Slashdot Mirror
Nike: Just Don't Do It
Daruka Krishna Das writes "Jonah Peretti turned Nike's corporate creativity against itself in a stand against third-world exploitation labor. Peretti's protest made use of the swoosh brand's Nike iD Web site, which allows customers to "build your own" sneaker, complete with a word of your choice, or "iD," printed on the side. For his iD, Peretti selected "sweatshop," which generated the e-mail exchange archived on Jockbeat's Web site here."
don't do it. Seriously. Force yourself to hold it until your 10 hour day is up. No way, no how are you to get up from your desk. You must sit there for hours, doing the same repetitive motions over and over.
Want a drink of water? Yeah right.
You are also not allowed to talk to your co-workers. No chatting on the phone, even if it is a call from your mom saying your dad just died.
You are expected to be at work at all times. You are not allowed any time off for any reason. Miss one day and you are fired.
Think I am making this up? This is just a small sample of what it is like to work in a sweatshop.
*Now* please call me a liberal and tell me I am full of shit.
Holding a "candle to the dark" would consist of employing adults who are past school age to work at wages which would allow them to send their children to school. That isn't happening.
And absent multinational labor, local economies exist for local markets.
Well, I might ask what's served by defending them for it.
Because they're improving the lives of the poor? What's not to defend? Yes, they don't provide American-quality wages, but they are providing jobs that are better than what was there before. No matter how greedy and evil the companies themselves are, this is a Good Thing. Bad jobs is better than no jobs.
The improvement of working conditions in the US had nothing to do with Upton Sinclair and little to do with labor unions or labor laws. The biggest driver of increasing wages was competition for labor-- there were more jobs than workers, and so wages rose.
The fundamental cause of this is accumulation of capital-- nations with large capital stocks and good infrastructure will tend to pay higher wages because their workers can produce more. Labor unions and labor laws at best provide short-term improvement, and do nothing to change the underlying economics. Had a $5/hour minimum wage been instituted in 1900, it would have destroyed the US economy. Wages are driven up by market forces, not government intervention.
So while overseas conditions seem repugnant to us, bellyaching about it isn't going to improve things. What those people need is jobs-- even bad jobs are a good start compared with no jobs at all. As as more factories are opened, competition for labor will begin to drive up wages, as happened in Taiwan and South Korea.
Are corporations greedy and profit-seeking? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily harmful.
Please keep firmly in mind that you are looking at the world from the perspective of the richest nation on Earth. We are privileged to be at the pinnacle of the world economy, getting nice fat paychecks for highly technical work, short hours, and extremely generous benefits. Obviously the conditions of poor workers is appalling from our perspective.
But what you have to keep firmly in mind is: what's good for those workers? The fact that their wages seem pitifully low to us doesn't necessarily mean that those workers are being treated unfairly. It might be that if forced to raise wages, corporations would be unable to turn a profit and would leave those countries.
Don't let your moral revulsion cloud your judgement. Pursuing policies that eliminate sweatshops may just kick third world workers into even deeper poverty. Focusing on the evilness of the corporations deflects attention from what really matters-- the interests of the poor. If sweatshops are so terrible, what do you propose to do about it? And how do you prevent your policy from simply causing those corporations from closing up shop and making the poor even poorer?
I bought from NikeID, and my ID is of course, Linux. Lots of pictures and a review are here
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
Nike made a tactical error by refusing this guy's request. When they said no, he gets a juicy e-mail exchange where he gets to needle them over this issue, and everyone's reading it.
Now, if Nike had made the shoes, he'd have some shoes that said "sweatshop". Big Fucking Deal. He could show them to his friends. Ooh. Or he could put pictures on a webpage, which would leave us saying "photoshop". Instead, they played right into his hands.
By Just Doing It (tm), Nike would win on several fronts. They'd deprive this guy of ammo. They'd appear hip and postmodern. Their personalization scheme would feel more "free". All while selling sweatshop-produced shoes for $100+/pair.
