Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saintaw on February 24, 2001, 03:04:00 AM
-
http://forums.gameplay.com/showthread.php?threadid=226730 (http://forums.gameplay.com/showthread.php?threadid=226730)
-
I've never owned a pair of Nike,S. And I couldn't care less about the company. But I cant help but wonder if that 10 year old, Vietnamese, girl might not go hungry without a job. Something the do-gooders never seem to think about.
-
I saw something in the news about Nike the other day. something about how many of the slav..workers. I dont remember the exact numbers but the number of workers who have either experenced or witnessed sexual harassment, physical abuse, and verbal abuse were suprisingly high.
-
Yep I saw that too on NakedNews.
-
Originally posted by easymo:
I've never owned a pair of Nike,S. And I couldn't care less about the company. But I cant help but wonder if that 10 year old, Vietnamese, girl might not go hungry without a job. Something the do-gooders never seem to think about.
read your own post again and think about it real hard...
10 year old ? There are millions of unemployed capable men looking for work in that region and 10 year old girls are hired instead... would you let your 10 year old child work in a factory for 12 and sometimes more hours a day with conditions barely different from concentration camp ?
If Nike was hiring any of the unemployed ADULTS in the region so that they could provide for their families - i wouldn't have much problem with it... but since when should a 10 year old be a bread winner for a family ?
Did you know that in Indonesia they have something of an equivalent of our minimal wage. It's something so miniscule that one pair shoes could pay wages of 100s of people. Yet, NIKE pays less then that. Just think about it..... they spend gozzilions of dollars on big names in advatising, and extra few cents ( we're talkin in cents not dollars per hour wages here lads ) will kill them ?
It's a licence to destroy people's lifes and resoning of "at least they have a job" that makes me wonder if human race is heading back for the trees....
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
And you would replace this childs rice bowl with what? Good intentions.
-
Heh, no, let's have an incentive to keep these guys poor (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!
-
If Nike and others weren't there, why those people would have to subsistance farm, and then they'd get enough to eat. We can't have that, oh no, that would be terrible.
They should have to starve while working for big western corporations that will then charge $150.00 US for a lousy pair of shoes that cost them $9.70 US in materials and $0.30 US in labor to manufacture.
NikeWages (http://www.nikewages.org)
The idea that these corporations are helping those people is something we like to tell ourselves so that we can sleep at night.
Why would they help those people? It is against the finacial interests of these corporations to do so. If they helped the children get an education, where would their future workforce come from?
No, they need cheap labor and they will make sure that they keep getting it.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Its always the same with liberials. They wrap themselves in moral indignation, and go off half cocked. Then when they go off to save the hairy kneed camel, or whatever there next cause is, they leave behind a bigger mess than they found.
At the end of WW2, west Germany enjoyed a period of growth, and prosparity, that east Germany did not even approch.
Today, the average south Korean, lives a lifestyle, that his counterpart in north Korea can only dream about.
If the liberials had let the U.S. military do its job 30 years ago. Today, Odds are, that little Vietnamise girl wouldnt need Nike,s job to eat.
-
I don't like the Nike style of management either. I don't buy their shoes. I think they need to improve the way they treat these overseas employees. Nike is not the only corporation doing it either. It's not just the corporations of any one particular developed country, either.
All that notwithstanding, somebody explain to me why people take these jobs at such low pay and benefits.
The idea that they would be living a nice life while subsistence farming won't float. The people who take these jobs generally don't own or otherwise have access to arable land.
No, these workers are generally drawn from the most destitute of the poor. While the fact that there are so many of those is indeed a sad thing, that isn't Nike's fault. Nike et al are taking advantage of an existing situation.
<For 10 points and a free spin of the wheel, name the ancient philospher who said: "The Poor You Have With You Always.">
The simple fact remains that Nike and other corporations just like Nike have no trouble hiring all the folks they need for a truly miserable wage.
We know what Nike and the rest get out of it.
Now please explain to me why the people take such crummy jobs.
If you answer honestly, you will have begun to understand the real problem.
It isn't Nike. Nike is merely a by-product of the real problem.
