<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>sweatshops</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <TT>>Dennis, Doug, et al-- >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@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@mindspring.com> >>>  To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com >>>  Mime-version: 1.0 >>>  X-Priority: 3 >>>  Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com >>>  Precedence: bulk >>>  Reply-To: lbo-talk@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 >> </TT> </BODY> </HTML>