Buone notizie - Aggiornamenti - Clean Clothes Campaign

["Monti Ersilia" <ersilia.monti@mclink.it>]

Clean Clothes Campaign

Di seguito trovate incoraggianti aggiornamenti su due casi che riguardano la
Nike: 1)Sentenza nella causa civile contro Nike in California per false
informazioni ai consumatori; 2) Mexmode (ex Kukdong)/Nike (Messico)

AGGIORNAMENTI

1) UNA SENTENZA DICHIARA AMMISSIBILE LA CAUSA CONTRO NIKE PER FALSE
COMUNICAZIONI AI CONSUMATORI
Via libera alla causa intentata contro la Nike nel 1998 dall'organizzazione
Global Exchange a nome dei consumatori californiani per pubblicita'
ingannevole e false informazioni sulla base di una legge della California
che tutela i cittadini da pratiche commerciali scorrette. Nike era accusata
di mentire in interviste e comunicati stampa sulle reali condizioni di
lavoro nei suoi stabilimenti asiatici dopo che numerosi rapporti avevano
documentato violazioni rispetto ai salari, agli orari di lavoro, alla
sicurezza e dignita' della persona, e ai diritti sindacali. Nike si e'
difesa sostenendo che le dichiarazioni pubbliche di un'azienda sono protette
dal diritto costituzionale alla liberta' di espressione. Il giudice di primo
grado le ha dato ragione, ma la Corte suprema della California, a cui i
consumatori si sono rivolti, ha stabilito il 2 maggio scorso che Nike non
puo' appellarsi a questo diritto se le sue dichiarazioni pubbliche hanno
finalita' commerciali, e tale e' stata giudicata la campagna di informazione
organizzata dalla societa' per difendersi dalle accuse. Nella sentenza, che
rappresenta un precedente importante e sulla quale i giudici supremi si sono
divisi, si legge che a un'impresa non e' fatto divieto di esprimersi
liberamente su questioni di rilevanza pubblica o di difendere con forza le
proprie pratiche commerciali, ma  quando lo fa con lo scopo di  promuovere
le sue vendite deve parlare in modo veritiero. Nike ha annunciato ricorso
alla Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti. (nel messaggio originale in coda, due
articoli dalla stampa americana)

2) CAMPAGNE CHE DANNO BUONI FRUTTI: IL CASO ESEMPLARE DELLA MEXMODE
(MESSICO)
Il caso e' noto a tutti quelli che seguono questa mailing list. Nel gennaio
2001 un'efficace campagna internazionale, partita dalle universita' degli
Stati Uniti, da' forza e visibilita' al tentativo dei lavoratori della
Kukdong, maquilladora messicana a capitale coreano, di sbarazzarsi di un
sindacato non rappresentativo imposto dall'imprenditore per costituire un'
organizzazione indipendente. Nella fabbrica si confezionano felpe Nike per
14 universita' statunitensi che hanno aderito a organismi di garanzia
sociale e per il rispetto dei codici di condotta come il Worker Rights
Consortium o la Fair Labor Association di cui anche Nike fa parte. Il primo
sciopero alla Kukdong, represso dalla polizia, si conclude con 15 lavoratori
feriti e alcune centinaia licenziati. Seguono tre ispezioni indipendenti che
accertano la violazione dei codici di condotta universitari e sollecitano
rimedi. Pur in un clima di forti intimidazioni, nell'estate 2001 il
sindacato indipendente della Kukdong, che ha nel frattempo cambiato nome in
Mexmode, riesce a ottenere il riconoscimento legale con il nome di Sitemex e
a fine settembre firma il suo primo contratto collettivo che pone fine alla
presenza nella fabbrica del sindacato non rappresentativo. E' una novita'
nel settore delle maquilladoras del Messico che non ha mai tollerato
sindacati indipendenti.
NOVITA': il 1° aprile 2002 Sitemex firma un nuovo accordo che, fra aumenti
diretti e incentivi, fa aumentare le paghe fino al 40 per cento. Nello
stesso mese Nike annuncia di volersi impegnare nel nuovo corso alla Mexmode
affindandole una commessa per 2,5 milioni di dollari.

