1. What is it that the workers want?
   
2. Why are you picking on Nike?
   
3. Are you just trying to make me feel guilty about wearing the clothes and shoes I like?
   
4. Should I boycott Nike products?
   
5. Are there any companies that don’t use sweatshops?
   
6. If there are no major brands that are "sweat-free" where can I buy my clothes and shoes?
   
7. If wages for these workers go up, won’t the cost of shoes and clothing go up too?
   
8. If you raise the Indonesian workers’ wages to the wage levels of workers in the USA, then won’t Nike just bring the jobs back here?
   
9. What else would the workers be doing if they didn’t work for Nike?
   
10. Doesn’t the Indonesian Government have some responsibility in this?
11. I read a newspaper article that says Nike has made improvements. Is this not true?
    
12. Aren’t sweatshops a necessary part of economic development?
    
13. Are there a lot of sweatshops here in the U.S.? If so, why aren’t you doing anything about that?
    
14. Our country is founded on capitalism, isn’t this the American way?
    
15. When will you be satisfied with Nike’s efforts?
    
16. What do you want Nike to do?
    
17. How can I learn more?
    
18. For those who remain critical...
    

1. What is it that the workers want?
The women and men working in Nike’s factories in Indonesia have three primary demands:

A raise.
At the time we did our research, the workers were receiving Rp 300,000-325,000 as a basic monthly wage. There has since been an increase in the legal basic minimum wage in the region to Rp 440,000 per month, due in large part to the tremendous efforts of local Indonesian organizers and workers (many of whom work in factories producing for Nike). Though this minor wage increase is beneficial, workers still cannot meet their basic human needs.

Every worker we spoke with stated that in order to meet their essential minimum needs they would need Rp 700,000 per month at the very least as a basic wage, not including transportation allowances, attendance bonuses, overtime pay, etc. At the currency exchange rate on 5/20/01 ($1 USD = Rp 11, 390), Rp 700,000 would be $61.46 USD, making the wage increase $22.82 USD per month, or $0.76 USD per day, per worker. The workers also stated that with the prices of basic goods as they were in August, Rp 1,400,000 per month would allow them to meet their essential needs as defined by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, and some savings).

The right to form independent unions and for factory management to bargain with these unions in good faith.
The right to form independent trade unions is a right that is guaranteed by Indonesian law, U.S. law, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations’ International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the International Labor Organization, the Catholic Church, and countless other international organizations.

The right to form independent unions is also guaranteed by Nike's Code of Conduct. However, the workers have told us and other researchers that Nike’s claims are merely words on paper. The reality is that workers who attempt to organize and form independent unions are consistently threatened, intimidated and in some cases brutalized. "Like Cutting Bamboo", a report by Tim Connor of Community Aid Abroad/Oxfam Australia, details this reality in Indonesia.

If independent unions are not recognized, or are prohibited from forming, workers cannot fight for their rights guaranteed to them by the organizations mentioned above. If independent unions are prohibited from forming, wage levels will not rise. Keeping wages at superficially low levels is of paramount importance for developing countries that are trying to attract foreign investment dollars from companies like Nike. Nike takes advantage of this reality and perpetuates the "race to the bottom" for the world’s cheapest labor.

Look at the tags on your clothing, shoes, children’s toys, electronics, and everyday items. It is no coincidence that the majority of these goods are now made in countries where independent reporting consistently documents that labor, environmental and human rights are not respected.

Truly independent monitors that are in no way connected or contracted by the Nike Corporation.
In order to ensure that Nike is not in violation of local or international labor and environmental standards or its own code of conduct, it is critical that local and international NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) have access to Nike’s subcontracted factories and factory records, and can interview workers both in and outside of the factory.

Nike claims in their Public Relations materials that they do employ "independent" monitors to audit their factories, specifically, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the Fair Labor Association. However, workers and labor rights activists do not consider these organizations to be truly independent because in the case of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the Nike Corporation pays them and in the case of the Fair Labor Association, Nike is a founder and board member. Both of these efforts have been described by critical activists as "whitewashes".

In our research, we had found PricewaterhouseCoopers monitoring of Nike’s factories to be flawed at best. For a recent detailed academic evaluation of PricewaterhouseCoopers substandard monitoring in Indonesia, read, "Monitoring the Monitors", written by Dara O’Rourke, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy from MIT.

But I read in the New York Times that the Fair Labor Association is a good organization that brings together the corporations plus religious groups and nonprofit organizations...even the U.S. Government. How could it be flawed?
The Fair Labor Association is an organization that emerged from President Clinton’s Apparel Industry Partnership. It originally was comprised of labor, religious and human rights groups as well as representatives from the apparel and footwear industry, including Nike. There was however a rift in the early stages of the development of this organization when controversy arose regarding worker’s rights to just wages and mechanisms for independent monitoring. Following this rift, many well-respected labor, religious and human rights groups left the organization in protest.

Since the establishment of the Apparel Industry Partnership, nearly 5 years have passed. The organization, along with its more recent outgrowth, FLA, has done almost nothing to ensure that the rights of workers and the environment are protected. With a multi-million dollar budget, the backing of the United States Government and domestic and international resources well beyond the scope of any small-scale NGO they have accredited only three monitors, which have researched and issued a report on only one factory.

