Nike shoe

=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/nike-refuses-to-allow-county-health-inspector-into-facility-after-worker-dies-of-covid-19/">https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/nike-refuses-to-allow-county-health-inspector-into-facility-after-worker-dies-of-covid-19/</a>gop donornew colin c ads beleive in yourself and you can do anything [sellout?]podcast of other dz show on colin c<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/the-collision-sports-and-politics-etan-thomas-dave-zirin-december-27-2019/">https://kpfa.org/episode/the-collision-sports-and-politics-etan-thomas-dave-zirin-december-27-2019/</a><div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/investors-consumers-and-workers-are-changing-capitalism-for-the-better-by-demanding-companies-behave-more-responsibly/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/investors-consumers-and-workers-are-changing-capitalism-for-the-better-by-demanding-companies-behave-more-responsibly/</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>Investors, consumers and workers are changing capitalism for the better by demanding companies behave more responsibly</div><div> </div><div>Written by The Conversation July 27, 2019</div><div>
</div><div>Capitalism’s days may be numbered – at least judging by recent polls.</div><div>
</div><div>A majority of millennials reject the economic system, while 55% of women aged 18 to 54 say they prefer socialism. More Democrats now have a positive view of socialism than capitalism.</div><div>
</div><div>One problem interpreting numbers like these is that there are many definitions of capitalism and socialism. More to the point, people seem to be thinking of a specific form of capitalism that deems the sole purpose of companies is to increase stock prices and enrich investors. Known as shareholder capitalism, it’s been the guiding light of American business for more than four decades.</div><div>
</div><div>As a scholar of socially responsible companies, however, I cannot help but notice a shift in corporate behavior in recent years. A new kind of capitalism seems to be emerging, one in which companies value communities, the environment and workers just as much as profits.</div><div>
</div><div>The purpose of business</div><div>
</div><div>Nearly 50 years ago, the economist Milton Friedman proclaimed that the sole purpose of a business is “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”</div><div>
</div><div>Within a decade, Friedman’s claim became accepted wisdom in corporate boardrooms. The era of “shareholder primacy capitalism” had begun.</div><div>
</div><div>One result has been remarkable growth in the stock market. But critics argue companies and the “shareholder value theory” are also complicit in exacerbating many economic, social and environmental problems, such as income inequality and climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Milton Friedman won prizes for his research on consumption analysis and monetary history.</div><div>
</div><div>They also note that putting profits first actually harms shareholders in the long run by encouraging managers to take actions that may eventually reduce earnings.</div><div>
</div><div>The rebellion</div><div>
</div><div>Many consumers, workers and socially conscious investors have also noticed these shortcomings and increased pressure on corporations to change.</div><div>
</div><div>For starters, more Americans no longer find it acceptable for companies to exclusively seek profits. A 2017 poll found that 78% of U.S. consumers want businesses to pursue social justice issues, while 76% said they would refuse to buy a product if the business supported an issue contrary to their beliefs. Almost half the respondents said they had already boycotted a product for that reason.</div><div>
</div><div>Workers increasingly expect their employers to share their values. A 2016 study found that most Americans – particularly millennials – consider a company’s social and environmental commitments when deciding where to work. Most would also be willing to take a pay cut in order to work for a “responsible” company – and are demanding their current employers behave that way.</div><div>
</div><div>For example, workers at online furniture company Wayfair recently walked out when they learned it had sent beds to detention centers at the U.S.-Mexico border. More than 8,100 Amazon employees signed an open letter supporting a shareholder resolution urging the retailer to do more to address climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>Finally, investors are becoming more socially aware and putting more of their money behind businesses that behave in sustainable and responsive ways. At the beginning of 2018, portfolio managers held US$11.6 trillion in U.S. assets using environmental, social and governance criteria to guide their investments, up from $2.5 trillion in 2010.</div><div>
</div><div>Laurence Fink, founder and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, summed up the growing sentiment when he said, “To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The corporate response</div><div>
</div><div>Presumably realizing how important these constituencies are to their bottom lines, businesses are paying attention.</div><div>
</div><div>Dick’s Sporting Goods, Kroger, Walmart and L.L. Bean, for example, responded to growing concerns over mass shootings by restricting the sale of guns. Proctor and Gamble, a major sponsor for U.S. Soccer, expressed support for the quest of the women’s team for equal pay and donated $500,000 to help narrow the pay gap with men.</div><div>