I just hope their marketing idiots don't figure this out.
So download the page and edit the HTML to expand the field limit back to 12 characters. Fix the <FORM> tag to point to the fully qualified URL at Nike. Then load the locally edited page into your browser, fill it out, and click submit. If their server admins fell into the "trusted client" trap, it'll work.
Heck, you could theoretically expand the input limit to whatever size you want; certainly large enough to send them the DeCSS code :-).
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
It's amazing how many times on Slashdot I will read a post which completely misreads the definition of a corporation as an individual. Cluestick: It's not.
The lawmakers are not completely stupid. It's not corporations that are criminaly liable but their officers - as it should be. You can't punish a corporation by putting it in prison and you're not really punishing the people really responsible for the crime if you "kill" it. If Nike has committed any criminal offence - including any that deserves the death penalty, it's the people who are responsible for making those decisions who should face the jail time/death penalty. You don't want them to get away scot-free do you? If the United States laws recognize what Nike has done in terms of child labor abuse, I want our government to go after the executives who knew of this and put them in prison besides fining the company.
"Executing" the company means the people who are actually responsible for the crimes get away scot-free (relatively). Corporate charters only absolve the owners of FINANCIAL LIABILITY. Hiding behind the identity of a corporation DOES NOT allow them to get away from CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Repeat after me: Corporations are treated as individuals only as far as non-criminal rights and responsibilities are concerned.
Mmmm.. Donuts
ALL YOUR
BASE ARE
BELONG
TO US
!!!
Imagine a basketball team with those shoes!!!
It's sorta like wearing a leather jacket with stitched on letters that say "a cow was killed so I could wear this". ;-)
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Not really a plug, but if you want custom shoes without giving your money to Nike so they can shortchange some kids overseas, try these guys.
Customatix
Granted, they may be doing the same thing for all I know, but at least there are other options.
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
I grew up in a third-world country so I believe I'm qualified to comment on this. I'm not aware of the actual labor practices Nike practices so I'm not commenting on Nike in particular but about child labor in general.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that all children should be in school, sheltered and with the opportunity to learn so that they can grow up to be contributors to society at large.
However, the reality of the situation is that in several third-world countries there is rampant poverty. The governments in those countries are not able to provide free education and many times, even if they do, many people can't afford to send their children there because they still need to pay for food and clothing and shelter and the parents can just not afford to do so. This is not an exaggeration. People actually do live like this and I have seen this myself.
From the perspective of the children being employed, this is many times the best thing that could have happened to them. The children who work there don't greet the closing of the factories with jubiliation - to them it doesn't mean being able to go to school - to them it means that their family will go hungry.
None of this defends child labor practices where the children are unfairly exploited - that is not what I'm defending here. Outside of those situations, child labor is not bad, per se because it is often times better than the alternatives.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I wonder if the WAPI would come after me if I ordered a pair that said "Sucks"...
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Jonah should have ordered bliss shoes..
In Nike's world 'Sweatshop' *IS* an innapropriate slang term.. They prefer '3rd world employment opportunity'.. try fitting *THAT* on the side of your shoe..
air and light and time and space
Heres a good picture of a nice Nike related T-shirt that may interest some of you!
someone provide mirrors for the pic please!
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
He should have ordered a pair that said "Sweat" and another that said "Shop". Mix and Match and boom you're done.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
In as much as corporations are "natural persons" under Federal law, Nike must be held to the same standards that other individuals are held to: Nike must receive the death penalty for its crimes against humanity.
Nike has engaged in countless acts of child labor abuse. They've not only failed to produce any benefits for the society that gave them corporate status; they've actively harmed that society. And other societies. It makes the US look like one evil corporate behemoth instead of the peaceful land of freedom our forefathers envisioned and drafted in our Constitution.
When individuals kill other individuals, they receive the death penalty. When corporations do the same, they get to keep teh proceeds and profits? Even serial-killers are denied that right under most state laws.
