irishthinker

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Sweatshop Labor, New Face of International Slavery



                   "Multinational corporations ... should not be paying workers starvation wages." 
                                                                     Bernie Sanders, June 14, 2018, "Not Me. Us"

In the 1990s, Nike was accused by human rights and labor activists of "building its corporate wealth upon the backs of Asian sweatshop laborers" because it used cheap Asian labor to produce its shoes and other sporting goods.

Eight years later, company founder Phil Knight promised to eliminate the use of sweatshop labor. It appears that promise has not been kept.


In March of 2017 the International Labor Rights Forum charged that Nike had “turned its back” on labor agreements, effectively preventing independent monitors from reviewing conditions in many of its overseas factories.

Other groups say Nike has continued to employ predatory labor practices against women in many of its Asian factories. They argue female workers, who account for 85% of all workers in Nike's Vietnam shoe factories, are paid less than a dollar an hour for a 48-hour work week.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., states, “Nike is a symbol of everything wrong with the corporate economy. ... They take advantage of our laws. They send jobs overseas for sweatshop wages, partner with repressive regimes, and aggressively avoid paying any U.S. taxes.”


In May of 2014, Matthew Kish wrote in the Portland Business Journal that "a new report from Nike about its efforts to become a 'top corporate citizen,' does not include information about the wages paid to its roughly 1 million contract factory workers. ... The company released its 'corporate responsibility report' this month, but it did not include a table showing the average wages at the 785 contract factories that make Nike products."

In its report, Nike admits that wages for its factory workers remain one of three priorities. Twenty-one years after Nike's Knight promised to clean up the sweatshop problems, employee wages, worker representation and excessive overtime remain unfixed to the advantage of Nike corporate profits.

The most recent data on what Nike pays its Asian factory workers comes from 2001. In Bangladesh, it paid roughly $36.01 per month. In Vietnam, $73.94. In India, $75.79.

A person who works a 48-hour work week, works about 208 hours per month. In India, that would be about 37¢ per hour.

The wages that Nike currently pays appear to be a closely guarded corporate secret. In September 2018, Newsweek wrote, "The amount factory workers earn making Nike products varies depending on the facility and the country. Nike did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request for comment and clarification about how much it pays workers on average."

Would that suggest that Nike doesn't want the American public to know how much it's paying laborers?

Newsweek added, "A June report from the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) alleged that factory workers today receive even less of Nike profits than they did in the 1990s."
According to CCC, 'The share of production costs of Nike and Adidas shoes that ends up in a worker's pocket is now a staggering 30 percent less than in the early 1990s (2.5 percent in 2017 for Nike shoes compared with 4 percent in 1995) ... The company has transferred much of its manufacturing to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam as wages have increased in China.
"In the three southeast Asian nations, average earnings for garment workers are 45 to 65 percent below the so-called living wage ..."
If an Indian worker earns 37¢ per hour, that worker earns $2.96 for an 8-hour day. Compare that with prices for Nike Air Jordans.
Go to Amazon. Fourteen styles pop up. The first six are fairly representative of the others: Nike Mens Air Jordan 4 Retro Basketball Shoe, $170.95;. Nike Air Jordan Legacy 312 Men's Fashion-Sneakers,  $91.98-$349.73; Jordan Nike Men's Air 3 Retro Basketball Shoes, $278.14-$611.60; Nike Jordan Men's Air Jordan 1 mid-Leather, $99.95; Nike Mens Air Jordan Spizike Basketball Shoes, $169.41; Jordan Air 1 Retro High Flyknit, $155.00-$660.40.
In its 2018 annual report, Nike asserts, "Management is committed to maintaining an environment where all Nike employees have the opportunity to reach their full potential."
Could you reach your full potential at 37¢ an hour? Nike is a multi-national corporation. That has afforded Nike three great advantages:
1.  It derives 58% of its revenues from outside the U.S.
2.  It pays pennies to hire its work force.
3. Nike uses sweatshop labor to maximize its profits.
It could not do better using slave labor? On this issue, Sanders is right.


Newsweek added, "A June report from the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) alleged that factory workers today receive even less of Nike profits than they did in the 1990s."

According to CCC, 'The share of production costs of Nike and Adidas shoes that ends up in a worker's pocket is now a staggering 30 percent less than in the early 1990s (2.5 percent in 2017 for Nike shoes compared with 4 percent in 1995) ... The company has transferred much of its manufacturing to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam as wages have increased in China.

"In the three southeast Asian nations, average earnings for garment workers are 45 to 65 percent below the so-called living wage ..."

If an Indian worker earns 37¢ per hour, that worker earns $2.96 for an 8-hour day. Compare that with prices for Nike Air Jordans.