Nike contributes $100,000 to the Fair Labor Association, is a board member and has tremendous influence (by design of the organization) over what factories are audited and what information from these audits is published:

"There are nonetheless a number of serious problems with the FLA, including its lack of full transparency; the fact that its "independent" monitors will be selected by Nike and hence cannot properly be called independent; and the long delays between independent monitoring visits. On average under the FLA program each factory will only be "independently" monitored once every ten years."
(Tim Connor, "A Long Way To Go: Nike, the Global Alliance and workers' rights")

During our time in Indonesia we explained to Nike workers how Nike pays PricewaterhouseCoopers to do their monitoring and the connections between Nike and the FLA. Upon learning this information, most of the workers claimed "KKN!" or "Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism", a well-known outcry of the people in Indonesia. Given this information, the workers reiterated their demand for monitors that are truly independent — monitors that are in no way connected or contracted with the Nike Corporation.

2. Why are you picking on Nike?
The Living Wage Project is not an anti-Nike campaign; it is an anti-exploitation and pro-justice campaign. We are not trying to bankrupt the Nike Corporation. We are a human rights initiative that is focused on telling the human story behind the sweatshop debate.

Our mission is to educate the public about the human stories of sweatshop workers and to educate the workers about their rights and worth in the global marketplace. Through such education, we strive to empower both workers and consumers to take action with the goal of establishing justice in the workplace and peace in our global family.

We chose to focus on Nike as a case study in this anti-sweatshop campaign. Nike is the self-proclaimed leader of the industry, and the leader inevitably sets the industry standard. Nike therefore, has a responsibility to set an industry standard where labor, environmental, and human rights are respected.

We have followed the example of Community Aid Abroad/Oxfam Australia and Press for Change. Both of these organizations have made the decision to focus very limited campaign resources on the Nike Corporation for several reasons:

• Nike, the market leader in the sportswear industry, led the push into low wage countries with poor human rights records.
• Labor abuses in Nike factories have already been extensively and reliably documented over a 10-year period.
• As the company with the largest profit margins, Nike could more easily afford to ensure decent pay and conditions in its suppliers' factories.

We continue to be optimistic that if through consumer, student, and labor rights advocates’ pressure, we are able to influence Nike to adopt genuine labor reforms, then we will be in a good position to put pressure on other companies in the industry to follow suit. We have focused on Nike hoping to create a workable model for educating and empowering people to take action to bring about justice for the 110,000 of Nike’s factory workers in Indonesia. Once the model is established, it can then be applied to other countries, companies and industries.

3. Are you just trying to make me feel guilty about wearing the clothes and shoes I like?
The truth about the lived reality of the workers is and should be alarming to you. Learning this information may be painful. You might feel guilty, angry, or uncomfortable. This is normal and natural. If you are a human being with a conscience and have the slightest concern for your fellow human beings, stories of oppression, exploitation, injustice, and inhumanity should disturb you. It’s what you do with these emotions that makes the difference.

90-95% of all clothes are made in sweatshops. All of us who wear clothes made in sweatshops are therefore implicated in this injustice. This means that you have a responsibility to get educated on your role in this injustice, and do what you can to end the injustice. We along with many other labor rights activists are very concerned about educating the general public on their rights and responsibilities in this sweatshop debate.

4. Should I boycott Nike products?
No, because the workers are not calling for a boycott of Nike products. A boycott has the potential to threaten the jobs of workers whom we are trying to support.

5. Are there any companies that don’t use sweatshops?
At the moment there are no major brands producing clothing or footwear that do not use sweatshops. 90-95% of all clothing and shoes you will find in retail stores are made in conditions similar to the conditions we documented during our time with Nike’s workers in Indonesia. One reason that well-known corporations (Nike, Reebok, Calvin Klein, Old Navy, Wal-Mart, Kohl’s, etc.) have multimillion dollar advertising budgets for billboards, TV commercials, magazine ads, radio ads, and newspaper ads is because they pay workers what is considered a "starvation wage".

There are some small-scale suppliers that are trying to make clothes and shoes in a "sweat-free" manner. We are in the process of researching companies like this and hope to have a listing of them on our site in the near future. This may take awhile though, since we want to be equally rigorous in our scrutiny of all companies.

But I read on another anti-sweatshop website about organizations like Responsible Shopper and Co-op America that grade companies on a scale from "A" to "F".
Responsible Shopper, a brainchild of Co-op America and Social Accountability International, rates companies against each other, rather than against a set objective standard. If Nike discloses 41 of their 700 factory locations, and the Russell Corporation decides not to engage in dialogue regarding factory disclosure, Nike gets an "A" rating, and Russell gets an "F". In addition to this defective rating method, the grades are given on the widely rejected curved grading system:

Depending on response rate, grades are determined by a division of the final relative ranking into roughly quintiles (20 percent receive A's, 20 percent B's, and so on). This grading system is similar to grading on a curve.
(Council on Economic Priorities, Responsible Shopper)

The reality is that both Nike and Russell use sweatshop labor, and that this flawed system of rating companies only miseducates and confuses consumers by implying that the abusive labor situation has been resolved and they need not pressure companies anymore.

