(Contents:)

NIKE'S RESPONSE TO THE PARTICULAR CASES RAISED IN OUR LAST LETTER:

Nike's allegation that Vietnam Labor Watch is trying to subvert the Vietnamese government

You continue to characterise Joseph Ha's letter to Vietnamese government officials as "the private correspondence of one employee". We cannot accept this. Joseph Ha is one of Nike's vice-presidents. Nike is (according to press reports) the largest non-government employer in Vietnam. Mr. Ha's letter falsely suggested that Thuyen Nguyen of Vietnam Labor Watch has a secret agenda to overthrow the Vietnamese government. Mr. Ha contrasted this with what he claimed was Nike's own view. How could Vietnamese officials have interpreted this as anything but Nike's position on the subject? On what basis could they, or anyone, interpret this to be a private letter?

We assume that Nike must be continually involved in promoting the company's interests by lobbying government officials in countries where your products are made. This letter would seem to give some insight into how Nike deals with the issue of the campaign against your company when communicating privately with those governments. As such it is extremely disturbing.

The publication of Ha's letter has had very serious ramifications - it is now politically dangerous for Vietnamese citizens to pass on information to us about conditions in Nike factories. Mr. Kidd claims that Nike has sought to undo this by sending a letter to Vietnamese government officials and by asking the Laodong newspaper to publish this letter. We are sceptical. It is not at all clear from Mr. Kidd's description of this letter whether it includes any reference to Ha's letter, let alone a clear statement that Nike recognises that Vietnam Labour Watch has no intention of undermining the Vietnamese state. We would appreciate seeing a copy of Nike's retraction letter (in both English and Vietnamese) and evidence that Laodong declined to publish it (either a copy of a letter from Laodong to this effect or the name and contact number of the member of the editorial staff who Nike spoke to).

We also understand that the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) proposed that Nike should demonstrate that it does not regard Thuyen as an enemy of the Vietnamese state by inviting ILRF and Thuyen to jointly visit Nike's facilities in Vietnam. Nike refused this request.

The workers fired from the Sam Yang factory in Vietnam for telling journalists about violence against workers in their factory

Lap Nguyen has given detailed testimony on video to Vietnam Labor Watch (refer http://www.web.net/~msn/3nike14.htm ). She says that during her first two years she was recognised by the factory for the quality of her work performance but that following the ESPN interview her work was deliberately undermined and she was systematically humiliated in front of other workers before being forced to resign.

Mr. Kidd's letter rejects this. Is Nike suggesting that Lap has fabricated her story and that it is a complete coincidence that her dismissal followed shortly after she told US reporters about violence against workers in her factory? What "work performance issues" was she supposedly guilty of? On the basis of what evidence has Nike concluded that her version of events is untrustworthy? If you would have us believe that her dismissal was appropriate then you will need to provide more evidence than the result (but not the content) of a confidential investigation conducted by Nike itself.

Regarding the cases of Ms Hong and Ms Chi, both told Vietnam Labor Watch that they had been fired because of their willingness to talk to ESPN journalists the year before. We have no reason to believe that they made up this story. Nonetheless, Mr. Kidd claims that they resigned voluntarily. Given that they want to continue working for Sam Yang, and that according to Nike's version of events the factory has no problem with them continuing to work there, what barriers are there to them being reinstated? A worker at a Reebok factory was also sacked for talking to ESPN and when Reebok was contacted about this they immediately found that worker another job. Why is Nike not prepared to do the same?

We want to restate the importance of this case. While ever we have evidence that Nike will turn its back while workers are humiliated and then dismissed for revealing factory conditions we can have no confidence at all in Nike's commitment to authentic monitoring of factory conditions. We urge you to commit to allowing Ms Lap Nguyen, Ms Khan Chi and Ms Hong to return to their jobs.

Attempts to undermine Vietnam Labor Watch

We note that Mr. Kidd's letter attempts to portray Thuyen Nguyen as something of an invisible man, making allegations against Nike which are only ever passed on by others and then refusing to substantiate them. According to Thuyen he spent several months trying to contact Mr. Kidd and Maria Eitel in 1998 regarding Lap Nguyen's case before giving up because they refused to respond. Many of us have had similar experiences of repeatedly trying to contact Nike and finding that our emails, faxes and letters are not even acknowledged. This includes the email from Tim Connor regarding Lap's case which Mr. Kidd admits in his letter to having received even though at the time he neither acknowledged nor replied to it.