---------------------
Per essere esclusi dalla lista o ricevere informazioni sulla Clean Clothes
Campaign, inviate un messaggio a :
ersilia.monti@mclink.it

Ersilia Monti
(Coordinamento lombardo nord/sud del mondo - Rete di Lilliput Nodo di
Milano)
P.le Governo Provvvisorio 6
20127 Milano
tel.02-26140345
email: ersilia.monti@mclink.it
-------------------


----- Original Message -----
From: "Monti Ersilia - Biblioteca d'Ateneo" <ersilia.monti@unimib.it>
To: <ersilia.monti@mclink.it>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: I: [cleanclothes] Nike Loses Court Case On Sweatshop Allegations


>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: owner-cleanclothes@xs4all.nl
> [mailto:owner-cleanclothes@xs4all.nl]Per conto di clean clothes campaign
> Inviato: venerdi 3 maggio 2002 17.17
> A: cleanclothes@xs4all.nl
> Oggetto: [cleanclothes] Nike Loses Court Case On Sweatshop Allegations
>
>
>
> >X-XS4ALL-To: <ccc@maildrop.xs4all.nl>
> >Mailing-List: contact nike-related-help@lists.caa.org.au; run by ezmlm
> >X-No-Archive: yes
> >List-Post: <mailto:nike-related@lists.caa.org.au>
> >List-Help: <mailto:nike-related-help@lists.caa.org.au>
> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nike-related-unsubscribe@lists.caa.org.au>
> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:nike-related-subscribe@lists.caa.org.au>
> >Delivered-To: mailing list nike-related@lists.caa.org.au
> >From: "J. Ballinger" <jeffreyd@mindspring.com>
> >To: <nike-related@lists.caa.org.au>
> >Cc: <nike-international@lists.caa.org.au>
> >Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:17:59 -0400
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
> >Subject: [nike-related] Nike Loses Court Case On Sweatshop Allegations
> >
> >also: NYTimes: Court Says First Amendment Doesn't Shield
> >Nike From Suit
> >
> >excerpt: The Supreme Court decision overturned an appeals court
> >ruling which held that Nike's efforts to defend itself against sweatshop
> >allegations were noncommercial free speech and thus immune from
> >legal challenge.
> >
> >Calif. Court Says Nike Can Be Sued For False Ads
> >
> >By Andrew Quinn
> >
> >SAN FRANCISCO, May 2 (Reuters) - Sportswear giant Nike Inc. can be sued
for
> >false advertising over a publicity campaign that sought to dispel reports
> >that Asian sweatshops are used to produce its famous footwear,
California's
> >Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
> >
> >In a split decision, California's top court found that Nike's efforts to
> >defend its Asian business practices were in essence commercial, and thus
> not
> >subject to the free speech protections guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution.
> >
> >"Our holding ... in no way prohibits any business enterprise from
speaking
> >out on issues of public importance or from vigorously defending its own
> >labor
> >practices," the court said in its 4-3 majority decision.
> >
> >"It means only that when a business enterprise, to promote and defend its
> >sales and profits, makes factual representations about its own products
or
> >its own operations, it must speak truthfully."
> >
> >In strongly-worded dissenting opinions, three justices argued that Nike
> >should enjoy free speech protections when attempting to protect its labor
> >record.
> >
> >"While Nike's critics have taken full advantage of their right to
> >'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate, the same cannot be said of
> >Nike,
> >the object of their ire," Justice Ming Chin wrote in one dissent.
> >
> >"When Nike tries to defend itself from these attacks, the majority denies
> it
> >the same First Amendment protection Nike's critics enjoy."
> >
> >SWEATSHOP ALLEGATIONS
> >
> >The Supreme Court decision overturned an appeals court ruling which held
> >that
> >Nike's efforts to defend itself against sweatshop allegations were
> >noncommercial free speech and thus immune from legal challenge.
> >
> >The case stems from a 1998 civil lawsuit filed in California which
charged
> >Nike with willfully misleading the public about working conditions for
the
> >Vietnamese, Chinese and Indonesian laborers who produce the footwear with
> >the
> >distinctive "Swoosh" logo.
> >
> >The lawsuit was among a number of high-profile attacks on Nike over
> >conditions at Asian factories where workers, mostly women between the
ages
> >of
> >18-24, are subcontracted to produce most of its shoes.
> >
> >The California suit said Nike knew that these 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.
> >
> >It charged Nike with violating California laws barring false advertising
by
> >deliberately obscuring these facts, alleging that the Beaverton,
Ore.-based
> >company mounted an aggressive advertising and public relations campaign
> >portraying itself as a "model of corporate responsibility" in an effort
to
> >boost sales of its products.
> >
> >Nike rejected the charges, and argued that the case should not proceed
> >because all of the statements cited in the lawsuit were protected as free
> >speech.
> >
> >The California Supreme Court emphasized that it was not ruling on the
> merits
> >of sweatshop charges -- noting that "whether any false representations
were
> >made is a disputed issue that has yet to be resolved."
> >
> >But its decision to allow the suit to go forward marked a potential
setback
> >for Nike and other firms which have sought to allay U.S. consumer concern
> >over overseas labor conditions through publicity campaigns depicting
happy,
> >well-paid workers in clean, safe factories.
> >
> >"This is a very important ruling. There's a lot of debate nowadays about
> >globalization, and manufacturing products overseas where working
conditions