Some nonprofit groups work under the maxim that it is necessary to reward corporations for every minor step they take, praising them simply for instructing their Public Relations department to engage in "socially and environmentally responsible" dialogue. It is our and many other critical activists’ belief that it is the responsibility of the corporation to respect the human dignity of each of their workers as well as the environment, and that giving considerable praise to corporations for making cosmetic or insignificant changes is detrimental to the workers’ plight.

6. If there are no major brands that are "sweat-free" where can I buy my clothes and shoes?
Given the aforementioned fact that 90-95% of clothes and shoes sold in retail stores are made in oppressive conditions, we suggest the following:

Simplify!
Over-consumption by people in the United States is an issue that certainly needs to concern everyone. Before you purchase any product, ask yourself the question, "Do I really need this?" In the early 80’s, the United States had 6% of the world’s population, but consumed 48% of the world’s resources. In the last 20 years, U.S. consumption rates have exponentially risen. With current trends of global warming, lack of adequate farmland, lack of clean drinking water and other gravely disturbing facts we must honestly and openly deal with the fact that the earth is not dying, we are killing it.

Number of people in the world 6.0 Billion Number of people living on $1 a day 1.3 Billion Number of people living on $2 a day 3.0 Billion Number of people lacking access to sanitation 2.6 Billion Number of people lacking access to clean water 1.3 Billion Number of people lacking adequate housing 1.0 Billion Number of people lacking access to commercial energy sources 2.0 Billion Number of people suffering iron deficiency 3.6 Billion Number of people who have never placed a telephone call 3-4 Billion Percentage increase in American consumption since 1957 100% Among Americans surveyed in 1994, the average annual income they would require to "fulfill their dreams." $102,000

* Statistics taken from the United Nations’ 1998 Human Development Report

Buy Union Made Clothing
One alternative to purchasing clothing made in sweatshops is purchasing union-made clothing. For information on union-made clothes, visit UNITE!.

In the future we hope that all clothing made by major brand-name companies is made with union labor. For this to happen, we need to make sure that we support domestic and international labor organizing.

Buy Locally Made Clothing
In some communities there are unique small shops that produce and sell clothing and shoes that are made locally and under fair conditions. You should do your best to support community-based efforts such as these. Visit Hersey Custom Shoes for Runner’s World’s #1 running shoe, locally made in Maine.

Go "Logo-less" and LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD
If out of necessity, you are going to purchase shoes or clothing that are made in sweatshop conditions, make the decision not to promote the company’s brand until they stop oppressing and exploiting their workforce.

After you have purchased the item that you need, cut off or cover the logos that are on the item, and cut out the tags. Put the removed logos and tags in an envelope along with a brief letter to the company that produced the goods. Let the company know that:

• You like their products and want to buy them, though you are not happy with their labor practices, and will not be a walking billboard for their company.
• If they do not meet the demands of their workers, you will consider not purchasing their products in the future.
• Reiterate the 3 demands of the workers:
  -Living wage that allows workers to meet their basic needs
  -Independent unions to be recognized and for management to collectively bargained with these unions in good faith, and
  -Truly independent monitors.

In addition, write two letters to Congress.

• First, write to your Congressperson and let them know it’s not fair that you don’t have a choice but to buy clothes made in exploitative conditions. Ask them to co-sponsor Rep. McKinney’s HR 460, Transparency and Responsibility for US Trade Health (TRUTH ACT). In addition ask your Congressperson to VOTE AGAINST the Fast Tracking of the FTAA through Congress.
• Second, write to Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, and ask for a full public hearing of the Subcommittee to further discuss the labor, human, and environmental rights violations of U.S. based corporations.

Where do I send letters?
If you do not know the company’s address, go to www.google.com and type in the company’s name. Their address is usually on the home page of their website. If it is Nike goods that you have purchased you can send your letters to:

Philip Knight
CEO and Founder
Nike, Inc.
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005-6453

If you do not know whom your Congressperson is, go to www.house.gov. Go to "Write your Representative" on the bottom left side, and type in your zip code.

YOU ASKED "but what can I buy in good conscience?" This is the answer. We are sorry that our response is not a quick, slick, American-style, fast-food answer. The reason is that this is an international struggle for justice with much work to be done. It might not be convenient for you to write a letter every time you buy sweatshop-made goods, but you must if you want to see change. Do yourself, the workers, and our children a favor and write these letters so that in 5 years when someone in your position asks the same question, there will be a list of companies with sweat-free labor practices. And the children of sweatshop workers will have more opportunities. Make a difference.

7. If wages for these workers go up, won’t the cost of shoes and clothing go up too?
This question assumes that apparel and shoe companies are passing on the savings from labor costs to consumers. Giant retailers like Nike are virtual monopolies, or rather monopsonies where only one buyer seeks the product or service of several sellers. Therefore, there isn’t much motivation to lower prices.

Most of the savings on labor go to supporting corporate profit margins, Phil Knight’s (Nike CEO) salary and giant endorsement contracts for athletes like Tiger Woods ($100 million), Michael Jordan, Mia Hamm ($1 million), and schools like University of Michigan ($25 million), University of Texas ($19 million), and St. John’s University ($3.5 million).