</div><div>Airlines including American, United and Frontier refused to knowingly fly children separated from their parents at the border following outrage over the Trump administration’s policy. And even though Amazon shareholders rejected the worker-supported shareholder resolution described above, Amazon set stronger goals for reducing its carbon footprint after the resolution was introduced.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Unilever found that its ‘sustainable living’ brands such as Ben & Jerry’s are growing faster than its other products.</div><div>
</div><div>These actions have sometimes hurt the bottom line. The decision to restrict gun sales cost Dick’s Sporting Goods $150 million. Delta lost a $50 million tax break in Georgia after severing ties with the NRA.</div><div>
</div><div>But these and other companies didn’t back down. The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods explained that when something is “to the detriment of the public, you have to stand up.”</div><div>
</div><div>Companies are also setting tougher social and environmental goals for themselves and then reporting their successes and failures. Tesla, Unilever, Nike and Whole Foods are among nine companies with annual revenues of at least $1 billion that “have sustainability or social good at their core.”</div><div>
</div><div>In 2018, 86% of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies reported on their environmental, social and governance performance and achievements, up from less than 20% in 2011.</div><div>
</div><div>And companies have found that putting more emphasis on social justice can pay off. Unilever, for example, said in 2017 that its “sustainable living” brands, such as Ben & Jerry’s, Dove and Hellmann’s, are growing much faster than its other brands. Companies with the best scores on their sustainability reports generally perform better financially than those with lower scores.</div><div>
</div><div>The end of shareholder capitalism?</div><div>
</div><div>Skeptics can be forgiven for believing these corporate “changes” are not real or are simply public relations stunts designed to appeal to a new generation.</div><div>
</div><div>Businesses can, of course, say they will be responsible citizens while doing the opposite. Few sustainability reports in the United States are externally audited, and the companies are asking us to take them at their word.</div><div>
</div><div>Even if they are well-meaning, intentions are not enough to create systemic change. A 2017 study showed that many companies with climate change goals actually scaled back their ambitions over time as the reality clashed with their lofty goals.</div><div>
</div><div>But businesses can’t afford to ignore their customers’ wishes. Nor can they ignore their workers in a tight labor market. And if they disregard socially responsible investors, they risk both losing out on important investments and facing shareholder resolutions that force change.</div><div>
</div><div>The shareholder value doctrine is not dead, but we are beginning to see major cracks in its armor. And as long as investors, customers and employees continue to push for more responsible behavior, you should expect to see those cracks grow.The Conversation</div><div>Elizabeth Schmidt, Professor of Practice, Nonprofit Organizations; Social & Environmental Enterprises, University of Massachusetts Amherst</div><div>
</div><div>This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.</div></div><div>=</div>H<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://rawstory.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80b42ecc21f29763320aceb90&id=35615b395e&e=4da1f92934" style="text-decoration-line: none;">ere's Why Nike's Choice of Colin Kaepernick As the Face of 'Just Do It' Campaign Is Incredibly Significant</a>By wilbur , Daily KosThis is the sign of a true sea change in our societyIf you had told me last week that the conservative movement would soon be outraged about a shoe that never went on the market, I might have thought you were joking. But it’s not a joke, and the dustup reveals a depressing truth about the conservative movement.Many prominent conservative thinkers, writers, and politicians have expressed their outrage this week about Nike’s decision not to sell a shoe it had originally designed with an image of the so-called “Betsy Ross flag,” an older version of the American flag with 13 stars arranged in a circle, representing the original 13 colonies. What made this decision particularly explosive, it seems, is that Nike made this decision after hearing from NFL star and activist Colin Kaepernick. He partnered with the company after sparking controversy for refusing to kneel during the national anthem at football games in protest of racism, and the Wall Street Journal reported Monday that he told Nike “it shouldn’t sell a shoe with a symbol that he and others consider offensive.”Cue the overwrought fulmination from the right wing.Arizona Governor Doug Ducey started early by injecting his absurdly excessive reactions, saying, “Words cannot express my disappointment at this terrible decision. I am embarrassed for Nike.” And Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), chimed in as well,  saying the “decision to cancel Betsy Ross shoe is ridiculous.