July 9, 1997
The Business Journal
10 NW 10th Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97209
Dear Editor:
After a slick, multi-million dollar PR campaign touting Andrew Young’s report, Nike still could not quell criticisms about its overseas labor practices. In fact the company is facing more criticism than before from US newspapers, business journals, international unions and labor rights NGOs. So Nike is going back to its old tactic of trying to discredit its critics with misinformation. A good example of this tactic is the letter from Nike dated June 30, 1997 to The Business Journal defending Andrew Young’s report.
Mr. Young spent three days in Vietnam, went on four Nike factory tours spending 3 to 4 hours at each factory accompanied by Nike officials. He used the Nike’s labor practice manager in Vietnam as the translator for his interviews with workers. He did not even talk to a single worker without the presence of a Nike official. His rosy conclusion about Nike’s factories in Vietnam is not surprising. No workers will complain in front of the boss for fear of reprisal. Vietnam Labor Watch (VLW) spent 2 weeks in Vietnam investigating Nike factories yet we only interviewed 35 workers because it took us several days before we can convince these workers that we are not working for Nike. Given Mr. Young’s insubstantial investigation of Nike factories, the ensuing criticism of his report is expected.
Also in this letter, Nike insinuated that Vietnam Labor Watch has been only in one Nike factory for one-and-a-half hour. We were invited by Nike to Vietnam and went on a factory tour given by Nike officials. Unlike Mr. Young, we decided to go back and talk to workers outside of Nike factories and away from factory managers. We interviewed 35 workers from four Nike factories. We waited outside factories after midnight to talk to workers on the night shift. We even made surprise, un-announced visits to several Nike factories. Nike knew about our surprise visits to its factories. The Mercury News on June 25 reported that a security guard was put on probation because he allowed a VLW representative to enter the factory accompanied by Vietnamese labor officials.
Instead of dealing with real issues of poverty-level wages, forced overtime, excessive overtime, inhumane working conditions, corporal punishment, arbitrary salary deductions and wage cheating, Nike often tries to discredit its critics with misinformation. For example, in a letter to the South China Morning Post criticizing Garry Trudeau, Nike claimed that its factory workers in Vietnam received free English lessons, training classes and free medical care. None of this is true. To set the records straight, Nike factory workers in Vietnam do not receive free housing, free meals or free transportation. Also there are no athletics facilities, no parks, no pools and no movie theaters in Nike factories there.
Nike even provided misinformation about its overseas labor practices to its own shareholders. By September 1996, Vietnamese newspapers had published many articles about abuses at Nike factories in Vietnam. But at a shareholders meeting at Nike’s headquarters, Mr. Knight tried to play down a sexual abuse incident involving a supervisor and two women workers. Mr. Knight said that the incident was just a misunderstanding when a night watchman was trying to wake up these two workers. He ignored the fact that the two women told a horrifying story to the Vietnamese press of an attempted rape by the factory supervisor. This supervisor skipped town before local authority could put him on trial.
After less than two years of operating in Vietnam, we have one Nike factory manager convicted for hitting workers; one left the country to avoid prosecution for sexual abuse of workers; and another is facing a 6-month jail sentence for abusing workers. On June 22nd, AP reported that another worker was hit with a rubber sole. Given this record, Nike employees and Oregonians should not be proud of Nike.
Sincerely yours,
Thuyen Nguyen
Back to Update |
---|