By
Katie McVicker
November 25, 2009
Nike Inc. announced on Nov. 19 that UW Provost Phyllis Wise had been appointed to its board of directors.
Photo by John McLellan.
Phyllis Wise speaks at the University of Washington board meeting in October. Wise was recently added to the board of directors of Nike.
More coverage of...
Nike Inc.
Phyllis Wise
Student Action Labor Project
Wise was approached by a Nike recruiting firm, and after answering several questions about her background and responsibilities at the university, she was interviewed by other members of the board.
As a board member, Wise will advise both the president and CEO about how to enhance corporate responsibility, how to deal with financial challenges and how to improve the quality of the products they make.
In a Nike Inc. press release, Philip H. Knight, the company’s founder and chairman, said, “Dr. Wise’s outstanding academic career, experience as a respected university leader, and administrator of a multi-billion-dollar budget for the University of Washington is a rare combination that makes her an ideal addition to our board. We look forward to her contributions to expand Nike’s position as the industry leader in innovation.”
However, other community leaders were less than excited upon hearing of Wise’s appointment. Members of the university’s Student Action Labor Project (SLAP) fear that Wise’s close relationship with Nike will hurt their efforts to protect labor workers’ rights.
“The appointment of Phyllis Wise to the Nike corporate board of directors is really troubling,” SLAP member Maggie Schupp said. “Whose interest will the provost represent? The students, staff, faculty and community of UW’s or Nike’s?”
In January, two factories that produce UW apparel closed without providing more than the $2 million in legally-mandated severance pay to 1,800 workers. In doing so, Nike violated part of the UW’s code of conduct, which guarantees basic labor rights for all workers who help produce UW products.
When the factories closed, SLAP members pressured UW administrators to take action against the Nike corporation. As a response, President Emmert created an advisory committee to address the code violations, but after months of deliberation, no direct action has been taken.
“The facts are clear. There is a code of conduct violation within Nike’s collegiate apparel supply chain,” SLAP member Matt Reed said. “Last week the university of Wisconsin-Madison stepped up to the plate and took immediate and decisive action to demand that Nike enforce the code of conduct or face termination. Can the University of Washington do the same now that Wise is on Nike’s corporate board? I fear that Wise’s position presents a conflict of interest and that, as a result, the UW will not support the 1,800 workers in Honduras and take action to ensure that the UW code of conduct that protects UW garment workers will be enforced.”
The ASUW has also submitted legislation that, as of press time, demand Wise to step down from the Nike board, censure Wise for the recent appointment, and demand a statement from Wise and UW President Emmert demanding that Nike rectify its violations. This legislation, R-16-9, will be given a first reading during the ASUW Senate meeting next Tuesday and is subject to revision until then.
Despite student concerns, Wise thinks her addition to the board will be helpful in such matters. She said she will work to make sure that Nike’s products are made in not only socially-responsible ways but using sustainable methods.
“I believe that it’s very important for higher education to be represented on a board like this,” Wise said. “They’re selling their products predominately to people of a college age. They’re selling their goods to us, and I think it’s really important for us to have a voice at a table.”
Reach reporter Katie McVicker at news@dailyuw.com.
29 Comments
#1 Sean
on November 25, 2009 at 9:03 a.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Has SLAP ever heard of progressives changing a company from within? I hope that is the direction Ms. Wise takes.
#2 Brian Cox
on November 25, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name | UW Community)
"...Nike violated part of the UW’s code of conduct, which guarantees basic labor rights for all workers who help produce UW products."
Is there some reason the UW has legal authority to make laws in which Nike must participate?
It appears that the writer of this story is under a delusion that the UW is a legally binding legislative body.
"Members of the university’s Student Action Labor Project (SLAP) fear that Wise’s close relationship with Nike will hurt their efforts to protect labor workers’ rights."
She's also under the delusion that the UW needs to have SLAP's "efforts" as their own. The UW has a vested interest in being pro-corporation. We exist as a college because we help industry train future stars.
