As representatives of the St. Olaf Anti-Sweatshop group Priorities, we have encountered a wealth of different opinions. While we may not agree with every opinion presented to us, they all, undoubtedly, warrant consideration. However, when the people presenting these opinions do so in a misinformed manner, they inhibit both sides of the argument by confusing the facts. Two weeks ago the Living Wage Project came to St. Olaf and made a presentation of the case study done by its two directors, Leslie Kretzu and Jim Keady. Ron Eckstam, an Ole from 71 and president of XTM Marketing, managed to catch this presentation at the University of St. Thomas. Mr. Eckstam was concerned by the content of the LWP, and wrote to the Mess to express why the LWP bothered him. In his article he presented a number of facts and arguments that were either misinformed or misleading. In our article we hope to clear up some of these assertions and present a different viewpoint on the LWP.

One of Mr. Eckstam's key assertions is that the LWP's goals are to attack and embarrass Nike and he would insist that they do so using incorrect data. First and foremost, the goal of the LWP and the workers rights movement has always been to improve the lives of all workers through a call to corporate accountability and consumer responsibility. Nike claims to be an industry leader in human rights and environmental stewardship. Mr. Eckstam most likely was not listening when the LWP stated that they had chosen to research Nike for this reason. If you want to change trends in a group, you go to the leader.

Mr. Eckstam accuses the LWP of misinformation when they claimed to have lived on the Indonesian minimum wage of $1.25 a day. He points out that the wage was actually $2.25 a day, which is correct as of October 2000, a full two months after the LWP was conducted. In his haste to disprove the LWP, Eckstam chose to overlook this fact. Whether or not this wage increase is a result of international pressure or not, we cannot say. Yet, this may not matter, in that Nike is now cutting its factory operations in Indonesia. It would seem that they prefer the lower wages of Viet Nam, where the workers do not have the same international voice as those of Indonesia (SISBUKUM Jakarta Based NGO). This corporation, which Eckstam would claim has little effect on the socioeconomic problems in Indonesia, is leaving a large portion of its population with no money. Do you think this might affect them?

The article claims that "political and social issues are not controlled by any multinational corporation." It proceeds in saying that "much of the political unrest in Indonesia is religious based." Was the labor organizer dragged into the jungle, gang raped and beaten to death because of her religion, or because she was a labor organizer? Every day labor organizers are being "disappeared" by factory goon squads, and this does not contribute to the climate of fear in Indonesia? Global Alliance, an international monitoring group accredited by Nike reported that, 56% of 4,004 Indonesian workers interviewed witnessed verbal abuse in their work place, 15.7% witnessed sexual touching and 13.7% witnessed physical abuse. In a workplace where there is no hope for change, wouldn't any sane person be fearful? Nike could change all of these problems, yet they do little to interrupt this chain of fear.

Beyond points and arguments, the way in which Mr. Eckstam presents his opinion is extremely suspect. He says that, "if you take a test but put all the data together in the wrong way, you flunk even if your intentions were good." Under these guidelines I would say Ecsktam flunks. In reference to a policy change exacted by Bill Clinton, he states that in "about 1994 Bill Clinton pushed to increase the minimum wage by a large amount--say 50%." He also talks about all the different factories he has been to in Asia. Which factories is he talking about? Did he talk to the workers in these plants, or just the management? Worst of all, none of his information is cited. If any St. Olaf student were to write like this in a political science paper, they would most likely fail.

Although Priorities encourages discussion and debate over the sweatshop issue, we must insist that these discussions always keep the improved rights of the workers as a final goal. Eckstam, who expresses dismay when workers "spent time with their family" because it "made it impossible to run a factory", obviously thinks too much of the industry and not enough of the workers. Although publicizing the human rights violations of corporations such as Nike is very important in the struggle to end sweatshop abuses, the movement is not about attacking corporations. Mr. Eckstam's statements insinuate that the goal of the Living Wage Project is to place the blame on Nike, and in doing this he attempts to de-legitimize the work of LWP. Leslie Kretzu and Jim Keady from the LWP and all activists working to improve the lives of our brothers and sisters in Indonesia, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the USA will tell Mr. Eckstam that he is wrong. The movement is about the worker and human rights, not about Nike.