QUESTION: What are the goals of the Nike campaign?

Nike’s production workers have the right to: a living wage; working conditions consistent with human dignity; freedom to unionize without governmental repression; factory monitoring by organizations approved by the workers, to ensure that their rights are being respected; redress of claims brought by workers who were fired for protesting wages and working conditions.

QUESTION: Are consumers willing to pay more if Nike raises the wages of its workers?

Nike makes record profits by gouging both the worker and the consumer. Nike could pay its workers a living wage without raising prices by even one penny.

QUESTION: What is the labor cost of Nike shoes?

A pair of Nikes selling for $90.00 has a labor cost of $1.20.

QUESTION: What about Nike’s claim that it pays more than the minimum wage in Indonesia?

Indonesia sets the minimum wage below the poverty line, to attract investment. Only through overtime do Nike workers make more than the minimum wage—and then they aren’t paid for all of their hours. Nike refuses to allow independent monitors to verify hours and pay levels.

QUESTION: The Indonesian minimum wage ($2.50 a day) doesn’t sound like much to us but isn’t it a living wage in that economy?

The workers who receive those wages have repeatedly gone on strike because they cannot meet their most basic needs with the money they make working for Nike. Weight loss due to malnutrition is common among Nike production workers.

QUESTION: Workers sell their labor in the free market. If Nike workers don’t like their jobs, why don’t they find employment somewhere else?

Let’s take the case of Indonesia. There is little about Indonesia which is free. Suharto came into power in 1965 through a coup supported by the CIA. Through blatant corruption, Suharto and his family have made themselves multi-billionaires while destroying the Indonesian economy. This disaster continues to be aided and abetted by the US government. US/Indonesian policies have created a desperate army of the unemployed who are driven to take jobs such as those in the Nike factories. Nike takes advantage of this situation. Nike could afford to do better by its workers.

QUESTION: Hasn’t Nike promised to use independent monitors?

Nine Indonesian nongovernmental organizations have offered to provide truly independent monitoring of Nike factories in their country. Nike contemptuously dismisses their offer.

QUESTION: What about reports from some people who have toured Nike factories and who describe them as clean and well lit and who saw no evidence of workers being mistreated?

You don’t produce clean, white sneakers in a grungy basement. Nike treats its shoes much better than its workers. Nike sent two of its handsomely remunerated board members, Jill Ker Conway and John Thompson, on guided tours of some of Nike’s overseas plants. Should we be surprised that they found nothing to trouble their conscience? By way of contrast, when Thuyen Nguyen paid his own way to go to Vietnam, he took the trouble to interview Nike’s workers outside the factory gates. There, where they did not have to fear being fired for telling the truth, the workers told Nguyen, "They treat us like animals." They reported malnutrition from trying to live on their meager wages, sickness from prolonged exposure to solvent fumes, sexual harassment from supervisors, physical abuse and exceedingly limited access to bathrooms and drinking water.

QUESTION: Does Nike use child labor?

Nike started production in Pakistan (one of the most notorious countries for child labor) without taking any measures to monitor hiring practices by Nike contractors. Only when Life Magazine documented the use of child labor in the production of soccer balls did Nike promise to correct the situation. Now that public pressure has forced Nike to clean up this aspect of its labor practices, the company presents itself as a responsible leader. The credit goes to the Nike campaign—not to Nike. If Nike would allow independent monitoring, it could ensure that child labor was not being used anywhere that the company produces.

Nike’s labor policies are bad for children. Exposing women of child-bearing age to dangerous fumes harms children. Forcing mothers to put in outrageous hours of overtime harms children. Consider this passage about Nike’s Indonesian workers from "Trampled Dreams," written by Bob Herbert of the New York Times:

"Apong Herlina, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Institute, tells the heartbreaking story of women from the countryside who have come to the cities for work but do not earn enough to have their children with them. The children remain in the country, being cared for by relatives. ‘These women work a tremendous amount,’ Ms. Herlina said, ‘but there is not enough money for transportation or time to travel the long distances to visit their children. They see them once a year, during holiday. The rest of the year, they grieve.’"

Some two million Indonesian children who ought to be in school are forced to sell their labor in the "informal market" because their parents do no make enough money to support them. Jobs such as those in the Nike factories do not pay a family wage.

QUESTION: Do any shoe companies in Indonesia pay a living wage?

The Bata shoe factories pay substantially more to their workers than the Nike factories do—and their shoes cost substantially less.

QUESTION: Is Nike worse than most of the other shoe companies?

The labor practices of the major shoe companies tend to be virtually identical. Often, several of the major brands are manufactured in the same factory. Nike is, far and away, the market leader. It also was the leader in moving its production jobs overseas and in exploiting the most vulnerable workers. There is every reason to believe that, when Nike agrees to the demands of this campaign, the other shoe companies will be swift to follow.

QUESTION: Which shoes can I buy in good conscience?

This is a judgment call. Here are some facts to consider: Saucony and New Balance shoes have components which are made in North America, under decent conditions, and components which are made in conditions such as those in the Nike factories. If a shoe has a label saying that it was made in South Korea or Taiwan, you can be confident that the workers who made it are receiving a living wage.

