By Jocelyn Wu, ‘12
“This is where it gets real.” Jim Keady’s words challenge both Nike, the corporation, and Creighton, the Jesuit university.
Keady’s interest in justice for workers began as a graduate theology project at St. John’s University where he coached soccer. After researching Nike’s labor conditions, he decided to find out things for himself.
Keady says he is a competitive person, and wanted to directly answer challenges from colleagues who claimed that Nike jobs made its employees “rich by those standards” and “better than nothing.”
He went to Indonesia to live on $1.25/day – the wage of a Nike worker. During his year of solidarity, Keady collected stories of sexual harassment, filthy living conditions, starvation, forced overtime, intimidation, and violence. The everyday reality of workers he met involved crushing decisions: to buy aspirin or food for the day, accept labor abuse or speak up and risk death.
During his year living like a Nike worker, Keady lost 20 lbs. He made it his lifelong mission to stand with the oppressed and challenge Nike’s labor practices by pushing for a living wage. Keady’s first-hand experiences with Nike’s human rights violations include policies regarding menstrual leave (a recent victory for women’s rights), the use of poor villages as a dumping and incinerating ground for toxic shoe scraps (Keady was personally threatened with death while trying to investigate these), and the beating of workers attempting to organize.
According to Keady’s research, it costs Nike $16.25 to make a shoe that sells for $200. The amount paid for “labor” for each shoe is $2.43. Keady challenged his audience to ask what “labor” really means – not $2.43, but people, who should be appreciated with a minimum of well-being.
Powerful words from Indonesian workers state their gratitude for employment but also their desire for respect and justice: “We are proud of what we do… we just want to be dignified.”
Keady demands a living wage from Nike. What does that mean? Wages that let workers —mothers, fathers, children— have food, water, shelter, health care, and the possibility for modest savings. If they go without these, workers are part of modern-day slavery.
Many business students asked Keady, “Why? What’s the incentive? Why should Nike do this?”
Keady answered, “Because it’s the right thing to do.” He challenged the flawed model of maximizing profit at the expense of the worker, saying that in the future, he hopes that business students will own their own companies, and instead of “making a ton of money and giving a little to the poor,” they will do the right thing and build a model that dignifies everyone involved.
For example, Alta Gracia, a clothing company with factories in the Dominican Republic, manages to balance its checkbook, pay its workers a living wage, and maintain open dialogue, despite the fact that it is what Keady calls a “tiny tiny tiiiiny company.” And, if Alta Gracia can do it, why not Nike, the leader in the industry?
It is easy to feel powerless, guilty, or indignant after Keady’s presentation. Nike leads the industry, produces the best products, and signs multimillion-dollar deals with universities.
While pressure’s already being put on Nike, Keady said it took 50 years to bring organic food to the mainstream and fair-trade/sweat-free labor will likely take just as long.
Keady’s not trying to put Nike out of business; he just wants Nike to change. Keady points a finger at Nike not just because of some of their practices but also because it is a powerful company. With power comes responsibility.
He uses the academic analogy that students shouldn’t be okay with “C” work. Nike must lead the industry in creating humanizing and dignifying labor practices and be the best corporation for the people that it can be.
He claims this is possible through a price increase per shoe of a modest $5. Feel-good business models have been successful – look at TOMs – so why not Nike? I would gladly pay $5+ more for a pair of shoes to know that its makers are getting a fair percentage of that price. I think Nike could once again revolutionize the sportswear and equipment industry, just like Phil Knight did in 1964 when he began building his $13.1 billion net worth.
Keady calls for:
1) pressure on Nike AND
2) alternatives
The fight can’t be “or.” More specifically, Keady advocates that people:
1) Speak out! The recent Indonesian victory compensating Indonesian workers 1.5 million dollars in forced overtime was due mostly to the voice of students. Silence equals complicity with injustice.
He calls students to hold Nike, the athletes who endorse it, and corporations to a higher standard, providing not only the standard step-by-step letter advocacy technique through his website, but also personal e-mails to the executive in charge of Nike’s “fair trade”: Mark.parker@Nike.com.
2) Wear sweat-free clothes! Vintage? Second-hand? Yes, please. The Creighton bookstore also sells Alta Gracia apparel.
What about student athletes that receive free apparel as a result of Creighton’s contract? Keady makes a point that athletes are able to perform regardless of the two-inch label they’re wearing. Keady uses strong, critical language to describe how universities allow their student athletes to serve as advertisements for corporations. Keady also makes a point to remove corporate identifying logos from his clothing.
***
I don’t think the challenge is in any way restricted to Nike, or even clothes. This talk encouraged me to ask the question: How else do we perpetuate injustice with our food, our cars, our electronics, our energy? What does it truly mean to be “men and women for and with others?”
If you are interested in any of these questions, joining an active accountability voice on campus, or learning more about how Creighton students are challenging corporations like Nike and advocating for living wages and worker conditions, e-mail jocelynaubrey@gmail.com.
This is where it gets real.
The CCSJ blogs are meant to be a place for Creighton students, faculty, staff, alumni/ae, and friends to reflect on their experiences with programs sponsored by the office or related to its mission. These reflections are meant to show the personal side of the students, faculty, and staff associated with the office. However, the views expressed in these reflections, and all other blogs found on or linked to from this website, are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of Creighton University, the Creighton Center for Service and Justice (CCSJ), or any of the University’s affiliates. The University and the CCSJ are not responsible for the actions, content, accuracy, or opinions expressed in these blogs.
By Becca Harvey, ’11