Whatever little money U.S. consumers save because of sweatshop production, they lose again because their own wages have fallen. The average real wages of U.S. production workers fell by about 10% from the 1980’s to the mid-1990’s and they have only recovered slightly during the supposed "boom" thereafter.

There are many reasons for this fall in real wages, one being the competition of low wages in the sweatshops (wages below $1.50 a day, sometimes less than $0.30 an hour) that emerged around the world in the same period of time.

8. If you raise the Indonesian workers’ wages to the wage levels of workers in the United States, then won’t Nike just bring the jobs back here?
We are not asking Nike to raise Indonesian workers’ wages to the level of workers in the U.S. For Nike’s Indonesian factory workers to be on a competitive wage level with U.S. apparel workers, they would need to receive a 4000% raise in pay.

Our goal in advocating for the workers is for the workers to be treated with the dignity and respect that all human beings deserve. Such dignity and respect demands that they be paid a just wage that allows them to meet their basic needs within the local economy. International treaties and compacts, including the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, guarantee the right to a just or "living wage".

9. What else would the workers be doing if they didn’t work for Nike?
In a country with little to no social safety nets (public assistance, unemployment insurance, food stamps), other job opportunities for the workers might be:

• Working in a different factory with much of the same conditions.
  When a worker moves to a different factory, s/he must take a significant pay deduction for the first year. In addition, many workers who have significant experience are often denied jobs at other factories because management fears that they might try to form unions and "agitate" or educate other workers as to their rights;
• Working as a subsistence farmer if the person’s family still has land;
• Working as a personal servant for the upper-middle class or elites.
  Live-in housekeeper or maid is a situation where a person makes a small amount of money in addition to room and board, though they rarely can bring their children and/or spouse;
• Working as a construction worker
  This is a higher paying job than factory worker, but it is a temporary job and thus does not allow for a steady income;
• Doing laundry or other services for the upper-middle class or elites.
• Working as a prostitute.
  Frequently, people in this economically desperate situation resort to prostitution.

The number of factory employment jobs far exceeds the number of personal servant positions, construction jobs, etc. The Nike Corporation employs 110,000 workers in Indonesia. The Unemployment rate is 15-20% in Indonesia, a country with the 4th largest population in the world. The next question, which must be asked, is:

WHY are there no other opportunities for work?
A U.S.-backed military dictator
Following World War II, the United States along with other economically powerful countries at the time, decided that Indonesia had a vast amount of resources that were "untapped", or "unexploited". They decided "Indonesia, with its wealth of raw materials was going to play a central role in the emerging global system." ** To accomplish this, "the United States attempted to overthrow President Sukarno in 1958 through the means of a "rebellion" by Indonesian dissidents and mercenaries trained by the CIA in the Philippines." **

The U.S. eventually helped to oust President Sukarno, and assist the pro-U.S. General Suharto in taking control of Indonesia. "Suharto carried out an actual military coup, which led to the slaughter of some half a million people in a few months, mostly landless peasants, and crushed the popular-based Communist party, at the same time, incidentally, turning the country into a ‘paradise for investors’."**
**(The Chomsky Reader, Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT)

The Suharto regime expropriated the land from these farming peasants in a variety of ways, depending on ethnicity and class. Many were told that if they did not "get off the land", that it showed the government how they did not want to help develop Indonesia or want what was best for Indonesia as a country. If this were the case, the people were labeled as "subversives", which bore a much worse fate than leaving the land one’s family had held for generations.

An economic recession

"The Asian Crisis affected Indonesia more severely than any other country in the region. The purchasing power of the rupiah declined by over 140%. As a result, between 1997 and 1998 (a) the labor force in manufacturing declined from 4.2 million to 3.5 million; (b) the growth rate of manufacturing declined from 6.42% to minus 12.88%; (c) the number of establishments declined from 22,386 to 20,422. Remaining factories either shed staff, increased quotas or decreased wage costs to cope."
(Peter Hancock, University of Melbourne, in his article, "Women workers still exploited: Revisiting two Nike factories in West Java after the economic crisis." Published in "Inside Indonesia" June, 2000)

In 1997, Indonesia (and more broadly Asia) went through an economic recession that crippled its economy. The market crashed and the rupiah, Indonesia’s currency, was devalued beyond recognition on the international currency markets. The International Monetary Fund gave an enormous financial aid package to Indonesia, who in turn, had to restructure its industries, cut food and fuel subsidies to the poor, and begin repaying the debt immediately. It has been documented time and time again, that the poor are the ones to suffer most when large international bodies such as the IMF and World Bank deliver a "debt-relief" package.

Lack of opportunities
In a country with the 4th largest population in the world, and an unemployment rate of 15-20%, good employment opportunities for people from economically disadvantaged families are limited. Many of the workers come from families who are economically desperate due to years of cultural imperialism at the hand of "first-world countries" and 32 years of Suharto’s policies. Many of the workers have a marginal high school education at best due to lack of educational opportunities. Many of the workers are sent into big cities like Jakarta and Tangerang because there are no job opportunities in or around their villages. The workers, most of them young women in their teens and early twenties, must now take on the role of "breadwinner" for their families.

