By
Celina Kareiva
December 8, 2009
Nike, one of the UW’s largest apparel manufacturers, has failed to abide by the UW’s Code of Conduct, according to a unanimous vote made last Thursday by the UW’s Advisory Committee for Trademark and Licensing (ACTL), a committee appointed by President Mark Emmert and made up of UW faculty, students and staff.
Photo by Patrick Riley.
SLAP members Matt Reed, Isabel Brown and Pete Gallager discuss Phyllis Wise and her appointment to Nike's board of directors in a cafe Friday.
Photo by Patrick Riley.
Isabel Brown works on a SLAP document. SLAP fights for workers' rights around the world.
“In the cases in Honduras, Nike breached the Code by failing to take any effective action after its contractors in Honduras closed down these two factories without paying workers as required by law,” explained professor Angelina Godoy, who advises ACTL and studies human rights in Central America. “But under the University of Washington’s Code, licensees are required to remediate these abuses when they occur. Nike has failed to do this in these cases.”
A letter response from Honduran workers reported that 60 percent of Hugger de Honduras’ production in 2008 was for Nike, and Vision Tex said that 43 percent of the 2.2 million units produced in 2008 were for Nike, both of whose factories laid off 1,800 workers.
The Worker’s Rights Consortium, which monitors conditions in these factories, states that the employees never received their $2.1 million in severance pay.
“It outlines in the Code of Conduct that Nike is responsible for all of our apparel for the entire supply chain,” said Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) member Pete Gallagher. “Nike didn’t have a direct working relationship with the factories, but according to the Code of Conduct, they are responsible because it took place in Nike’s supply chain.”
The Code of Conduct safeguards workers’ rights who produce logo apparel for the university. It demands that any company that does contracted business with the UW must adhere to its conditions.
For members of SLAP, it’s an issue of human rights. Isabel Brown, another member of the student group, believes that the university has particular leverage with Nike.
“We’re not necessarily saying that Nike needs to pay the workers or that the university can never do business with Nike, but somebody … in the supply chain needs to pay the workers their severance compensation,” Brown said. “We are hoping that Nike understands we’re serious about enforcing our Code of Conduct and that if they screw up again, UW will cut the contract.”
However, the school’s lucrative business deal may stand in the way of any further action. The UW’s athletic department has a basic licensing agreement with Nike to produce $1 million of general apparel. UW sports teams also have a 10-year agreement worth upwards of $33.8 million.
Just this spring, SLAP helped convince the UW to sever contracts with Russell Athletic after Honduran workers were unjustly fired for unionizing and attempting to negotiate with factory owners. Russell Athletic announced in November that it was reopening the factory under the name Nueva Dia and rehiring all 1,200 workers.
SLAP is hopeful that the committee’s recent recommendation will produce a similar effect.
“As the victory against Russell proves, cutting the contract with Nike is the most powerful and direct leverage possessed by the university to ensure that Nike follows the Code of Conduct,” said SLAP advocate Maggie Schupp in a press release from mid-November.
Nike responded to the accusations before the committee came to the decision in November, stating that it was concerned about factory conditions and would try to find ways to compensate the employees.
“Nike representatives made an explicit promise to help the workers of one factory obtain access to the factory in order to sell remaining machinery and product and apply the proceeds to their due terminal compensation, but so far, there has been no success in getting the gates unlocked.”
Margaret Levi, co-chair of ACTL, said he’s not sure what Emmert will do with the committee’s vote.
“I don’t know what [Emmert’s] decision will be. It will depend on when he has time to review the situation, though we will stress the urgency of it,” Levi said. “These workers are suffering, and I believe he understands that and is concerned. Whether he will find Nike in violation of the Code, I can’t tell you.”
From here, ACTL will recommend that Emmert re-evaluate the school’s contract with Nike.
“The process by which you do that is you first put [Nike] on notice and ask them to remediate their violation,” Levi said. “If they don’t meet the Code satisfactorily, then there’s another point of consideration about what to do next. Ultimately, it could result in a severance of contract, but that’s only in a very extreme case.”
UW spokesperson Norm Arkans said there is no formal process beyond this stage. Tomorrow President Emmert will meet with co-chairs Margaret Levi and Katherine Herche to discuss the issue at hand. Emmert will consider ACTL’s recommendation. If he chooses to place Nike on notice, Emmert will then produce a deadline by which time Nike must remediate.
Reach reporter Celina Kareiva at news@dailyuw.com.
10 Comments
#1 Holland A.
on December 8, 2009 at 1:18 a.m.(Kirkland, WA)
I tried to find a news story that gave Nike's side of the story, it was nearly impossible. All I could find was something from Purdue located here:
http://media-newswire.com/release_110...
I also found it interesting that no major news outlet in carrying it, only a handful of student newspapers, and only because student organizations at those papers have brought it up.
I'm not saying I know all the facts, I am just saying that some more even sided reported is needed on the issue. For example, Nike claims that the two plants they subcontracted hadn't produced collegiate material since 2007. Also that they had stopped producing material for Nike prior to the plant closing.