SLAP is decidedly anti-corporation. Therefore, UW should be opposed against almost all SLAP efforts as a matter of principle.
#3 Rebecca_F
on November 25, 2009 at 11:16 a.m.(Denver, CO)
Brian, UW cannot write statutes*, but it can make contracts (as could a private college or commercial corporation). I believe that companies wishing to make UW-logo-wear have to receive the University's permission to use it's logo. I'm not sure whether Nike is selling to the University, or just needs permission to make logo-ed goods to sell to other companies. So I think the issue here is not criminal code type law, but what pressures the University can bring to bear through contracts. Can someone confirm this?
*The Regents do have limited ability to make "laws" in the sense of WAC, such as rules concerning student conduct and use of university facilities.
#4 Rebecca_F
on November 25, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.(Denver, CO)
I guess the final quote in the article, from Wise, answers the question of whether they're selling to the University of just need permission to use a logo. Anyway, I think this is more of a contract/boycott issue.
#5 Rebecca_F
on November 25, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.(Denver, CO)
1) Will Provost Wise be quitting her job at the University to work for Nike, or is she going to have a dual role? The article implies a dual role, but this is an important question so it bears asking for an explicit answer.
2) Is she accepting this position personally or is she an official representative of the University to the Nike board? I gather that this is the former, but some of her comments seem to imply that she hopes to represent the University's interests to Nike.
3) What will Ms. Wise's relationship with Nike be? It's unclear to me from this article exactly what Ms. Wise's relationship with Nike will entail. Will she receive financial compensation for serving on the Board? Will her compensation be tied to how much money Nike makes? Is this a decision-making or an advisory body?
4) What are Provost Wise's responsibilities within the University? What authority or influence does she actually have in negotiating contracts with corporations like Nike? If her responsibilities only involve internal issues (students, academics, etc.) this would be much less improper than if her responsibilities include negotiating supply contracts. Has anyone investigated what role her position has in relationship to these contracts?
5) To what extent was Provost Wise's position within the University a factor in her being offered this other position?
If anyone from SLAP or ASUW or in general has answers to these question . . .
#6 eh
on November 25, 2009 at 12:12 p.m.(Olympia, WA | Unverified Name)
Who gives a shit? Let her do whatever the hell she wants.
#7 Andrew
on November 25, 2009 at 12:26 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
To Rebecca, you are correct in that this effort both by SLAP and ASUW is to make use of every pressure point available to keep the Nike Corporation honest and fair according to the (non-legally binding) code of conduct written in the Nike and UW licensing agreement....
To Brian...its unfortunate that you are willing to make any and every excuse for the corporation and none for grass-roots student organizing and efforts to maintain the integrity of a PUBLIC institution....your apologetics will get us absolutely nowhere and accepts human rights abuses and transnational corporate undermining of the rule of law...take stock of yourself!
#8 Kuzma
on November 25, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Yet another reason that the ASUW is useless:
"The ASUW has also submitted legislation that, as of press time, demand Wise to step down from the Nike board, censure Wise for the recent appointment, and demand a statement from Wise and UW President Emmert demanding that Nike rectify its violations."
How about the ASUW actually pay attention to the needs of, gee I don't know, your substituents maybe? Maybe the students who you represent? What do you care if Wise has a second job? Lots of people do.
Plus I just love how the ASUW always debates these non-binding resolutions. You guys are a bunch of yuppies sitting in a room farting and gloating over how good your farts smell.
#9 Brian Cox
on November 25, 2009 at 1:51 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
@ #7: Andrew.
There are no "human rights" abuses going on here. Unless you consider the right of Nike to be free to make completely legal business decisions to minimize its losses. No one has a RIGHT to severance pay. This may be a very new concept to your drippy and limp-wristed sentimentality; but businesses aren't obliged to help fired workers while they look for new work. That's the workers' responsibility.