Sometimes, we in the United States, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia are far removed from the reality of these women, children, and men. If we have a bed to sleep in tonight, have the opportunity to eat 3 meals today, have more than 2 sets of clothes, have clean water to drink, and have access to healthcare, in a global sense we are "elite." If in addition, we have a college education or the prospects of a college education, we are in the 1% of the world with such opportunities. This is why we must mentally (or physically) remove ourselves from our positions of privilege and try as best we can to understand the lived reality of the workers.

The situation is something like this:
There is a military dictator who wants big business because to the elites of his country, big business means big money. There is an economic recession that leaves millions desperate and searching for employment. Your family may not own farmland or have investments in other local industries like restaurants, taxi services or local markets. Out of your family’s desperation, you are sent to a big city (like Jakarta) to find work. You are by yourself. You don’t know anyone. You have only a small amount of money. You might not speak the local language. You don’t have any job prospects and you have limited, if any, contacts to help you. You have to find work –any work – because you have to eat, you need to find a place to stay, and your family is counting on you to send money home.

You hear about a place – a factory that is hiring and is paying slightly above the legal minimum wage. A minimum wage that the Indonesian government has admitted will only meet 80% of one adult’s food needs – but it doesn’t matter at this point because you NEED a job. This seems like the best situation because you don’t have many options and you can’t wait for "something better to come along in a week", because you need to eat today. You are forced, out of necessity, to take a job at a Nike factory because there might be NO other opportunities for you. So you do. And here’s the reality of your job at a Nike contract factory:

• You will work up to 15 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, sometimes two 24 hour shifts per week if the quota is high enough.
• It is going to be hot, smelly, and noisy in the factory.
• You may breathe in toxic chemicals if you work on the glue lines.
• Your manager might physically, verbally and sexually abuse you.
• You may have to return sexual favors for this job you have just been given.
• You may work on the shoe-press machines where workers routinely lose parts of their fingers.
• You may be forced to work overtime when quotas are high that far exceed Indonesia’s 54 hour maximum workweek or even the 72 hour shifts for factories that applied for exemption from Indonesian law.
• When you get your paycheck at the end of the month you do not have enough money to meet your basic living needs, let alone have the ability to save money or send money home.

Again, this is the reality of your situation working in a Nike factory. If you try to organize and fight for a better situation and for your rights that are guaranteed you by law and by Nike’s own Code of Conduct, you run the risk of being verbally and physically assaulted and possibly jailed or disappeared and murdered.

Workers cannot afford the products they make
In addition, factory workers cannot afford to buy the products they produce. A pair of Nike sneakers is the same price in Indonesia as they are in Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.

• Is there something unethical about U.S. based corporations entering a country and employing a significant portion of that country’s workforce to make items that the majority of people in the host country will never benefit from?
• Is there something unethical about using the country’s human-power as a source of cheap labor to produce goods that only the elite, mostly in other countries, can afford?
• Is there something unethical about giving workers a fraction of what they deserve for their hard work and repaying them for the use of their land by polluting their environment in ways that are illegal in their country and Western countries like the U.S.?

"If we put our minds to creating an economic system that works for people rather than corporations they would have their own farms, businesses, or jobs paying a local living wage producing goods and services needed by themselves and their communities.

Obviously that is part of a much larger discussion. It is the difference between the question of what else might they be doing given development policies that eliminate all other options and how else might we organize economies so that they provide better opportunities for people."
(Former Harvard University Business professor and author, David Korten)

But aren’t these jobs better than no jobs or the other job opportunities?
Given the desperation of the Indonesian economy some people argue that these jobs are better than no jobs. In addition to the historical, social, political, economic, and cultural views of this situation, we approach this issue from a moral perspective that recognizes the dignity of every human being. We see the situation as such:

If there are three choices to be had:

1. Being unemployed and economically desperate.
2. Having a job where your desperation is exploited, your dignity robbed, and the fruits of your labor enjoyed mostly by corporate executives and athletes making (taking) millions and sometimes billions from your hard work. A job where your wage allows you to meet 80-90% of your (and only your) food intake**.
3. Having a job that allows you to meet all of your basic needs, adequately provide for your family and maintain your human dignity.
   

Certainly a bad job, albeit in an exploitative situation is better than no job, though a corporation with the resources to ensure a good job has the responsibility to do so.

We believe that if a person is willing to work hard, that s/he should be able to meet their basic needs and adequately provide for their family, especially when working for a large multinational corporation with profit margins and advertising budgets in the hundreds of millions. We believe that choice #3, where employers can make a profit while employees have enough is most preferable to a loving and compassionate God and that is why we do this work.

** At the time of our research, the Indonesian government had declared that the basic minimum wage of 286,000Rp per month would only be enough to meet 80% of one person’s food intake. Nike was, at that time paying 300,000Rp per month.

So then, what are the alternatives?
The alternative we propose is for companies like Nike to treat the women and men working in their factories with dignity and to meet their three major demands:

1. A wage raise to Rp 700,000 at the very least as a basic monthly wage.
2. The right to form independent unions and have the factory management bargain with these unions in good faith.
3. Truly independent monitors.
   