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) made a comment that I still haven’t entirely deciphered yet: It’s a good thing @Nike only wants to sell sneakers to people who hate the American flag.... @NFL #HappyFourth https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1145838971731226624 …The Wall Street JournalNike is yanking a sneaker featuring the "Betsy Ross flag" after Colin Kaepernick said he and others consider the symbol to be offensive https://on.wsj.com/2Nr3xJB 31.9K5:31 PM - Jul 1, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy16.1K people are talking about thisNaturally, a boycott was triggered by conservatives now calling on people not to buy Nike shoes because Nike decided not to sell a particular kind of shoe. No word yet on whether boycotts are coming for every other company not selling items with the Betsy Ross flag on them.And it wasn’t just politicians looking to pander to right-wing outrage. Fox News, Breitbart, Twitchy, and other conservative outlets got in on the controversy. When presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke made a mild comment about having “respect” for Nike’s decision, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro said, “I hope every Democrat candidate jumps on this idiotic bandwagon,” suggesting that this controversy might have an impact on the 2020 election. (It won’t.)My intention isn’t to defend Nike’s decision. I don’t really have much to say about a shoemakers’ decision not to sell a shoe. While symbols are important and matter in society, the more interesting fact about the whole affair is that the right wing ate the story up.Conservative writer Bret Stephens at the New York Times placed the incident in a list of other bizarre controversies that soaked up far more oxygen than they ever deserved, saying that it showed a capitulation to “Woke culture.” He argued that such incidents somehow show a troubling trend in American society. “The story has resonated widely not because it’s outrageous, but because it’s predictable,” he said.In other words, it played into the pre-existing narrative that conservatives have cooked up to inflame the masses.Meanwhile, if you look at the issue that has outraged Democratic leaders and voters in recent weeks, you’d find that they’re focused on the abuse and treatment of immigrants held in abusive conditions by the Trump administration. Of course, the right wing thinks these complaints are overblown or misplaced, but they are about actual human being suffering at the hands of the administration. The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general has even found that Custom and Border Patrol’s treatment of migrants actually violates its own standards and policies.But the right wing is concerned with shoes that were never even sold in the first place.It’s not that every issue that grips the public and the commentariat’s attention has to be the most pressing issue of the day. But it should be at least about something. And yet the Betsy Ross flag isn’t being banned, and nobody is being punished for wearing it or displaying it. No one is even burning it(!). A company simply made a decision that, on reflection, it wanted to avoid sending a message that it worried might be misinterpreted. Cautious companies make these decisions all the time.Seeing this as a threat to American patriotism, or perhaps more accurately, to conservative identity, is just absurd. It’s reminiscent of the entirely incomprehensible debates about Starbucks holiday cups, which some see as part of the imaginary “War on Christmas.”But prominent figures on the right love to stir up these controversies over non-events because they know their base and viewers are so easily riled. They display the traits they say they most despise among liberals and Democrats: oversensitivity, excessive attention to trivia, overblown outrage. They were the “snowflakes” all along.And yet while the controversy itself doesn’t matter, it’s grip over the conservative mind does. It reveals how the movement’s ideology distracts from issues that matter — inequality, poverty, racism, environmental degradation, corruption — and encourages its followers to waste their energies on irrelevancies. It convinces right-wing voters that their identity is under attack by liberals, the elite, the media (but not conservative media), so that they don’t care when these groups expose and draw attention to the actual dangers of unregulated industry or the abuses of immigrants at the border. The migrants, after all, aren’t the real victims; the real victims are the people who don’t get to wear Betsy Ross flag shoes.<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23052019/carbon-pricing-microsoft-pepsi-stonyfield-corporate-lobbying-congress-climate-change-solutions">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23052019/carbon-pricing-microsoft-pepsi-stonyfield-corporate-lobbying-congress-climate-change-solutions</a>
