Unfortunately Asian sport shoe workers who speak honestly to
researchers about conditions in their factories take significant
risks. One of the Nike workers interviewed for the Like Cutting
Bamboo report (Connor 2000) told of having received an anonymous
phone call threatening his life if he continued to publicise conditions
in his factory. Also well documented is the case of Ms. Lap Nguyen,
a Vietnamese Nike worker who was subject to intimidation, violent
harassment and dismissal after she spoke to US reporters about
conditions in her factory (see for example Connor 2001, p.26).
Nike has repeatedly ignored requests from human rights groups
that the company facilitate an independent and transparent investigation
of Ms. Lap's case.
In addition to concerns for their own safety and livelihood,
Nike workers are frequently worried that speaking honestly about
conditions in their factories will lead companies like Nike to
cancel orders, resulting in workers losing their jobs. This is
a message that is often reinforced by factory managers and supervisors,
who warn workers that telling "outsiders" about factory problems
will harm the factory's progress and put their jobs in danger.
All but two workers interviewed for this report asked that their
names be kept confidential because they were afraid of reprisals
from their factory. In all but the PT Nikomas Gemilang and PT
Panarub factories the workers interviewed also asked that the
name of their factory be kept secret in case sportswear companies
responded to bad publicity about factory conditions by cutting
orders.
Those workers photographed for this report indicated that they
were aware that as a result of being photographed they may be
identified and punished by their employer. In each case they decided
that they were prepared to take this risk in order to draw international
attention to the conditions in which they and their fellow workers
were living. In order to make it more difficult to identify these
workers their names and the names of their factories have been
suppressed. If representatives of Nike and Adidas are willing
to guarantee that the workers will not be discriminated against
for participating in the research then these details will be released.
Publicly at least, Nike representatives claim that the company
abhors any form of intimidation which would prevent workers from
openly discussing factory conditions. In a February 2001 interview
on Australian radio station 2jjj the following exchange took place
between Nike spokesperson Maria Eitel and 2jjj's Steve Cannane
[1]:
Steve Cannane: So, any Nike factory boss in Indonesia who
says Nike will pull out if you guys complain, he is wrong in
saying that and you won't stand for that kind of intimidation?
Maria Eitel: He is absolutely wrong and that is absolutely
unacceptable intimidation.
Unfortunately Nike has refused to back up such statements with
action. In May 2001 the Clean Clothes Campaign raised with Nike
the case of a particular factory in Indonesia in which the factory
manager had criticised workers for talking to foreign researchers
and activists. The manager had warned that the workers that any
further public criticism of factory conditions might lead Nike
to move production to other factories in other countries. The
Clean Clothes Campaign requested that Nike meet with those workers
and assure them, in the presence of factory management and an
independent third party observer, that the company would not cut
orders in response to negative publicity.
In an extensive correspondence on this matter Nike has repeatedly
declined to take this step. In an email dated Friday 28 December,
for example, Nike spokesperson Dusty Kidd suggested that such
a meeting was unnecessary since Nike had investigated and found
no evidence that the factory manager had made the statements which
workers have attributed to him.
This argument is spurious. It is to Nike's advantage if workers
keep silent about labour abuses and hence an investigation conducted
by the company itself cannot be regarded as independent. Even
if Nike genuinely believes no such statements were made, this
should not prevent it from meeting with workers and management
and reassuring workers that honest comment on factory conditions
will not lose them their jobs. Instead Nike has implicitly indicated
its preference for workers to remain afraid that speaking openly
will put their jobs in danger.
Next: Respect
for the Right to Freedom of Association
