nike

IndianSummer

anyone have any issues with this company??

maybe cos they supposedly use child labour??

cos their workers work in sweatshops for peanuts??

cos they pollute the enviornment??

anyone have a beef against this company??? if so why???

ryan198

IndianSummer wrote:

anyone have any issues with this company??

maybe cos they supposedly use child labour??

cos their workers work in sweatshops for peanuts??

cos they pollute the enviornment??

anyone have a beef against this company??? if so why???

all of the above...and it's not supposedly they DO use child labor. It's a pretty interesting world we live in when one of their sponsored athletes goes to jail (Michael Vick) for abusing dogs, but it's considered "ingenious business practice" for abusing little kids in 3rd world countries.

StateOfLoveBoatCptn.

ryan198 wrote:

It's a pretty interesting world we live in when one of their sponsored athletes goes to jail (Michael Vick) for abusing dogs

what an absurd statement. Do you think he said told them that in the interview or somehthing? "Nike: Abuse dogs? Mike Vick:check. Nike: cool, we want you" He did this after the fact. And they have since cut ties with him. The right thing to do.

libragirl

That's pretty shitty if they are using child labor...I don't know I never had an issue with them. But I guess anyone who does that I do have an issue with. I don't buy Nike products anyway.

pjoasisrule

IndianSummer wrote:

anyone have any issues with this company??

maybe cos they supposedly use child labour??

cos their workers work in sweatshops for peanuts??

cos they pollute the enviornment??

anyone have a beef against this company??? if so why???

These are all the reasons why I continue to buy Nike shoes

In My Dreams

IndianSummer wrote:

anyone have any issues with this company??

maybe cos they supposedly use child labour??

cos their workers work in sweatshops for peanuts??

cos they pollute the enviornment??

anyone have a beef against this company??? if so why???

And because their shoes suck.

facepollution

The whole issue with child labour and sweatshops is very difficult and not as black and white as people would have you believe. Obviously the bottom line is that sweatshops and child labour are wrong, and I don’t want to defend them, but I don't necessarily think that all the focus should be put on companies like Nike, because they are only part of the problem. You have to look at the countries that are allowing it for a start - these are not rich countries, and wages are low across the board. Therefore wages would need to increase in all industries; otherwise you would have factory workers earning the same as doctors or police. Plus like it or not, these sweat shops are some of the very few thriving businesses in these developing countries, thus removing them would take away much needed jobs.

This is pretty much scratching the surface – I’m trying to find an article I read a while back on this subject, it was pretty interesting.

IndianSummer

In My Dreams wrote:

And because their shoes suck.

its not a breach of any known law if their shoes suck... but do any of you have a legally-indictable reason to boycott the company??

IndianSummer

facepollution wrote:

You have to look at the countries that are allowing it for a start -

This is pretty much scratching the surface – I’m trying to find an article I read a while back on this subject, it was pretty interesting.

i look forward to the article.

as for the country that allows it - even thats illegal under US law. no american company using funding from american banks as undoubtedly nike does, can partake in any operation abroad that violates basic human rights, even if such a violation is condoned in that country.

ryan198

StateOfLoveBoatCptn. wrote:

what an absurd statement. Do you think he said told them that in the interview or somehthing? "Nike: Abuse dogs? Mike Vick:check. Nike: cool, we want you" He did this after the fact. And they have since cut ties with him. The right thing to do.

No...you misunderstood what I read. What I meant was it's interesting that Michael Vick is in jail for abusing dogs (he probably should be I guess), but it's ingenious business for Nike to abuse kids so bad that their hands are mangled. In other words if Vick is in jail then Phil Knight should be executed, but really rich people don't go to jail for those types of things.

ryan198

facepollution wrote:

The whole issue with child labour and sweatshops is very difficult and not as black and white as people would have you believe. Obviously the bottom line is that sweatshops and child labour are wrong, and I don’t want to defend them, but I don't necessarily think that all the focus should be put on companies like Nike, because they are only part of the problem. You have to look at the countries that are allowing it for a start - these are not rich countries, and wages are low across the board. Therefore wages would need to increase in all industries; otherwise you would have factory workers earning the same as doctors or police. Plus like it or not, these sweat shops are some of the very few thriving businesses in these developing countries, thus removing them would take away much needed jobs.

This is pretty much scratching the surface – I’m trying to find an article I read a while back on this subject, it was pretty interesting.

the other part of this argument that doesn't get brought up often is that YES these countries are poor, and primarily agrarian BUT they have lived that way for thousands of years just fine. For what reason would they need a job in Nike if they could feed and clothe themselves? Oh b/c companies like Nike, Firestone (see: Dave Zirin's blog around the super bowl) take the very land that they have subsisted on to make a profit. That critique rarely gets levied in this debate b/c it would indict the people who need it the most - the uber rich.

facepollution

IndianSummer wrote:

i look forward to the article.

as for the country that allows it - even thats illegal under US law. no american company using funding from american banks as undoubtedly nike does, can partake in any operation abroad that violates basic human rights, even if such a violation is condoned in that country.