An epic quest loomed Wednesday before the largest gathering of business leaders in a decade to advocate for climate action on Capitol Hill.Could they find a single Republican in the U.S. Senate to take up the cause of carbon pricing?The answer appeared to be: "Not yet."Officials from Microsoft, Nike, Pepsi, eBay, Exelon, Gap, Levi's, Mars and Tesla were among more than 75 business leaders making the case for a national price on carbon. They scheduled 80 meetings with lawmakers and staff, half of them with Republicans. Lawmakers and their aides ducked behind closed doors to confer with members of the delegation throughout the day.Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who introduced bipartisan carbon tax <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3791?s=2&r=1" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">legislation</a> in the last Congress and would like to do so again, set up one roundtable meeting between his colleagues and six CEOs with a ground rule that he wouldn't name which members of Congress came to hear the pitch. (The bill he introduced last session put a fee on emissions of greenhouse gases and paid the revenues back to the public as a so-called "dividend.")"By offering an invitation to come have an off-the-record conversation with CEOs, I was partly recognizing that it is politically challenging or sensitive to have conservative Republicans in a room talking about a price on carbon," Coons said. "And I'm trying to find a way to move that conversation forward."One Republican who is seen by some as a hope for GOP climate leadership did stop and speak briefly with a reporter outside the door on his way out of a half-hour session with CEOs."I think we're a long way from legislation of that character at this stage," said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) of their plea for congressional action.Although Romney maintained a skeptical stance on climate during his 2012 presidential run, his more recent statements show openness to addressing climate change—including <a href="https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/829121887217319938" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">a 2017 Tweet </a>praising the carbon fee-and-dividend proposal by the Climate Leadership Council, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups. But Romney, who represents a state where <a href="https://onlinelibrary.utah.gov/symbols/rock.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">coal is the state rock</a>, was not ready to commit to any view on what Congress should be doing."They made a number of important points about creating incentives for the various industries to consider a carbon-friendly approach as opposed to a less carbon-friendly approach, and creating pricing mechanisms that would encourage them to emit less carbon," Romney said.<h3 playfair="Playfair" display="Display" serif="serif" font-weight="font-weight" normal="normal" line-height="line-height" font-size="font-size" rem="rem" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px;">Climate Reports, Polls and a Republican Shift</h3>The companies lobbying for carbon pricing together represented combined annual revenues of more than $2.5 trillion, according to the sustainability nonprofit group Ceres, which helped organizing the lobbying effort. Boston-based Ceres works with investors and companies to build networks of leaders on climate issues.Dawn Martin, executive vice president of Ceres, said the business members of its policy network began pushing for the idea of a group lobbying effort on Capitol Hill after back-to-back climate science reports last fall—the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1.5 degrees report</a> and the <a href="https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Fourth National Climate Assessment</a>—issued stark warnings about the need to rein in greenhouse gases quickly."It's been a game-changer for people," said Martin. And while there isn't a GOP standard-bearer in Congress on carbon pricing, Martin said she has seen a shift."To have Republicans saying, 'We get it, but it's the wrong solution'—at least they get it now," she said. "And that has happened relatively overnight."That was also the finding of a national survey released earlier this week by the GOP polling firm Luntz Global. The <a href="https://www.clcouncil.org/polling/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">survey </a>found that by a margin of 8 to 1, U.S. voters are more worried about climate today than they were a year ago. Luntz found majority support across party lines for the <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07032019/carbon-tax-proposals-compare-baker-shultz-exxon-conocophillips-ccl-congress" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">carbon fee-and-dividend proposal</a> of the Climate Leadership Council, which commissioned the survey. Among Republicans under age 40, 75 percent supported the idea of pricing carbon and returning all revenue to households.Republicans on Capitol Hill are acting as though they've seen similar polling. Fewer are now openly questioning the core science of climate change, but many are still steering clear of the idea of strong government action.The Republican-controlled Senate Agriculture Committee, stacked with farm state lawmakers who have largely ignored the topic, held a hearing Tuesday focused on climate change in which several senators and witnesses raised the prospect of carbon markets. With the farm sector battered by a series of natural disasters and suffering under President <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/tags/donald-trump" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Donald Trump</a>'s trade policies, the idea of possible farm revenue from carbon markets has appeal, and even Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue voiced support for the idea. But Republican lawmakers, who have long fought anything that remotely hints of regulation on American farms, were wary."What I would hate to see is heavy handed government regulation," said Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst. "I think we can do this on our own."