From The Price of Dignity, by Anita Roddick:
Right now, in Nicaragua and Honduras, factory workers report that management is telling them to get ready to work harder and longer for lower wages, because there are 1,000 people in China lined up and ready to take each of their jobs. If they don't like it, the company will just have to shut down the plant and leave.Multinational companies sourcing production in China are having an enormous impact on the global economy, lowering wages and rolling back labor rights. Workers in China assembling healthcare products for companies such as Viva and Sport-Elec are being forced to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week (with just 12 days off a year) for 16 cents an hour. There is no overtime premium. The workers have no health insurance and no pensions. If they try to organize, they will be fired, perhaps even beaten and imprisoned.
[. . .] One thing is certain in the new global economy: workers struggling for their rights cannot succeed if there is not also simultaneous pressure on the corporations in their marketplaces. I am not talking about a boycott. It must be the very opposite: what is needed are campaigns to keep jobs in the developing world while at the same time working to guarantee respect for worker rights.
This is where the consumer comes in. We in the developed world hold the key to ending child labor and sweatshop abuses. If enough of us care, and if enough of us act, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
The difficulty is that once corporations become aware that consumers are basing their choices on how workers are treated, they will simply lie.
Thus, Nike vs. Kasky:
The argument between Nike and Kasky boils down to whether Nike was engaging in commercial speech or constitutionally protected "free speech" (implying corporate personhood) when it responded to attacks with misrepresentations about its business practices. The Supreme Court, therefore, will decide only whether Nike's responses (including a production pamphlet, postings on Nike's web site, a press release, a letter to the editor of the New York Times, and several other documents) are "commercial speech" or "free speech." If Nike's representations are considered commercial speech, Nike will be subject to California's false advertising law.If the Supreme Court decides Nike has a right to free speech, like a human being, Nike will not be subject to that law. Since it appears that Kasky can show that Nike lied in its statements to the public, the question then remains whether Nike has a constitutionally protected right to lie.
Parellels may be drawn between this and the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, as noted in the piece Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play:
So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.
And according to some newspapers, it was a big story. The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune (both owned by the Tribune Co.) ran front-page stories on the revelation Thursday. But an analysis of most major American newspapers found the story either buried deep within the paper -- or completely absent.
Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14.
The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all.
Without accurate information upon which to base their decisions, even the most moral of individuals may unknowingly commit immoral acts. And we must all deal with the consequences of those decisions and acts.
Not immediately, perhaps.
But eventually.
Update: Today at ZNet, Nike Gets a Pass:
[E]arlier this month, Kasky settled his claims against the shoe giant.Under the terms of the settlement, Nike agreed to make a payment of $1.5 million to the Fair Labor Association (FLA) in Washington, D.C.
A joint press release issued by Kasky and Nike says that "Mr. Kasky is satisfied that this settlement reflects Nike's commitment to positive change where factory workers are concerned."
Sweatshop activists last week expressed outrage at the settlement, pointing out that the FLA is controlled by Nike and the shoe and apparel industry.
"Nike and its corporate buddies basically run the FLA," said Andy Eisen, a student at Lake Forest College and a member of United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS). "It's governed by and for the corporations that it's supposed to monitor."
From the Fair Labor Association website:
The Fair Labor Association (FLA) is a non-profit organization combining the efforts of industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), colleges and universities to promote adherence to international labor standards and improve working conditions worldwide.
From Sweatshop Watch:
In 1996, President Clinton and Secretary of Labor Robert Reich created a presidential task force whose goal was to work towards eliminating sweatshops. Known as the White House Apparel Industry Partnership, the task force consists of companies, trade unions, human rights and religious groups. For two years, the Partnership has been meeting to try to create an association that would set workplace standards for the industry and a means of monitoring compliance with those standards. When the companies could not move labor and human rights groups from their position that a living wage must be part of the standards, the companies, along with some human rights groups, met in secret.In November 1998, a subgroup of the Partnership announced that they had come to an agreement to form a Fair Labor Association (FLA). The two unions (the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union) and the ecumenical Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility refused to sign the agreement because of its bias in favor of the companies. However, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the National Consumer League, the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights, and the International Labor Rights Fund joined Nike, Reebok, Liz Claiborne, Phillips-Van Huesen, Patagonia, L.L. Bean and Business for Social Responsibility to support the FLA. While the President called this agreement an historic event, it is more accurately described as an historic sell-out. A close look at the standards and the monitoring plan show that the Fair Labor Association will not guarantee real improvements in workers' lives.
The issue, of course, is not making "real improvements in workers' lives." It's to reassure consumers. In this, the organization may yet prove successful.
Whoa! All week I've been trying to help students find data on labor conditions in various countries (they've all been assigned different ones) and that Fair Labor Association website looks like it might have good leads. I think I can now officially rationalize reading your site at work ...