Reply to “Claims won’t keep Adidas off my feet”
Reply to “Claims won’t keep Adidas off my feet,” by Sean Kittridge
Published in Badger Herald, 4/10/08
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/04/10/claims_wont_keep_adi.php
Sean,
I understand that you are merely trying to be entertaining in your writing, but as a member of the LLPC, I feel I need to correct the serious flaws in your argument. And in the future, I would encourage you to contact myself or another committee member beforehand to get all the facts of the case.
First, adidas holds a contract (actually two, sponsorship and licensing) with the University of Wisconsin which requires all apparel and other licensed goods bearing the UW’s logo to be produced under certain conditions. It is very clear to all of the members of the committee, students, faculty, and academic staff alike, that adidas was in material breach of contract: adidas pulled out production from the factory when its workers began to organize; and the workers only began to organize in response to sexual harassment, forced 15-hour shifts, and unsafe working conditions (for example, several workers have developed cancers from the machines). Instead of respecting freedom of association–which is a basic human right, according to the International Labor Organization and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights–adidas cut its own contract with the factory, and the factory closed. These workers are now blacklisted: they are virtually unhireable in El Salvador because they are recognized as “troublemakers.” This isn’t simply a matter of Christmas bonuses; according to the Workers Rights Consortium (of which the UW is a member), “the workers are owed $2,612.33 each, with individual totals ranging from $1,568.20 to $6,045.70,” in back wages, severance, health care, and social security, which Salvadoran courts have maintained are legally owed to the workers. This is a lot of money for American workers to be shorted, imagine for Salvadoran workers, where the minimum wage in the maquila sector is less than $175 a month.
I’m sure you will agree that these conditions are shameful, and that the UW should do everything in its power to disassociate itself. Adidas is in breach of contract, and has adamantly made it clear that it will do nothing to bring its standards into compliance with the contract. To NOT cut the contract sends the message to all apparel producers associated with the UW that we do not care about the Codes of Conduct, and will tolerate sweatshop contracting.
Second, as Chancellor Wiley has made clear, the UW cannot field a naked football team. There are many ways to field a football team besides a sponsorship agreement with adidas. To be honest, there is not one “good” brand; but any brand could theoretically produce any good under satisfactory working conditions, without significantly raising the price. University Bookstore recently began selling fair trade tshirts, and they have become some of their most popular items, surpassing even the managers’ sales expectations. In addition, these shirts cost much less than even sweatshop-made shirts of poorer quality. It is painfully obvious that exploitation is not necessary to keep prices down, and that there is a significant demand for fair trade apparel. Knights Apparel, the UW’s second-largest licensee, will soon be switching some production to fair trade to meet the demand. Surely, if adidas were to value its relationship with the UW, adidas could make the Badgers the first major sports team in the country, if not in the world, to wear exclusively fair trade uniforms. Wouldn’t that be an even better honor for the university that to get to the Sweet Sixteen, or the Outback Bowl? And it wouldn’t be “hippie-hemp” either–the quality would be totally indistinguishable from what the athletes currently wear, except for the conditions under which they were made.
In regards to your comment about “rearranging the seats on a prison bus,” you are partially correct, however, the UW has the power to choose the brand, and more importantly, to set the terms of the contract. The UW is a powerhouse school: few other schools are so good across the board. In terms of sheer apparel volume, it’s one of the top schools in the country; and it’s also THE fastest growing licensing school, due to tremendous work by Bo Ryan and Bret Bielema.
Now, there is one problem with everything I have just said. While brands have the ability to produce clothes and uniforms under good conditions, even profitably, they choose not to, even selectively. Why is that? Let’s say we cut adidas and bring on Nike, and ask Nike to produce all UW uniforms and apparel under fair trade conditions. It would be profitable for Nike, to be sure. But they will likely balk. Why? Because it sets a “bad” example for them. Soon, other universities would request the same. And consumer groups and NGOs. They will of course still be profiting. Instead of returning half the cost of a tshirt to millionaire shareholders, it may instead be only one third. It’s all about money. It’s about doing everything they can to force out that extra penny of profits, even if it means locking workers in the factory, killing union leaders, forcing women to get abortions, or forcing 24 hour shifts without bathroom breaks (all of these are documented cases in textile factories). However, the UW has played a historic role in improving labor standards in factories producing Bucky shirts, and we have the power to condinue doing so.
As a public university, and one that takes such pride in its progressive history and “sifting and winnowing,” it is unacceptable to be willfully complicit in such conditions. The committee will likely be recommending to Chancellor Wiley to terminate the contract with adidas. It remains to be seen whether he will listen to his advisers or listen to money, but the committee hopes that Wiley will do everything in his power to help push the industry, and the UW’s reputation, forward.
From Behind the Orange Curtain 