-
Easymo, bubba,
I don't know of any Vietnamese Nike factories. They DO have factories in Indonisia though. When were we in Indonisia? Oh, thats right, Conservatives like to assume that big corporations have their workers best interests in mind and then say things with out doing any research to find out what is true.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
-
http://www.saigon.com/~nike/news/ny110897.htm (http://www.saigon.com/~nike/news/ny110897.htm)
"New York Times, Front Page
November 8, 1997
Nike Shoe Plant in Vietnam Is Called Unsafe for Workers
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
...In an inspection report that was prepared in January for the company's internal use only, Ernst & Young wrote that workers at the factory near Ho Chi Minh City were exposed to carcinogens that exceeded local legal standards by 177 times in parts of the plant and that 77 percent of the employees suffered from respiratory problems. The report also said that employees at the site, which is owned and operated by a Korean subcontractor, were forced to work 65 hours a week, far more than Vietnamese law allows, for $10 a week."
As I said, I'm no fan of Nike or other corporations like them.
However, Karnak, I did have to chuckle when I read:
"I don't know of any Vietnamese Nike factories.....Conservatives.. .say things with out doing any research to find out what is true."
It's just the conservatives, then? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Toad, you fool. Dont you know liberials are born with all the knowledge they will ever need. The rest of us have to get by as best we can.
Meanwhile these children are being badly abused. Take 5 minutes and email your congressman. Tell him to put his foot up a Nike exeutives ass. They can pay a fair wage.
[This message has been edited by easymo (edited 02-25-2001).]
-
I never buy Nike anyway....can't see paying so high a price for the nike nametag which I figure on average costs about 60 bucks. Nope, never have and never WILL now.
Swamp
-
I don't know about the Nike case, but part of my job requires me to visit factories in China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Phillipines, Pakistan, and now just recently Vietnam.
Some we own, some we don't.
I can tell you this, as a person who visits these sites 3 to 4 times a year:
1.) The jobs our factories offer these areas are highly sought after and do improve the people's lives.
2.) I learned a while back, you cannot take our very HIGH work and other standards and instantly transpose them onto these people and their cultures.
3.) People who have never visited these places, and who have never done so on a regular basis, seem to have the "most informed" opinions.
4.) "Most" US owned or partnership factories do have and live by higher standards then the factories owned by the local governments or businessmen. The corporate oversight insures this is the case, or it is so with the companies I have worked for.
5.) It is naive to think we can tell government owned facilities how to run their businesses.
6.) With the companies that we sell to, our factories and vendors are required to submit to surprise inspections.
7.) The good factories do provide good wages (for the regional area) and good working conditions and good housing. You know why? Because its good business.
Karnak, Have you ever been to any of these places and visit the factories regularly?? I have and do. And when I see violations, I pull my business. But I do not pretend to think that my values are the same as theirs.
Toad is also correct, that whole farmer scenerio is bust. Land is simply not available to them to own, AND they would rather work at a factory then toil behind an ox in a field. I've seen this with my own eyes!
So maybe we should have John Deere just donate tractors all over the world to these people because farming with an ox is cruel and cannot be allowed. And believe me, they work in the fields at 10 yrs old. At least at a factory you have a chance to monitor and catch any of these abuses.
Cobra
-
easymo - you're wasting your breath. Do-gooders sleep better if they slag-off something they know nothing about.
I wonder why every time there's no news to report we hear about "poor Vietnameese/Indian/insert-your-own girl making trainers/footballs/whatevers for $10-a-week/half-of-what-you-spend-on-dogfood etc"? Don't they have boys in those factories? Or are we supposed to take little girl's plea closer to heart? And why we never hear of an average wage in those countries? Is it because the poor girl won't look that poor after all and we can't have that?
Sheesh...
-
Nike ought to do what other companies are already doing (Levi Strauss for one) - namely paying for the primary education of children, before signing them up to work in their factories.
BTW, Easymo, Liberals don't have a monopoly on moral indignation - check out the average conservative's view on abortion, gun control et al.
It all depends on which side of the fence you happen to occupy.
Lynx, I think you miss the point. Only a fool would be outraged at a straight wage comparison between third/developing world countries and those in the West. The greater issue is whether or not multi-national companies are making any effort to help the communities they are based in. Pehaps if they were all a bit more responsible, and contributed to community education/health programs for instance, the exploitative easpect would be a little less hard to swallow.
