work night and day just to feed themselves and put four walls around them, but if they have any family at all it becomes just a struggle to survive. Nike claims everyone asks for overtime because they love work so much, but it is because they need more money to feed their families. And as a whole we go after Nike because they are the biggest, but if we can just get Nike to increase wages or help the worker in some fashion the whole industry will follow.
I remember you telling us to join Team Sweat and email Nike operatives, but what else can I do to aid the cause? I know eventually with enough help we will defeat Nike and get them to increase wages, until then I hope the cause is strong and anything you need me to do I am here to help. Thank you again and God bless.
Sincerely, Nicholas J. Fattori
Hi,I’m Pavita, and now I’m in the senior year of high school, a private high school in Jakarta. So, I’d known nothing about this issue until one day,my civil teacher took the whole class to watch a documentary film. ‘The rules of the world’. My eyes were widely opened at that moment. How could I just sit down and do nothing while others in my own country, Indonesia, suffer? I was a consumer, but no longer am. Seeing the “Made in Indonesia” note in the small part of the clothes just make me feel bad. That’s why I want to join Team Sweat! Let’s fight 
- Patvia
I want to help fight this unfair system. Everyone is equal and should be treated and paid accordingly. Down with capitalism - democracy for all! No to Nike.
- Roseanne Hoger
Dear Mr. Jim Keady,
My name is Chip Heinz and I am a sophomore at Saint Joseph’s Preparatory School. I attended the speech that you delivered to us on Wednesday, November 18, and I have to say that it wasa very enlightening experience.Before the speech, I had heard that Nikeused sweatshops, butI never reallylooked into the issueand, as I am sure is the case with many other teenagers, Inever really cared. After hearing your speech, however,I realized the magnitude and severity of this problem.
After contemplating the hard facts, I came to the conclusion that I should do something about it, so I decided to make up some fliers and post them on the telephone poles around my neighborhood. In doing so, Iwanted toinform asmany people as possible, both locals and mere passersby, about this issue. I also hope that by posting these fliers this issue is brought to public attention and may one day catch the eye of a news station, whether it be by my posters or by your means.
I can only hope that one day Nike acknowledges this situation and willingly does something about it. I am sure that this belief is shared by many people who alone have no power, but united can make a difference in raising awareness about this inhumane problem. If Nike is everforced to shut down or fix foreign wages, I am positive that other companies will becompelled to do the same, thus leading to a global abolishment of sweatshops for all companies who use them.
Sincerely, Chip Heinz
Dear Mr. Keady,
My name is Will Hartz and I am a sophomore at St. Joseph’s Preparatory School where, a few weeks ago, you came to speak with the students regarding the issues of sweatshops in foreign countries and Nike’s role in it. Leading up to your appearance at our school, we were given the privilege to watch your video, Behind the Swoosh. When I saw this film for the first time, it was truly mind-blowing. I have heard people mention Nike and sweatshops together before, but honestly, I did not fully believe what they were saying. I could not see how a public corporation such as Nike, being recognized worldwide, and a leader in the industry, could possibly run sweatshops. Unfortunately for myself, and those workers in the sweatshops struggling to make ends meet, I was wrong. The experiment which you and your colleague, Leslie Kretuz, carried out in Indonesia was eye-opening for me. It gave me a firsthand look into the human injustices in our world. Most people have no knowledge on this very important matter and I commend you for taking a stand on this topic. You are able to provide the general public with concrete facts and evidence of these awful events. Having recently gained knowledge regarding Nike’s link to sweatshops, every time I put on a piece of Nike apparel, it makes me stop and think about the lives of the workers that manufactured it, and the injustices that they confront each day of their lives.
The entire Educating for Justice Team has made a tremendous impact for this situation. As you stated in your presentation, you have made significant changes in the plants in Indonesia. These changes, such as a woman’s right to have a menstrual leave and union leaders no longer being abused, killed or threatened by street gangs or the police, have greatly restored the human rights to the workers. Everything that has been done by you and your team, whether small or large, has had an impact and made the lives better for those struggling workers in Indonesia.
