Could this Nike/FIFA business torpedo a Michigan deal?

Submitted by Raskolnikov on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/27/meet-the-uns…

 

This worries me somewhat, because we have had some moral objections to Nike in the past that if I recall correctly were even identified as a reason we ended our contract with them (could be mis-remembering that, but I remember a fuss about their labor practices). Depending on how this all plays out, do you think it will have an impact on our apparel deal?

JOHNNAVARREISMYHERO

May 28th, 2015 at 9:22 AM ^

I don't think this will play any role in our negotiations/eventual decision.

Artie

May 28th, 2015 at 9:35 AM ^

I'd be interested to know if there was a term for the need to post "random clothing line" in the new apparel threads or the "highly ranked recruit we were thought to lead for only to not get" in the recruiting threads.

I'm guessing it's a combination of ocd/13 year old humor/guy knows it pisses a bunch of people off so he posts this shit in every one of these threads.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Gulogulo37

May 28th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^

What does OCD have to do with annoying people who care too much about which equipment supplier we use?

It's actually the first time I've posted in one of the multiple Nike/Adidas threads that happen every day. I did it because of that one guy who made a post specifically to complain about people joking about jnco, fubu, etc.

jblaze

May 28th, 2015 at 9:25 AM ^

Nike has always been shady, from using child labor in China to bribes. It's par for the course.

Their stock did drop like 1% after this story went public, so there's that concern from the world.

GoBlueInNYC

May 28th, 2015 at 9:31 AM ^

Broadly speaking, shouldn't things like corruption and reliance on child labor factor into which company the University chooses to business with?

"Oh no, I'm worry UM will consider horrible actions committed by a company when they decide whether or not to get into business with them!" Right, shouldn't they? Don't you want the University to take some kind of stance about the practices of their business partners?

BornSinner

May 28th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

Michigan doesn't give a fuck about what companies it does business with. If the BDS bullshit taught us anything the last couple of years, it's that this university could care less about companies that may be violating human rights in other parts of the world...very hypocritical considering everything else that UM stands for with its whole Victors campaign crap.

Gotta love cash money

gbdub

May 28th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^

Wasn't the "BDS bullshit" mostly about boycotting businesses/people because of the government of country they're from, rather than anything specific the business/people actually participated in? Seems like a key difference.

UofM did temporarily drop Coke while I was in school due to some high profile nastiness they were involved in.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

BornSinner

May 28th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

It was about forming a committee looking into whether companies like Caterpillar are selling their products to Israel who may be doing some bad things in Palestine involving those companies. 3 companies in total. 

Said committee would then recommend whether UM should still invest in those types of companies. 

Obviously with the Israel vs. Palestine student groups on campus, shit went completely ballistic, but I believe that was the original premise not including any potential ulterior motives which many on the pro-Israel side claim there are. 

gbdub

May 28th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^

Ah. I was unfamiliar with the precise details of the situation at Michigan, but the BDS movement as a whole definitely cast a much broader net (including things like "don't collaborate on papers with Israeli professors"). I do think there's a distinction between boycotting a group because of what they did vs. boycotting because of the policies of the country they happen to be from, which they probably have minimal influence over.

DrMantisToboggan

May 28th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^

Can't remember the user who posted it the other day, but someone pointed out a great fact:

Child labor/sweatshops in foreign countries aren't ideal, but they are better than the alternative in those places. When "sweatshops" pull out of cities the children there usually turn to prostitution or other dangerous/illegal ways because their family still needs that income to eat.

It is the country whose economic malpractice is perpetuating these conditions. Nike is exploiting the third world economies, but they are better than what their workers would have to do without them.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

sadeto

May 28th, 2015 at 9:53 AM ^

I get it, so instead of say, using economic power to improve the lives of workers, and perhaps taking a cut in (enormous) profits while doing so, the proper thing to do is say sew soccer balls or live on the streets, kids, you don't know how good you have it. Or perhaps you do. 