So, in this case, to stand up for freedom is to stand up for Nike's right to make legal business decisions which protect their profitability.
Your imagined "rights" are imposing a tyrannical standard on Nike's ability to operate freely in a market economy.
#10 Sarah
on November 25, 2009 at 2:04 p.m.(Mukilteo, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
To clarify "The ASUW has also submitted legislation"
The term "ASUW" or Associated Students of the University of Washington refers to members of the undergraduate student body who choose to be members of the Association. A student can choose to be a member by either signing up in the SAO office, or signing up online during registration.
Thus, as the ASUW comprises of thousands of students the ASUW cannot submit legislation. That would imply that each member of the ASUW has read and reviewed this resolution and has said they support it. Andrew Schwartz the ASUW Representative to the Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing has submitted the legislation and in the next few weeks the undergraduate Student Senate will be voting on this piece of legislation, establishing student opinion on the Resolution.
#11 Rebecca_F
on November 25, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.(Denver, CO)
Kuzma, do you object in principle to ASUW passing this resolution? If so, what is the principle on which you object? It seems that maybe your concern is that this will distract them from something more important or maybe you think this is not their business. If you have a specific concern, could you clarify what it is? If you don't have a specific concern, why don't you put some more thought into developing your position? Are there specific issue(s) you feel ASUW has failed to address? ASUW may or may not be the best forum to address this situation, but your condescending tone and lack of specific arguments or alternatives is not helpful.
In response to Brian, I think I would agree (at least generally) that there is no inherent right to severance pay. However, if the workers were promised severance as part of their employment contract, then the company would have an obligation to pay, and they a right to receive, what was promised. There is also a difference between the UW requiring certain business practices as part of their purchasing contract (which a private company could also do), and the government passing a statute imposing such practices on all businesses. Whether this is a good or proper use of UW's buying power is a subject on which I have no comment. I also do not feel that I have enough information about the specific situation involved with the layoff dispute to make any judgment on the employee's claim to severance or whether it was fair to lay them off without severance.
Regardless of the specific labor issues involved or whether the ASUW Senate is the proper or best forum for addressing the issues raised, there is a problem with having someone make business decisions for UW if they have a vested personal interest in one of the companies we are doing business with. It would be helpful to know whether Provost Wise has any involvement with decisions regarding where to purchase logo-wear. Does anyone know about this?
(As an aside: I'm politically conservative myself and I have my own issues with ASUW and the plethora of opinions they advocate.)
- Rebecca Faust
#12 Francis
on November 25, 2009 at 4:13 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
To Brian Cox,
Actually, Nike is ultimately responsible for the contract with the workers that guaranteed severance pay, but Nike is hiding across an international border like a dirty hippy draft dodger.
#13 Holland A.
on November 25, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.(Kirkland, WA | UW Community)
If UW made a contract with Nike and Nike didn't fulfill it, then UW can sue Nike in US courts, even if the incident happened outside the US. My guess is they have no such contract.
Regardless, I see no reason for Provost Wise not to be on the board. She will probably do very little, a few meetings each year and that is all. Also, if you go to her website, she is not on any committee that would be able to negotiate Nike contracts. Even if she was, don't you think it would be beneficial to US in getting a better deal. I am guessing her number 1 loyalty is to UW before it is to nike. Did anyone read what she said. I have met her and heard her speak, and I doubt she is going to use her position on the Nike board to encourage nike to scam poor workers in foreign countries, my guess is she will be doing the opposite. Also, isn't it good to know that Nike appointed someone like her. It could have been anyone, at least with provost wise, we know Nike is getting someone who advocate for abiding by UW code of conduct.
#14 Andrew
on November 25, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
To clarify Brian Cox's ill informed response: severance pay is in fact a right guaranteed by Honduran law.
Thanks for your homophobia as well, you seem all the more intelligent.
#15 Brian Cox
on November 26, 2009 at 2:53 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name)
LOL!! @#14
That's right. America should emulate the superior robust economy of ... Honduras???
