| (Contents:) Open letter to Nike 15 March 2000 Dear Mr. Knight, We were among the groups who wrote to you in September regarding labour abuses in your suppliers' factories (refer http://www.caa.org.au/campaigns/nike/exchange.htm ). We received replies from you and from Nike's Director of Labor Practices (Mr. Dusty Kidd) in October. We are now writing to respond to those letters. This letter will deal with the content of Mr. Kidd's letter and a separate letter is being prepared which will respond to your proposal that we select representatives to meet with Nike. We believe that Nike's response to the issue has been dictated by public relations concerns rather than a genuine commitment to protecting workers' human rights and that Nike has deliberately avoided taking steps which would ensure that the labour rights of Nike workers are protected. Our obsession with the past Your letter suggested that we "continue attacking Nike based on anunchanging list of past incidents" and although he recognised that issuesfrom the past remain important Mr. Kidd's letter stated that "the focus ofNike's Labor Practices department necessarily is on the present and thefuture". Many of the labour abuses described in this letter and in ouroriginal letter are ongoing, but it is true that some of the cases raisedoccurred as long ago as 1998. We believe it is important to continuepursuing these cases for several reasons. First, they have not beenrectified and continue to cause hardship to the workers involved. Second,cases like the dismissal of workers at the Sam Yang factory in Vietnam senda clear message to other workers - if you speak out about conditions inyour factory you will lose your job. Third, these cases are an indicatorfor us of whether Nike is genuinely committed to respecting workers' humanrights. On what basis are we supposed to believe Nike's broad policystatements when we have clear evidence of particular cases where yourcompany refuses to put those policies into practice? Covering all the issues Mr. Kidd claims that our letter was helpful because: "In six pages yousummarized what seem to be the most important issues you individually andcollectively have with Nike with respect to labor practices. If that isnot the case, please send along an amendment so we can fully review andrespond to all the current issues you wish Nike to address". It is true that our first letter covered most of the concerns we have at abroad policy level with Nike's labour practices. It is not true that itcovered all the abuses in individual Nike contract factories which webelieve to exist. As our letter indicated, we have the resources only toresearch conditions in a very small number of these factories and in manycountries where Nike chooses to source production it is difficult anddangerous to meet with workers. Whenever we do manage to have suchmeetings, almost inevitably workers describe exploitative factoryconditions. This leads us to believe that labour abuses are the norm inyour suppliers' factories and not isolated incidents as Nike has frequentlysuggested to the media. Nor did our letter include all the labour abuses in Nike factories of whichwe are currently aware. Human rights organisations in several othercountries are in contact with workers suffering as a result of labourabuses in Nike factories but those organisations are unwilling for thoseconcerns to be made public in case those workers are dismissed for passingon the information. Nonetheless we are able to include in this letter new information regardingthe results of a survey of workers from 11 different Nike contractfactories in Indonesia as well as new evidence of labour abuses infactories producing for Nike in Bulgaria, China, Cambodia, Indonesia,Thailand and the USA. NEW EVIDENCE OF LABOUR ABUSES IN NIKE CONTRACT FACTORIES: Compulsory overtime, humiliating treatment and extreme verbal abuse - therecent survey of 3,500 Nike Workers by the Urban Community Mission in Jakarta Between 10 September and 18 October 1999 the Urban Community Mission inJakarta worked with workers themselves to survey 3,500 workers from 11different Nike contract factories (Pt. Nikomas Gemilang, Pt. NASA, Pt.Starwin, Pt. Adis, Pt. Doson, Pt. Citra Abadi Sejati I & II, Pt. DayupIndo, Pt. Tuntex Cikupa, Pt. Tuntex Cakung, Pt. Konaan and Pt. Bintang AdiBusana). The survey results show that abusive management practices remainwidespread (refer <http://www.summersault.com/~agj/clr/alerts/crueltreatmentworkingfornikeinin donesia.html>). More than 2,000 workers (57% of respondents) indicated that they had seenworkers being shouted at or mistreated by supervisors or managers. Examplesof verbal abuse given by workers included the Indonesian equivalent ofphrases like "Fuck You!" "You Idiot!", "You Whore!" and "You Pig!".Examples of mistreatment included wage deductions, having their earspulled, being pinched or slapped on the buttock, being forced to run aroundthe factory yards and having to stand for hours in factory yards (being"dried in the sun"). Workers also complained that they are forced to workexcessive amounts of overtime, that it is often extremely hot in workrooms, that access to drinking water is limited and that they receive verylow wages. Evading