Go to Amazon. Fourteen styles pop up. The first six are fairly representative of the others: Nike Mens Air Jordan 4 Retro Basketball Shoe, $170.95;. Nike Air Jordan Legacy 312 Men's Fashion-Sneakers, $91.98-$349.73; Jordan Nike Men's Air 3 Retro Basketball Shoes, $278.14-$611.60; Nike Jordan Men's Air Jordan 1 mid-Leather, $99.95; Nike Mens Air Jordan Spizike Basketball Shoes, $169.41; Jordan Air 1 Retro High Flyknit, $155.00-$660.40.

In its 2018 annual report, Nike asserts, "Management is committed to maintaining an environment where all Nike employees have the opportunity to reach their full potential."

Could you reach your full potential at 37¢ an hour? Working a 48 hour week?

Nike is a multi-national corporation. That has afforded Nike three great advantages:

1. It derives 58% of its revenues from outside the U.S.

2. It pays pennies to hire its work force.

3. Nike uses sweatshop labor to maximize its profits.


Nike could not do better profit-wise using slave labor. On this issue, Sen. Sanders is right.


Posted: QCOline.com   July 18, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea




Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 8:50 AM No comments:
Labels: Is sweatshoop labor slavery? What is Nike paying its laborers in its Asian factories? Bernie Sanders correctly says "multinational corporations should not be paying workers starvation wages."

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Can US afford to buy what Sanders is selling?


Don Wooten and I have at least one thing in common: We both like ancient Greek tragedy.

Every time I hear Sen. Bernie Sanders glibly proclaim that if we only trash the present American health-care system, and adopt a single-payer system, the American health-care system will be vastly improved, my thoughts recur to Euripides, The Bacchae: "A man whose glibness flows from his own conceit, is a worthless and stupid citizen."


On June 18, our Rock Island County Board voted to put Hope Creek Care Center up for sale. The county care facility is $7.5 million in debt. Running the facility at a profit has never been the goal. Sadly, the county has been unable to break even. (If the county imposed a one-time $53 tax on every resident of the county, that would cure the $7.5 million deficit, and give Hope Creek a fresh start.)


So why is there any reason to believe that the U.S. government can run a nationwide health-care system, caring for 330 million people from Maine to Hawaii and from Florida to Alaska from headquarters in Washington D.C., when Rock Island County can't manage its small care facility in East Moline? Have we forgotten the problems of the VA?

If Hope Creek is sold, about 220 employees could lose their jobs and some employment benefits. At present, it is estimated that there are 500,000 workers employed by the health insurance companies, such as Aetna and Blue Cross.


Issue No. 1: What happens to those 500,000 health-care employees if the U.S. adopts a single-payer system? Is there even one single-payer advocate addressing this issue?


If we go to single-payer, do the 500,000 lose their jobs? Benefits? If they are transferred to the federal payroll, will the cost to the taxpayers be less than the cost to their former private employers? If so, how does that save any money? Will those who aren't transferred be replaced by new federal workers? If those who aren't transferred are re-trained for new jobs in other industries, what will that cost?


Will the cost of new federal employees, plus the cost of employees transferred from the private sector, plus the cost of re-training those not transferred, exceed what the private sector was paying its 500,000 employees?


And what about workers in related industries? Under single-payer, will the number of employees in hospitals, care centers, and doctors' offices remain the same? And if the numbers decrease, what happens to those workers? Do they go on unemployment or into job re-training?


Issue No. 2: Are American's better off destroying the present systems of coverage and going to single-payer? Total U.S. population (2016): 325,000,000. Covered by Medicare: 53,000,000. Employer plans: 155,000,000. Non-employer private plans: 90,000,000. Veteran's Administration: 15,000,000 Uninsured: 27,000,000.


In 2016, 91.2% of Americans had health insurance coverage and 8.8% didn't. That 8.8% will certainly be better off if we go to a single-payer system, but what percentage of Americans will receive less desirable coverage or substantially inferior coverage?


Would we be better off bringing the 8.8% into the present system? How many of the 8.8% already are on Medicaid?



Issue No. 3: Canada has a single-payer system. The Fraser Institute evaluates the Canadian experience from year to year. Have things gotten better or worse in Canada over the years? They advise that a key indicator is wait time: the time between referral by a general practitioner to a specialist and receipt of treatment. Fraser's answer: substantially worse.


The average Canadian wait time in 2018 was 19.8 weeks; up from 9.3 weeks in 1993. The wait consists of two components: an average 8.7 weeks wait to see the specialist; and an additional 11 weeks to obtain the treatment. In 2018, Canadians could expect to wait an average of 4.3 weeks for a CT scan, 10.6 weeks for an MRI, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.


When the patient is suffering pain, a wait time is not his friend. Wait times can result in poorer medical outcomes. They can transform potentially reversible illnesses/ injuries into chronic, or irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities.