Anti-trust law is good and all, but it doesn't go far enough. Nike must receive the corporate death penalty (having its charter of incorporation burnt and its board members tried for criminal activities) not because they've harmed other corporations (as antitrust law concerns itself with) but because Nike has harmed actual living and breathing human beings.
Corporations like Nike have no place in any modern civil society. They are as good as dead.
Read the rest of this comment...
Second, most of Robert Owen's findings apply to assembly lines equally well. In this case, a well-maintained robot arm is going to produce more than a poorly-maintained one, on a per-dollar basis, simply because it is capable of performing close to it's theoretical best. Whereas one that's not been oiled for a decade, and has half of its servos shorted, is not going to do nearly so well. Sure, it's -cheaper-, but so what?
The equation you need to look at is this one: Real Cost = Total Expendeture - Total Productivity, where Total Expendeture = Base Cost of Work + Cost of Obtaining Labour + Cost of Maintaining Labour, and Total Productivity = Work Achieved + Worker Self-Enhancement (ie: learning how to be more effective, on their own).
Last, you ask for URL's. What's stopping you from going to Altavista and punching in +"Robert Owen" +"Manchester"? Now, I've no problem with people critisising what I write, but self-admitted ignorant critisism, with no self-motivation to find out for yourself?
Now, if you'd asked nicely, I'd have put them in as a hyperlink. As it is, you'll need to cut and paste. There's no gain without effort. Making it trivial for you would achieve you nothing. But if it's worth the work, for all that the work is trivial, you might actually profit some.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You are assuming he actually EXPECTED his order to be filled. A foolish assumption, IMHO. The article called it a culture jam, and thats just what it was. A way to get Nike to do just what it did and expose their hypocrisy for the (internet) world.
And if one went out and got a leather jacket at a second hand store and did just what you mention, it would be kinda funny and ethically legitamate. (or if someone wasn't an ethical vegitarian and just wanted to make irony points.)
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Just customize it to the Personal ID of "5w34t5h0p"
;)
I guarantee that everyone here would "get" it, and that nike almost definitely wouldnt have it in their filters.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I find it intriguing, that moments after this story was posted, the html "wizard" that allows consumers to build their own Nikes was suddenly changed ever so slightly, and I mean ever so slightly - suddenly the textbox to enter your "id" was limited in size to 8 charachters. Just one shy of the 9 chars in the word "sweatshop".
And to prove this was deliberate I checked the cache of my second pc which coincidentally had visited just this site a few days ago. The text limit was 12 chars on what was otherwise identical HTML.
Fascinating.
Unfortunately, I can still think of plenty of regrettable things (to Nike) that fit in 8 chars or less (per shoe).
I recommend we all place an order right this moment for a pair of shoes with "goatse" in the left shoe and ".cx" in the right one.
A sweatshop is factory that uses a dominant position (only work available in the area, or "owns" the local government, or employs illegal aliens) to enforce illegal work conditions.
A good summary of the problem can be found in the article "Human Rights Abuses in the Apparel Industry". Search the document for Nike. Nike is responsible for using illegal tactics to withhold pay, to enforced overtime over the legal maximum, and to pay below minimum wage pay. Nike knows about and allows physical and sexual abuse. Nike is breaking the law in these countries.
But apparently because these things happen far away, because the governments is question have problems enforcing their laws, because these workers are desperate for the work, this is acceptable. After all, it "helps keep Nike running shoes affordable for all of us." Apparently the end justifies the means. All hail Nike for abusing human rights in name of cheap sneakers.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
However, these practices were banned in the UK back in the early-to-mid Industrial Revolution, as too many workers were dying or becoming seriously injured. (As in, losing limbs, eyes, etc.)
Many people rightly feel that if WE oppose such practices, on moral, ethical (or even business) grounds, for our own children, how DARE we consider it acceptable for children in some conveniently remote location!