All of these demands are reasonable and attainable. For Nike to raise all of their workers in Indonesia to this Rp 700,000 per month level it would cost them roughly $3,000,000 per year or 3% of their $980,000,000 advertising budget.

The right to form unions is guaranteed by international law. Nike must ensure that their subcontractors allow independent unions to form and that they bargain with these unions in good faith.

Nike could easily open their doors to truly independent monitors. If they have nothing to hide as they claim in their "Transparency 101" Campaign, this should not be a problem.

10. Doesn’t the Indonesian Government have some responsibility in this?
For 32 years Suharto, a military dictator, ruled Indonesia. During his reign, a half of a million people were killed in Indonesia, as well as a quarter of a million people in East Timor. He was eventually ousted from power in 1998 due in large part to the persistent struggle and sacrifice of pro-democracy, labor, and student activists. (Visit Amnesty International - Indonesia for more information.) During his reign Suharto was infamous for creating a political and economic climate that was favorable to "big business", particularly American companies. One of these American Companies was Nike.

Because of the brutality of the Suharto regime and the "investment friendly" climate it created, companies like Nike saw a fantastic opportunity to maximize their profits, albeit at the expense of economically disadvantaged Indonesians. There are three critical factors that allow companies like Nike to maximize profit to the extent that they do:

A desperate workforce.
Because of Suharto’s policies, which benefited the country’s elite, there are millions of desperately poor people in Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous nation with an Unemployment rate of 15-20%. Many Indonesians were forced off of their land by Suharto’s military in order to make way for "development." Development in this case did not mean the improvement of their small-scale subsistence farms and local industries, but rather the creation of industrial zones that would solely benefit companies like Nike, the Suharto family, and Suharto’s cronies.

The inability for workers to form unions.
For the entirety of the Suharto regime, labor unions were viciously attacked and labor organizers were intimidated, imprisoned and in some cases disappeared and murdered. Without the freedom to freely associate and collectively bargain for better working conditions, workers are at a constant disadvantage and the companies have the upper hand.

The backing of Suharto’s brutal military dictatorship.
During the time that Suharto was in power, Nike worked hand and hand with his regime a regime that was responsible for the killing of 500,000 Indonesians and 250,000 East Timorese. Nike utilized the military to help quash any attempts by workers to improve their wages and working conditions. For example in 1997, during a period of intense organizing by workers at one sub-contracted factory, Nike called in the Indonesian military to occupy the factory. Visit Nike in Indonesia to learn more.

Given the past corruption and the current uncertainty in the Indonesian government, we can do a number of things to help Indonesia’s labor and pro-democracy movements. This list of what we can do comes from pro-democracy leader, Dita Sari. When we interviewed Dita for our documentary, she believed that we would be most efficient by focusing on our government and U.S. based corporations and institutions. She said to leave the concerns of the Indonesian government to the Indonesian people, and went on to tell us that we could do the following to assist the Indonesian people in their efforts:

Tell the United States government to stop working hand-in-hand with the corrupt officials in Indonesia.
To get involved in an international campaign that is calling for the U.S. government to be a vehicle for justice in Indonesia, visit East Timorese Action Network.

Tell U.S. Corporations to stop exploiting the Indonesian people.
For a historical chronology of Nike’s operations in Indonesia and other developing countries, visit Nike Chronology.

Tell U.S. colleges, universities, and religious organizations to stop putting the stamp of approval on the unjust situation by collaborating with companies like Nike and/or promoting their products. By their actions, institutions such as these legitimize the exploitation of Indonesian workers.
For information on how college students across the country are struggling in solidarity with women and men forced to work in sweatshops, visit United Students Against Sweatshops.

11. I read a newspaper article that says Nike has made improvements. Is this not true?
Improvements that Nike has made in the recent past have been cosmetic and fairly insignificant. There was however, a major breakthrough on February 22, 2001, when Nike was forced to admit that they have colluded in oppressing and exploiting their workers in Indonesia, when a report that they commissioned found devastating labor abuses.

"In a report issued today by Nike, the athletic-apparel giant confessed to facilitating worker exploitation. … The study uncovered the exchange of sexual favors for jobs--as well as other physical and verbal abuses--at factories in Indonesia that manufacture Nike products."
(Forbes Magazine, Thursday February 22, 2001 "Disaster Of The Day: Nike" By Davide Dukcevich)

It should be noted that allegations such as these have been documented for over 10 years by human and labor rights advocates, and brought to the attention of the Nike Corporation.

"According to Dusty Kidd, Nike's vice president for corporate responsibility, however: "One thing we hadn't done was ask workers in a systematic fashion to provide us with their input."
(Financial Times - London, February 22, 2001 "Findings on Nike put the spotlight on broader global issues" by Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson)

Asking workers in a systematic fashion to provide their input is one of the most important steps in the independent monitoring process. If the Nike Corporation claims to want to improve the situation for the workers, shouldn’t the Nike Corporation ask the workers for their input?

The critical next step at this point is that reparations be paid to past and present workers for the suffering that they have endured at the hands of Nike and their abusive subcontractors. To date, Nike has specified neither a dollar amount nor a payment schedule guaranteeing that such reparations will be granted.

