NEWS
Group looks to break Adidas ties
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Nick Penzenstadler:
- For whom the bell tolls (November 29, 2007)
- New apartments for West Wash? (November 20, 2007)
- One-and-out: Kumar will not seek 2nd term on Dane County Board (November 15, 2007)
- Displaced Carroll residents call university, bookstore helpful (November 13, 2007)
- Carroll Street fire displaces students (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- UW stands by Adidas (March 15, 2007)
- Wiley: Adidas issues serious (April 26, 2007)
- Adidas, UW keep relationship alive (October 29, 2007)
- Committee looks at licensing plan (March 27, 2006)
- Group leads Adidas protest (October 4, 2007)
by Nick Penzenstadler
Monday, February 26, 2007
A licensing committee prepared a statement Friday urging the University of Wisconsin to cut its clothing ties with Adidas after the Student Labor Action Coalition delivered a giant paper mache boot to Chancellor John Wiley's office last week.
SLAC has been a longtime supporter of the rights of workers in a particular El Salvador factory that produces Adidas clothing.
While the factory closed more than two years ago, several investigations said nearly 63 workers remain unpaid and on a blacklist.
"The situation has been going on for years now," SLAC member Joel Feingold said. "We're at the point now where brands are losing interest because pressure seems to be slacking."
Wiley has already threatened the contract in the past, and Adidas responded with several measures to address the problem.
But according to LaMarr Billups, who headed the meeting of the Labor Licensing Policy Committee, Adidas only "touched the bases" on their promises, to make it appear the company was addressing the problems at its factories.
"They went through the motions such that they could make an argument," Billups said. "The problem is that none of it was effective — the people are still without their money, severance and jobs."
The committee urged Wiley in a unanimous vote to deliver a message to Adidas asking for a break in their exclusivity agreement. All UW athletes are currently sponsored with Adidas equipment, and the license agreement is slated to continue through 2011.
Billups said UW will need to provide Adidas with evidence of a "material breech in contract," including social security and pension payback, to break ties.
"We have the expectation of our brands to do more than is minimally required," Billups said. "We have a code of conduct so they buy into the idea that they should be paid correctly and have a safe working condition."
According to Jane Collins, faculty representative on LLPC, Wiley put his trust in Adidas to ensure the workers were fairly treated after the previous claims from SLAC that the company was mistreating its workers.
"I think [Adidas] embarrassed [Wiley] and the Board of Regents by behaving this way after knowing they were under pressure," Collins said.
Patrick Barrett, UW economic staff member and LLPC representative, said there is a chain of responsibility, and the university needs to take charge to make the athletic corporation clean up its act.
Although Adidas went through their required programs, Barrett said they did not live up to the "spirit" behind the agreements.
"The brands are the place where the real power lies," Barrett said. "The chancellor and the Board of Regents are justifiably pissed off that they didn't live up to the specific contract."
With the recent success of the UW basketball and football teams, Barrett added this year is a great opportunity to be a national leader on the labor stances again.
Ralph Rodefeld, LLPC representative from the Local 2412 Labor Union, added the drastic action of terminating the contract may be the way to make Adidas listen to their concerns.
"Sometimes you need to hit someone over the head for them to pay attention," Rodefeld said.
Anonymous (February 26, 2007 @ 2:58am):
Why does SLAC get SO MUCH COVERAGE?
Anonymous (February 26, 2007 @ 8:29am):
It's not SLAC, it was the decision of the faculty members and administrators to complain about the horrible commitment to the contract on the part of adidas. Seriously, they're making a fool out of Wiley and out of the University. Allowing adidas to get away free just reinforces their behavior- i.e. not paying their workers, political harassment, and general abuse of human beings- but lets them take advantage of the University's good name and everything it stands for just to make a buck.
Anonymous (February 26, 2007 @ 6:22pm):
You hippie pieces of crap. Adidas has done nothing wrong. SLAC doesn't know the real story like always. They should get real jobs and stop complaining about other jobs.
Anonymous (February 26, 2007 @ 9:26pm):
"Adidas has done nothing wrong. SLAC doesn't know the real story like always."
Yeah, and you do?
The "other" workers are in fact complaining about their own jobs, and they're brutally repressed for doing so. But to them it's worth fighting for, since money is stolen by them by billion-dollar multinationals, female workers are raped, cafeteria food is maggot-infested, and factory owners won't follow the country's own labor laws. To me, this takes courage, as opposed to writing anonymous rants on a message board that nobody reads.
Plain and simple, adidas violated a legal contract with the University. Not pursuing recourse sets a bad precedent and allows future vendors and licensees to breach our trust.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 12:05am):
What is adidas saying about this case anyway?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
