Rage Online

As we love polls on this site can we do one about the new Nike kit and whether one is likely to purchase the new garment or does it depend whether the said garment is fitted for instance.

Maybe people will take a stand given Nike's alleged track record concerning the employment and exploitation of child labour in the indian sub continent where their leisure wear is increasingly made these days?

Whatever. Where do you think all the kits we've had over the last X years have been made. Just because they now have NIKE on them, you're gonna complain?

Oh, no! You're right! Those Manor Leisure one's were hand stitched by grannies in Cowley on £100k a year...

*shrugs shoulders and walks off*

Ha Ha, not a bad point I think the Carlotti one's were made in Indoneasia or summin, sod it Nike is well cool!

The vast majority of 'sportswear' made these days is produced by low paid and heavily exploited labour in so-called Free Economic Zones in Indonesia or in China, India or various other 'developing' countries. The simple truth is that if you buy 'cheap' clothing then the chances are the people who made were paid barely enough to live on - if you can live with that then that's up to yourself.

The difference with Nike is that they are a massive company who could, if they chose to, have a significant impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of the worlds poorest people who are caught up in their supply chain. They could do this while still making huge profits but they choose not to. They could be standard bearers for fair trade and ethical manufacture but instead they continue to ban trade unions, pay less than the cost of two meals per day and (allegedly) turn a blind eye to the exploitation of children in the manufacture of their shoes and clothing.

I wont be adding to Nike's profits and I wish that Oxford weren't supporting a company that abuses and degrades the most vulnerable people in the world - but then you can't have everything.

&quotBelfastox&quot wrote:The vast majority of 'sportswear' made these days is produced by low paid and heavily exploited labour in so-called Free Economic Zones in Indonesia or in China, India or various other 'developing' countries. The simple truth is that if you buy 'cheap' clothing then the chances are the people who made were paid barely enough to live on - if you can live with that then that's up to yourself.

The difference with Nike is that they are a massive company who could, if they chose to, have a significant impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of the worlds poorest people who are caught up in their supply chain. They could do this while still making huge profits but they choose not to. They could be standard bearers for fair trade and ethical manufacture but instead they continue to ban trade unions, pay less than the cost of two meals per day and (allegedly) turn a blind eye to the exploitation of children in the manufacture of their shoes and clothing.

I wont be adding to Nike's profits and I wish that Oxford weren't supporting a company that abuses and degrades the most vulnerable people in the world - but then you can't have everything.

On the other hand you could argue that because the spotlight is focused so heavily on Nike they are the least likely to be exploting their workers.

&quotMally&quot wrote:

&quotBelfastox&quot wrote:The vast majority of 'sportswear' made these days is produced by low paid and heavily exploited labour in so-called Free Economic Zones in Indonesia or in China, India or various other 'developing' countries. The simple truth is that if you buy 'cheap' clothing then the chances are the people who made were paid barely enough to live on - if you can live with that then that's up to yourself.

The difference with Nike is that they are a massive company who could, if they chose to, have a significant impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of the worlds poorest people who are caught up in their supply chain. They could do this while still making huge profits but they choose not to. They could be standard bearers for fair trade and ethical manufacture but instead they continue to ban trade unions, pay less than the cost of two meals per day and (allegedly) turn a blind eye to the exploitation of children in the manufacture of their shoes and clothing.

I wont be adding to Nike's profits and I wish that Oxford weren't supporting a company that abuses and degrades the most vulnerable people in the world - but then you can't have everything.

On the other hand you could argue that because the spotlight is focused so heavily on Nike they are the least likely to be exploting their workers.

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case. There are numerous current examples of really objectionable practices used in connection with the various stages of the Nike supply chain. They are well documented and continue to fuel the worlwide boycott of Nike products.

My point is this Nike could make a real and positive change in the world, they choose not to. No other company in their sector has the raw economic power to directly influence local and global employment policy and practice and directly improve the lives of some of the worlds poorest people, they choose not.

My choice then is simple do I contribute to the profits of a company whose ethical practice I find repugnant or not? I exercise my choice by not buying Nike products, I wish that my football team would do the same. Do I think that I can single-handedly change a multi-national company? No, but I do believe that if enough people join the boycott it will put more pressure on Nike and others and that, eventually they will have to confront the injustices they perpetuate.