Introduction
Over the past decades, Nike sweatshops’ presence in Asia experienced exponential growth due to various reasons. Factors that facilitated the emergence and development of Nike sweatshops included the availability of cheap labor, lower costs of production, lower wages, the restriction on the labor movements by the local authorities, and the poor support workers received from trade unions. However, when Nike established itself as a dominant force in Asia, its employees encountered challenges that undermined their rights. Nike sweatshops workers’ rights were violated in one way or another. This paper outlines how Nike firms breached the rights of their employees from forced overtime, low wages, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, harassment, child labor, and infringement on the freedom of association.
Low wages
For many years, Nike factories in Asia violated the rights of their workers by paying wages that did not meet the required standards. About twenty-five percent of Nike subcontracted companies paid their employees’ salaries that were not equal to the legal minimum threshold set by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The human rights organization advocates for fair compensation and remuneration equivalent to the value of work done without discrimination (United Nations). However, this was not the case as some Nike companies offered employees meager wages in Asia. For instance, a Nike subcontracted factory – Wellco, infringed on the minimum wage regulation. The company paid its workers’ salaries ranging from $30 to $40, which was below the state’s minimum wage, violating the minimum pay laws. Additionally, the amount the companies paid for overtime was not according to the local minimum compensation. The factories breached the overtime payment rules since most paid workers per their standards. The Wellco factory only paid employees about 0.19 to 0.33 dollars per hour for overtime compensation was below the set minimum overtime wage per hour.
Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions
This is where most Nike subcontracted firms did not adhere to or offer safe and healthy working conditions. The working conditions of Nike companies in Asia were poor and unsafe, exposing workers to health hazards. Research reveals that some employees claim it was unclear whether the companies ensured workplace safety policies or if they implemented the safety measures put in place by the regulating authorities. Some factories did not care much about the health and safety of their workers as they did not provide each worker with safety equipment such as masks and gloves (Wokutch). In most cases, only a section of workers was given the essential protection equipment, rendering many employees unprotected and exposed to infection.
Reports indicate that accidents occurred in these factories, causing injuries and harm to employees. At Wellco, for example, documentations reveal an incidence where the machine inadvertently cut off about seven employees’ fingers. Heat and fumes were a significant cause of workers fainting, and some had died in the factory from breathing in harmful substances (Wokutch). The supervisors’ and managers’ key interest was the production of many shoes, and they cared little about the safety and wellbeing of the workers. Evidence state that many employees and their colleagues had complaints of headaches, irritating skin, shortness of breath, and dizziness.
The factories failed to enforce the local safety laws, violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all human beings have a right to safe and healthy working conditions. The working environments at these firms were harmful to employees’ overall health. Some workers worked in very dusty conditions without protective equipment, and they had to breathe in dangerous fumes, dust, and chemicals every day (Jones). Despite Nike’s Code of Conduct which highlights that the employer ought to guarantee safe and healthy workplace conditions to avoid accidents and health concerns related to the operation of their facilities, this was not the case.
Child labor
This is where the Nike factories breached human rights by hiring children below the employment age. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, children have the right to protection from engaging in any duty that can expose them to danger, jeopardize their education, or cause harm to their health, moral, physical, spiritual, or social aspect of development. But in Asia, Nike subcontracted companies recruited children and mainly girls who were ages thirteen and fifteen who were below the employment age. Labor abuse was prevalent among Nike companies as reports suggest that they employed even twelve-year-olds girls to work in departments such as sewing, cutting, and handwork (Xu et al.). This was a direct infringement of the local laws, which indicate that children below sixteen should not be employed.
Forced labor and overtime
Another way the companies abused the rights of their employees is through forced labor and overtime. Nike factories in Asia forced their workers to work for about eleven to twelve hours as the normal working hours per day. This was against the local regulations, which indicated that the normal working hours per day were eight hours. Still, after working for twelve hours a day, the employees had to forcefully work overtime for four hours, leading to sixteen hours of work daily (Xu et al.). During this time, the Chinese regulation required an individual not to work for more the forty-fours hours a week, and overtime should be a maximum of one hour. The factories did not enforce these laws; instead, they violated the rights of their employees, forcing them to work extra hours.