I would like to take the time now to thank you for all that you have done so far regarding the issue of sweatshops and all that you will continue to do in the coming years. It takes a lot of courage for a human being to stand up for what he believes in, no matter who tells him not to or it is not sociably acceptable. But instead you keep on going. You have done a great deal in order to change the lives of those that are oppressed, and to ensure that every human being is guaranteed their human rights that they are given at the time of their birth. I hope that this cause may continue to gain strength and I hope that people continue to gain knowledge regarding this very important issue. Best of luck in all that you do and God Bless!
With the utmost respect, Will Hartz
December 17th, 2009
Hello Mr. Parker,
I’m a Creighton University student and a massive Nike supporter who has become concerned about your manufacturing practices in Indonesia. It’s great that you can manufacture at a low cost there, but it seems highly reasonable and undoubtedly ethical to help the workers of your factories to earn a wage that allows them to keep their human dignity. Nike does great work and as a frequent customer I just want to know that Nike workers overseas aren’t being exploited. So until something changes I’m not going to buy anything from Nike. I hope Nike decides to change its practices quicky.
Thanks for your time,
J.D. Bird
Dear Mr. Parker,
My name is John Mike Devany. I am a senior at Saint Joseph’s Preparatory School in Philadelphia, Pa and was ashamed to find out that my own high school, one which Itake so much pride in, could be endorsed by a corporation that has done so many terrible things. I don’t understand how a corporation with billions of dollars and insurmountable power and resources could allow their own workers in Indonesia to work in such horrible conditions. I just saw Mr. Keady’s presentation on the working conditions Nike places its workers under and think maybe you should go to see it, too. Obviously you do not understand the situation to its fullextent because if you did I am sure you would do something about it.
Sincerely,
John Mike Devany
Mr. Parker,
I will not be able to sleep tonight unless I email you.
Today I was inspired to act on behalf of millions of third-world workers by Jim Keady and by Jesuit theologian, William Reiser, S.J., who wrote recently, “Distance from the poor leads to distance from God.” (America, November 16, 2009; page 14)
I plead with you to share a miniscule portion of your company’s billions with the workers who make your wealth possible.
Please give them more than lip service.
Thanks.
john groch
chair, religious studies
st. joseph’s preparatory school
Mr. Parker,
My name is Chadi El-Khoury and I am a senior at Creighton University. I am sitting in on Jim Keady’s presentation right now, “Behind the Swoosh, sweatshops and social justice.” He presented on campus last week and is now speaking at the Ignatian Family Teach-in in Columbus, GA. I am disappointed to hear about Nike’s unwillingness to grant workers their right to a living wage. And I am now embarrassed to wear my Nike shoes. Please spare me the shame.
Respectfully vocal,
Chadi El-Khoury
Dear Mr. Parker,
I like your products but I am sad to hear about Nike’s involvement with
sweatshops and not allowing your workers to make a living wage please
change this!
Lauren Ho
Creighton University
SBST Core Team 2009-2010
Mr. Parker,
I am a student at Saint Louis University. I’m currently sitting in Jim
Keady’s talk on Nike’s global workers, and I’m offended that they are
subjected to these conditions. As a concerned consumer, I ask you to
overhaul your practices regarding the treatment of your workers.
Thank you,
Colin Shevlin
Saint Louis University
Student Government Association
Great Issues Committee
Mr. Parker,
I am a senior at Brebeuf Jesuit in Indianapolis, and I have always loved Nike shoes and sportswear. In fact, Nike makes our school’s basketball and football uniforms, and I have a pair of Nike shoes that I have gotten multiple compliments on. However, this weekend I attended a lecture by Jim Keady, an avid social justice activist, like myself. I had never really cared to look at what goes on behind the scenes at Nike factories or other providers of my material possessions, but Mr. Keady’s talk forced me to see the whole picture, which proved to be shocking and very disheartening.
What goes on behind closed doors at Nike factories in third world countries is enough to make me refuse to buy Nike goods and attempt to convince others to do the same until I see some very serious changes. I would like to see your workers being paid a living wage and not being subjected to degrading circumstances and abuses of their rights. I may just be one voice, but I can assure you that this voice will not stop here. I am going to ask Mr. Keady to speak at our school again, and I’m sure this will encourage others to speak out against Nike and other factories that subject their workers to such harsh conditions.