responsibility while workers cough up blood on the production line - Nike and the Par Garment Company in Thailand We have made it clear that whenever we publish cases of labour abuses inNike factories we are not calling on Nike to end its relationship with thatsupplier but rather to work with the factory to rectify the problem.Cutting orders hurts the workers who have had the courage to revealconditions in their factories, and sends a clear message to workers innearby factories that if they speak out Nike may cut orders and take awaytheir jobs. Mr. Kidd's letter seemed to indicate that Nike supports this principle, butNike's practices in relation to the Thai factories owned by Par Garment Co.Ltd. have been very different. Research by Junya Yimprasert and Christopher Candland(refer http://www.web.net/~msn/3nike18.htm ) summarises the history of this company, which is notorious for underpaying workers, requiring extended shifts of up to 12 hours a day, failing to put in place welfare provisions required under Thai labour law and laying off regular workers in order to sub-contract production to smaller sweatshops. In 1997 Par Garment attempted to close down its factory in Rangsit as ameans of crushing the factory union. This lead to a 6 month sit-in protestby workers at the factory, supported by international organisations.Eventually (in April 1998) the Thai government stepped in and mediated asettlement. A month after the factory reopened the 5 union committeemembers (including the main protest organiser, Ms. Suthasinee Kaewleklai)and 24 other workers were fired for organising the protest. A local NGO isassisting the workers to take their case through the Thai court system, butit will be at least another year before they know the outcome of an appealto the Supreme Court. Meanwhile Suthasinee's public profile during thesit-in protest has made it impossible for her to get a factory job in theRangsit area and many of the other fired workers are struggling to surviveon very low incomes from casual and unstable work. Nike had been a customer of the factory at Rangsit until the sit-in protestin 1997. When the factory re-opened in April 1998, rather than work withthe factory to ensure that workers' right to organise was respected, Nikestopped ordering from the factory. According to Young Christian Workers (alocal Thai NGO) management of the factory at Rangsit repeatedly told theworkers that Nike did this because the union members tainted the image ofPar Garment to the press. This reasoning was then used to hold the unionmembers responsible for workers being laid off following the loss of theNike contract. We call on Nike to restore its ordering relationship with the Par Garmentfactory at Rangsit and to work with other companies ordering from Rangsitto ensure that Suthasinee Kaewleklai and the other workers who were firedfor union organising are offered their jobs back and that all workers inthe factory are freely allowed to engage in union activities. The firedworkers should also be properly compensated for the hardship which theirdismissal has brought. The union committee members are asking that the ParGarment factory pay each of them 100,000 Baht ($US2,600*) in backcompensation. Nike has maintained an ordering relationship with two of Par Garment'ssubsidiaries, the Par Monthinee factory in Nakorn Rachasima (Korat) and thePar Consortium factory in Ubon Ratchatani (both provinces in North EasternThailand). Karuna Durian and Piya Pangsapa recently interviewed a workercurrently employed at the Monthinee factory. Their report (see Appendix 1)indicates that there is extensive forced overtime and that workers are paidat a piece rate so low that they must work at very high intensity. Thefactory also refuses to pay sick leave - putting pressure on workers towork even when they are sick. Overall physical exhaustion has caused someworkers to cough up or vomit blood while they work on the production line. Nike should ensure that health and safety and human rights standards (atthe very least those included in Nike's code of conduct) are maintained atPar Monthinee and in all Thai factories with which Nike places orders. Cancelling orders in response to worker activism? - Nike and the PT TainanI factory in Indonesia The Par Garment factory at Rangsit is not the only factory in which workersclaim that Nike has cancelled orders in response to worker activism. TheUrban Community Mission in Jakarta has passed on to us details of the caseof Sumardy and Wahyono, two union officials who were fired from the PTTainan I factory (in Cakung near Jakarta) in 1998 following their role in asuccessful industrial action. According to Sumardy, Nike pulled its ordersfrom Tainan I following the industrial action which lead to his andWahyono's dismissal. Sumardy and Wahyono are still campaigning for theirreinstatement. Three years later, what's changed? - Nike and the PT Feng Tay and PT Kukje factories in Indonesia In 1996, Dr. Peter Hancock (now at the School of International DevelopmentStudies at Deakin University in Melbourne) interviewed workers from twoNike factories in Banjaran, PT Feng Tay and PT Kukje, as part of his Ph.D.thesis on factory conditions in West Java. He found that the two factoriessupplying