Unfair penalties
Nike subcontracted companies in Asia unfairly punished their employees or administered punishment to their workers without a justifiable reason. For example, these factories fired their women employees for being pregnant. They unjustifiably dismissed women workers who had become pregnant, violating article five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that no human should be subject to inhuman treatment or punishment. This section of the Universal Declaration emphasizes that all human beings are equal and should be treated well, irrespective of their conditions. Firing pregnant women was against the Chinese labor policies in which women should be protected in such situations. Pregnant women deserve proper treatment and should be issued maternity leave. However, at Wellco, this was not the case, as pregnant women endured disrespect and unjustified dismissal (Arnold and Norman). In some cases, the employees were denied their salaries or fired for refusing to work overtime. Some of the Nike factories in Asia forced workers to work overtime, but when workers refused to yield to such mistreatment, their salaries were withheld, or they were fired.
Employees faced cruel punishments if they were handed a quota to complete within a day but failed. A quota was an arduous task to complete in one day in these factories, but the managers did not care about the difficulty of the work. Failure to meet the quota led to mandatory participation in what the supervisor referred to as prolonged work without receiving any payments (Blazo and Maria). Nike companies unfairly dismissed certain workers claiming they had become old for turning thirty years. In this case, the factories fired particular workers for reaching a specific age, breaching the local government regulations.
Infringement on the freedom of association
The employees in these factories were not allowed to associate with each during working hours. This is where the workers had no permission to socialize with co-workers during work, and failure to adhere to this rule cost an employee a day’s salary in some factories. If an employee was found associating with a colleague during work, their identification card was confiscated, and they were not paid that day’s wage. In other cases, workers were verbally abused, given a warning, and fined for conversing with colleagues while at work (Jones). These acts violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ freedom to relate with fellow human beings.
Denial of leave and joining trade unions
The factories required employees to work without having days off, violating the local laws and regulations. The workers were denied a day or days to rest after working for a long duration, violating the Chinese rules and Nike’s Code of Conduct, which stated that workers should have a minimum of one day of rest per week (Booth). The yearly leave ought to be five days after working at the factory for one year, and the days increased to seven after two years. On the other hand, pregnant workers did not get maternity leave; instead, they are unfairly fired and treated as if they are not human beings.
Nike’s Code of Conduct guaranteed workers to join trade unions, but this was not true as the factories violated the workers suitable for protection of interest. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that employees have the right to create or be part of a trade union to safeguard their interests. Nike factories in Asia had no independent trade associations, while the government unions that existed did nothing much to protect the interest of employees; furthermore, workers did not recognize its existence (Bissell). Employees were permitted to present their complaints to their respective supervisors, but they feared doing as the consequences of lodging a formal complaint included being fired.
Discrimination
Nike factories in Asia violated human rights as they discriminated in various ways. For instance, some of these factories tested for pregnancy while recruiting and only hired women who were not pregnant. The Universal Declaration stipulates that all people have the right to work and protection against unemployment. Other Nike factories violated the right to equal pay as stated by the Universal Declaration, which claims that everyone has the right to equal compensation for similar work (United Nations). Many of these factories practiced different systems of payment where some workers had to strike to receive their salaries. Still, some of these factories required employees to deposit a specific amount before being hired, and those recruited without paying the deposit were not paid their first month’s salaries. The reimbursement of this deposit was not guaranteed, and even though workers were informed that it depended on several factors, that was not the case as most employees never received their money back.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Nike subcontracted factories in Asia breached human rights in diverse ways. They led to forced labor, discrimination, disrespect of pregnant women, child labor, forced overtime, unfair dismissals, denial of maternity leave and days off after work, denial of the right to equal pay for equal work, infringement on the right for work or employment, and violation of the right to protection of interests through trade unions.
Works Cited
Arnold, Denis G., and Norman E. Bowie. “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons.”Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 221–42.
Bissell, Trim. “Unions against Sweatshops.”International Union Rights, vol. 7, no. 4, International Centre for Trade Union Rights, 2000, pp. 26–27.
Blazo, Ondrej, and Maria T. Patakyova. “International Responsibility of Business for Violation of Human Rights-Customers’ Perspective.”Bialstockie Studia Prawnicze 24 (2019): 101.
Booth, Peter. “Nike Code of Conduct.”International Union Rights, vol. 4, no. 4, International Centre for Trade Union Rights, 1997, pp. 8–9.
Jones, Hannah. “Nike and Social Responsibility.”RSA Journal, vol. 148, no. 5495, Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, 2000, pp. 20–21.
United Nations. (n.d.) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Wokutch, Richard E. “Nike and its critics: Beginning a dialogue.”Organization & Environment 14.2 (2001): 207-237.
Xu, Vicky Xiuzhong, et al. “Case Study 1: Uyghur Workers Making Nike Sneakers in Qingdao.”Uyghurs for Sale: ‘Re-Education’, Forced Labour and Surveillance beyond Xinjiang, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 2020, pp. 08–11.