When I hurt my knee golfing, it didn't take me 19.8 weeks with my present insurance to see a specialist and get my MRI. What have your wait times been with your private plan or Medicare? Should 91.2% of Americans plunge into the unknown to provide insurance for 8.8%? Or is there a better alternative?


Simply put: Are you willing to buy the Sander's snake-oil elixir

Posted: QCOline.com   July 11, 2019




Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea


Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 7:17 AM No comments:
Labels: 000, 000 Americans?, Sanders - the snake-oil salesman, What are the hidden costs of Medicare-for-all, Why destroy a medical system that is serving 300

Thursday, July 4, 2019

The "Rights" of Citizenship? What about the "Duties?"


Are you old enough to recall President Jack Kennedy's inaugural address? "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

When was the last time you can recall any other American president or candidate asking a similar question?

Is that what the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls are asking? Or are they, without exception, asking, "Don't ask what you can do for yourself or for your country; ask what your country can do for you?"


Sen. Bernie Sanders believes Medicare-for-All is a "right." Sen. Elizabeth Warren believes there is a "right" to universal child care. Candidates Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Warren, Kristen Gillibrand, et al, believe black Americans have a "right" to reparations.

Warren believes the "right" might also properly be accorded to Native Americans, and couple days ago she added that she thinks reparations should also be paid to the LGBTQ community.

Sanders, Warren and Harris believe that that there is a "right" to free tuition at community colleges, and a "right" to free tuition at four-year colleges for families with incomes less than $125,000.

And, of course, there are those who promised to pay for their college education and then accepted room, board and education. Now they claim a "right" to have their college debt forgiven, and Sanders, Warren and others would support that "right."

Gillibrand, Booker and Sanders, believe every American "seeking work" has a "right" to a government job that would pay at least $15 per hour.

Then there are those who believe in a "right" to two-weeks paid vacation, paid family leave, and the old favorite, the $15 minimum wage.

Last Thursday night, Harris told the nation that she wants a new refundable $6,000 tax credit for families earning up to $100,000. If the family paid less then $6,000 in federal income tax, it would get a check from the U.S. Treasury for the difference. At a time when liberals are suddenly decrying "Trump deficits," this would cost the Treasury a mere $762 billion annually.


So, which candidate has spent even 30 seconds discussing the "duties" of citizenship? Or are they all too busy playing Santa?

Can we even agree that there still are "duties" of citizenship in 21st century America? If so, what are those "duties" in modern America? To vote? To do jury duty? To serve in the armed forces? I do not attempt to make a comprehensive list. I leave that to you.

I suggest that it is the "duty" of every able-bodied citizen to pay at least 1% of his income in federal income taxes. I suggest that no citizens should vote to increase the taxes paid by his fellow citizens, unless he votes to increase his own taxes in the same percentage.

I suggest that no citizen should demand his fellow citizens afford him "rights" that he is not willing to help pay for himself. And I suggest that it is the "duty" of every citizen to treat his fellow citizen -- rich or poor -- as he insists they treat him. Unless the Golden Rule is practiced by all, taxation degenerates into plunder; citizenry into a mob.


If no politician is discussing the "duties" of a citizen, why aren't they? Or do "rights" now come without "duties?"

Kennedy and Harry Truman were the heroes of my youth. At last week's debates, they would have been jeered off the stage. Their seats have been taken by socialist like Sanders and Marxist-sympathizers like Bill DeBlasio.


                 (If you doubt me, read JFK's Dec. 14, 1962 address to the Economic Club of New York.)


Posted: QCOline.com   July 4, 2019




Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea






























Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 5:52 AM No comments:
Labels: Duties of Citizenship; Golden Rule of Citizenship
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2025 (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2024 (17)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2023 (25)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2022 (29)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2021 (23)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2020 (29)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ▼  2019 (38)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ▼  July (3)
      • Sweatshop Labor, New Face of International Slavery
      • Can US afford to buy what Sanders is selling?
      • The "Rights" of Citizenship? What about the "Duties?"
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2018 (37)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2017 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2016 (37)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2015 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2014 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2013 (33)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (18)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2007 (6)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  January (4)

About Me

My photo
John Donald O'Shea
John Donald O'Shea is a lawyer and a retired circuit court judge. He served twenty-six years in that latter position. He was originally elected for a six year term in 1974, and there after was retained in office for four more six year terms. He retired in Janury of 2000. He was graduated from the University of Notre Dame (BA), and from the University of Notre Dame Law School (JD). He is a paid op ed writer for the Moline Dispatch, where the op eds posted here first appeared. He is also a published playwright (see: irishplaywright.blogspot.com). The Plays listed here, except as noted, have been written for and performed by junior high and high school casts, as well as community theaters.
View my complete profile
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.