Twelve years ago this month I got involved in the fight to end Nike's sweatshop abuses. Twelve years is one third of my life. It's somewhat surreal when I think of it like that.
In 1997, I was in my first season as a graduate assistant coach with the Men's Soccer Team at St. John's University, the defending NCAA Division I National Champions. Along with my coaching, I was pursuing a masters degree in Theology. For one of my first classes, I was charged with writing a research paper linking moral theology and sports. I researched Nike's sweatshops in light of Catholic Social Teaching. Simultaneously, the SJU Athletic Department was negotiating a $3,500,000.00 million dollar endorsement contract with Nike.
Within six months I was at the center of a campus-wide debate over whether SJU should ink the deal. Within ten months I was given an ultimatum by my head coach, "Wear Nike and drop this issue, or resign."
I resigned in protest and became the first (and still the only) athlete or coach in the world to say "no" to taking part in a Nike endorsement deal because of their sweatshop abuses.
The NY Times and the AP Wire picked up my story and I became an instant expert on the sweatshop issue. My critics charged that those were "great jobs for those poor people" and that "you can live like a king on a sweatshop wage in places like Indonesia." I knew from my research that they were wrong, but I wanted to prove it.
In July 2000 I lived with Nike factory workers in Indonesia. I lived in conditions they lived in and on the wages they paid - $1.25 a day. I lost 25lbs in a month in a rat-infested slum in Tangerang, Indonesia, home to tens of thousands of the women and men who produce the Nike sneakers adored by so many athletes and consumers.
Following that initial immersion in 2000, I conducted field research in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2009; I took part in demonstrations on three continents; I met with an Indonesian President (Wahid) and members of the U.S. Congress; I led workshops and listening sessions with Nike workers from a dozen factories in Bekasi, Bogor, Bandung, Balaraja, Tangerang, and Jakarta; I lobbied Nike shareholders and was escorted by police from at least one shareholder meeting; I produced a short documentary, "Behind the Swoosh" and am currently producing a feature documentary and writing a book, both under the title, SWEAT; I lectured at more than 400 schools in 39 states and in three different countries; and I met with representatives from Nike at all levels, including Nike founder and chairman, Phil Knight.
Has there been any progress? Has anything changed?
Yes. For example, because of the pressure that was placed on Nike by consumers, women workers no longer have to prove they are menstruating to get their legally guaranteed leave. Also, workers are no longer beaten with machetes or threatened at gunpoint for union organizing activity.
However, while we have seen the progress mentioned above, we still have no movement on the two most important issues - Nike workers are still being paid a poverty wage and Nike still refuses to bargain with their workers in good faith.
Why?
Because Nike has lied about working conditions and many consumers, even so-called progressives, believe that Nike "fixed those sweatshop problems." They did not.
How do I know?
I was in Indonesia as recently as August 2009 and in my meetings with workers I heard all too familiar stories of inadequate wages, forced overtime, illegal firings for union organizing, workers being cheated out of pay, etc. In part, what made this trip slightly different, was that Caitlin Morris, Nike's Director of Sustainable Business and Innovation, accompanied me. So now, when I put forth a charge about Nike's sweatshop abuses, Nike cannot say it isn't true as Ms. Morris was in the room with me when the latest round of videotaped allegations were made.
Now, some may want to give Nike a tremendous amount of credit for sending Ms. Morris to Indonesia with me and for taking action on the aforementioned menstrual leave and union organizing issues. I give Nike no credit for these. Why? Because Nike did not make any of these improvements voluntarily; they needed to be publicly embarrassed and pilloried to make each of these changes. Congratulating Nike for discontinuing these corporate crimes would be like congratulating a thief for no longer stealing or congratulating a rapist for no longer raping.
So, what do we do to get Nike to take action on the wage and collective bargaining issues? The same stuff we did to get them to move on the other human rights violations. We engage, we demonstrate, we publicly embarrass, and we organize, organize, organize!
Come join the fight at www.teamsweat.org!
8. Some people ask, "Why do you focus on Nike?" Because they are the industry leader (31% market share) and with limited resources, it is a strategic approach. Having said that, 95% of the clothes in the US market are made under these conditions, so certainly it is an industry-wide problem. My approach has always been to target the leader and the others will follow and on some of the issues we have pressed on, this has worked.
I hope this info is helpful. I'll check back over the weekend, so keep posting your questions/comments.
Peace, Jim Keady
www.teamsweat.org
6. I MIGHT agree with people that improving these workers lives is not Nike's responsibility if it were not for what Nike has said about the issue. Phil Knight has publicly stated that their relationship to workers is more than "a subcontracting relationship, it's really a partnership, not in the legal sense, but in the moral sense." In this statement, Mr. Knight has taken moral responsibility for the welfare of workers. Furthermore, one of his former VPs, Dusty Kidd, said that, "those workers, we should consider them Nike employees, so that is our responsibility." It is our job as consumers to hold Nike accountable for these statements.
4. As for coming to Portland, OR, I will be there next month. I am speaking at Willamette University in Salem, OR on November 4th. I will be in Portland from November 5-7th for a conference and I will have some free time. So if anyone reading this would like to organize one of my "Behind the Swoosh: Sweatshop and Social Justice Lectures" in Portland, drop me an email at jim@educatingforjustice.org. To get my complete speaking schedule, please visit www.teamsweat.org.
Peace, Jim Keady
Thanks for reading my piece and for all the comments. I'd like to address some of the issues raised above. I'll have to break my post up in to a few posts since the word limit is 250 words.
1. I do not want Nike to leave Indonesia. I simply want Nike to pay the workers a fair wage and to bargain with workers in dignity. All indications are that Nike will actually be increasing their investment in Indonesia in the coming year, so now is the time for concerned consumers to push them on the wage and union contract issues.
2. I agree that a bad job is better than no job, but certainly a good job is better than a bad one. And there is no reason that working in a Nike factory cannot be a GOOD job. How could this be accomplished? The labor cost on a pair of Nike sneakers is about $2.50 on average. If the labor cost were to be doubled to $5.00 and the increase that Nike paid for the sneakers was passed through to workers, essentially, workers wages could be doubled. This would bring workers out of poverty and into a moderate level of prosperity.
Peace, Jim Keady
Our politicians are too heavily indebted to corporate interests to stop this, and the athletes too well compensated.
We could try shaming athletes that wear Nike but in the end it will come down to economics. Don't buy Nike and these horrendous conditions will improve.
Ever since then I vowed not to wear Nike. Thank you so much for posting this!
want cheap goods. That is also why clothing makers have
moved on from China to Bangledesh, because labor is even
cheaper, and abuses of labor laws ignored
Nike could pay the contractors more and demand that it go to the workers but that will drive up the cost of shoes and consumers will complain.
It is also not the responsibility of Nike to improve the living conditions of the employees of the companies it contracts. Nike has one responsibility and that is to generate profit for the stockholders. That's it.
US and Europe. There are still some.