I refuse to turn the other cheek to this injustice, and I think you should know that to more and more people, the story behind the shoe is taking center stage. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Sarah Melfi-Klein
Mr. Knight:
Although I knew vaguely about sweatshop abuses throughout the world, I am startled to learn that Nike continues to trample on the rights of human beings and inhibits their ability to live in dignity and respect. As I continue to learn more about the inhumane conditions that people live in as sweatshop workers, I am further committed to not supporting Nike or any other company that creates conditions where their employees do not have equal access to basic necessities, things that we as Americans take for granted daily. I will also work to encourage every person I know that your company continues to violate the basic human rights of people across the world. In a time when it is clear that people and the environment are suffering due to our capitalist, consumerist tendencies, I ask that you reconsider what it is that you stand for as a person and as a company. Please think about the nature of the work that you do and how it impacts the lives of people, especially the most vulnerable in our world. I would also like to ask you to consider and respond to the following:
When asked whether or not Nike production workers are paid a living wage, you responded to a PBS reporter, “Absolutely. No question about it.” I would like you to provide the facts that support this assertion by publicly disclosing hourly wage rates for each factory where Nike products are produced. I am confident that you will do this given Nike’s stated commitment that “Transparency is the first step toward open-source approaches to problem solving.” (Nike 2006 CSR Report)
If your company claims it is committed to transparency in its policies and procedures, then providing this information should be no problem at all.
I look forward to your written response to this request.
Sincerely,
Erika Meyer
Boston College MA/MSW Candidate
December 8th, 2009
Team Sweat:
This past month a monumental victory was won for workers in Honduras who had been producing products for Russell Athletic. Here are the details on the case as provided by the United Students Against Sweatshops.
Just over a year ago, Russell Athletic announced it would close Jerzees de Honduras in response to workers’ organizing efforts. During that year, USAS organized the largest boycott in the history of modern student activism. Now, as a direct result of our efforts, we have won an unprecedented victory — the company has agreed to meet worker demands to reopen the factory and re-hire all 1200 workers, who have been without jobs for 10 months or more. View the details of the agreement here.
Landmark Victory: A Precedent is Set
This is one of the most significant youth-led campaign victories in recent times and one of the most significant campaign victories of the global justice movement. No one has ever forced a multinational corporation to reopen a facility it shut down in the global race to the bottom. This victory has also proven that together, we can successfully fight back when those in power take advantage of the economic crisis to attack working people. We should take strength and inspiration from the example of the workers of Jerzees de Honduras. We can fight back — and WIN — against policies that benefit a privileged few and hurt our communities.
In light of this victory, I think that it is time for Nike’s workers in Indonesia and elsewhere to consider requesting that your allies here in the U.S.A. collaborate with you in calling for a boycott of Nike products. As you can see from the Russell example, that is what will hurt Nike the most and break them to the point that they will meet workers’ demands. I will be reaching out to my contacts in Indonesia to pursue this strategy and I hope that it will be considered by workers and trade unionists there.
For more info on the Russel victory, I have included a recent article from the NY Times below.
Peace, Jim Keady
NEW YORK TIMES
Labor Fight Ends in Win for Students
by Steven Greenhouse
November 17, 2009
Students protesting Russell Athletic
The anti-sweatshop movement at dozens of American universities, from Georgetown to U.C.L.A., has had plenty of idealism and energy, but not many victories.
In August, members of United Students Against Sweatshops picketed a Target store in Washington, to pressure the retailer to stop selling products made by Russell Athletic.
Until now.
The often raucous student movement announced on Tuesday that it had achieved its biggest victory by far. Its pressure tactics persuaded one of the nation’s leading sportswear companies, Russell Athletic, to agree to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who lost their jobs when Russell closed their factory soon after the workers had unionized.