<h3 playfair="Playfair" display="Display" serif="serif" font-weight="font-weight" normal="normal" line-height="line-height" font-size="font-size" rem="rem" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px;">What Business Leaders Are Saying</h3>Many Republicans are touting technology subsidies—not taxes—as the solution. At a <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16052019/carbon-tax-fee-dividend-pricing-republican-plan-house-ways-means-committee-baker-shultz" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">House Ways and Means Committee hearing</a> last week, several Republicans voiced support for increased incentives to spur innovation.Hugh Welsh, president of DSM North America, a nutrition and health company, said he was telling lawmakers that government incentives are fine for sparking innovation, but not for scaling them up enough to make a difference on climate change. For example, DSM has developed a feed additive that the company says would reduce methane emissions from cows by 30 percent, but he said there's not enough incentive for farms to buy the product unless there is a market imperative to reduce greenhouse gases.Jeff Eckel, CEO of the Annapolis, Md.-based clean investment firm Hannon Armstrong, is convinced he can make a business case for carbon pricing that should appeal to Republicans. To rely on subsidies and incentives alone, he said, "is a distinctly non-conservative economic position. If you want to go back to free market principles, you put a price on carbon and you stop socializing the cost" of climate change.The business leaders said they understood, however, that no matter how much progress they made in their lobbying day on Capitol Hill, they were not likely to see legislation in the short-term with the Trump administration maintaining its stance of climate denial."We know where this administration is. It's living in a fact-free fantasy," said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of the organic yogurt company Stonyfield Farm. "But this is a matter of enormous urgency. What we need to help our colleagues and representatives understand is that this is not a partisan issue."Said Welsh, "I think everybody understands that not much is going to get done in this Congress, in the polarized, divisive state we're in. But that's not a deterrent. That does not discourage us. It may be the first time we're up on the Hill, but it won't be the last time."<h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/reebok-new-sneaker--cotton-corn-2596496211.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;">Reebok Launches New Sneaker Made From Cotton and Corn</a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2596496211" data-authors="Lorraine Chow" data-headline="Reebok Launches New Sneaker Made From Cotton and Corn" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief">Adidas has shoes made of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=ecowatch+shoe+making&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS694US697&oq=ecowatch+shoe+making&aqs=chrome..69i57.3911j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">ocean plastic</a>. Nike has ones made of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nike-flyleather-shoes-2487176299.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">recycled leather</a>. Now, Reebok has its first plant-based athletic shoe.The "NPC U.K. Cotton + Corn" sneaker, which <a href="https://www.reebok.com/us/npc-uk-cotton-and-corn/CN5214.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">debuted</a> Tuesday, has a top made from 100 percent organic cotton, a sole made from a corn-based rubber substitute and an insole made from castor bean oil. No dyes were used for the chalk-colored kicks and they'll also come in 100 percent recycled packaging.</div></div></div><span style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, " apple="Apple" color="Color" emoji="Emoji" segoe="Segoe" ui="UI" notocoloremoji="NotoColorEmoji" symbol="Symbol" android="Android" emojisymbols="EmojiSymbols" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> good background on the Nike v. Kasky case: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3Amailstat.us_tr_t_dlk7rbbdjhnpjx6g_7_http-3Areclaimdemocracy.org_nike&d=DwMFaQ&c=fie8CffxQEyLNW7eyn-hJg&r=5p2nnOfhUD1TWCsAN042c4eMC29IspjuS_wgR3hx3vU&m=BiynsxHbmz6_NG20xdSSL2w3RzTRsd9P5ynjd4CuN7A&s=Y14TtAUR20538EK23AYLP3kHU-KKlGl2jyK00CnMSDI&e=" class="m_426198085921365736x_b4g-track-link m_426198085921365736OWAAutoLink" id="m_426198085921365736LPlnk293079" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u%3Dhttp-3Amailstat.us_tr_t_dlk7rbbdjhnpjx6g_7_http-3A__reclaimdemocracy.org_nike_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3Dfie8CffxQEyLNW7eyn-hJg%26r%3D5p2nnOfhUD1TWCsAN042c4eMC29IspjuS_wgR3hx3vU%26m%3DBiynsxHbmz6_NG20xdSSL2w3RzTRsd9P5ynjd4CuN7A%26s%3DY14TtAUR20538EK23AYLP3kHU-KKlGl2jyK00CnMSDI%26e%3D&source=gmail&ust=1527788339953000&usg=AFQjCNGGIuqMRrqVI4yCZcWX9Z8E3dKaug" style="" apple="Apple" color="Color" emoji="Emoji" segoe="Segoe" ui="UI" notocoloremoji="NotoColorEmoji" symbol="Symbol" android="Android" emojisymbols="EmojiSymbols" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/</a><a href="http://www.alternet.org/labor/walmart-nike-and-others-decline-back-40-monthly-wage-hike-cambodias-garment-industry" class="external text" title="http://www.alternet.org/labor/walmart-nike-and-others-decline-back-40-monthly-wage-hike-cambodias-garment-industry" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background: url(" external.png="external.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size">Sweatshops in Asia</a> 9/16.not nikehttp://www.alternet.org/personal-health/shoe-science-racket-footwear-companies-rake-monster-cash-lying-their-customers
==

