“Nike is criticized for using sweatshops in countries like Indonesia and Mexico. The company has been subject to much critical coverage of the often poor working conditions and the exploitative ness of the cheap overseas labor.” – answers. com 1. Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but where sub-contractors make product for Nike? Yes, but I do not believe that the firm is 100% responsible since it is the sub-contractors who operate and create conditions for workers. Low-cost manufacturing is Nike’s strategy, and it is realized by outsourcing the manufacturing process to cheap labor countries. If Nike were responsible for all of working conditions of workers at sub-contractors’ factories, it would cost more to make shoes.
However, I think that Nike should monitor minimum working conditions so that workers will not die from Karachi, which might be lead to a big issue. 2. What labor standards regarding safety, working conditions, overtime and the like should Nike hold foreign factories to: those prevailing in that country, or those prevailing in the United States? Nike should hold the standards regarding safety and working conditions that are prevailing in that country. However, when the sweatshop workers try to tolerate the conditions and wages, firms that are making investment in that country should not intervene the movement. In countries around the world, garment workers have sought to improve their situation by trying to organize unions.
The Research paper on Working Condition of Female Garments Worker
1.1 Introduction. The Readymade Garment (RMG) industry of Bangladesh has emerged as a competent garment producer in global garment business in recent times. This industry has successfully transformed Bangladesh into an export-oriented economy. The RMG industry also became the major foreign currency-earning sector with highest rates of absorption of industrial employment. Interestingly, women ...
Those efforts are almost crushed. Union organizers have been beaten, thrown in jail, black listed, and even killed. In some countries, such as Mexico, the government often cooperates with factory owners as they try to bust organizing drives. 3.
An income of $2. 28 a day, the base pay of Nike factory workers in Indonesia, is double the daily income of about half the working population. Half of all adults in Indonesia are farmers, who receive less than $1 a day. Given this, is it correct to criticize Nike for low pay rates for subcontractors in Indonesia. No, it is not. I believe that it is the local economy that determines if the wage is too low or not.
If Nike factory in Indonesia allocates income double of that of about half the working population there, I think Nike should rather be applauded for providing working opportunities to the local community. However, as Nike’s factory improve the unemployment condition for the local community, local government would not bother to help the community to improve their economy anymore. Then, the local community will always be dependent on Nike factory, and the community will have to live with the factory no matter how bad the Nike factory treat workers. This kind of situation would not boost the economy of the community, therefore Nike will be considered as a greedy corporation. 4.
Would Nike have handled the negative publicity over sweatshops better? What might have been done differently? Not just from the public relations perspective, but also from a policy perspective? The company has been faced with unexpected criticism after the negative publicity about sweatshops has released. Nike’s response in first place involved rejections, such as “It did not happen”, and denials of the links between the firm and the incident. Either way, Nike could not have done any better because they were not prepared to respond to those criticisms. If the company was aware of the problem earlier, they could have prevented those negative publicity from being circulated. From a policy perspective, what they could have done was to assure that its sub-contractors were not going beyond the legal limitations in each country by forming some kind of audit group including outsider of the company. 5.
The Term Paper on Nike And Exploitation Community Aid Abroad
... these Asian factories. Whilst Nike is not the only company who uses such practices, they have been targeted again and again by community welfare ... basic weekly wage, (c) place that worker in an accredited local school and pay fees to keep them there, and (d) ... their company being seen to use child labour. They say, "We put teeth behind the policy with oversight and follow-up.A Nike contractor ...
Do you think Nike needs to make any changes to its current policy? If so, what? Should Nike make changes even if they hinder the ability of the company to compete in the marketplace? Nike’s business model is to market high-end consumer products that were manufactured in low-cost supply chains. Nike should make changes in its policy in response to the negative criticism, but should not hinder the ability of the company to compete in the market place. Many of other companies, such as Wal-mart, do have the same business model, and they also hold corporate responsibilities to the society. Nike could comply with its competitors’ policy on low-cost supply chains overseas so that civil activists will not be able to point out Nike’s responsibility. 6. Is the WRC right to argue that the FLA is a tool of industry? “FLA is not a truly independent auditor of foreign factories.”WRC refuses to cooperate with companies because doing so might jeopardize its independence.” From those two statements above, I can only guess that WRC could say that the FLA is an industry tool to avoid other organization’s intervention to the sweatshop operation.
7. If sweatshops are a global problem, what might be a global solution to this problem? Big organizations have no concern for the workers but profitability. It is very much dishonors the values of human right. By exploit the U.
S. employment system, I think a good solution to prevent sweatshops and protect workers is for each country to develop more strict labor laws and encourage labor unions.