From the time Russell shut the factory last January, the anti-sweatshop coalition orchestrated a nationwide campaign against the company. Most important, the coalition, United Students Against Sweatshops, persuaded the administrations of Boston College, Columbia, Harvard, New York University, Stanford, Michigan, North Carolina and 89 other colleges and universities to sever or suspend their licensing agreements with Russell. The agreements — some yielding more than $1 million in sales — allowed Russell to put university logos on T-shirts, sweatshirts and fleeces.
Going beyond their campuses, student activists picketed the N.B.A. finals in Orlando and Los Angeles this year to protest the league’s licensing agreement with Russell. They distributed fliers inside Sports Authority sporting goods stores and sent Twitter messages to customers of Dick’s Sporting Goods to urge them to boycott Russell products.
The students even sent activists to knock on Warren Buffett’s door in Omaha because his company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns Fruit of the Loom, Russell’s parent company.
“It’s a very important breakthrough,” said Mel Tenen, who oversees licensing agreements for the University of Miami, the first school to sever ties with Russell. “It’s not often that a major licensee will take such a necessary and drastic step to correct the injustices that affected its workers. This paves the way for us to seriously consider reopening our agreement with Russell.”
Other colleges are expected to do the same. Analysts say the college market occupies a significant part of Russell’s business. Because Fruit of the Loom does not detail Russell’s sales, it is not known how large a part.
In its agreement, not only did Russell agree to reinstate the dismissed workers and open a new plant in Honduras as a unionized factory, it also pledged not to fight unionization at its seven existing factories there.
Mike Powers, a Cornell official who is on the board of the Worker Rights Consortium, said Cornell had canceled its licensing agreement because it viewed Russell’s closing of the Honduras factory as a flagrant violation of the university’s code of conduct, which calls for honoring workers’ freedom of association. He applauded Russell’s agreement, which was reached with the consortium and union leaders in Honduras over the weekend.
“This is a landmark event in the history of workers’ rights and the codes of conduct that we expect our licensees to follow,” Mr. Powers said. “My hat is off to Russell.”
John Shivel, a spokesman for Russell and Fruit of the Loom, said, “We are very pleased with the agreement between Russell Athletic and the Workers Rights Consortium, and look forward to its implementation.”
He declined to discuss why Russell had adopted a friendlier attitude toward unionization after years of aggressively fighting unions.
In a statement Russell released jointly with the apparel workers’ union in Honduras, the company said the agreement was “intended to foster workers’ rights in Honduras and establish a harmonious” relationship.
“This agreement represents a significant achievement in the history of the apparel sector in Honduras and Central America,” the joint statement said.
In the past, the Honduran workers condemned Russell’s behavior, saying that it had fired 145 workers in 2007 for supporting a union. The union’s vice president, Norma Mejia, said at a Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ meeting last May that she had received death threats for helping lead the union. Russell denied the assertion.
Union leaders in Honduras hailed the agreement, which would put hundreds of laid-off employees back to work in a country whose economy has been hit by a political crisis over who will lead it.
“For us, it was very important to receive the support of the universities,” Moises Alvarado, president of the union at the closed plant in Choloma, said by telephone on Tuesday. “We are impressed by the social conscience of the students in the United States.”
This was in no way an overnight victory — it came after 10 years of building a movement that persuaded scores of universities to adopt detailed codes of conduct for the factories used by licensees like Russell. In addition, the students, sometimes through lengthy sit-ins, pressured their officials to create and finance an independent monitoring group, the Worker Rights Consortium, that inspected factories to make sure they complied with the universities’ codes.
When the consortium issued a detailed report accusing Russell of violating workers’ rights, United Students Against Sweatshops began its nationwide campaign.
Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, which has more than 170 universities as members, said: “This represents the maturation of the universities’ codes of conduct. There’s a recognition by the universities of their ability to influence the actions of important brands and change outcomes for the better.”
He said the agreement was “unprecedented” in terms of scope and size and in “the transformative impact it can have in one of the hardest regions of the world to win respect for workers’ rights.”
Mr. Nova also praised Russell for changing course. “I think the executives at Russell recognized it was time for a new approach,” he said. “They decided it was important for the success of their company.”