Don't you get it? It is EXACTLY the business model of using a middleman to do your dirty business and pulling out when the heat is on, that is the problem. You are, whether you want it or not, condoning enslavement and exploitation with this attitude. And it IS an attitude, not a viable analysis of any sort. The more money you have, the more power you have, and the more choices you have, and Nike and Adidas are very clear about their choices. So clear, in fact, that Nike now lists its suppliers - imagine that, they no longer try to hide where the exploitation takes place! They've come a long way, haven't they? 

Forget about staying put and using your economic muscle to promote social changes that improve the lives of those on whose backs you build your mansions and distribute your dividends, no, better to say, wow! They told me they had laws! We're outta here! 

SalvatoreQuattro

May 28th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^

and ran brutally repressive regimes all across the globe.



The Cold War Era was an era of global misery. People who weren't American or Western European were basically fucked. Left or Right it didn't matter. As noble as the cause of WW2 was the conduct of the Allies and their satellites were as equally ignoble during the Cold War.

SalvatoreQuattro

May 28th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^

their ways?



Nike is a for-profit company. What they are doing makes perfect sense if not in the least ethical.



People regularly fuck others over in this and every other country. The problem is so much greater than Nike and corporations. So much more.



My family dealt with an unscrupulous man in Mike Illitch. Yet nary a person is aware of his utter indifference to honest business dealings because of his teams win and he built a few buildings in Detroit.



Such is the case with Nike. It's people not caring about the unethical practices that is the most galling aspect of it. If people truly cared Nike would not be in Bangladesh. But they don't so Nike and others still employ these practices.



The real culprit is us.

sadeto

May 28th, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^

Three things: 

1. I don't own or buy any Nike stuff, not for myself and not for my kids. I made that clear to their mom a long time ago. Now they're old enough to buy their own stuff and they do wear NIke stuff, but they know why I don't buy it and hopefully one day they'll think about it. 

2. I don't invest in Nike stock, at least not directly. It's probable that a fund I'm in has Nike stock. 

3. I support in a very modest way an NGO devoted to fair labor monitoring and advocacy. I won't say which one as there are several and I won't push any one, but for a long time it was headed by a fellow UM doctoral student whom I know from long ago in AA. 

That's all. 

pdxwolve

May 28th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^

Though I understand the plight faced in these exploited countries, this sounds like a justification for less-appalling behavior.

"Hey look, we may be working these children 14 hours a day, but at least we aren't sodomizing them...

I haven't purchased Nike since these practices came to light years ago. I really like the look of their stuff, and I have numerous friends would work at headquarters, but I simply can't condone this attitude. It sucks because I could get great deals going out to the employee store (and I'm a teacher) but I just can't ...

 

samsoccer7

May 28th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^

There was an excellent reddit thread about this topic. People from Bangladesh and other places chimed in saying that while they are sweatshops the pay is decent and it keeps money flowing in. The bigger issue is really the safety of these sweatshops and the number of hours worked rather than their mere existence. Again, just stating what I read.

ak47

May 28th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^

I'm sure tons of Bangladeshi sweatshop laborers are on reddit.  That makes a ton of sense that after working 12+ hour days with no breaks to support their families they first thing they do is go to an internet cafe to spend that money on updating reddit about their working conditions.  I bet they have really great chat sessions with Qatari migrant workes talking about how much better a job is than no job.

BornSinner

May 28th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^

I can assure you only the rich would be paging through Reddit of all places. Their perspective will be skewed for good or bad. 

The rest of the population has other things to worry about like religious persecution, poverty and corrupt government. 

mGrowOld

May 28th, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^

Oh thank GOD a  new clothing thread.  Finally we get a chance to discuss Nike V Adidas, the relative merits of Under Armor and how the rest of the shoe industry is faring.  I mean it seems like it's been hours since we've had a fresh take on this issue and lord knows I cant go that long without getting the vapors.