One other final note, Purdue subscribes to two human rights watch groups, and one of them, the FLA hasn't issued anything on the issue.
#2 Jeff M
on December 8, 2009 at 11:35 a.m.(Vaulx-en-velin, France | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Nike is on the FLA. that's why they didn't say anything.
it's a "human rights monitor" made up of a corporate board.
also, regardless of whether they were or were not producing for Purdue prior to the closing, the closing (and conditions beforehand) are illegal under international law, labor laws of the countries where the factories are, and US labor law.
another point: i often here people looking for "even sided reporting". in my view, even sided reporting means the truth. the truth doesn't always consist of "so and so says this, but so and so refutes it", because that is not factual.
Also, one should not be confused by assuming that the only factories that have illegal labor conditions or close are those involving universities. You will find cases involving universities because since they have contracts, students can approach their respective universities, rather going after the whole of Nike with no power, a daunting task.
#3 Holland A.
on December 8, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.(Kirkland, WA)
It wasn't that they weren't producing for Purdue, but that they weren't producing collegiate materials at all. Also, Nike says that they stopped subcontracting with the factories before they were closed. What can Nike do to some company that won't obey the law? They can decide to not subcontract with them again, but that doesn't really matter since they are out of business.
All this article does is say "so and so says this" but with no refutation from the other party, it is even worse than reporting the facts, mainly because it contains no facts. A letter response from Honduran workers is the only thing proving that even some of the work they did was for Nike. I am sorry if I am a little suspicious of one letter from a worker that has a vested interest in blaming Nike.
Finally, I never assumed what you said I did in your last paragraph, I only said that it is odd that the only news reporting on this so called huge issue is 3 or 4 university papers, and only because a couple student groups brought it up. I am guessing that is because it isn't as big of a story as it is being made to seem.
#4 Sarah G.
on December 8, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Actually Nike has admitted to UW administrators in multiple letters that Nike indeed had collegiate licensed apparel produced in both these factories. In addition, the Workers Rights Consortium, an independent labor monitoring organization that the UW employs to investigate the factories that produce UW apparel has reported extensively about the production of NIKE collegiate apparel at both these factories (see workersrights.org). The finding that NIKE is in violation of the UW code of conduct is huge! Nike has egregiously violated the university codes of conduct on multiple occasions. Whether or not other news sources cover this issue is moot. This story is not about providing both sides of the story, rather this article is about how a UW committee has found NIKE in violation of the code of conduct. If anyone wants to know more about WHY or HOW, perhaps folks should ask members of the committee, the Student Labor Action Project, or the Workers Rights Consortium about 'the facts'. One last point, just because the FLA has not taken up the issue does not mean no violations occurred. It means instead that the FLA is a sham labor monitor that has institutional biases toward labor abusing corporations rather than reporting about the abuses caused by global retail supply chains.
#5 Francis G.
on December 8, 2009 at 1:01 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Ms. Kareiva,
Fantastic article.
I hope President Emmert enforces our Code of Conduct in a timely manner.
#6 John B
on December 8, 2009 at 1:33 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Nike is clearly telling a lie. Based on the data they themselves submitted it shows that the factory was producing apparel for Washington on multiple occassions:
http://tinyurl.com/ykbnwxb
Mr Holland should check the facts before commenting that eh factories werent producing collegiate apparel.
#7 Joe D.
on December 8, 2009 at 1:45 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
All work leans on other work. Nike COULD make these products here in the USA BUT then profits woudl drop to mid single digits and that is not enough to pay for the high end ad deals that are the major driver of the cost.
So we just move the exploitation around the globe
#8 Spencer
on December 8, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
That's pretty disappointing to hear about Nike. I really hope Emmert does the right thing here and sends the message to Nike that the University of Washington does not tolerate the abuse of workers.
#9 The Truth
on December 8, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
This does nothing to change my mind about Nike as I will still buy Nike products. I hope the UW continues their business relationship with Nike. Would we want our jerseys to have a Russel Athletics logo on them? I think not.
#10 Jason
on December 8, 2009 at 10:18 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I agree that in an ideal world, people would all be paid livable wages and no one would be taken advantage of. All workers in this ideal world would also receive full health-care, childcare, job-training, and affordable housing close to their place of employment.
Yet, we live in a world governed by markets and prices...one of the highest inputs into most products is labor. The more resources you put into labor, the more the cost to consumers...then another company with fewer scruples comes along and undercuts your prices...consumers buy based on price. You lose business. You close the factory. All your workers lose their jobs and have to go back to subsistence agriculture or worse...
I suppose the moral is that "Codes of Conduct" and other such soft regulations on the consumer end can result in people who need their "sweatshop" jobs losing them.
I would genuinely like to hear an intelligent refutation of this argument because I am not convinced that labor advocates are not doing more harm than good in their attempt to make the real world more ideal.
Post a comment