As part of its campaign, United Students Against Sweatshops contacted students at more than 100 campuses where it did not have chapters, getting them involved, including at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, where Fruit of the Loom has its headquarters. The group helped arrange a letter signed by 65 members of Congress, who voiced “grave concern about reports of severe violations” of labor rights at Russell.
This time around, the students did not feel the need to resort to sit-ins to persuade university administrators.
“The schools remember our sit-ins of the past,” said Dida El-Sourady, a senior at the University of North Carolina. “There’s an institutional memory that students will escalate their tactics, and this could become a very big deal, a lot bigger than people holding signs.”
November 24th, 2009
Team Sweat:
Thanks to Team Sweat member, Jeff Ballinger, for sending along the following story about Nike’s Chinese sweatshops. The article talks about “OEMs.” OEMs are “original equipment manufacturers,” companies that make original equipment for Nike.
Peace, Jim Keady
Chinese Media: Nike OEMs In China Alleged To Use Sweatshops
China CSR
November 18, 2009
Mike, the pseudonym of a person who has allegedly worked as a top executive at a Nike original equipment manufacturer factory in China for six years, is reported in local media as revealing an inside story about sweatshop factories used by Nike OEMs in China.
According to the Daily Economic News report, which consists of a dozen pages, Nike’s Chinese OEMs have been using subcontract labor for many years to make high profits. Shanghai Wande Sports Goods Company and Shanghai Bai’en Sports Goods Company, which are the two major OEMs for Nike’s handmade football business, are alleged to have subcontracted making footballs to workers in remote areas of China between 2003 and 2007.
According to both the Internet news source ifeng.com and China’s Daily Economic News, Mike said that in recent years, Nike’s Chinese football OEMs have used cheap labor from the rural areas of Jiangxi, northern Jiangsu, and Anhui to sew the footballs. He revealed that a finished football is sold at USD8, but it is only priced at USD1 when leaving the factory, while the workers only get USD0.73 for each ball they sew. Mike said that he spent five out the last six years helping the factory hide its behavior when Nike came to audit.
Mike stated that it seemed strange that Nike was not aware of the factory’s illegal practice, given that with a daily production capacity of four or five footballs per person per day the factory, which has a total of about 100 workers, can produce as many as 120,000 footballs each month. Interestingly the factory was even cited by Nike, in its 2008 corporate social responsibility report, as an excellent OEM.
According to Mike, Nike’s CSR department only reviewed such items as the work hours, extra work time and salary amounts on the pay slips provided by the OEM. It is difficult to see purely by looking at the pay slips whether the OEM’s actual output matches its real production capacity, or whether it has been involved in sub-contracting. In addition, Nike’s quality assurance department is only responsible for evaluating the OEM’s product quality and qualified rate. They did know the OEM’s actual output, but they do not audit the actual number of employees of the OEM.
Zhu Jinqian, a spokesperson for Nike, stated to local media that Nike has invited a third-party organization to investigate the OEMs after receiving complaints about them.
Meanwhile many other sports brands, such as Adidas and Puma, are also commissioning third-party organizations to probe into the behavior of their OEMs.
###
Original story at http://www.chinacsr.com/en/2009/11/18/6603-nike-oems-in-china-alleged-to-use-sweatshops/
November 24th, 2009
Team Sweat,
On October 29, 2009, I took part in a meeting at TIAA-CREF Headquarters in New York City to discuss how TC could use their roughly $240,000,000.000 investment in Nike stock to bring about change on the ground for Nike’s factory workers.
The hour-long meeting with Roger Ferguson, TC’s CEO, and John Wilson, TC’s Director of Corporate Governance, went very well. I shared information with Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Wilson about my July/August research trip to Indonesia, including the facts that Nike workers in Indonesia are still paid a poverty wage, that they do not have fair union contracts in place, and that there are still basic worker rights being systematically violated.
Mr. Ferguson made a commitment that TC would continue to dialogue with Nike on these issues and to seek documentation from Nike with regard to their monitoring and remediation mechanisms. Along with this effort, I strongly recommended that Mr. Ferguson seek a clear public statement from Nike with regard to the issue of workers’ wages. To date, Nike has been less than consistent on where they stand on this issue and I stressed that consumers and investors have a right to accurate information.