"What is of paramount importance now is that Nike make true reparations for the women and men in Indonesia who have lost so much through Nike’s denial and in many cases outright oppression of their basic human and worker rights."
(Jeff Ballinger, Director, Press for Change)

12. Aren’t sweatshops a necessary part of economic development?
No. There is a critical question that you must consider when you pose this question: "What is economic development?" If you consider economic development to be a situation where local communities improve their quality of life and all those living in the community can afford food, clothing, housing, healthcare, education, and reasonable savings and recreation; then no, sweatshops are not a necessary part of economic development.

If however you follow the neo-liberal model of development that calls for nothing but continued growth as a benchmark of development, then you might believe that sweatshops are necessary. Such neo-liberal models however are NOT helping to develop developing countries. On the contrary, they are destroying the people and the planet in the process.

"If our concern is with sustainable human well-being for all people, then we must penetrate the economic myths embedded in our culture by the prophets of illusion, free ourselves of our obsession with growth, and dramatically restructure economic relationships to focus on two priorities:

Balance human uses of the environment with the regenerative capacities of the ecosystem; and Allocate available natural capital in ways that ensure that all people have the opportunity to fulfill their physical needs adequately and to pursue their full social, cultural, intellectual and spiritual development." (David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World)

But we had sweatshops and child labor in this country, and that’s how we were able to get to the point we’re at. They should be allowed to get to the point we are at in the United States.
There are a few reasons why the United States was able to achieve and is able to maintain its current economic status:

• Our fore-founders exploited black Americans in slavery for 244 years, and white Americans (the most common demographic group of corporate executives) continue to reap the benefits of a country built through slave labor.
• Throughout the Industrial Revolution, U.S. citizens fought for their independent unions to be recognized and for their factory management to bargain collectively with these unions, much like the situation today in Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand, Nicaragua, etc. While struggling for these unions to be recognized, our country had a democratic ethos and the separation of governmental powers in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
• In order to achieve and maintain the U.S.’s current economic status, the U.S. exploited our country (people and natural resources) as well as other countries (their people and their natural resources.)
• Actually, we still do have sweatshops and child labor in this country.

Oftentimes when we say, "getting to the point we are at in the U.S.", we mean that all peoples around the world should have an opportunity to work hard and reap the benefits of their work, such that they can afford their basic necessities, some luxuries if they so choose, and their children can have more opportunities for work and education than they did.

The reality is that working in a sweatshop in the year 2001 does not allow for this type of economic advancement. One major reason is that with the advent of the globalization of capitalism, corporations can pit countries against each other and look for the "best return on their investment." If workers form independent unions and bargain collectively for their rights in Indonesia, the corporation might "cut and run" (leave the factory) and move to a factory where workers have not organized to fight for their rights, a factory either within Indonesia or in another country like China or Vietnam. Another reason is that while working up to 15 hours per day for some of the most profitable corporations, workers cannot meet their basic needs, or the needs of their family and cannot send their children to school in hopes of breaking the cycle of poverty.

If we would like the workers to have the opportunity to "get to the point we are at", we need to support their attempts to union-organize and pressure corporations to treat workers fairly. We also must ensure through public pressure that companies not "cut and run" from factories where workers are demanding their rights. Finally we must pressure our government to implement laws that would prevent U.S. based corporations from circumventing environmental and labor laws that we have democratically established here to protect our labor rights and our environment. To find out how we can do this – visit our How you can Help webpage.

If we in the U.S. now recognize that slave labor is wrong and that certain labor abuses committed during and after our Industrial Revolution (i.e. child labor, inadequate wages, sexual abuse) were appalling, why must we perpetrate these abuses in other countries? Surely we can learn from our mistakes. Also, if we have the technology to implement programs like the Bush Administration’s "Star Wars"; can build entire cities underground in the form of intricate subway systems; and can create global communications systems where people in Pakistan, Kenya, Iceland, and Brazil and the world over, can speak through the Internet’s instant message system, then certainly we can use our collective intelligence and resources to find a new way to run our businesses so that every worker’s basic human dignity is respected.

13. Are there a lot of sweatshops here in the U.S.? If so, why aren’t you doing anything about that?
There are countless sweatshops in the United States. In Los Angeles, there are 5000 factories, 4500 of which are qualified as sweatshops. In New York City, there are 3500 sweatshops. Fighting against sweatshops in countries like Indonesia and Mexico, and fighting against sweatshops in the U.S., are really the same issue.

The workers in U.S. sweatshops are most often immigrants fleeing the same conditions that create the sweatshops in their own countries. In 1997, a joint study by the Mexican and U.S. governments estimated that there are 2.3 million to 2.4 million "unauthorized residents" from Mexico in the US. In 1996, a research group funded by the Mexican government gave a much higher estimate: 5 million Mexicans working in the U.S. without documents, earning about $100 a week. In addition there are at least another 500,000 workers without papers from other countries working in the U.S. as well.

Once these women and men are in the U.S. and working in a sweatshop, factory managers take advantage of their undocumented status (if applicable), language barrier, and other factors keeping the workers from knowing and demanding their rights. Factory management might use threats of calling the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and having workers deported if they want to organize a union, ask for a raise, or sometimes ask for pay they have earned but not yet received.

