welcome to rx forum krystian, this post is as off beat as it gets, i don't particularly like the colour, no, but what i really dislike about nike is their continuing workplace violations, on which plenty of organisations have and are still protesting against.
"Despite its progressive image in the United States, Nike is a very different company in Vietnam and in other Asian manufacturing operations. Reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and a debilitating quota systems are confirmed by CBS News, the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters as well as other non-profit and non-governmental organizations."
http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike.htm
"Despite its progressive image in the United States, Nike is a very different company in Vietnam and in other Asian manufacturing operations. Reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and a debilitating quota systems are confirmed by CBS News, the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters as well as other non-profit and non-governmental organizations."
http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike.htm
Do you like the colour of this shirt?
Play Fair At The Olympics
Respect workers’rights in the sportswear industry
In the lead-up to the Athens Olympic Games in August, Global Unions, the Clean Clothes Campaign, Oxfams and their allies around the world will be campaigning with sportswear workers to persuade sports brands and the International Olympics Committee to Play Fair At The Olympics and ensure respect for sportswear workers' rights.
Play Fair At The Olympics
Respect workers’rights in the sportswear industry
In the lead-up to the Athens Olympic Games in August, Global Unions, the Clean Clothes Campaign, Oxfams and their allies around the world will be campaigning with sportswear workers to persuade sports brands and the International Olympics Committee to Play Fair At The Olympics and ensure respect for sportswear workers' rights.
You don't know what you are talking about. Try doing a bit of reading to get your perspective right first, and try having some compassion too for the less fortunate or priviledged. Your post just showcases arrogance and ignorance, one of the worst combinations in traits.
First of all, the critical issue here is not worker's wages, that's an important but secondary one. The critical issue is working conditions and the continued violation of basic human rights, as agreed upon worldwide, at least in principle, some 50 years or so ago in the universal declation of human rights.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Child labour, verbal or physical intimidation, beatings, rapes or other forms of physical abuse, as well as forced miscarriages and other forms of atrocities are obviously not condoned in this monumental document, yet they are repeatedly perpetred by sweatshop owners and parent manufacturing companies, it's disgusting.
Secondly, a less than a quarter of a dollar an hour wage hardly qualifies for an exagerrated "liberal" claim.
Thirdly, your econometric perception of the issue, well, it leaves a lot to be desired. More jobs in the U.S. would be doing something for the rising levels of unemployment in the U.S. The profits in this industry are so prepostorous that were the jobs indeed tranferred in the u.s. the price of the shoes would not have to rise, they'd just have to cut down on the millions made by owners and c.e.o.'s of the manufacturers, and not even considerably. FYI, let's take an exaple, puma. In 2003, the company reported doubling its annual profits from US$ 108 million to US$ 228 million, and that's just their profits, not including the other millions made by department stores and other retailers. Is there a sufficient margin here for ensuring the companies profits and growth, maintaining the current prices for their items, and, which is very important too, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the u.s., with no u.s. taxpayer's dollars actually ending up in other countries via the (minimal) workers pay and taxes?
It's only incidental that some of us are fortunate enough to enjoy a decent level of living, housing, health care, recreation etc, let's not be so callous wrt to the rest of humanity's (which is the vast majority too) plight for some MINIMUM level of dignity in their lives, from the famine and aids epidemics in Africa, to the hunger in Asia etc.
First of all, the critical issue here is not worker's wages, that's an important but secondary one. The critical issue is working conditions and the continued violation of basic human rights, as agreed upon worldwide, at least in principle, some 50 years or so ago in the universal declation of human rights.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Child labour, verbal or physical intimidation, beatings, rapes or other forms of physical abuse, as well as forced miscarriages and other forms of atrocities are obviously not condoned in this monumental document, yet they are repeatedly perpetred by sweatshop owners and parent manufacturing companies, it's disgusting.
Secondly, a less than a quarter of a dollar an hour wage hardly qualifies for an exagerrated "liberal" claim.
Thirdly, your econometric perception of the issue, well, it leaves a lot to be desired. More jobs in the U.S. would be doing something for the rising levels of unemployment in the U.S. The profits in this industry are so prepostorous that were the jobs indeed tranferred in the u.s. the price of the shoes would not have to rise, they'd just have to cut down on the millions made by owners and c.e.o.'s of the manufacturers, and not even considerably. FYI, let's take an exaple, puma. In 2003, the company reported doubling its annual profits from US$ 108 million to US$ 228 million, and that's just their profits, not including the other millions made by department stores and other retailers. Is there a sufficient margin here for ensuring the companies profits and growth, maintaining the current prices for their items, and, which is very important too, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the u.s., with no u.s. taxpayer's dollars actually ending up in other countries via the (minimal) workers pay and taxes?