QUESTION: Doesn’t Nike donate a lot of money to charity?

Nike’s "charity" is little more than another aspect of the company’s slick marketing techniques. The company doesn’t lose a dime on those "donations." Nike’s advertising budget is $650 million a year. A mere 10% of that budget could raise all of Nike’s Indonesian workers out of poverty.

Portland, Oregon schoolboard member Joseph Tam asked the Portland school system not to accept a donation from Nike until the company reformed its labor practices. Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 474 in Edmonton, Alberta asked the city and the school system not to accept Nike money. One Edmonton school has returned its Nike equipment and another two schools are moving in that direction.

QUESTION: Does free trade promote human rights?

Nike rewards repression through investment and punishes freedom through disinvestment. The low-wage havens sought out by Nike are also, not coincidentally, havens of repression. When South Korea and Taiwan began to democratize, Nike looked to Indonesia, China and Vietnam for its new investment. Nike doesn’t overtly support repression but most certainly profits from it.

QUESTION: Are you asking Nike to leave Indonesia?

No, we’re asking Nike to stop its cut-and-run policy of prowling the world in search of new lowpoints in wages and repression to which it can shift production.

QUESTION: Does Nike’s investment promote development?

The shoe and apparel industry utilizes low-capital investment, which does not promote vigorous national industries. Nike claims credit for higher wages eventually won by workers in Taiwan and South Korea, earlier anchors of Nike production. Those wage increases were a product of popular movements for democratization. As repression lessened, workers were able to unionize and win better wages and working conditions for themselves— certainly not through the generosity of Nike.

Nike benefits from policies of the U.S. government and the World Bank (in which the U.S. has a controlling interest), such as supporting repression and loaning huge sums to obvious swindlers, with the result that many countries are hopelessly in debt. Then, these bankrupted countries are at the mercy of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, whose actions have proliferated low-wage, export-oriented economies. It’s a great deal for Nike and a disaster for most of the world.

QUESTION: Isn’t Nike part of the White House task force which has drawn up standards for a "no sweat" label?

Nike pushes for standards so low as to make a "no sweat" label meaningless -- while using its presence on the commission to depict itself as concerned and progressive. Between now and October 4, human rights activists will be gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures on a petition asking that the present version of the task force agreement be strengthened, especially with regard to independent monitoring and wages.

QUESTION: I received a letter from Dusty Kidd the Director of Nike’s new Labor Practices Department. He sounds sincere. Shouldn’t we give Nike a chance to clean up its act?

Dusty Kidd, who has a background in public relations, specializes in "sincerity." In one of his personable letters, Kidd stated that Nike’s continuing production (albeit at a reduced level) in Korea and Taiwan "demonstrates our commitment as a good citizen and so it doesn’t make a good story or a good platform to attack us." Here’s what Kidd’s boss, Phil Knight, said in the December 30, 1996 issue of the Washington Post: "We’re the last ones in Korea and Taiwan, and in five years we won’t be there."

If Nike wants to demonstrate good faith, it should allow truly independent monitoring of its overseas factories.

QUESTION: Do you find hope in the fact that Nike has hired Andrew Young to review its Code of Conduct?

It is possible that Andrew Young might be the instrument of change for Nike. More power to him if he can. Meanwhile—until we see real evidence that Nike intends to improve its labor practices, we have a responsibility to continue this campaign.

QUESTION: Have you tried to reach Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods or any of the other athletes who endorse Nike products?

Numerous attempts have been made to get Nike’s celebrity endorsers to step up to this issue. However, this campaign is not about stars. The strength of this campaign is in the millions of concerned consumers who think that Nike should do better by its workers.

QUESTION: Where do you get your information?

Nike’s Indonesian and Vietnamese workers. Lawyers in Vietnam. Human rights organizations around the world. Nike’s own public statements and documents. The Washington Post, CBS News, Life Magazine, the New York Times, Ms. Magazine, the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald, the (Portland) Oregonian, the Jakarta (Indonesia) Post—to name but a few sources.

QUESTION: Who is conducting this campaign?

Campaign for Labor Rights has called for national days of leafleting at Nike outlets each month.

The following U.S. and Canadian organizations coordinate efforts as the Working Group on Nike: Campaign for Labor Rights, Development and Peace, Vietnam Labor Watch, Press for Change, Global Exchange, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, U.S./Guatemala Labor Education Project, the pension board of the United Methodist Church, Informed Investors, Progressive Asset Management, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, Justice Do it Nike, Research and Reports Service, the National Organization for Women and Amnesty International/USA.

NOTE: The various organizations in the Working Group on Nike are united in supporting basic rights for Nike’s production workers. Some of these groups have called for a boycott of Nike products; some have a blanket policy against participating in boycotts or have opted not to boycott in this particular case. Thus, we use the term "campaign" and not "boycott" when referring to this labor rights struggle.

Campaign for Labor Rights and Press for Change keep in touch with a number of organizations around the world which have sports shoe campaigns. These organizations are planning an international mobilization in support of Nike’s production workers on October 18, 1997.