Yes, of course. After all they've been a leader in the area of ... um, Information Technology? No, I'm sorry. I was thinking of the US. Oh I know! Medicine! Oh wait, again I was thinking of the US. Perhaps it's ... education?? Oh, no. The United States leads again in higher education. Hmmm... I'll let you figure out their monumental contribution to the world.
But, the point is this: The money that you are dreaming to be "rightfully" belonging to these workers comes from somewhere. It doesn't exist because of the bottomless caring in your heart. It exists because the company who hires these workers has determined that it is beneficial to BOTH the company and the employee to engage in the agreement called "employment".
If you arbitrarily (with your most notable honorary intentions) use your tyrannical bullying to force a company to pay more than they can afford and still make a profit...THERE WILL BE FEWER JOBS!
Seriously, who is your soft-hearted intentions helping then?
#16 Rebecca_F
on November 26, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.(Denver, CO)
Andrew, There is a difference between "human rights" and "legal rights". Human rights are something you and I have, inherently, as human beings. As America's founding father's said, "All men and created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." (I'm working from memory on the quote, so if I got a word wrong, please excuse me.) Legal rights exist by the creation or recognition of government, and may vary from country to country. Ideally, legal rights protect human rights. Sometimes governments fail to provide a legal right where a human right exists. In other instances, a government may provide a legal right beyond the inherent human rights. I think the Honduran law you cite would be an example of the latter. This doesn't necessarily mean Nike has no obligation to follow the laws of a country in which it has done business. Sometimes legal rights may, in fact, be contrary to human rights. For example, at one time the Constitution and laws of the United States granted white, southern plantation owners the legal right to hold black men and women as slaves, using and abusing them for the "owner's" profit. However, I think you and I would both agree that the black slaves had a human right to better treatment.
Brian, I think the reason Honduran law was mentioned is because the factory was in Honduras. If the factory were in the United States, Honduran law would be irrelevant.
#17 Brian Cox
on November 27, 2009 at 9:40 a.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name)
#16: But Rebecca, the question here is imposing rules from OUR end on Nike. We weren't debating Honduran law. We were discussing what we should do.
And, also, Andrew (re: #14) ...there was NO remark made by me about anything remotely associated with homosexuality. "Limp-wristed" is a dictionary term. It merely means "weak". You should takes some time and look it up.
#18 Ed Kamai
on November 28, 2009 at 10:50 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Might we return to the central questions posed by the Provost's membership on Nike's Board: (1) does her service on the Board constitute a legal and/or ethical (as opposed to moral) conflict of interest; and (2) if her membership is legal and/or ethical is it appropriate considering any contractual relations the University may have with Nike? As to question #1 this is perhaps best answered by the Executive Ethics Board in Olympia which provides Advisory Opinions and enforces the state's ethics laws. As to question #2, this might be dealt with by abstaining from voting on any matter involving the UW that might come before the Board.
#19 Matthew Z.
on November 28, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Brian, please stop being an obnoxious twit. Surely you can agree that a company working in a particular country has an obligation to abide by the laws of that country? The code of conduct for UW Trademarks and Licensing does: http://www.washington.edu/admin/pubse...
I don't know the precise content of the the contract with Nike and have had some trouble finding it, but I would assume that it included procedures for termination is the conditions of the contract are not met, and it appears that compliance with the code of conduct is one such condition.
As I see it, the University requires observance of its code of conduct by licensees. One of the code's provisions is legal compliance in the country the company is operating in. Part of Honduran law is requiring one month of severance pay for each year worked in the case of termination without cause (as this appears to be). Nike has not paid. Therefore, it is in violation of Honduran law, and thus failing to meet the code of conduct standards. What the university should do depends on what the relevant provisions in the contract allow for. If they allow for termination that probably ought to be what we do, or else our code is meaningless.