Nike were amongst the worst in Banjaran in terms of workingconditions, wage rates for overtime, non-payment of legally requiredbenefits and denial of sick leave. In the Feng Tay factory workers averaged11.5 hours work a day and most were required to work seven days a week.Supervisors had been trained in the systematic abuse of the predominantlyfemale workforce using the Indonesian equivalent of phrases such as "Fuckyou!" and "Move you stupid bitch!" The results of this initial study were published in the magazine InsideIndonesia. Early in 1998 Hancock learned that Nike had used the article asa reason for cancelling its contract with the Kukje factory. Nike claimedthis decision was evidence of its commitment to its code of conduct, butHancock points out that conditions in the Feng Tay factory were far worsethan in Kukje and so if Nike's decisions to cancel orders were genuinelybased on its code then Nike would have severed the relationship with FengTay first. The general manager of Kukje was so angry at the loss of therelationship with Nike that he called in government officials to Banjaranto investigate which workers had spoken to Hancock. Fortunately interviewshad been confidential and no workers were punished as a result of theseinvestigations. In November 1999 Hancock returned to Banjaran to conduct a follow-up studyand the results of this research will be published in Inside Indonesia thisyear. The Feng Tay factory is still producing for Nike. Workers at thisfactory are still being required to work excessive overtime, with theworkers interviewed averaging 64.6 work hours per week and often beingrequired to work on Sundays. Workers are now being paid slightly above thelegal minimum wage and are receiving the legally required rates forovertime, but wages for a standard 40 hour week are still below whatworkers require to meet their basic needs. The Kukje factory is currently without direct orders from Nike but it stillmakes some Nike shoes under contract from Feng Tay and Feng Tay is lookingto take over the factory. The Kukje workers interviewed work an average of57.2 hours per week but their average monthly pay (including overtime pay)is so low (330,000 Rp. or $US45*) that Kukje is clearly paying them forovertime at an illegally low rate. Hancock reported that workers in both factories were scared of losing theirjobs and had been warned not to discuss their employment with researchers. Harassing workers who dare to organise - Nike and the Natural GarmentFactory in Cambodia In September 1999 Cambodian Labor Organisation (CLO) prepared a report onthe Natural Garment Factory in Phnom Penh which takes orders from Nike (seeAppendix 2). The factory has a democratically elected workers' organisation (theDemocratic Union of Tien Yien - DUTY) but it has not been allowed to carryout its proper role. CLO's report describes how, during a period when thefactory was producing for Nike (April to July 1999), the DUTY UnionPresident Miss Ken Chheng Lhang suffered extensive harassment for trying todefend the workers' right to have one day off in every seven. It alsodescribes how on 6 July 1999 factory supervisors manufactured a problemwith the work of DUTY union treasurer, Chab Kunthea, as a pretext forfiring her. At least one supervisor has reportedly told her work group thatshe "will destroy" any member of the group who becomes a union member. The management of Natural Garment is going to great lengths to try andcrush the DUTY union. Nike should ensure that DUTY union treasurer, ChabKunthea is reinstated and insist that all harassment of union leaders isbrought to an end. Only disclosing the addresses of model factories? - Nike and the Hung Wahgarment factory in China In the US a growing student anti-sweatshop movement is putting pressure onNike and other companies to publicly release the addresses of factoriesproducing clothes bearing university logos. Nike has responded by publiclyreleasing the addresses of factories producing for ten US universities -Arizona, Duke, Georgetown, Michigan, Carolina, Penn State, Oregon,Maryland, Cal State and Indiana. Nike only released the addresses of three factories in China, all owned bythe same company (WDI). In November 1999 staff of the Hong Kong ChristianIndustrial Committee (HKCIC) interviewed workers from those factories aswell as workers from another factory, the Hung Wah garment factory, whichalso produces for Nike in China. The results of the research have beenpublished in the February 2000 issue of HKCIC's newsletter, CHANGE. Conditions in the factories which Nike had disclosed were relatively good.There was a basketball court in each factory and workers indicated thatthey were satisfied with the food and accommodation made available to them.Most workers put in 8 hour days and were only rarely required to workovertime, although workers in the computerised stitching section wereworking 12 hour days and were allowed only one day off every 12 workingdays. Workers did not know what a trade union was, but said that there wasa workers' organisation selected by management which held monthly meetings. Conditions in Hung Wah were very different. Workers reported that factoryfood was of poor quality and that they lived 12 to a room in