>the students object to sweetheart contracts that do not include rigorous
>labor rights enforcement clauses. the idea is to pressure the university to
>use its power as a client to pressure Nike to improve conditions for
>workers. the source of the university's power, of course, is that it could
>decide to back out of the contract if all else fails, just as the average
>consumer's power lies in refusing to buy. the university of michigan student
>assembly just passed a resolution to cancel Nike's contract IF it did not
>meet student labor rights demands. but the idea is to use that as a threat
>of last resort (as it is at Umichigan, where students have been fighting the
>administration over the nike contract for a long time), because students
>don't want workers thrown out of work and also, once you enter into a
>boycott, you don't have that as a looming threat anymore, and you've given
>up a certain amount of tactical client/consumer power. there's a fear that
>boycotts could encourage companies to "cut and run." If Nike stops doing
>business with a "bad" subcontractor, there's really no hope of improving
>conditions for that factory's employees. the current situation with the
>factory on strike in Mexico City is a good example: a nike subcontractor
>fired workers for attempting to establish their own independent union. nike
>initially intimated that it might pull out of the factory and the students
>came down very hard on them for that, saying, no, you can't get out of it
>that easily, you have to stay and try to force factory management to
>recognize the union. (since then Nike has been making all sorts of sounds
>about mediation, which apparently are utter bullshit, but it's impressive
>how quickly students got them to change their performance at least)
>
>Liza
>
>>
>>> X-From_: owner-lbo-talk at dont.panix.com Mon Jan 22 12:58:30 2001
>>> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:05:10 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: On the important French Fry Question
>>> From: "Dennis Perrin/Nancy Bauer" <bauerperrin at mindspring.com>
>>> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>> Mime-version: 1.0
>>> X-Priority: 3
>>> Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>> Precedence: bulk
>>> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>>
>>>> Student anti-sweatshop activists, taking their cue from the workers,
>>>> are opposed to boycotts against the likes of Nike. They want the
>>>> workers to be well paid and decently treated and free to organize,
>>>> not disemployed.
>>>>
>>>> Doug
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? That's not my impression. Of course you don't want to see Third
>>> World workers tossed into the dirt, but then why have student
>>>anti-sweatshop
>>> activists demanded that universities NOT enter into sweetheart deals with
>>> Nike? This was raised when Nike essentially bought off the athletic depts.
>>> at the University of Kentucky and St. John's. Also, I've yet to see
>>> anti-sweatshop activists wearing Nike gear. Maybe some do;
>>>perhaps many. But
>>> I haven't seen it.
>>>
>>> DP
>>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010122/88c9de2b/attachment.htm>