In what can be seen as a positive step forward in TC’s engaging Nike, Mr. Wilson has recently gone on record stating that:
“We… initiated a dialogue with Nike, Inc. about labor and human rights issues.”
Having TC go on public record stating that they are engaging Nike may not seem all that important, but in this fight for justice, every small victory counts.
Peace, Jim Keady
November 17th, 2009
Phil Knight, the Chairman and founder of Nike, has recenlty been selling off some of his Nike stock.
As reported in the article below, despite the $332,000,000.00 he sold this month, “he remains the company’s largest shareholder by far. He now controls 86.9 million shares of Class A stock, which elects nine of the company’s 12 directors. The stake is worth $5.57 billion, based on Tuesday’s closing price. Knight ranked No. 24 on this year’s Forbes list of the country’s richest people. He has a net worth of roughly $9.5 billion.”
And workers in Indonesia can still live in grinding poverty.
Peace, Jim Keady
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Knight sells another $37M of Nike stock
Portland Business Journal
Nike Inc. co-founder and Chairman Phil Knight sold nearly $37 million of Nike stock Monday and Tuesday, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Knight has sold $332 million, or 5.1 million shares, of Nike stock in the past two weeks.
The selling spree began on Oct. 14 when Knight acquired 5 million shares of the company’s Class B stock in exchange for 5 million shares of the company’s more powerful Class A stock.
Knight sold the shares for between $62.50 and $66.34.
He remains the company’s largest shareholder by far. He now controls 86.9 million shares of Class A stock, which elects nine of the company’s 12 directors. The stake is worth $5.57 billion, based on Tuesday’s closing price.
Knight ranked No. 24 on this year’s Forbes list of the country’s richest people. He has a net worth of roughly $9.5 billion.
Oregonians pay a 9 percent tax on capital gains, meaning the state will collect roughly $30 million from Knight’s recent stock sales.
Nike (NYSE: NKE) shares remain near a 52-week high after closing Monday up less than 1 percent. In the past year, the stock has ranged between $38.24 and $66.35.
The company declined to comment about the sales.
November 17th, 2009
Team Sweat:
Check out the article below from The Cap Times about student activists pushing the University of Wisconsin-Madison to end their relationship with Nike over labor rights violations.
Peace, JWK
Campus Connection: Committee asks UW-Madison to end Nike deal
Todd Finkelmeyer | Posted: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:15 am |
The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Labor Licensing Policy Committee voted to recommend that Chancellor Biddy Martin start taking steps to end the university’s apparel contract with Nike, Inc. due to alleged labor rights abuses at two of the company’s factories.
But don’t expect Martin to take any immediate action.
The LLPC’s recommendation on Friday comes after two Nike factories that produce collegiate apparel in Honduras — Vision Tex and Hugger de Honduras — were shuttered early in 2009 without paying legally mandated severance and back pay to some 1,800 workers. The amount owed is more than $2 million.
However, the committee’s vote — which came under the urging of the Student Labor Action Coalition — is strictly advisory.
Dawn Crim, a special assistant to the chancellor for community relations, said Monday the chancellor is hoping to hear back from Nike representatives before taking any major action against the company. She said the university is hoping to receive a phone call from Nike by the end of the week.
“Really, this is about engagement and working with them to remediate the problem,” said Crim. “Nobody wins when contracts are ended. Ultimately, it’s about workers and human rights, and if you end the contract you have no leverage.”
As a licensee of UW-Madison apparel, Nike must follow a university code of conduct for producers. This code, among other things, states that companies must pay these legally mandated wages and other benefits.
Nike paid UW-Madison nearly $50,000 this year to use the university insignia and other logos, such as Bucky Badger.
Jan Van Tol, a member of the Student Labor Action Coalition, on Monday said he generally appreciates the attention Martin is giving this topic. Nonetheless, Van Tol said he was hoping that Martin and the university would take a quicker and harsher stand against Nike.
“There is some truth to the fact that, once you cut a contract, you’re kind of out of the game,” said Van Tol, a student member of the university’s Labor Licensing Policy Committee. “But I think it’s also important to remember this is a national issue. So when UW-Madison cuts a contract, it really opens up the space for other universities to take action, too. Often, they’ll look to us as a leader.”