It's only incidental that some of us are fortunate enough to enjoy a decent level of living, housing, health care, recreation etc, let's not be so callous wrt to the rest of humanity's (which is the vast majority too) plight for some MINIMUM level of dignity in their lives, from the famine and aids epidemics in Africa, to the hunger in Asia etc.
Jack,
I'd rather blame asians' obsession with forced labor (esp. Koreans) than ephimeral "explotation" of the Third World. But indeed this has little to do with any major brand in itself. You'd be amazed what a subpar garbage is sold under "Nike" label, trust me on this one, as a close friend of mine is Nike subcontractor owner in a certain third world country. Not only the production cost, but the price Nike forces on its subcontractor is a fraction of the retail price Nike (together with other brands)monopolizes.
What worries me is the consumers' lack of choice
rather than whinning about underpaid and overexploited workers (their wages are more than fair in comparison to their countries averages, and yes, they do have a choice contrary to what the misinformed say).
I'd rather blame asians' obsession with forced labor (esp. Koreans) than ephimeral "explotation" of the Third World. But indeed this has little to do with any major brand in itself. You'd be amazed what a subpar garbage is sold under "Nike" label, trust me on this one, as a close friend of mine is Nike subcontractor owner in a certain third world country. Not only the production cost, but the price Nike forces on its subcontractor is a fraction of the retail price Nike (together with other brands)monopolizes.
What worries me is the consumers' lack of choice
rather than whinning about underpaid and overexploited workers (their wages are more than fair in comparison to their countries averages, and yes, they do have a choice contrary to what the misinformed say).
"Not only the production cost, but the price Nike forces on its subcontractor is a fraction of the retail price Nike (together with other brands)monopolizes."
I fully agree here, the only one with any real benefit from the whole deal, are the highest echelon's of such companies, neither subcontractors and labourers, nor retailers or consumers.
"What worries me is the consumers' lack of choice"
It does worry me too, and that's the crux of the matter, it's a monopoly of the few, i was out the other day trying to buy some sports shoes and fitness gear, and i honestly went around a few tenths of shops unable to find anything NOT made in china, korea, or indonesia, and couldn't, in the end i caved in and spent a couple of hundred euros on some sub par running shoes, that i knew their actual cost did not exceed a few bucks.
"rather than whinning about underpaid and overexploited workers (their wages are more than fair in comparison to their countries averages, and yes, they do have a choice contrary to what the misinformed say)."
I am not favouring whinning here, but action and being a conscious consumer, of course a lot of people involved in such types of activism can be very anal or even "misinformed", but i d side with them anyday than with the average uinformed consumer who buys whatever is shoved to their face, whether it contains g.m. crops, chemical waste or is the product of forced labour. In such a prestigious worldwide event as the olympic's it's worth drawing some attention to the dirt behind the glamour of the sports industry. As for the average wage being comparable to what nike subcontractor's pay and to whether these people have a choice or not, it's really a huge issue having to do with economics and politics, too long a discussion for the soccer forum. It's got to do with dictatorships and corrupt governments, forced underdevelopment, economic imperialism etc. etc. Union leaders have been repeatedly killed, tortured or otherwise physically abused...
o.k i ll resist the temptation of going into it, and get back to reading on the weekend games...
I fully agree here, the only one with any real benefit from the whole deal, are the highest echelon's of such companies, neither subcontractors and labourers, nor retailers or consumers.
"What worries me is the consumers' lack of choice"
It does worry me too, and that's the crux of the matter, it's a monopoly of the few, i was out the other day trying to buy some sports shoes and fitness gear, and i honestly went around a few tenths of shops unable to find anything NOT made in china, korea, or indonesia, and couldn't, in the end i caved in and spent a couple of hundred euros on some sub par running shoes, that i knew their actual cost did not exceed a few bucks.
"rather than whinning about underpaid and overexploited workers (their wages are more than fair in comparison to their countries averages, and yes, they do have a choice contrary to what the misinformed say)."
I am not favouring whinning here, but action and being a conscious consumer, of course a lot of people involved in such types of activism can be very anal or even "misinformed", but i d side with them anyday than with the average uinformed consumer who buys whatever is shoved to their face, whether it contains g.m. crops, chemical waste or is the product of forced labour. In such a prestigious worldwide event as the olympic's it's worth drawing some attention to the dirt behind the glamour of the sports industry. As for the average wage being comparable to what nike subcontractor's pay and to whether these people have a choice or not, it's really a huge issue having to do with economics and politics, too long a discussion for the soccer forum. It's got to do with dictatorships and corrupt governments, forced underdevelopment, economic imperialism etc. etc. Union leaders have been repeatedly killed, tortured or otherwise physically abused...
o.k i ll resist the temptation of going into it, and get back to reading on the weekend games...