<h3 style="background-image: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 19.2px;">Kasky v. Nike, Inc.<span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"></h3>

Kasky filed a lawsuit in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California" title="California" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">California</a> regarding newspaper advertisements and several letters Nike distributed in response to criticisms of labor conditions in its factories. Kasky claimed that the company made representations that constituted <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising" title="False advertising" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">false advertising</a>. Nike responded that the false advertising laws did not cover the company's expression of its views on a public issue, and that these were entitled to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">First Amendment</a> protection. The local court agreed with Nike's lawyers, but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Supreme_Court" title="California Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">California Supreme Court</a> overturned this ruling, claiming that the corporation's communications were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech" title="Commercial speech" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">commercial speech</a> and therefore subject to false advertising laws.

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court" title="United States Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">United States Supreme Court</a> agreed to review the case (Nike v. Kasky) but sent the case back to trial court without issuing a substantive ruling on the constitutional issues. The parties subsequently settled out of court before any finding on the accuracy of Nike's statements, leaving the California Supreme Court's denial of Nike's immunity claim as precedent. The case drew a great deal of attention from groups concerned with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties" title="Civil liberties" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">civil liberties</a>, as well as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-sweatshop" title="Anti-sweatshop" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">anti-sweatshop</a> activists.

===

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Kasky">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Kasky</a>

===

In the 1990s, the athletic company Nike was accused of running sweatshops -- factories that employ labor at substandard conditions and low wages -- in developing Asian countries. The story came to the fore even more in 2001. That year, Nike launched a shoe line that allowed customers to have whatever they pleased embroidered on the company's shoes. One MIT graduate student lodged his order: He wanted the word "sweatshop" embroidered on his pair.

The company refused his order, and the student circulated the e-mail Nike had sent him. The media took notice. In short order, stories of Nike's overseas labor practices made it into the pages of news outlets like the Wall Street Journal [source: The Industry Standard].

In an ongoing public relations campaign, Nike said it did not use exploitative labor practices, and it actually protected workers' rights abroad. Based on proof that contradicted the PR blitz, a California man sued the company in 1998 for false advertising [source: BBC]. The company challenged the issue, saying that as an artificial person, it was allowed to lie. Lying, after all, is protected by the freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment.

Nike lost in the California Supreme Court, but appealed. After accepting the case, the Supreme Court deferred it back to the lower courts [source: New York Times]. Ultimately, the company settled the suit for $1.5 million, which went to a labor rights group [source: BBC]. In 2005, Nike published a report of the working conditions in its overseas factories, which included admissions of employee mistreatment [source: The Guardian].

==

shadows of lib;

AMY GOODMAN: Jean-Philippe, the examples in your film are extremely powerful. And that’s what we’re going to turn to right now. We’re going to turn to a clip of the film, and this is a clip that involves Roberta Baskin. She is a reporter for CBS. The first story in the film is about this reporter, CBS chief correspondent, who traveled to Vietnam in 1996 to report on labor abuses at Nike factories. This is a clip of Roberta Baskin describing some of what she found.

ROBERTA BASKIN: One of the things that really shocked me was to discover that the word "Nike" had become a verb. The word "Nike" meant to abuse your employees. There were incidences of physical abuse, women who had their mouths taped shut for talking on the line, 15 women who were systematically hit with the top part of a Nike shoe around the face and the neck. It was this disparity between seeing the corporate image that the company sells and the reality in these factories: "Just do it, or else."

