Nike formed a Corporate Responsibility Division under the leadership of former Microsoft executive Maria S. Eitel. They also improved working conditions to meet OSHA standards and provided workers with a safer work environment.
Questions.
1. The first question deals with who is more responsible for the wages and working conditions of the workers, the subcontractors or Nike. I feel that since Nike made the commitment to cheap overseas labor that they are solely responsible for poor working conditions. Had they chose to attempt to operate a facility that way in the United States, they would have gone through much more scrutiny. They also are responsible for the hiring of the contractors and should have made a more honest attempt at making them understand how to run the factories. I feel that Nike exploited its workers just because they are not used to the same lifestyle as Americans. This doesn't mean that they are not humans and don't deserve a safe workplace to operate in. If Nike is unable to provide safe overseas factories for workers then maybe they should think about providing work in the United States where it can more closely watch its working conditions. There is plenty of unemployment in Flint, Michigan, why not set up a factory there? For monetary reasons Nike never will, and it is sad how corporations abuse humans all in the name of money.
2. From my first answer you could assume that I am in favor of the FLA, due to the fact that they want more strict guidelines to overseas labor. It is not fair for a corporation to exploit workers and pay them minimal wages in order to produce a product at a cheaper price. I think that corporations, especially Nike which has made MORE than enough money to continue thriving, should think about their social implications. I am sure that Knight would never want his daughter working in any of HIS factories. Why not hold your company to that standard? Solely because of money.
