The workers in these Asian countries were happy, even eager, to accept the conditions that were provided as a manufacturer of Nike. The reason is that those wages were probably equal or superior to wages available from other sources. If Nike were to leave the country because of the pressures placed upon it, the workers would undoubtedly suffer greatly.
2. What labor standards regarding safety, working conditions, overtime, and the like, should Nike hold foreign factories to: those prevailing in that country, or those prevailing in the United States. .
Clearly, Nike has the responsibility to hold suppliers to those conditions that prevail only in the supplying country. If it insisted on prevailing conditions in the United States, there would be little reason for Nike to seek contractors from outside countries. However, through pressure or contractual concessions, it is possible for Nike to seek ways to improve the conditions of workers in supplying countries. In doing so, Nike may find that it receives some public relations benefit rather than undergoing the effort and the cost of developing defensive PR strategies.
3. An income of $2.28 a day, the base pay of Nike factory workers in Indonesia, is double the daily income of about half the working population. Half of all adults in Indonesia are farmers, who receive less than $1 a day. Given this, is it correct to criticize Nike for low pay rates for its subcontractors in Indonesia?.
Nike probably should not be held responsible for the pay rates of its Indonesian subcontractors. The worker pay, and resulting low cost of goods, is a major reason why Nike has contracted with these subcontractors. The result has been to given jobs to Indonesians who might not other wise have them. It is also not clear to what degree Nike can influence the pay that subcontractors pay to workers. Therefore, it is not fair to be continually critical of Nike in that regard.