On Nov. 3, Martin wrote a letter to Nike expressing concerns over a Worker Rights Consortium report which spelled out the conduct violations at the two apparel factories in Honduras. Martin wrote to Nike that “ultimately, we believe under the university code of conduct, it is Nike’s responsibility to ensure that alleged labor rights violations by your subcontractors are remedied.” She then asked that Nike provide detailed information about how the company is dealing with the situation.
Martin requested that Nike respond by Nov. 11. But as of Monday afternoon, Crim said Nike’s only response came on Nov. 10, when it sent out a generic letter to all universities who have been asking about the situation. In it, Nike indicated it “is deeply concerned about the issues raised by the Worker Rights Consortium … ”
“We don’t consider that to be a response to the chancellor’s letter,” said Crim. “That was Nike simply communicating to license directors around the country and was an update of what was going on. It was in no way a response.”
The Nike statement added “it is important to note that, to the best of our knowledge, none of the products manufactured for Nike at either Hugger or Vision Tex was collegiate licensed apparel, aside from a one-time order of 800 units in 2007 for one university partner.”
November 16th, 2009
(I joined Team Sweat because) Jim came to my school and inspired me.
- Dylan Nolan
I’ve played soccer all my life, and for most of I have used Nike cleats because I think that they are really comfortable. I saw your video a few months ago and since then I have been trying to find Athletic companies that make soccer cleats that don’t use sweatshops, or exploit people in any way. I haven’t found any yet. I was wondering if there is any brand that is fair trade that makes soccer cleat? If you guys could email that would be awesome, and very appreciated. I believe in what you guys are doing also if there is any way to get involved, please email me. Thank you.
- Rico Cabrera
@Rico… There currently is not a major brand that is “sweatfree” that supplies soccer boots. So, I would encourage you to do what I do. Cut the logos off your shoes or cover them up. Yes, we have to wear something to play, but we do not have to walking advertisements for companies that are not in line with our values. Peace, Jim Keady
Jim Keady went to my school, Fordham Prep, and his story touched me and inspired me to help my brothers and sisters that suffer everyday. I am going to raise awareness in my old school which has about 400 children and I’m telling my best friend who goes to another high school and now he is going to address the subject to his class president and religion teachers. I want more ideas to help stop this devilish scheme.
- Tony Pecorelli
It (the Nike sweatshop issue) was discussed in class and I want to be part of it (Team Sweat).
- Harbakshish Singh
I am passionate about human rights and specifically the rights of children. I am also convinced that one of the problems is the demand that a disposable society with expectations of cheap products places on companies. I also believe that we need to be willing to spend more and buy smartly as consumers to send the message to companies.
- Lisa Acheson
I attended your session at Rutgers University-Camden today and wanted to let you know how wonderful I think you are doing. I do plenty of volunteer work helping all different areas of the world. My main charity is helping end child hunger in America. Needless to say I was very honored to attend your session and wanted to let you know that. If you need any help when it comes to spreading the word, please let me know. I would love to be involved in another charity or good organization that involves helping the less fortunate.
- Stephanie
I always try to buy sweatshop free products. The injustice that takes place is something I want to help educate more people about. We have a choice every time we buy something, what we buy is what we support. and if more people knew what they were supporting then I believe they would make different decisions. Thanks for all the work you do!
- Jessica
(I joined Team Sweat) because I believe in the cause.
- Erica Sheeley
It is starting to make me angry that Nike pays very little for more than hard work. And i have a good idea for what we should do to get a small group (10 or 15 people) to be heard.
- Matthew Phillips
Hi Jim,
I took 2 of my junior high girl scouts (Marcy, Marissa) to see your presentation on Thursday, 10/8 at Wilmington College in Ohio. The girls took it upon themselves to, that very night, decorate tee shirts with a message about this issue. My daughter wore hers to school the next day. They also did a pair of jeans the next evening to complete their outfit. I have attached photos for you to see. My daughter did get comments and her teachers were impressed with what she had to tell them about the meaning behind her shirt.
