Opinion: Editorial
Nike contracts: Nix or fix
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- University locking doors on a transparent process (February 2, 2010)
- Time to abort old Mendota Court (February 1, 2010)
- To be or Nat to be (January 28, 2010)
- Different lease show times should not be problematic (January 27, 2010)
- Biddy's monkey business (January 26, 2010)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
According to Greek mythology, and aided by the legend of the Battle of Marathon, the word “nike” is meant to symbolize victory or success. Yet according to a group of currently unemployed Hondurans, the definition is closer to “corporation that owes us $2.1 million.” Obviously, something’s been lost in translation, and it looks a lot like it’s Nike’s commitment to fair business practices.
Currently at issue between the University of Wisconsin and Nike is a breach in labor codes the university agrees to with companies manufacturing UW goods. By refusing to pay $2.1 million in severance money to workers in two Honduran factories, Nike begged Chancellor Biddy Martin to write a letter demanding the company pay its workers, and yet, as of today, Nike has neither shelled out the money nor given Ms. Martin a proper, personal response. By failing to reply, Nike has shown it either 1) doesn’t care about its workers 2) doesn’t fear UW or 3) can’t read. Knowing Chairman of Nike Phil Knight, it’d be hard to doubt any of the three. We already know he’s colorblind — thanks Oregon Ducks!
In reply to Nike’s inaction, the university’s Labor Licensing Policy Committee voted to ask Ms. Martin to inform Nike of the violation, effectively leading the university down “contract termination” road. It appears as if LLPC wants to play a good ‘ol game of chicken, telling Nike to either pay its workers or get out of Madison. Unfortunately, Nike drives a pretty big truck.
As a lone institution, UW doesn’t have the influence necessary to stare down Nike. The 2009 year revenue for Nike was $19.2 billion, and while we probably pay too much in tuition, those would be some pretty big student loans. Instead, if the university wants to effectively pressure Nike, it needs to find some strength in numbers.
It seems unlikely that the two plants in Honduras producing UW apparel were the only examples of Nike bending the rules of contracts and ethics, and it’s even less likely that this is the only campus with a desire to keep Nike in check. If UW and other like-minded universities can band together and take on Nike as a much larger — and therefore, much more likely to dent its bottom line — organization, there is the potential to create real change. Nike relies on its relationships with big universities to create brand loyalties, and a unified multi-university voice would speak much louder than a letter from Ms. Martin.
Before you suggest the issue is pointless and that no apparel organization truly cares about its workers’ rights, look at Russell Athletic. Like Nike, Russell too appeared to muddle with UW’s code of conduct, and because of it, the university decided to temporarily cut ties with them. However, Russell worked to reach levels of compliance, and is once again being looked at for future contracts.
But Russell is not nearly as powerful or recognizable as Nike, and this is why a coalition of universities would be so beneficial. After all, it’s not like Michael Jordan is going to speak out for a cause any time soon. So come on Duke, USC, North Carolina, Georgetown, and even you, Michigan State. Just do it?
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 76f6ce6c
Yes, let’s just focus squarely on Nike. Let’s forget that Adidas/Reebok is guilty of nearly all the same offenses as Nike, yet no one seems to have a problem that Adidas is the OFFICIAL athletic supplier for the UW. Nike has very little reason to care about the UW while UW is under license contract with Adidas. Look at the racks and shelves…take note on the ratio of UW logoed Nike-wear to that of Adidas. UW is barking up the wrong tree. If Nike loses UW completely, it would barely show up in their ledgers. Now if UW were to take action against Adidas, there’s a better chance of the argument not falling on deaf ears.
Seriously BH, don’t you guys have anything better to write about?
IP hash: 3412785f
But it sounds like Nike is not the company that owes the money. It sounds like the company in Honduras that is contracting with Nike owes the money to its workers. If that’s the case then the Honduras government needs to enforce the contracts there.
IP hash: a8b7ce91
Yes but that company is a direct subcontractor of Nike and in fact over 50% of the subcontractor’s production is of Nike products. Plus it is stipulated in the labor code of conduct that Nike is responsible to ensure that its subcontracts follow the code of conduct as well.
IP hash: 3412785f
But how will Nike do this? They have no power to enforce the law in Honduras. They could stop doing business with the contractors, but then what?
If the contractors are violating rights then students should put their energy behind supporting rights in Honduras. Maybe start by criticizing the Obama administration for their disgraceful disregard for rule of law and the Honduras constitution, and their revoking of Honduras visas and support for Hugo Chavez.
IP hash: fdf74153
This article is completely ludicrous - Nike is not the company employing the workers, they are employing the factory. Whilst Nike may have an obligation to the workers to ensure that the factory adheres to the rules of compliance, where will it state that they are obliged to pay severance to the workers on behalf of the factory. Utter drivel.