|
Issue No. 134 | 03 May 2002 |
The Hijacking of May Day
Interview: Youth Group History: Back To The Future Industrial: On the Street Unions: The New Deal Legal: The Police State Road Women: What Women Want Politics: Street Party International: The Costs of War Review: Songs of Solidarity Satire: Bono Satisfies World Hunger for Preachy Rockstars Poetry: Woomera
Yarra Seamen Take Border Stand Kinkos Copies Anti-Union Script Nike Told to Shoosh on Sweatshops Rapper Wins Wobbly Anthem Prize Unions Target Labour Hire Bidding War Rally Targets Tight-Arse Costello Councils To Be Audited On Language Allowance Scope For Payback In Privacy Limitations Heavyweight Push For Medibank Private To Stay Public East Timor MPs Question Timor Gap Plan Artists' Union Bans Voice For Peace
The Soapbox The Locker Room Bosswatch Week in Review Tool Shed
M1 Open Letter Julian Online May Day Debacle Mothers Day Musings Greetings From Canada
Labor Council of NSW |
News Nike Told to Shoosh on Sweatshops
Angered by effective union campaigns about Nike�s Asian sweatshops the multinational mounted an advertising campaign in the mid-1990s to tell Americans it was a good corporate citizen.
Sweatshop opponents were shocked by the claims and took Nike to court. The footwear company had tried to protect itself from the court case claiming the controversial adverts about Asian sweatshops were protected by 'free speech' and did not have to comply with 'false advertising' rules. But on Thursday the court ruled that Nike's big dollar adverts were not protected by the US Constitution's free speech provisions. The California court said the ads were about protecting Nike's bottom line, its commercial interests - and as such had to comply with that state's regulations about false advertising. The court decision opens the sportswear giant to the possibility of a range of costly false advertising court cases. The majority ruling found that a business enterprise wanting to promote and defend its sales and profits, must make factual, truthful representations about its own products or its own operations. In strongly worded dissenting opinions, three justices argued that Nike should enjoy free speech protections when attempting to protect its labor record. Nike's lawyers are now expected to appeal the California court decision all the way to the US Supreme Court. The court decision is the result of a lawsuit brought in 1998 which said Nike had willfully misled the community about the working conditions of Asian workers in Indonesia, Vietnam and China, producing Nike footwear. The legal case was one a number of high-profile attacks on Nike over conditions at Asian factories in the 1990s. The sweatshop advocated said that Nike had violated California's false advertising laws when it tried to promote itself as a 'good corporate citizen'. The campaign workers said Nike knew their workers were subjected to physical punishment and sexual abuse, endured dangerous working conditions, and were often unable to earn a "living wage" despite workdays that could be 14 hours long. Alan Caplan - one of the lawyers involved in the case - said the California decision meant that a company cannot lie to customers about the labour conditions in its factories in advertising campaigns.
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|