Tim Lamkin said:
Tim - you're paranoid.
NIKE were found to be abusing child labour.
When were Addidas/Reebok/Asics found to be abusing child labour, Tim?
Victor Conte BALCO claims T is the drug of choice and that the US cover up positives
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
Tim - you're paranoid.
NIKE were found to be abusing child labour.
When were Addidas/Reebok/Asics found to be abusing child labour, Tim?
I don't know what the child labour scenario is so I'm nieve to that point but essentially what I meant was lots of companies take advantage of cheap production from countries like China.
Thanks for the clear up though Lim.
I would just like to see something substantial written that can back those 'continuos claims' instead of the same old, same old.
Thanks for the clear up though Lim.
I would just like to see something substantial written that can back those 'continuos claims' instead of the same old, same old.
Woops missed the paranoid part.....you have got to be kidding me...paranoid of youlimerickman said:
Look at my avatar, that is a current portrait of me, is that the face of fear or what
Trev_S said:
There is a difference between cheap labour and abusing child labour rights.
Cheap labour normally refers to lower labour costs in one economy compared to another economy.
Whereas the use of child labour is an abuse regardless of what cost may or may not be involved.
Trev - if any evidence of Asics/Reebok/Addias or any company, abuse of child labour was produced, you can be certain that I'd boycott their products too.
If you're interested in reading about NIKE and their exploitation of child labour see this report
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article162806.ece
Nike admits to mistakes over child labour
By Steve Boggan
Published: 20 October 2001
The multi-billion dollar sportswear company Nike admitted yesterday that it "blew it" by employing children in Third World countries but added that ending the practice might be difficult.
The multi-billion dollar sportswear company Nike admitted yesterday that it "blew it" by employing children in Third World countries but added that ending the practice might be difficult.
Nike attempted to present itself to its shareholders in its first "corporate responsibility report" as a touchy-feely entity established by "skinny runners" and employing young executives who worried about the environment and the level of wages it paid.
The mere fact that Nike has produced such a report was welcomed in some quarters, but its main detractors, including labour groups such as Oxfam's NikeWatch and the Clean Clothes Campaign, said they were not convinced.
Philip Knight, the company chairman, clearly stung by reports of children as young as 10 making shoes, clothing and footballs in Pakistan and Cambodia, attempted to convince Nike's critics that it had only ever employed children accidentally. "Of all the issues facing Nike in workplace standards, child labour is the most vexing," he said in the report. "Our age standards are the highest in the world: 18 for footwear manufacturing, 16 for apparel and equipment, or local standards whenever they are higher. But in some countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example) those standards are next to impossible to verify, when records of birth do not exist or can be easily forged.
"Even when records keeping is more advanced, and hiring is carefully done, one mistake can brand a company like Nike as a purveyor of child labour."
The report said Nike imposed strict conditions on the age of employees taken on by contract factories abroad, but admitted there had been instances when those conditions were ignored or bypassed.
"By far our worst experience and biggest mistake was in Pakistan, where we blew it," the report said. In 1995 Nike said it thought it had tied up with responsible factories in Sialkot, in Pakistan, that would manufacture well-made footballs and provide good conditions for workers. Instead, the work was sub-contracted round local villages, and children were drawn into the production process. Now, it insisted, any factory found to be employing a child must take that worker out of the factory, pay him or her a wage, provide education and re-hire them only when they were old enough.
Mistakes, however, continue to happen. In recent years, Nike has been criticised for its employment of child labour in Cambodia, but the company defended itself by saying fake evidence of age could be bought in Cambodia for as little as $5.
When it was exposed by the BBC as having employed children there, the company claimed it then re-examined the records of all 3,800 employees.
The company's critics remain concerned at the level of wages it pays. Nike claims it pays decent wages, but its detractors claim that only a tiny fraction of the £70 cost of a pair of its shoes goes to the workers who make them. They want to see wages increased – which they say would have only a negligible effect on retail prices.
Tim Connor of NikeWatch said: "On finishing work in a Nike contract factory, the great majority of Nike workers will go back to rural areas marked by extreme poverty. Their future economic security is very much tied up with what they earn now, in that if they are able to save enough they will be able to start small informal businesses back home.
"If they are unable to save, the work in the Nike factory will make no long-term contribution to their economic well being, and they will simply return to rural poverty.
"If Nike wants to be taken seriously as a company interested in corporate responsibility then it needs to engage honestly with its critics in the human rights community. Unfortunately the company's new corporate responsibility report fails to do this."
regardless of the attempts to push this topic to yet another disco dopes debate, i tip my cap to wbt for posting these fascinating articles. conti's insider knowledge should not be covered up or swept under the rug. he is certainly pointing out how the system has been subverted with lab insider info concerning the testin protocols employed in the screens, but of greater importance is his opinion in more thorough and with greater frequency off season testing of the "best" athletes. it should probably be extended to the top twenty or thirty, but that's a hair to be split. as a side note, he seemed to dissect quite ably m. rasmussen's unavailibility problems.
http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/reebok99-03-25.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,399834,00.html
Doctor.House said:
Lol i love The Doc, he must have posted this a thousand times, don't know about anyone else but i imagine Doc to be a Jack Nicholson character from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest........kinda off his head......but knowing the score at the same time.
That character was the star of that movie. He sought to get out of prison.ad9898 said:Lol i love The Doc, he must have posted this a thousand times, don't know about anyone else but i imagine Doc to be a Jack Nicholson character from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest........kinda off his head......but knowing the score at the same time.
Nike is wholly corrupt. It has ZERO ethics whatsoever. Phil Knight refuses to visit his Malaysian factories in order to deny any knowledge of the abuse. Michael Moore challenged him to a visit---as Knight flies inside of his $36 MILLION Gulf Stream private jet over his plants on his way to the Australian Tennis Open each year. But no dice.
Tiger Woods accepts money from Nike which taints his reputation. You should presume that Woods is a fraud too--and receives 'help' as needed in order to help sell Nike wares.
Lance Armstrong
Kobe Bryant
Marion Jones
CJ Hunter
Tim Montgomery
Justin Gatlin
Regina Jacobs
Kelli White
Michelle Collins
LaTasha Jenkins
All cheats, all frauds, all dopers.
As much as I dislike Nike, this child labor thing IMO is a political issue that has veered away from objective debate. Doesn't Nike pay these children the same as the adult working next to them on the production line (ie Nike could just as easily employ an adult at the same cost)? Is Nike forcing anyone to take these jobs? Aren't these jobs so revered and well-payed in these countries that local insiders are prepared to nepotistically get their child relatives onto the payroll? Does anyone honestly believe that companies should pay people in these countries the same wage that they pay in the USA? Or is this just an attempt to impose tariffs to protect jobs in the US from being exported to countries where people are prepared to work for a lot less.limerickman said:
Similar threads