Nike has a history of "shooting the messenger" by trying to undermine the credibility of the company's critics, including Press For Change, Global Exchange and more recently Vietnam Labor Watch. We believe it would be helpful if Nike moved beyond these attacks on your critics' integrity and dealt directly with the issues raised.

The case of Haryanto, fired from the P.T. Lintas factory in Indonesia for handing out copies of Nike's Code of Conduct and encouraging workers to join an independent union

Haryanto was fired on 16 September 1998. On December 24 1999, following a hard-fought campaign for his reinstatement, Haryanto returned to work at Lintas. This represents the first time in the history of this campaign that Nike has agreed to the reinstatement of a worker who had been fired for standing up for his or her rights. As such it is extremely welcome news and we hope it signals the beginning of a change in Nike's approach to this issue.

Harassment, humiliation and repression of workers' right to organise at the Formosa factory in El Salvador

Regarding the Formosa factory, we readily recognise that an earlier claim by an organisation involved in the campaign that Nike had ended its relationship with Formosa was based on an honest mistake. Workers indicated that they were no longer making Nike gear at Formosa, but this turned out to be a seasonal fluctuation in orders rather than a complete end to the ordering relationship. Certainly Nike deserves some credit for remaining a customer at Formosa, rather than punishing the workers who have had the courage to reveal conditions at the factory by cutting orders and costing workers their jobs.

In other respects, your response raises more questions than it answers. As we pointed out in our original letter, the problems with "worker/management relations" which Verite found at Formosa are extremely serious, including instances of verbal, physical and sexual harassment of workers ; systematic humiliation and verbal abuse of those who work too slowly; and vigorous repression of workers' right to organise (refer http://www.web.net/~msn/3nike16.htm). Nike claims that PriceWaterhouseCoopers monitors all your factories every year and that Nike's staff carry out "SHAPE" inspections quarterly. Given that Formosa has been a Nike customer for a number of years, why weren't these systematic abuses discovered and rectified by this monitoring? Why was it up to activist organisations to bring it to your attention? Verite's research was conducted in June 1999, twelve months after problems at Formosa had been exposed by European media and 8 months after a former worker from Formosa had toured the US to draw attention to labour abuses at the factory. Why hadn't anything been done about these egregious management practices in the meantime? In our letter we called on you to clearly communicate to the workers at Formosa Nike's unequivocal support for their right to organise and your company's commitment to doing all it can to prevent any discrimination against workers who try to form a union. Why did you ignore this in your letter back to us? Is Nike willing to make that commitment to workers at Formosa?

Use of Indonesian soldiers to provide "security" at the PT Nikomas Factory in Indonesia

Members of the Indonesian army are frequently employed as "security" in factories in Indonesia during periods of industrial unrest to keep workers on the job and prevent them for striking or demonstrating for better pay or conditions. Our letter pointed out that in September a US student delegation observed Indonesian soldiers stationed at the Nikomas factory at a time when wage negotiations were being conducted. Bama Athreya of the International Labor Rights Fund subsequently verified, through interviews with workers at Nikomas, that security forces on hire from the Indonesian armed forces (i.e. the army and/or the police) were routinely stationed within the plant.

Mr. Kidd 's letter goes to considerable lengths to avoid admitting that the "security" that the student delegation observed at the Nikomas factory were in fact Indonesian soldiers. Nonetheless he did indicate that Nike has "specifically instructed factories not to allow military personnel to be stationed on factory premises". In November the Urban Community Mission (UCM) in Jakarta confirmed that following the publicity the issue received the soldiers had been replaced by non-military security (police and security guards) and that these security guards were playing an appropriate role - protecting the factory and workers from thieves. Subsequently however, UCM informed us that on December 18, during peaceful strike action by workers at PT Nikomas, police from Brimob (an armed police brigade) equipped with guns entered the factory and together with factory security guards and hired civilians they threatened and provoked workers. We repeat our call for Nike to ensure that Indonesia's armed forces are never called in to prevent or interfere with peaceful industrial action.

Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (HKCIC) and the Asian Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC) research regarding the Sewon factory in China and the Sam Yang factory in Vietnam

With regard to the Sewon factory in Qingdou in China, our letter cited July 1999 research by HKCIC indicating that there were major fire hazards at this factory. The factory had anti-theft cages on all the windows, blocking one of the workers' main escape routes in the case of a major fire. We understand that Todd McKean from Nike has contacted HKCIC to discuss how to improve fire safety in the factory. We hope that these fire hazards have been removed.

Evidently Mr. McKean was unhappy that Nike had not been informed about this problem before it was made public. As we have indicated to Nike staff before, when we discover problems in Nike factories the workers directly affected by those specific problems are not our only concern. We are also concerned for the half a million other workers making Nike's products. We want there to be an effective monitoring system to ensure that all those workers are employed under decent conditions. Nike claims to already have such a system in place but it is clear to us that this is not the case. The best way we can put pressure on you to adopt an effective system is by publishing evidence that your current monitoring is abjectly failing to protect workers' rights.

This particular case raises serious questions about the effectiveness of Nike's evaluation of health and safety. A big fire engulfed the Sewon factory in 1995 and it was subsequently strongly criticised in the local newspaper by the Local Government Fire Service Department. Despite this history Nike's monitoring systems failed to ensure that the factory had adequate safety measures in place before HKCIC publicly reported on the case.

Regarding the May 1999 research into conditions at the Sam Yang Factory in Vietnam by the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (HKCIC) and the Asian Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC), this was intended as a preliminary study and hence only a small number of workers were interviewed. Unfortunately staffing and resource limitations have meant that it has not been possible to conduct the full scale study as yet. Nonetheless those workers interviewed reported all the issues mentioned in our letter to you - inadequate wages, wage deductions as penalties and violent punishment of workers.

The possibility of Jim Keady and other activists working in Nike factories.

Nike has repeatedly claimed it has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of conditions in your suppliers' factories. If this is the case, then why won't you support Jim Keady's request to work in a Nike factory in Latin America - the Formosa factory in El Salvador for example? Jim would be in a great position to act as a communication link between those who make your products and those who buy them. Your refusal suggests Nike is only willing to accept factory monitoring in the form of one-off visits by monitors you select, in circumstances where the factory receives considerable notice and workers are warned in advance that if they say the wrong thing they will be fired.

Mr. Kidd's letter claims that Nike's refusal is based on your respect for the value of a job and your commitment to ensuring that workers "who need those jobs get them". Some of us would be willing to raise the relatively small amount it would cost to cover the cost of a wage for Jim equivalent to that which other workers in the factory receive and no doubt some arrangement could be made whereby Jim did not replace a worker but instead stood in for workers who would be given a few hours much needed rest. Alternatively, the Justice. Do It Nike Coalition would be happy to organise opportunities for any worker "displaced" by Jim to travel to the United States, link up with an interested high school, community college or university, and participate in an educational exchange. This would allow the worker to further his or her own education and at the same time would educate their American "host school" about the conditions of work and community in the area from which they have come. Under such an arrangement Jim's work in the factory would cause no hardship. Would you support requests by Jim and others to work in Nike factories in these circumstances? We very much hope that you will change your postion on this issue.

Mr. Kidd's letter also claims that Jim voluntarily resigned from his job as soccer coach at St John's. According to Jim he was given an ultimatum by his University - wear Nike gear, or else resign. His job was no longer available to him if he refused.

Decisions by local courts.

At several points Mr. Kidd's letter points to decisions by local courts or local government labour officials as evidence that our claims are mistaken. He wrote for example that both the Indonesian Ministry of Manpower and a local court determined that Haryanto's dismissal was "appropriate". It should not surprise you that we do not have a great deal of confidence in the judicial systems of many countries in which Nike chooses to source its products. This is particularly so in countries where the separation of powers between the executive and judicial arms of government is not well established and national officials are desperate to avoid alienating foreign investors.

(next)