"The most pervasive form reported to us was that the -- if you will -- prettiest workers are assigned as office help for some of the contractors and the phrase I heard was that they are harassed and harassed until they become pregnant. Once pregnant, they are sent back into the islands to their family."

---

Interview with Max White

Max White is the coordinator of Justice Do It Nike. He was interviewed on September 22, 1996 by Trim Bissell of Campaign for Labor Rights. White talks about his experiences on the recent Global Exchange delegation to Indonesia. He explains why his organization is now calling for a boycott of Nike products. Justice Do It Nike can be reached at maxw@rain.com or (503) 292-8168

CLR: Describe Justice Do It Nike.

MW: We are a local group [Portland, Oregon] that focuses on Nike's overseas workers, primarily in Indonesia. With one exception, the members of this coalition are local grassroots organizations: the local chapters of Amnesty International, East Timor Action Network, Jobs with Justice and Peaceworks. We have one nonlocal member, Press for Change, because we felt it was important to have an authority on Nike shoe production overseas.

CLR: You recently returned from a Global Exchange delegation to Indonesia. Did you talk with Nike workers?

MW: One whole day of our trip was devoted to interviewing workers about their working conditions, how long they had worked for Nike contractors, how much they earned -- we saw pay stubs and that sort of thing. We interviewed them away from the plants.

CLR: Nike claims that they pay their shoe workers in Indonesia two to three times the minimum wage.

MW: The workers told us with absolutely no inconsistency that they are forced to work up to twice as many hours a week as would be normal. In other words, it would be like you having to work 80 hours per week and then your employer saying that he was paying you twice as much as he was required to. So, yes, workers are receiving more than -- I would not say "twice"; we never found a single worker who was paid twice the Indonesian minimum wage -- but we found many workers who were being paid more than the minimum wage. But they were working way more than 40 hours per week.

More than one worker reported that, if someone needed to go home rather than work overtime, the managers would force them to wash toilets and to do other menial tasks and they would actually stand that worker up in front of the others and say: "Here is somebody who doesn't care whether our factory keeps the Nike contract" or "Here is a worker who doesn't care if Nike stays in Indonesia." These people are very much moved by social and family pressures. When they come out of the country and into the city to work in the factories, their fellow workers are their family. The contractors know that and they use the most coercive forms of social pressure to make these workers put in horrendous overtime.

CLR: Ultimately, where do these pressures originate?

MW: My son and I interviewed a manager from a Reebok factory who was more candid than the Nike managers, simply because Reebok is not yet receiving such intense international criticism. He pointed out that contractors must agree to a certain percentage -- 12% -- as being the labor costs involved in making shoes. If labor costs exceed that, the contractor has to absorb those costs or has to force the workers to meet higher quotas. So the Nikes of the world call the shots. They put the subcontractors in a position where they then have to force the workers to put in long hours of overtime. And many subcontractors do not pay the workers for every hour of overtime. We frequently heard stories where a worker would work, say, 6 hours of overtime and get paid 4 or work 8 hours overtime and get paid for 6.

Workers are given permission by their families -- most of them are very young -- to go to the big city and work if they will send back money. Nike claims that the workers are saving money. What we discovered was that the workers are essentially starving themselves so they can send home some of the money they make by working those long hours.

Very few of these workers earn enough to have a family. If they come into the city to work for a corporation, they certainly couldn't have a child on those wages. Then they go back to their villages oftentimes at least as poor as they left.

CLR: Why do they return to their villages?

MW: A very large number of people in Indonesia have at one time or another been part of some kind of labor strike or labor protest. They end up being blacklisted and unable to work in the industrial sector. Also, people get past the optimum age. For a 30-year-old woman to get a factory job, she has to bribe someone because they much prefer younger women who are easily controllable.

CLR: That is the issue, rather than the much-touted eye-hand coordination of younger workers?

MW: The corporations say that young people have superior eye-hand coordination. But it doesn't take much coordination to punch a button or to do many of these operations. The fact of the matter is that young women are more easily controllable and that's why they want them. After the women reach a point at which they realize that they should not be exploited, that's when they are no longer of use to these corporations.

CLR: Approximately 80% of Nike shoe production workers in Indonesia are women. Are they subject to sexual harassment?

CLR: While they may be subject to somewhat less sexual harassment than a few years ago, there is no question but that a significant level of sexual harassment still goes on. The most pervasive form reported to us was that the -- if you will -- prettiest workers are assigned as office help for some of the contractors and the phrase I heard was that they are harassed and harassed until they become pregnant. Once pregnant, they are sent back into the islands to their family.