</blockquote>

AMY GOODMAN: The report sparked protests and boycotts across the country, as Nike rushed to deny the allegations. CBS asked Roberta Baskin to do a follow-up report. The film explains what happened next.

NARRATOR: As Baskin was putting together the updated news report on Nike’s labor practices, she received unexpected news from inside CBS.

</blockquote>

ROBERTA BASKIN: I got a call from my executive producer, who said, "The story is not going to air. It’s been taken off schedule. There’s some sort of deal being made between Nike and CBS News for the upcoming Winter Olympics." And the air went out of my soul.

</blockquote>

BRIAN HEALY: CBS News was paying an enormous amount of money for the rights. And so, by definition, they would be seeking out commercial sponsors who would pour lots of money into it so that they could recoup the millions that they were paying for the rights of the Olympics.

</blockquote>

CBS ANNOUNCER: The 18th Olympic Winter Games on CBS.

</blockquote>

NARRATOR: As CBS revealed their Olympic coverage, the deal between Nike and CBS was plain to see.

</blockquote>

ROBERTA BASKIN: Correspondent after correspondent are wearing these Nike jackets on the air, with a little CBS something or other—you really couldn’t read it—and a big swoosh on the shoulder. That was the deal. Nike had convinced CBS News to turn its correspondents into billboards. It was heartbreaking.

</blockquote>

BRIAN HEALY: The CBS News correspondents were furious. They had to wear the Nike parkas whenever they appeared on air. It’s just not done.

</blockquote>

NARRATOR: Baskin wrote a memo requesting CBS management to take the Nike logo off the correspondents.

</blockquote>

ROBERTA BASKIN: CBS had crossed this incredible line. How do you trust serious stories when you’re seeing the reporter wearing a bunch of logos? Immediately, the president of CBS News responded, saying, "This was a breach of professional etiquette." It meant that I should shut up. How dare I raise a question about the integrity of CBS News?

</blockquote>

AMY GOODMAN: That was Roberta Baskin from the film Shadows of Liberty. You also heard former CBS News producer Brain Healy in that clip. Jean-Philippe Tremblay, why did you choose to open the film with this story?

JEAN-PHILIPPE TREMBLAY: Well, Roberta Baskin is just an example of an amazing journalist. She’s one of the most awarded female journalists here in the United States. She’s won something like over 75 journalistic awards. And the report—the reporting that she does is always trying to tell us what’s happening with power. Here we see an example with the Nike corporation. And because she’s reporting on the Nike corporation, she’s stopped by the very power that she’s working for, CBS News, because they have made a deal with Nike corporation.

===

<div>

</div>

<div><a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/the-expendables-how-the-temps-who-power-corporate-giants-are-getting-crushe">http://www.propublica.org/article/the-expendables-how-the-temps-who-power-corporate-giants-are-getting-crushe</a></div>

ucs: Other big corporate players were fairly consistent with their public image. Nike and NRG Energy Inc lobbied in support of climate change policy and supported conservation groups. 6/12

us coc: GE is the latest in a growing list of companies unhappy with the Chamber's position on climate. Yesterday, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/nike-resigns-chamber-board">Nike announced</a> that they are resigning from the board of directors, though they plan to maintain membership. The country's largest electric utility, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/largest-electric-utility-us-drops-out-chamber-commerce">Exelon</a>, announced on Monday that they are leaving the group, joining <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/pge-quits-chamber-commerce-over-its-extreme-position-climate-change">California utility PG&E</a> and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/new-mexico-utility-quits-chamber-commerce-over-climate-position">New Mexico utility PNM</a> in secession.