crampedfactory dormitories with barred windows. They were required to work12-and-a-half-hour days, seven days a week and were only allowed one dayoff per month. During peak periods they were sometimes forced to workthrough the night. One month's wages was being withheld by management as adeposit to discourage workers from resigning and overtime work was beingpaid at illegally low rates. None of the workers interviewed at Hung Wahhad heard of Nike's code of conduct. On the basis of this research HKCIC suggest that Nike has only released theaddresses of model factories in China. In response Nike has insisted thatit has released the addresses of all factories producing for those tenUniversities. This may well be the case, but it does not allay suspicionsthat before releasing these addresses Nike may have arranged its productionfor these universities so that it takes place in relatively good factories.According to Nike's website, production for US Colleges amounts to lessthan one per cent of Nike's business and those ten universities no doubtaccount for significantly less than this. When such a small percentage ofNike's factories is involved it would be relatively easy for Nike toarrange its production in this way. We call on Nike to remove suchsuspicions by publicly disclosing the addresses of all its suppliers. No better at home? - Nike and the J.H. Design Group in Los Angeles The US organisation Sweatshop Watch is distributing a sign-on letter onbehalf of eight garment workers who filed a court case against J.H. DesignGroup in Los Angeles in November 1999 alleging that they were employedunder working conditions that contravened US law. Between 1991 and 1999these workers sewed jackets for a number of companies including Nike.According to the workers they were paid less than the minimum wage (aslittle as $US3.00 per hour) and were forced to work long hours, oftenhaving to take work home. They were subjected to harassment andintimidation and some workers were illegally fired for speaking out aboutsweatshop conditions. Sweatshop Watch is calling on Nike and the othercompanies who placed orders with JH Design Group to ensure that theseworkers are paid the wages they are owed plus damages for the abuses theyendured. Back-breaking quotas - Nike and the Savina factory in Bulgaria The German Clean Clothes Campaign has prepared a short report on conditionsin the Savina factory in Sandanski in Bulgaria which produces sportswearfor Nike and Adidas (refer http://www.cleanclothes.org )The report is based on visits to the company in April and November 1999. According to the report most of the women working at Savina are young mothers. Due to the very high levels of unemployment in Bulgaria they are also often the sole breadwinner in the family. The factory has a history of paying low wages and requiring excessive overtime but following a strike in the Spring of 1999 (organised by the union KT Podkrepa) the workers managed to negotiate a 9 hour work day, less half an hour for lunch. Unfortunately workers are still paid on the basis of a quota system and their pay depends on fulfilling that quota. The quotas were variously described by workers and union officials as "murderously high" and "back-breaking". Although workers are not directly prevented from organising unions, many conceal their union involvement for fear of losing their jobs. The factory owner, Hristos Karanidis, told one of the researchers in anger that he was considering leaving Bulgaria because of the union presence in the factory. Workers were unaware of the existence of Nike's code of conduct. Nike should ensure that workers in the Savina factory are freely able toorganise and that your company's suppliers do not punish workers fororganising by closing down their factories and moving the productionelsewhere. Working right through the night - Nike and the Lian Thai factory in Thailand Esther de Haan from the Clean Clothes Campaign in the Netherlands met withthree workers from the Lian Thai factory in Thailand in November 1999. Hernotes on the meeting are in Appendix 3. Workers at the factory receive 162Baht ($US4.25*) when they work standard 8 hour days and say they need about200 Baht ($US5.25*) just to cover the basic needs of one person. About halfof the workers, mostly women, have families and in many cases they are thesole breadwinner as their husbands have been laid off. Work starts at 8amand workers are commonly required to work until 11pm and sometimes evenlater, depending on the orders. At times they have to work throughout thenight, in which case they get half a day off the next day. Most workersalso work on Saturday and Sunday. If they refuse overtime a few times theyare never offered any overtime again. This factory is unique amongst factories we have investigated in thatworkers say they do feel confident to tell the truth about their workingconditions to Nike representatives. However, workers complained that Nikerepresentatives had not taken any steps to address those problems whichworkers had described to them. This factory is also highly unusual in thatthere is an independent union. Union members have suffered considerablediscrimination in the past but now report that things are "working better". (next) | 