CLR: Nike boasts about the benefits they offer. What benefits would an injured worker receive?

MW: There is an enormous dichotomy between Indonesian law and practice. There are laws on the books that provide for workers to be compensated for on-the-job injuries. However, I spoke with a worker who had lost some of her fingers, had them crushed in a machine at a Nike factory. The compensation that worker received -- total for the loss of her fingers -- was $25. Because of her injury, she no longer is employable.

CLR: Did you tour Nike factories?

MW: Our delegation was refused entry to every Nike-contracted factory in Indonesia. We were told that the so-called independent contractors could not let us in unless Nike gave us written permission. We asked for that permission before we left for Indonesia and 6 or 8 times while we were in the country. At no point would Nike permit us into their own so-called independent contractors' factories. However, Nike brought two of their own board members over and gave them an orchestrated tour of two of their factories. I also know of people who have gotten in as tourists. I spoke with one who described how, anytime she wanted to talk with a worker, a manager would be right behind her, listening in on every word the workers said.

CLR: Did you meet with Nike representatives?

MW: On our last day in Indonesia, a spokesperson for Nike finally accepted our invitation to meet with us. After giving us three or four different version of Nike's supposed intentions with regard to our concerns, he asked us for a moratorium on any criticism of Nike. It was clear that he was concerned about media coverage of the Nike shareholder meeting. He refused to make any commitment in writing even though a number of the delegates said that, if Nike was promising a quid pro quo for our cessation of criticism, there should be something on paper. So he did come to us, but only for the purpose of damamge control. And he went on -- I timed him -- for 48 minutes uninterrupted giving us the Nike PR line. When people attempted to ask questions, he suddenly had to go. While we were in the country, we also tried to contact Ernst & Young, whom Nike has been holding up as their independent monitor. Ernst & Young refused to meet with our delegation. Refused even to answer our phone calls.

CLR: Was there a discrepancy between what the Nike rep told you and what you heard from other people?

MW: Certainly. On the issue of workers' ability to organize, for example, he stated that Nike took no position and did not prevent workers from organizing. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Oregonian -- every newspaper I know of -- has reported that the Indonesian military suppresses any kind of labor organizing. And we were told by knowledgeable people in Indonesia that subcontractors are promised that there will be a military contingent no more than 10 minutes away to handle labor problems. Any subcontractor who is making shoes in Indonesia is promised military support and they pay for it by what the Indonesians call "invisible costs," bribery.

CLR: Your organization is now calling for a boycott of Nike products.

MW: Our campaign has gone on for about two years. We have consistently stated that we are not boycotting Nike products, that we are asking Nike to accept independent monitoring of their overseas factories, which is a very reasonable request that's been met by The Gap in El Salvador. Nike has had ample opportunity to comply. I understand now that they have a lot more to hide than even I had thought. I am convinced that Nike does not have the slightest intention of allowing independent monitoring. Justice Do It Nike is no longer willing to continue trying in vain to engage Nike in dialogue. There has to be a serious escalation. A boycott is the logical next step.

CLR: Have you consulted with others on this decision?

MW: While in Indonesia, I raised the issue with the primary nongovernmental organization that has asked Nike to allow independent monitoring. The representative of this NGO said that he was completely behind what we wanted to do, that actually we were late in announcing a a boycott. Also while in Indonesia, my son and I did all we could to establish ongoing channels of communication with the workers themselves. They were very pleased that people in the United States were taking up their cause. They trusted what we were doing and we promised that we would let them know our plans.

CLR: Could a boycott cause a loss of jobs in Indonesia?

MW: Based on what I learned in Indonesia, I am convinced that Nike and Reebok are on the point of pulling out of Indonesia and going to Vietnam, just as they pulled out of Korea and went to Indonesia and China in the early 90's. Nike and Reebok are now doing only month-to-month contracting in Indonesia because they are preparing to leave. One reason we feel obliged to increase the pressure on Nike, through a boycott, is to try to prevent Nike from continuing its cut-and-run policy whenever the minimun wage in a given country even begins to approach what the workers require for a reasonable life.

CLR: Nike sales and profits are skyrocketing.

MW: Few boycotts have seriously hurt sales of transnational corporations. But the transnational corporations like Nike fear boycotts and see them as a public relations disaster. So far, Nike has taken advantage of Justice Do It Nike by taking pains to point out that we are not boycotting them. Our boycott by itself will not significantly hurt Nike sales. On the other hand, progressives have a lot of history that a boycott is one of the most effective grassroots tools to convince these corporations that ultimately -- ultimately -- their bottom line will be affected.