Undocumented workers are usually paid much less than citizens or legal residents, many times less than the minimum wage. The atrocious exploitation of millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. and the millions of desperately poor workers worldwide tend to push wage levels down for all workers. The struggle to get just wages and just working conditions for workers in Indonesia, Mexico, China, El Salvador, etc. and the United States is a common struggle. For information on nonprofit groups advocating for workers specifically in the United States, visit our Related Links section.

14. Our country is founded on capitalism, isn’t this the American way?
Our country is not founded on capitalism. Our country is founded on DEMOCRACY.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble of the U.S. Constitution)

Nowhere in our constitution is the word capitalism mentioned. Though, throughout the constitution, we declare ourselves a country that is committed to justice, freedom and protecting the life, dignity and rights of every human person.

According to United States law, we believe that every person, regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or economic status should have a full and equal say in how their local, state and national governments operate.

The "American way" is a way which ensures that two fundamental concerns be at the forefront of any social, political, cultural or economic policy or activity that we engage in as individuals, corporations or a nation:

1. That all human life is respected.
2. That democracy is protected and promoted.

By the way that companies like the Nike Corporation operate in places like Indonesia, they undermine these two fundamental concerns and thus negate the efforts of truly patriotic Americans who are trying to ensure that these foundational American principles are respected.

These ideas of corporate responsibility are not new:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." (Thomas Jefferson, 1816)

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country… corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." (Abraham Lincoln, 1865)

To learn more about the history of our democracy and how it was formed:
Basic Readings in Democracy.

15. When will you be satisfied with Nike’s efforts?
It is important to note that we take our cues for action from the workers themselves. When workers feel that they are being treated fairly and no longer have a need for us to advocate on their behalf, we will be satisfied. Unlike most people in other professions, we would like to be put out of work.

16. What do you want Nike to do?
1. Pay a Just Wage
The Living Wage Project is part of an international network of organizations campaigning to persuade Nike to improve their labor practices. Since 1992 members of the International Community have been calling on the company to ensure that workers making Nike products are freely allowed to form unions and negotiate collectively, are allowed to refuse overtime and are paid at a rate which allows them to earn a wage high enough in a standard working week to provide themselves and their families with an adequate diet, housing, and basic necessities such as medical care.

2. Bargain in Good Faith with Independent Unions
The Nike Corporation needs to begin to ensure that their Code of Conduct is being implemented with regards to the freedom of association for workers. They also need to guarantee that the management of their subcontracted factories bargains with independent unions in good faith.

The right to form independent trade unions is a right that is guaranteed by Indonesian law, U.S. law, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations’ International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Labor Organization, the Catholic Church, and countless other international organizations.
.
3. Allow for Truly Independent Monitors
Nike should work with international unions and critical human rights organizations to establish a program of factory monitoring by credible organizations that are independent of (i.e. not selected by) the company.
Such monitoring should include:

• Worker education to ensure that workers are aware of their rights
• Public reports of monitoring visits
• A confidential complaint mechanism to a credible independent body which can be accessed by workers whose rights are not being respected
• Public disclosure of all factory addresses where the company produces and the levels of orders from each factory

17. How can I learn more?
Learning more about the issue is the vital first step in our three-part maxim for change, "Education – Empowerment – Action." We suggest that you visit our Related Links section to find a whole range of excellent websites dealing with this issue.

We also suggest that you do your best to read critical writings about corporations, government, economics, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy and theology. Our Resource Room webpage is coming soon!

18. For those of you who remain critical, the following are some questions that we at the Living Wage Project would like you to consider. If you feel so inclined, answer and write back to us:

1. How do you believe that you will be effected if these workers receive the roughly a $1 a day raise they certainly deserve?
2. Do you practice a religion? If you do, how would the God you believe in respond to people being forced to live in poverty when they are working full-time for a successful company?
3. Do you believe that people should be guaranteed the rights that are outlined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
4. Do you think you have power to change this situation?
5. Do you believe in utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number)? If you do, how would you defend Nike CEO Phil Knight holding $5.6 billion (net worth) while 550,000 people in his global workforce cannot adequately feed themselves?
6. Do you believe that human life and democracy are to be respected at all times? If so, is Nike respecting these values?
7. Do you agree that the following are unjust?
   - physical abuse
   - verbal abuse
   - sexual abuse
   - denial of rights guaranteed by law
8. If you do agree that the above are unjust, do you have a moral duty to try and change the situation? Do you believe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he said "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
9. If you were a woman or man working in a situation where you were exploited, would you want people to help you in your struggle, especially if they had the opportunity and ability?
10. If you had to explain to your God why you believe that "sweatshops are a necessary part of development," how would you do it? Do you think that your God would be satisfied with your answer?

Thanks to those individuals and groups who have shared their expertise and made these FAQ’s an effective educational tool:

1. Press for Change
2. Community Aid Abroad/Oxfam Australia
3. The Global Sweatshop Coalition (NYC)
4. David Korten, Author of "When Corporations Rule the World"
5. Dr. Bruce Buchanan, C.W. Nichols Professor of Business Ethics, New York University
6. Dr. Anita Chan, Senior Research Fellow, Contemporary China Centre, Australian National University