Last, but not least, Mill-Owner Robert Owen (founder of Owen's College, now the University of Manchester, England) proved conclusively that an able, educated, well-nourished, well-treated work-force with adequate breaks and adequate housing will ALWAYS out-produce a crippled, uneducated, malnourished, abused one, with no breaks and poor housing, by MORE than the difference in cost between them.
Nike is foolish. Not for moving to a 3rd-world country, but for making the same errors that post-medieval industrialists did. Serfs make very poor labor pools.
Nike could double their profits, by raising the standards of living & working. This might sound a bit strange, but it's a truth large corporations ignore at their peril. NOBODY works better than their conditions. If you want a workforce that can outproduce a small nation, you give them a reason to WANT to outproduce a small nation, to WANT to be that dedicated.
As Roy Castle once said... "Dedication is what you need."
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You probably don't believe the MS FUD and PR bullshit, so why are you believing the Nike one????
Because it's true. You describe lots of problems third world workers face, but what you don't mention is that Nike didn't cause those problems. Those countries were poor long before Nike arrived on the scene, and would even poorer if Nike were to close it's "sweatshops" and produce shoes elsewhere.
it's fine to sympathize with how bad conditions are in the third world. But don't blame Nike for those conditions. They are providing jobs that --while we may not think they're good-- are better than most other jobs in the country. It hardly makes sense to demonize Nike for providing jobs for poor people just because they didn't improve conditions enough. Those people would be worse off without Nike, not better.
Oh please. Alright then, what if you were an "unskilled" American laborer, not a "lazy" cube-sitter, who wanted an assembly-line job with this stable, reputable American company?
Oh, sorry, you can't, because there aren't any Nike factories in the US. Because the workers there would demand a decent wage, medical benefits, the whole nine yards. They might even -gasp! - organize into unions to demand these concessions. So, thanks Nike for taking these jobs out of the US. Great corporate citizen.
And if you're going to come back with "well, Americans should work as cheap as the East Asians," then tell me: why? When the executives of the company are making millions per year, why should ANYONE be satisfied with a few hundred (or less!) per week? These are the laborers who are physically MAKING the fortune that Nike executives live on. The fact that they receive such a miserably small portion of the compensation is unforgivable, no matter what side of the Pacific they're on. The difference is that here, they'd make some noise about it.
(Incidentally, Nike was targetted by a sketch on "TV Nation" a couple of years ago; Michael Moore went to Phil Knight's office and asked why there are NO Nike factories in the US, and he had the gaul to say that "People in America don't want to make shoes"! Seriously! So this "make your own shoe" promotion is really ironic on that level, too)
is it also moral to expect a street orphan on the streets of Calcutta not to work, especially when it is the only way he will make money?
Is it moral to expect a child to work long, grueling hours for little pay or benefits, simply because they were born in the wrong country? A job that, incidentally, prevents them from gaining any sort of education, severly decreasing their chances of getting a better job in the future.
Is it moral to say that working in harsh conditions such as sweatshops is third world peoples "choice", when in reality, there is no choice? If I have to choose between a sweatshop and starvation, that really isn't much of a choice, now, is it?
Is it moral to to casually dismiss the exploitations of workers in another country simply because it doesn't affect your life? Your great-great grandfather, who risked his life by striking against harsh factory conditions in the 1800's, so that he might be able to provide a better life for his family, might have something to say about that. So might the tens of thousands of other people in this country's past, who sacrificed their jobs, their dignity, and sometimes their lives, all so you could have some of the things you so obviously take for granted, like health insurance, vacation time, guarenteed work breaks, and high wages.
Why don't you step away from the keyboard for a little bit, look around you, and realize that whatever job you currently hold, whatever eductation you currently have, and whatever possesions you currently own, would not in any way have been possible had it not been for the sacrifices of these men and women who came before you. And now, why don't you go do something to honor those people, instead of shitting on them like you just did with that post.