I'm doing my best to find it, but drawing a blank at the moment.......

I understand the point you are making, but I was trying to highlight the fact that if Nike suddenly decided to stop using foreign sweatshops, there would be a lot of unemployed workers in these poor countries. They need those jobs, which is pretty evident from the fact they are willing to put up with such appalling conditions. Of course the reason they go for these jobs can also be related back to poor education, which means they are not necessarily able to go for better paying jobs. It's a catch 22 situation.

facepollution

ryan198 wrote:

the other part of this argument that doesn't get brought up often is that YES these countries are poor, and primarily agrarian BUT they have lived that way for thousands of years just fine. For what reason would they need a job in Nike if they could feed and clothe themselves? Oh b/c companies like Nike, Firestone (see: Dave Zirin's blog around the super bowl) take the very land that they have subsisted on to make a profit. That critique rarely gets levied in this debate b/c it would indict the people who need it the most - the uber rich.

But then of course you would have to pass that blame on to the governments that are selling the land to these huge companies.

StateOfLoveBoatCptn.

ryan198 wrote:

No...you misunderstood what I read. What I meant was it's interesting that Michael Vick is in jail for abusing dogs (he probably should be I guess), but it's ingenious business for Nike to abuse kids so bad that their hands are mangled. In other words if Vick is in jail then Phil Knight should be executed, but really rich people don't go to jail for those types of things.

gotcha! I stand corrected

IndianSummer

facepollution wrote:

But then of course you would have to pass that blame on to the governments that are selling the land to these huge companies.

we are on dodgy territory here too - often the govts who sell the land and facilities to western companies do so after receiving heavy kickbacks - another crime under the law of most western countries.

IndianSummer

BeerBaron wrote:

Their logo shows up on Manchester United shirts everywhere! That's my only problem with them

you ok with the child labour thing ?

facepollution

IndianSummer wrote:

we are on dodgy territory here too - often the govts who sell the land and facilities to western companies do so after receiving heavy kickbacks - another crime under the law of most western countries.

Oh for sure, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending people here, I'm just pointing out that there is a big picture which usually gets bypassed when people talk about this subject.

Ultimately it all boils down to greed, but I don't think that it's just the greed of the the big companies.

ryan198

facepollution wrote:

But then of course you would have to pass that blame on to the governments that are selling the land to these huge companies.

You know what happens to countries that act in their own national interests which, in turn, F's corporate leaders? They either get attacked or embargoed. Look at Chile (the first 9/11 by the way), Argentina, South Africa, the Middle East, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on. American corporate rule is not a real nice thing.

If you were a government leader in a country that used American protection wouldn't you make the same choices they do, given the consequences if they don't? However, since this again would place the blame back on American strong-armed tactics, it's an argument that is rarely posited...particularly since American corporations own all of the media things that are put online.

Oh...Indian Summer, for a good film on this kind of stuff you might want to check out The Corporation. And if you want one involving sport, and a Nike sponsored athlete (Tiger Woods), check out The Golf War. It shows the very concerted effort that corporations go through to push through profitable entities at the cost of the many, through propaganda, political strong arming, and celebrity endorsers.

facepollution

ryan198 wrote:

You know what happens to countries that act in their own national interests which, in turn, F's corporate leaders? They either get attacked or embargoed. Look at Chile (the first 9/11 by the way), Argentina, South Africa, the Middle East, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on. American corporate rule is not a real nice thing.

If you were a government leader in a country that used American protection wouldn't you make the same choices they do, given the consequences if they don't? However, since this again would place the blame back on American strong-armed tactics, it's an argument that is rarely posited...particularly since American corporations own all of the media things that are put online.

You raise a good point, and I don't know what solution anyone could possibly hope to find there. With all due respect, and I don't mean this to come across as rude, but to some extent it is kind of stating the obvious. It's well established that America's attitude to international trading is pretty one sided.
However the human rights issues that seem to be at the very core of most arguments about sweatshops and child labour, are things which could be changed, were sufficient laws brought in to protect people; which again relates back to the governments of these countries.

ryan198

facepollution wrote:

You raise a good point, and I don't know what solution anyone could possibly hope to find there. With all due respect, and I don't mean this to come across as rude, but to some extent it is kind of stating the obvious. It's well established that America's attitude to international trading is pretty one sided.
However the human rights issues that seem to be at the very core of most arguments about sweatshops and child labour, are things which could be changed, were sufficient laws brought in to protect people; which again relates back to the governments of these countries.

I definitely agree with that...but that would cut into Nike's profit margin right? That goes against the rules of a system that requires we make as much money as possible financial quarter to financial quarter.

facepollution

ryan198 wrote:

I definitely agree with that...but that would cut into Nike's profit margin right? That goes against the rules of a system that requires we make as much money as possible financial quarter to financial quarter.

Well that's an obvious knee-jerk answer, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. I don't find it too hard to believe that some of these governments just don't give a shit about poor people and the awful conditions they have to put up with - hell, the current US administration isn't exactly bending over backwards to help poor people in its own country now is it?!