For anyone who thinks that Provost Wise is trying to get a job at Nike to reform them, they approached her, not the other way around. Do you think they would have approached someone in order to have that person chastise them? For $140,000 to $220,000 no less?
On a side note, the University of Wisconsin is dealing with this same issue of Nike violating the agreed-on code of conduct in the contract.
#20 Ehsan A.
on December 1, 2009 at 4:17 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
People like Brian who believe in the free market should also then support UW's right to freely decide which companies it does business with and the terms of those business transactions. Even if Nike was not required by statute to provide the severance pay, its failure to do so violated UW's rights as a corporation to make binding contracts.
#21 Ehsan A.
on December 1, 2009 at 4:23 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Kuzma, what student issues do you think ASUW should be addressing that it is not? I think you may simply not know all of things that ASUW does, which is understandable. If you would like to know, I am on the ASUW Board of Directors and I would be happy to talk to you if you email me at asuwbdop@uw.edu
#22 Matthew Z.
on December 2, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Ehsan, the first rule of the internet is "don't feed the trolls." This would be a good time to use it regarding Kuzma.
#23 Brian Cox
on December 4, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Ehsan:
It is possible that an organization like ASUW would involve itself in issues, simply because the ASUW exists and thinks it must take SOME action, in order to justify its existence.
If you want to take action on behalf of the students, maybe you could help in the effort to cut disability services from the budget. This would help the UW control costs, thus making it possible to keep tuition costs down.
That would REALLY be advocating for students.
#24 Rebecca_F
on December 4, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.(Denver, CO)
#23
Are you serious? If you can find a way to provide quality services for students with disabilities more cost-effectively by consolidating reduplicative programs or incorporating them into other departments - while still protecting the rights of disabled students - then good for you.
But it sounds like you are suggesting that the UW cut services to assist disabled students? Please tell me that is not what you just said.
#25 Brian_Cox
on December 4, 2009 at 5:25 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | UW Community)
Absolutely I just said that!
10 years ago there was no such spending. Today it's treated like some sort of entitlement.
It is not the UW's responsibility to cover every need of every student. Sometimes students need to take responsibility for their own extra costs. Sticking them to the tax-payer is unacceptable and irresponsible. In a time of economic surplus I can see how we justified this sort of extra spending.
But in the tight economic time we live in, we must be more discerning financially. And that means not trying to take care of every need of every student. Return to your core purpose UW: Education. Start cutting the fat!
#26 Rebecca_F
on December 4, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.(Denver, CO)
Would you like to eliminate slide projectors and speaker systems from the classrooms as well? If not, why not?
#27 Brian_Cox
on December 4, 2009 at 7:10 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | UW Community)
No, it wouldn't save any money to get rid of them. Also, they directly assist the education of students.
#28 Rebecca_F
on December 4, 2009 at 8:52 p.m.(Denver, CO)
". . . they directly assist the education of students."
So do Disability Support Services.
If you happen to be sitting in the back of the classroom, you need a speaker system to hear the lecture. If you happen to be deaf, you would need an ASL translator to see the lecture. It's essentially the same thing. You may not need an ASL instructor and I'm sure the ASL students don't need a speaker system. But you get your speaker system and they get their translator.
Slide projectors also make it easier for students to learn. I understand that there are also writing centers on campus to help students - regardless of the presence or absence of disability - with academic writing assignments. And libraries to facilitate research projects or simply extracurricular learning.
Some students, because of various sorts of sensory and/or learning disability(s) require more - or simply different types of - assistance than you do so that they can receive the full benefit of a UW education. As for physical access, if you happen to be wheelchair bound and your classroom weren't wheelchair accessible, that would make it kind of hard to attend lecture, wouldn't it? Surely you see that attending class is an important part of your college education?
In an economic down-turn, education should come before frills. But education includes services to enable students with disabilities to access that education.
#29 Victor
on December 8, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
It sounds like the only thing SLAP would accomplish is making UW merch more expensive. Sweatshop labor FTW!!!
Post a comment