It's not like they can't afford to; their profit margin on the average pair of shoes is enormous.
Perhaps also they should look at the long term aspect. When a multinational company has established it's presence for a few years, and the local economy has improved because of the increased money available, wages are bound to rise. Do you reckon the company will remain in that area, when it can quickly set-up in somewhere else and be 'back to square 1' when it comes to wage payouts? I doubt it, and it would seem to me that that kind of behaviour will only give rise to a boom and bust economy.
Apparently, Nike is already looking for new labour markets to move it's set-up from Indonesia. And why shouldn't it? There is no incentive for it to remain in a particular locale and no authoritative body to set standards for its actions.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-26-2001).]
-
Not quite the same Dowding.
"Conservative" ire is usually raised when someone else attempts to tell or force "Conservatives" to do (or not do) something they consider their own personal business.
"Liberal" ire is usually raised when someone else will not say or do (or not do) what the "Liberal" is telling the target audience to say or do.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Depends what you define as your 'own personal business'. Some people think it is well within their rights to beat the living toejam out of their women - others not so. Would you therefore say the wife-beater is a conservative, and the people who disagree liberals?
Of course not; your absolute definitions are useless in trying to define such a grey area.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Nice try Dowding.
I'll amend my statement then to include "within the law".
Obviously noone is trying to explain or justify criminal activity as defined by the country in question.
-
Nike opening a factory in 3rd world country takes jobs away from american workers - that is a fact. But right now nobody is really concerned about american workers (except for proffessional Trade-Union rabble-rousers) - with record labor shortage, etc.
Does Nike opening a factory in a 3rd world country in any way limits other employment opportunities present in that country? I do not see how. Could the local people ignore the Nike factory and continue living as they were if they wanted it? It seems so.
Dowding,
Saying that Nike has any obligation to the workers of the factories other then legal working conditions and wages for that country is the really saying that the shareholders have the obligation to bear that expence. Who owns the shares? Pension funds, banks where we keep money, individual investors, etc. How come a Nike shareholder should subcidise a third world country while Ford shareholder doesn't? It's not like they get higher rate of return. The stock price is the same it was 5 years ago and dividend yield is less then 1% - much worse then a savings account!
No argument, there is a need for charitable work to be done. And it is done by people through charities. Corporations (and hence their shareholders) should not be forced into charity business.
miko
P.S. Do you think Levi Strauss expences to help people are accounted as charity? I bet they are part of their advertising/marketring expence.
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 02-26-2001).]
-
And who defines the law - the conservatives or the liberals?
Take slavery for instance, perfectly legal for a long time both in Europe and America. The liberals wanted it banning, does that therefore mean than the slave owners are automatically conservative in political orientation?
It does by your definition, both the original and the revision. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Miko2d - you've hit the nail on the head. There is no incentive for any multi-national to do anything to its host country than exploit, exploit, exploit. But when the economy takes a turn for the worse, and they leave town, who is left to pick up the pieces?
The charities - organisations only a small percentage of the population contribute to.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-26-2001).]
-
Nice try again Dowding.
Who defines the law? Come on, you're just stirring the soup here and you know it.
I'd say the respective courts of the land, wouldn't you? They interpret the written body of law for each country.
Therefore, neither political faction or outlook if you will "defines" the law. They react to the law as interpreted by the Courts.
-
When people want to make money in shoe business, they pull their money together, organize a shoe-making company, hire shoe-business managers and directors, trust tose to hire shoe-making specialists and menial workers and go about their lives expecting market rate of return. That is what a company or a "multi-national" corporation is - a shared ownersip.
If the same people want to improve life of people in Malasia, they pull their money together, organise a charitable foundation, hire Malasia-helping specialists and go about their lives expecting living conditions in Malasia to improve.
Why mix two together?
Why separate corporation (which is just a legal concept) from reality - people and their money? If people suck, you can say so. What does a corporation has to do with it? If I went improving life in Malasia in my company time and at my company expence, my company owners would quickly remind me that is not what they pay me for. Should it be any different with any company executives? They are hired to do a certain job. If some other job is not being done, blame people who do not hire specialists to do it.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 02-26-2001).]
