mark kasky vs nike

The appeal was sent to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mercer was the appellant and Duke and Goldsmith were the appellees. Duke and Goldsmith argued that because football was a contact sport, it was therefore excluded from Title IX coverage. Duke and Goldsmith said that under 34 CFR Sec. 106.41. Athletics, subsection (b) stated that:

As such, it applied cultural relativism to justify the use of child labor, unsafe labor practices, and near slave labor in its factories. Since then, Nike has been a driving force to ensure fair labor practices across the apparel industry. In 1999, Nike was a key contributor to the establishment of the Fair Labor Association, an organization that is “…dedicated to protecting workers’ rights around the world” (Fair Labor Association, 2016). Today, Nike continues efforts to ensure that contract factories comply with its Code of Conduct to improve labor standards in overseas factories (Nike, 2016). Because of Nike’s efforts to expand and enforce social responsibility at its factories and given the lessons learned from its sordid past, it is unlikely that Nike would resort to any of the straw men fallacies. However, given the pressure by investors to expect solid returns, one hopes the company continues its altruistic social responsibility efforts while veering away from the Friedman Doctrine and its assertion that “… the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits” (Hill, 2011).

Since the 1990s, Nike has been embroiled in controversy over its use of sweatshops. Including numerous media reports of workers earning very little an hour (14 cents per hour), and even workers abused by sub-contractor (Allarey, 2015). Incidents such as these are ingrained in Nike’s history and not quickly forgotten. However, as CEO I would like to attempt to correct wrongs.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

This case was one of federal jurisdiction. “Federal court jurisdiction is limited to the types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress… cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws” (Federal

I think that this case received strong opinions from both sides of the bench. I don’t think that it would have been appropriate to drop the case, as was initially attempted. However, based on the dissenting

The highly recognized name brand—Nike— fails to notice the faults that are happening in factories that are violating a few disturbing rules. The company’s reputation has decreased due to demands and claims Nike; implying that they utilize sweatshops to produce more products at a lower pay. The company has been sued numerous times for abusing and exploiting their employees in factories for years. Another problem that Nike has faced throughout the years was making employees work in poor environments that affected the health of many— which contributed to being abused by the manager for not going to work. Nike distributes and sells merchandise of high quality for a high value. The company is giving the satisfaction of quality service to their

I am writing this letter to express my concerns over Nike's labor practices in Asia. There has been much debate and controversy recently concerning Nike's Asian labor practices. It is very difficult to determine which side of the argument to defend, as both acknowledge the problems yet put a completely different spin on the facts. I will try to show that Nike has created a cloud of smoke in Asia that the public cannot see through.

By joining a task force that helps promote fair labor practices, Nike is taking responsibility for its actions and showing the global market that is does take an interest in those working in the factory. This helps to alleviate any hesitation consumers may have with purchasing products made by Nike.

Nike has high expectations to their factory partners through evolving standards of their Code of Conduct that is a straightforward statement of values, intentions and expectations meant to guide decisions in factories. Nike’s Code of Conduct includes strict guidance about child labor, excessive overtime, compensation, forced labor, and freedom of association Nike (n.d).

Nike soon realized even though they have attempted to make changes within their subcontracting companies it has not been enough. Nike realized they have an ongoing obligation to the workers, as well to the different cultures that are involved. Nike implemented a process called The Compliance Generation, which involves increasing their business value by establishing the function, fighting fires, building a global team, and establishing partners. Employee management interaction making the work more systematic, building excellence in management audits, building environment, safety, and health global process, creating transparency, and creating ratings. Nike wants to have a transformational focus on building excellence in factory remediation, developing a sustainable sourcing strategy, building business integration and accountability, increasing contract factory ownership of corporate responsibility, and building industry conditions (Nikebiz, 2010).

During the late 80s and early 90s Nike was faced with a series of labor strike back at home due to unethical labor practices by its independent countries in third world countries. It is well known for Nike to outsource almost all its production from third world countries at cheap prices and sell them in U.S. market at an abnormal profit. The company began outsourcing its products from Japan where labor was competent and wages were very low. The living standards were raised which prompted Nike to outsource its products from Thailand, Pakistan and Indonesia since wages in these countries were extremely low and labor for these products were competent due to rapid development of the Japanese economy. The outsourcing of footwear products from Asian countries enables Nike to earn high profits and enjoy a competitive advantage over its rivals in the footwear industry. The company invests the high profits realized in marketing its products through celebrities. For instance, Michael Jordan was used to advertise the positive image of Nike Company (Lipschutz and James, pp. 87-96).

They should be responsible for the legal, social and philanthropic aspects of its subcontracted factories. They are not paying their employees the legal minimum wage, caring about the working conditions and welfare of these employees and just not taking into consideration the well-being of others. Ten years ago, the company had been subjected to negative press, lawsuits, and demonstrations on college campuses alleging that the firm’s overseas contractors’ subject employees to work in inhumane conditions for low wages. With the introduction of the fair labour association and worker rights consortium, Nike is slowly trying to improve the working conditions on subcontracted factories and hopefully in 10 years, they would be able to re-establish themselves as a morally acceptable company.

The Pou Chen factory is located in a place where the minimum wage is far below the national average. It has 10,000 workers who make Converse sneakers. Most of the workers are women, and they earn only 50 cents an hour. The amount that they earn is not even enough to cover their food and very poor housing. In this factory, the women are both physically and verbally abused. Nike’s own investigations have proved these complaints to be true. The company made a statement saying that immediate actions would be taken to deal with the situation. It is interesting to note that, “an internal Nike report, released to the Associated Press after it inquired about the abuse, showed that nearly two-thirds of 168 factories making Converse products worldwide failed to meet Nike’s own standards for contract manufacturers. Twelve are in the most serious category, ranging from illegally long work hours to

Nike took advantage of that and disregarded that the people making their products at an extremely low price were actually humans. It was ethically wrong for Nike to not see those employees as actual people but saw them as a machine that produced products. They did not care to see how being underpaid affected a person’s family. They also did not see that children were working to support families and continued to work in terrible health conditions because they needed the money no matter the environment. The biggest issue was that the company had a total disregard for human life.