1

2. Even if the American company pays another country’s minimum wage to sweatshop employees, which is not always the case, minimum wages are not necessarily living wages. Since the American company is handsomely profiting from such labor, the company has an obligation to assure the health and welfare of its workers in these countries. Failure to do so, not only devalues and debases the employees and their societies, but also contradicts U.S. contentions about human rights. Therefore, the U.S. companies that engage in such practices should reassess the images they project and embrace their social responsibilities. As Lee (2011) articulates, “Nike should not just DO it, but do it Right.”

3. Sweatshops in their current form are still unethical even when they provide employment for people who might not have income otherwise. Companies like NIKE can control many of the working conditions in these contracted sweatshops and even control the level of income. As is the case in Pakistan, (Lee, 2011) where child labor helps families meet the $1900 per month required to maintain a basic existence, NIKE should provide reasonable safety and workplace conditions for these workers. Since they are children and child labor is unfortunately normative, NIKE should be required to contribute to Pakistani society and these children’s education. Again, Human Rights should inform corporate responsibility.

For consumers, of course, this also means being informed about corporate practices. It necessitates vigilance and concern about how and where a product is manufactured. more importantly, perhaps, discovery of such unethical facts should inspire self-reflection and changes in consumption patterns.

4. If I was an employee and learned that my employer was violating the law, I am obligated to report it and try to resolve the situation, at hand. For example, documents that are falsified or forged after an employee charged with their responsibility warrants regulatory agency notification, especially when people’s lives are affected (DOL, 2011). Dependent upon the situation, I might be able to inquire internally, but chances are, my superiors would already know about it. If this were a recent change, then internal reporting and investigation might address it or solve it. if, however, it had been a recent discovery on my part and the practice had been ongoing, I would have to report it to the correct oversight agency. Whistleblower laws exist for the protection of informants in such situations (DOL, 2011).

References

Global Exchange (2008). NIKE shoe production in the Third World-- the facts. Third World

Traveler. Retrieved from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/

NikeThird_facts.html

Lee, J. (2011). NIKE: Nike shoes and child labor in Pakistan. TED Case Studies, American

University: The School of International Service. Retrieved from

http://www1.american.edu/TED/nike.htm

United States Department of Labor [DOL]. (2011). Whistleblower protections. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/

compliance/laws/comp-whistleblower.htm