-
Miko, for someone who admittedly left russia because of the system that was exploiting you, you sure appear to have short memory.
Or maybe they should all try to imigrate to US as well ?
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
OK Toad, granted on the first point.
How about the point concerning slavery? Perfectly legal pursuit not so long ago, but by your definition, it is the conservatives who are its proponents and the liberals the faction who are interfering with personal freedom.
Surely this follows from your definition?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-26-2001).]
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
Miko, for someone who admittedly left russia because of the system that was exploiting you, you sure appear to have short memory.
Sorry, I did not get your point? I left Russia and came to US, true. I still work for someone - so I am being exploited - more obviously at that. In Russia I could always have pretend that I was not exploited, just mismanaged.
The reasons of my emigration are numerous and and not just economical.
Or maybe they should all try to imigrate to US as well?
I would surely welcome more honest, hard-working people to US, wherever they come from.
I just do not see why a person, who's money manager invested his money in Nike should be penalized compared to a guy who's pension fund owns stock in Ford? If you are talking about legislating certain charity, action, shouldn't all chip in? Suggest openly raising taxes in US to help poor countries more.
Or we can make a US legislation regulating the companies behaviour abroad, like minimum wages. That everybody will be in equal position and the same US consumer will pick the tab for it through slightly higher prices.
miko
-
Dowding,
Given the context of that debate, the time at which it happened, the laws that were in effect I think it would be correct to say that maintaining the status quo was a "Conservative" viewpoint and changing the status quo was a "Liberal" viewpoint.
I don't think you disagree with me here. Nor does that assessment differ from what I posted originally.
I think what you will try to do now is identify the idea that "slavery is bad" with "Conservatives were pro-slavery" therefore "being a Conservative is, was and always will be bad."
You know that is a BS debate tactic, too.
I can get Santa to confirm this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) but I believe the fallacy of logic you are using to prove a point here is petitio principii, Begging the Question. The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
But I think Santa is the expert on fallacies of logic. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Now if you were trying to draw some other conclusion, please do. But please don't use fallacies of logic to do so. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Game, Set, Match!
Cobra
-
No Toad, I think that you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make.
I think what you will try to do now is identify the idea that "slavery is bad" with "Conservatives were pro-slavery" therefore "being a Conservative is, was and always will be bad."
No Toad, that is quite definitely not why I was trying to do. Please give me some credit. My point is quite set aside from the fact that I am a liberal** - I am trying to show that your original assertion is both bogus and a trite oversimplification. I am pointing out that it is your assertion that comes to the above conclusion.
Let me put this to you; can you define "Liberalism" or "Conservatism" satisfactorily at all? I believe not - only from a particular frame of reference at a particular moment in time. So why all this 'you liberals' crap on the boards? I guess it is the lazy man's way of having a debate, and denies anyone of any individuality.
BTW, Toad a liberal? Apparently only if we were living in the 19th/18th century... quite a telling conclusion. <NB: j/k here - no offence meant whatsoever> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
** I'm liberal in certain respects, but conservative in others. I like the ideas of socialism, but only in a capitalistic scenario. I guess I must be very confused. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I'm off on the road in 10 minutes, Dowding, but I do think you can define Conservative and Liberal.
I'll try to explain when I get a chance.
In the meantime, debate someone else. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Have a good journey, mate. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
A very complex subject, but I just wanted to bring one point in that I personally find very amusing concerning the thoughts of some western People.
Lots of people in the west are fascinated by the simple life (as they see it) in 3world countries (but of course they do not call them 3world countries).
They say to them selves, look what a wonderful and simple life this farmer village has, they are not tortured and spoiled by so called civilized life. And at the same time their fantasising about a back to nature life, they are eating up their 5 minute Microwave meal.
What most people forget that these people also have the right to have more than just a full stomach.
But I some westerns mind they should not be permitted to want anything western ,but instead be happy hopping around in the jungle eating fresh bananas.
But you also have to see it realistically, the price that a developing country has to pay always has bin very high.
Believe me they would love to have our problems.
(if they had the money to afford our Problems (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) )
[This message has been edited by ICEWIND (edited 02-26-2001).]