SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Talking to Nike's Knight About 'Entrepreneurial Edge,' Worker Abuses Are Beyond the Pale
USA Today (4/26/16) featured what the paper promoted as a "rare interview" with Nike founder Phil Knight.
Apr 30, 2016
USA Today (4/26/16) featured what the paper promoted as a "rare interview" with Nike founder Phil Knight. He offers his opinion that "international trade agreements benefit both nations, always"--the paper doesn't correct him when he overstates US GDP growth since NAFTA by more than 300 percent--and his worry that the United States might be losing some of what's called "the entrepreneurial edge that propelled him and fueled Nike." Students he meets, Knight laments, seem "more pessimistic."
Billionaires whose wealth was built on the work of people in less developed countries making cents an hour in notoriously abusive conditions--practices only curtailed after years of activism, much of it by students the company did its best to ignore--well, their concerns about the pessimism of today's youth warrant a side-eye on any day.
But as it happens, Nike, which was for a moment if not a success story, at least an example of a company responding to sweatshop activism, was revealed just five years ago to be falling far short of the standards it set for itself in the furor of the 1990s--the period USA Today's Susan Page lets Knight pass off as "early missteps" about which, she tells us, he's "still sounding a bit aggrieved." ("We got a lot of negative press.") Just a few months ago, Nike announced that it will no longer allow its factories to be monitored by the Worker Rights Consortium, leading to outcry from United Students Against Sweatshops--a key player in pushing independent monitoring.
Noi Supalai worked for years in a Nike factory in Thailand; on her spring US speaking tour, she talked about what that's like: 16 hour or longer days, production deadlines such that workers had to take turns going home to shower, and then, when targets weren't hit, Nike barring the factory from paying them. They formed a union and set a meeting with Nike representatives, who never showed up. (Turns out they'd cut and run.) Supalai's story is easy to find in college papers. Just don't look for it in USA Today.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
USA Today (4/26/16) featured what the paper promoted as a "rare interview" with Nike founder Phil Knight. He offers his opinion that "international trade agreements benefit both nations, always"--the paper doesn't correct him when he overstates US GDP growth since NAFTA by more than 300 percent--and his worry that the United States might be losing some of what's called "the entrepreneurial edge that propelled him and fueled Nike." Students he meets, Knight laments, seem "more pessimistic."
Billionaires whose wealth was built on the work of people in less developed countries making cents an hour in notoriously abusive conditions--practices only curtailed after years of activism, much of it by students the company did its best to ignore--well, their concerns about the pessimism of today's youth warrant a side-eye on any day.
But as it happens, Nike, which was for a moment if not a success story, at least an example of a company responding to sweatshop activism, was revealed just five years ago to be falling far short of the standards it set for itself in the furor of the 1990s--the period USA Today's Susan Page lets Knight pass off as "early missteps" about which, she tells us, he's "still sounding a bit aggrieved." ("We got a lot of negative press.") Just a few months ago, Nike announced that it will no longer allow its factories to be monitored by the Worker Rights Consortium, leading to outcry from United Students Against Sweatshops--a key player in pushing independent monitoring.
Noi Supalai worked for years in a Nike factory in Thailand; on her spring US speaking tour, she talked about what that's like: 16 hour or longer days, production deadlines such that workers had to take turns going home to shower, and then, when targets weren't hit, Nike barring the factory from paying them. They formed a union and set a meeting with Nike representatives, who never showed up. (Turns out they'd cut and run.) Supalai's story is easy to find in college papers. Just don't look for it in USA Today.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
USA Today (4/26/16) featured what the paper promoted as a "rare interview" with Nike founder Phil Knight. He offers his opinion that "international trade agreements benefit both nations, always"--the paper doesn't correct him when he overstates US GDP growth since NAFTA by more than 300 percent--and his worry that the United States might be losing some of what's called "the entrepreneurial edge that propelled him and fueled Nike." Students he meets, Knight laments, seem "more pessimistic."
Billionaires whose wealth was built on the work of people in less developed countries making cents an hour in notoriously abusive conditions--practices only curtailed after years of activism, much of it by students the company did its best to ignore--well, their concerns about the pessimism of today's youth warrant a side-eye on any day.
But as it happens, Nike, which was for a moment if not a success story, at least an example of a company responding to sweatshop activism, was revealed just five years ago to be falling far short of the standards it set for itself in the furor of the 1990s--the period USA Today's Susan Page lets Knight pass off as "early missteps" about which, she tells us, he's "still sounding a bit aggrieved." ("We got a lot of negative press.") Just a few months ago, Nike announced that it will no longer allow its factories to be monitored by the Worker Rights Consortium, leading to outcry from United Students Against Sweatshops--a key player in pushing independent monitoring.
Noi Supalai worked for years in a Nike factory in Thailand; on her spring US speaking tour, she talked about what that's like: 16 hour or longer days, production deadlines such that workers had to take turns going home to shower, and then, when targets weren't hit, Nike barring the factory from paying them. They formed a union and set a meeting with Nike representatives, who never showed up. (Turns out they'd cut and run.) Supalai's story is easy to find in college papers. Just don't look for it in USA Today.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.