I just wanted to share with you, that it may be a small statement, but the word is getting out! Thanks for a great presentation.
Patty Grice
Girl Scout Troop 795
I work for SEIU and no matter where workplace abuses are taking place in this world, we need to fight back the evils of the super wealthy and powerful.
- Lance Lindeman
I have followed sweatshop abuses for many years, and being an educator, have exposed many students to problems. Thanks to the work of Jim and Leslie, and of Charlie and others at the National Labor Committee, progress is being made. Sure, it is slow, but it is a step forward. Keep on stepping, Jim, and more and more of us will follow you.
- Todd Forman
Well, I was just at a presentation by Jim Keady and was really touched. I was aware of sweatshops and that Nike was a company who participated in inhuman activity. However, I was never present the opportunity to join the cause to stop Nike and this presentation gives me that opportunity.
- Melissa Archuleta
A presentation was done at our college, Saint Martins University and took quite an impact on me. I want to join and contribute to bringing justice to this issue.
- Chanell Sagon
I saw Jim speak at Saint Martin’s University and was moved by his presentation. This is an issue that requires mass amounts of people to stand up and fight. I am joining this fight. I cannot feel comfortable here in America having everything that I need and most of the stuff I want when there is an injustice so terrible being funded and supported by an enormous American corporation. I realize that there will always be injustice somewhere in the world but Nike is a company that has the ability and the money to change the world, and with great power comes great responsibility. It is time for Nike to stop abusing this power.
- Ben Surgalski
Jim Keady had visited my school, CBA, and I agree with his cause. I want these workers to be able to have good standards of living.
- Louis Poggioli
I believe that we must put a stop the many injustices that Nike has been participating in through their continued use of sweatshops in Indonesia.
- Nick Avino
I’m joining team sweat because of the inspirational lecture Jim Keady delivered at Bucknell University. I am really interested in human rights, which can sometimes be an overwhelming topic because the issues are so large and make you feel so helpless. The progress that Jim Keady has made in his pursuit of workers’ rights in Indonesia gives hope to all of us trying to advocate for human rights. I would love to contribute to the progress made in this worthy cause. I am going to write my email to mark parker right now.
- Erika Iouriev
I have joined team sweat because I have been researching you guys for a paper I’m doing on social movements in my persuasion class. What I’ve seen and read makes perfect sense to me and I love what is being done about it! I too am a Christian and I feel that the unfair treatment of sweatshop workers needs to be changed. I feel like I’ve been duped by Nike and I want to dupe them back!
- Ryan
I am a high school student who recently sat in a class that Mr. Keady presented to (Christian Brothers Academy) and have just been thinking about the goals of Team Sweat. I also just want to be a part of something that not only is just trying to take down a single world known company, but the overall problem that sweatshops and unfair labor is involved with.
- William Gerard
I just learned about (Nike’s) sweatshops and I’m disgusted with the working conditions in Indonesia, China, and everywhere else. I’m embarrassed that I’ve contributed to this fact as a consumer, and I’m going to do all I can to try to change this. I’m going to tell everyone I know about these conditions and I will never buy another (Nike) product as long as I live. (I’m only 19 years old…)
- Sydnay Youtz
While I learned about it (Nike’s sweatshops), stopped buying Nike, and bought the (Behind the Swoosh) DVD almost 3 years ago, I was reminded tonight at Jim’s talk of the importance of your mission. It made me super happy that he called my Catholic Jesuit university on selling/branding their athletes with Nike; it angered me when I first came to school and saw that - I don’t remember learning about how sweatshops were a part of Catholic Social Teaching…
- Mary Henneberry
I’m from Surabya, Indonesia. I heard about this program from Mr.Keady’s presentation at Creighton University on 11/12/2009. I want to show my support and offer any help I can contribute to the team.
- Ayu Pertiwi
I heard you on the fitness rocks podcast (www.fitnessrocks.org). I enjoy Nike and think they can do better…I’ll try and do my bit to help you.
- Troy Jensen
Visit Team Sweat on Facebook!
Visit Team Sweat on MySpace!
Visit Team Sweat on Twitter!