===

cbs anchors/rept required to wear nike logo  roberta baskin Shadows of Liberty doc

gangs of america:

The Corporate Megaphone and the Kasky Case

The fallacy of seeing the corporation as a “speaker” is demonstrated

in a recent case involving Nike, Inc. In 1996, Nike began to face

serious charges of sweatshop working conditions in the Asian factories

operated by its sub-contractors. Approximately 300,000 to 500,000

people, mostly young women, work in those factories, located mainly in

Vietnam, China, Indonesia, and Thailand. Reports in the news program

48 Hours and in the New York Times, the Financial Times, the San

Francisco Chronicle, the Kansas City Star, the Oregonian, the Buffao

News, and Sporting News contained a wide range of allegations. The

New York Times reported “grim conditions” and widespread human

rights abuses in factories where Nike shoes were made. A spot audit of

one Vietnamese factory found 77 percent of workers suffering respiratory

problems. An investigator for Vietnam Labor Watch found a pervasive

“sense of desperation” from interviews with the young women

making Nike shoes. In China, the Hong Kong Christian Industrial

Committee found workers subjected to 11- to 12-hour days, compulsory

overtime, and violation of minimum wage laws. Other reports described

physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, and exposure of young workers to

toxic chemicals, noise, heat, and dust without adequate safety equipment.

In response to the allegations, Nike mounted a publicity blitz in

which it denied the charges and asserted (1) that its workers were paid

double the minimum wage, on average, (2) that workers received free

meals and health care, (3) that its workers were not subjected to corporal

punishment or sexual abuse, and (4) that its products were made in

accordance with health and safety regulations.

208 GANGS OF AMERICA

Marc Kasky, a San Francisco resident, became convinced that

much of the information being used by Nike in its publicity campaign

was demonstrably false. Kasky decided to take action, and after coming

to the conclusion that Nike’s statements did not even accord with the

company’s own internal audits, he filed a false advertising lawsuit in

state court under California’s Business and Professions Code.

In response to Kasky’s lawsuit, Nike’s lawyers used an interesting

legal strategy. Rather than argue that the company’s advertisements

were factual, the lawyers asserted that factuality was irrelevant in the

case because Nike was protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the

company could publicize any sort of information it wantedeven

“facts” that the company knew to be completely false.

As the case worked its way through the courts, the legal arguments

became complex. Kasky’s attorneys argued that Nike’s statements constituted

“commercial speech,” which is subject to a lower level of First

Amendment protection because of the potential harm that can result

from misrepresentations about product safety and ingredients. Nike’s

lawyers, on the other hand, argued that the sweatshops issue was a political

debate, and that the entire of purpose of the First Amendment was

to ensure that no one in such a debate could be subjected to governmental

restriction.

Once the debate was set in these terms, Nike enjoyed a tremendous

advantage. The ACLU rushed to defend the company’s freedom of

speech, as did the AFL-CIO, a variety of corporations, editorials in major

newspapers, and the Bush Administration. Typical of the arguments

was that of the ACLU’s amicus brief, which cited “…the fundamental

First Amendment principles that protect the rights of those on both sides

of a debate to speak their minds freely….”

Here was the crux of the issue: the idea of a corporate mind. When

a corporation issues a press release or runs an advertising blitz, who is

actually speaking their mind? Obviously, a corporation itself does not

have a mind. It is merely a collection of papersthe name on a financial

statement. There are, of course, managers, directors, employees,

lawyers, and public relations firms involved in such campaigns. But do

JUDICIAL YOGA 209

the statements issued by the corporation actually reflect the personal

opinions of any of those people? Perhaps, perhaps not. But what is certain

is that holding a company accountable for the accuracy of its advertisements

and official statements about safety conditions, worker pay,

incidents of verbal or sexual abuse by factory supervisors, or other such

information hardly seems like a restriction on anyone’s freedom of

speech. Kasky’s suit was not directed at after-hours statements made by

human beings who happened to work for Nikerather, the suit aimed at

official statements of the company.

The situation might be compared to the responsibilities of a corporation

in the financial arena. In official statements about its financial

status, a corporation is accountable for the truthfulness of all representations.

On the other hand, if an executive wants to go to a cocktail party

or a family reunion and brag about how successful his company is, he or

she should have every right to do so.

Ultimately, society must be able to make a distinction between the

rights and prerogatives of a $10 billion corporation such as Nike and an

ordinary human being like you and me. No one would ever propose that

a physical machine that emits words is entitled to free speech. It is human

speakers that the First Amendment protects, not machines. Contrary

to the fears of the ACLU that requiring corporate statements to be

truthful puts society on a slippery slope toward restricting human

speech, the actual slippery slope is different. The real slippery slope is

an ever-increasing tendency to treat corporations as though they were

human beings.