(Contents:)

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

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

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

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

The publication of Ha's letter has had very serious ramifications - it isnow politically dangerous for Vietnamese citizens to pass on information tous about conditions in Nike factories. Mr. Kidd claims that Nike has soughtto undo this by sending a letter to Vietnamese government officials and byasking the Laodong newspaper to publish this letter. We are sceptical. Itis not at all clear from Mr. Kidd's description of this letter whether itincludes any reference to Ha's letter, let alone a clear statement thatNike recognises that Vietnam Labour Watch has no intention of underminingthe Vietnamese state. We would appreciate seeing a copy of Nike'sretraction letter (in both English and Vietnamese) and evidence thatLaodong declined to publish it (either a copy of a letter from Laodong tothis effect or the name and contact number of the member of the editorialstaff who Nike spoke to).

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

The workers fired from the Sam Yang factory in Vietnam for tellingjournalists 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 fabricatedher story and that it is a complete coincidence that her dismissal followedshortly after she told US reporters about violence against workers in herfactory? What "work performance issues" was she supposedly guilty of? Onthe basis of what evidence has Nike concluded that her version of events isuntrustworthy? If you would have us believe that her dismissal wasappropriate then you will need to provide more evidence than the result(but not the content) of a confidential investigation conducted by Nikeitself.

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

We want to restate the importance of this case. While ever we have evidencethat Nike will turn its back while workers are humiliated and thendismissed for revealing factory conditions we can have no confidence at allin Nike's commitment to authentic monitoring of factory conditions. We urgeyou to commit to allowing Ms Lap Nguyen, Ms Khan Chi and Ms Hong to returnto their jobs.

Attempts to undermine Vietnam Labor Watch

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

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

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

Haryanto was fired on 16 September 1998. On December 24 1999, following ahard-fought campaign for his reinstatement, Haryanto returned to work atLintas. This represents the first time in the history of this campaign thatNike has agreed to the reinstatement of a worker who had been fired forstanding up for his or her rights. As such it is extremely welcome news andwe 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 theFormosa factory in El Salvador

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

In other respects, your response raises more questions than it answers. Aswe pointed out in our original letter, the problems with "worker/managementrelations" which Verite found at Formosa are extremely serious, includinginstances of verbal, physical and sexual harassment of workers ; systematichumiliation and verbal abuse of those who work too slowly; and vigorousrepression 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 Formosahas 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" infactories in Indonesia during periods of industrial unrest to keep workerson the job and prevent them for striking or demonstrating for better pay orconditions. Our letter pointed out that in September a US studentdelegation observed Indonesian soldiers stationed at the Nikomas factory ata time when wage negotiations were being conducted. Bama Athreya of theInternational Labor Rights Fund subsequently verified, through interviewswith workers at Nikomas, that security forces on hire from the Indonesianarmed forces (i.e. the army and/or the police) were routinely stationedwithin 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 werein fact Indonesian soldiers. Nonetheless he did indicate that Nike has"specifically instructed factories not to allow military personnel to bestationed on factory premises". In November the Urban Community Mission(UCM) in Jakarta confirmed that following the publicity the issue receivedthe soldiers had been replaced by non-military security (police andsecurity guards) and that these security guards were playing an appropriaterole - protecting the factory and workers from thieves. Subsequentlyhowever, UCM informed us that on December 18, during peaceful strike actionby workers at PT Nikomas, police from Brimob (an armed police brigade)equipped with guns entered the factory and together with factory securityguards and hired civilians they threatened and provoked workers. We repeatour call for Nike to ensure that Indonesia's armed forces are never calledin to prevent or interfere with peaceful industrial action.

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

With regard to the Sewon factory in Qingdou in China, our letter cited July1999 research by HKCIC indicating that there were major fire hazards atthis factory. The factory had anti-theft cages on all the windows, blockingone of the workers' main escape routes in the case of a major fire. Weunderstand that Todd McKean from Nike has contacted HKCIC to discuss how toimprove fire safety in the factory. We hope that these fire hazards havebeen removed.

Evidently Mr. McKean was unhappy that Nike had not been informed about thisproblem before it was made public. As we have indicated to Nike staffbefore, when we discover problems in Nike factories the workers directlyaffected by those specific problems are not our only concern. We are alsoconcerned for the half a million other workers making Nike's products. Wewant there to be an effective monitoring system to ensure that all thoseworkers are employed under decent conditions. Nike claims to already havesuch a system in place but it is clear to us that this is not the case. Thebest way we can put pressure on you to adopt an effective system is bypublishing evidence that your current monitoring is abjectly failing toprotect workers' rights.

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

Regarding the May 1999 research into conditions at the Sam Yang Factory inVietnam by the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (HKCIC) and theAsian Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC), this was intended as a preliminarystudy and hence only a small number of workers were interviewed.Unfortunately staffing and resource limitations have meant that it has notbeen possible to conduct the full scale study as yet. Nonetheless thoseworkers interviewed reported all the issues mentioned in our letter to you- inadequate wages, wage deductions as penalties and violent punishment ofworkers.

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 ofconditions in your suppliers' factories. If this is the case, then whywon't you support Jim Keady's request to work in a Nike factory in LatinAmerica - the Formosa factory in El Salvador for example? Jim would be in agreat position to act as a communication link between those who make yourproducts and those who buy them. Your refusal suggests Nike is only willingto accept factory monitoring in the form of one-off visits by monitors youselect, in circumstances where the factory receives considerable notice andworkers are warned in advance that if they say the wrong thing they will befired.

Mr. Kidd's letter claims that Nike's refusal is based on your respect forthe value of a job and your commitment to ensuring that workers "who needthose jobs get them". Some of us would be willing to raise the relativelysmall amount it would cost to cover the cost of a wage for Jim equivalentto that which other workers in the factory receive and no doubt somearrangement could be made whereby Jim did not replace a worker but insteadstood in for workers who would be given a few hours much needed rest.Alternatively, the Justice. Do It Nike Coalition would be happy to organiseopportunities for any worker "displaced" by Jim to travel to the UnitedStates, link up with an interested high school, community college oruniversity, and participate in an educational exchange. This would allowthe worker to further his or her own education and at the same time wouldeducate their American "host school" about the conditions of work andcommunity in the area from which they have come. Under such an arrangementJim's work in the factory would cause no hardship. Would you supportrequests by Jim and others to work in Nike factories in thesecircumstances? We very much hope that you will change your postion on thisissue.

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

Decisions by local courts.

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

(next)