> >are different. Now in California, if a company is going to discuss about
> the
> >labor conditions in their factories they cannot be deceptive. That is a
big
> >
> >step." said Alan Caplan, one of the lawyers who filed the California
> >lawsuit.
> >
> >NIKE LIKELY TO APPEAL
> >
> >Nike spokesman Vada Manager said the company was reviewing the ruling and
> >planned to issue a statement. "It is safe to assume that we are going to
> >trying to exhaust all our remedies on this in terms of appeal," he said.
> >
> >The California high court based its decision on a number of legal
> >precedents,
> >and specifically cited earlier U.S. Supreme Court rulings which held that
> >commercial speech that is false or misleading is not entitled to First
> >Amendment protection and "may be prohibited entirely."
> >
> >"Commercial speech, because it is both more readily verifiable by its
> >speaker
> >and more hardy than noncommercial speech, can be effectively regulated to
> >suppress false and actually or inherently misleading messages without
undue
> >risk of chilling public debate," the court's majority ruling said.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >
> >The New York Times
> >May 3, 2002
> >
> >Court Says First Amendment Doesn't Shield Nike From Suit
> >
> >By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
> >
> >California's highest court ruled yesterday that the First Amendment did
not
> >shield Nike from a lawsuit accusing it of fraud for asserting that its
> >overseas workers received adequate wages and that its working conditions
> >complied with safety regulations.
> >
> >The California Supreme Court ruled that the fraud lawsuit should not be
> >dismissed, concluding that Nike's statements about its labor practices
were
> >commercial speech that did not deserve full First Amendment protection.
> >
> >Nike asserted that its defense of its labor practices was political
speech
> >and thus deserved full protection under the First Amendment. The company
> >said
> >its statements were part of an international media debate on issues of
> >public
> >interest.
> >
> >The ruling was the latest effort to distinguish commercial speech, in
which
> >businesses can be held liable for false statements, from political
speech,
> >in
> >which the speaker enjoys broad protections, even when making false
> >statements.
> >
> >The lawsuit, brought by Marc Kasky, a Nike critic, accused the company of
> >unfair competition and fraud for stating that its overseas workers earned
> >enough to live on and were paid on average twice the local minimum wage.
> The
> >lawsuit also accused Nike of fraud for saying in interviews and news
> >releases
> >that its workers were protected from physical and sexual abuse and that
its
> >working conditions complied with local laws and safety regulations.
> >
> >In a 4-to-3 ruling, the court wrote, "Because the messages in question
were
> >directed by a commercial speaker to a commercial audience, and because
they
> >made representations of fact about the speaker's own business operations
> for
> >the purpose of promoting sales of its products, we conclude that these
> >messages are commercial speech for purposes of applying state laws
barring
> >false and misleading commercial messages."
> >
> >David Brown, a lawyer for Nike, said the company was disappointed and was
> >considering appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. Mr.
> >Brown emphasized that the ruling was not on the merits. He said it was up
> to
> >a trial court to determine whether Nike's statements constituted fraud.
> >
> >In a statement, Nike said the decision "sets a dangerous precedent by
> >restraining companies, such as Nike, from making public statements about
> >their business practices when challenged in the arena of public debate."
> >
> >Nike said the ruling was especially worrisome because it did not concern
> >paid
> >advertisements but many statements made in response to critics of
> conditions
> >at its factories in Asia.
> >
> >Nike praised the dissenting opinion of Justice Ming W. Chin, who wrote,
> >"While Nike's critics have taken full advantage of their right to
> >`uninhibited, robust, and wide open' debate, the same cannot be said of
> >Nike."
> >
> >The majority decision, written by Justice Joyce Kennard, said a company's
> >statements could be commercial speech even when mixed with a discussion
of
> >noncommercial issues.
> >
> >The court said its ruling "in no way prohibits any business enterprise
from
> >speaking out on issues of public importance or from vigorously defending
> its
> >own labor practices." It said the decision meant only that when a
company,
> >to
> >promote its sales and profits, "makes factual representations about its
own
> >products or its own operations, it must speak truthfully."
> >
> >The California attorney general, the Sierra Club and the California
> >A.F.L.-C.I.O. filed briefs against Nike's position, while the Chamber of
> >Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
> >supported Nike.
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The NIKE-RELATED mailing list.
> >
> >This list is for sharing information on factory conditions, on campaign
> >aims, initiatives and strategies and on other developments relevant to
the
> >international campaign to persuade Nike to bring an end to sweatshop
> >conditions in its production chain. This list is NOT confidential.
Although
> >it is deliberately not advertised widely, it is open for anyone to join.
> >Other lists should be used for confidential discussions.
> >
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: nike-related-unsubscribe@lists.caa.org.au
> >For additional commands, e-mail: nike-related-help@lists.caa.org.au
>
>
> Clean Clothes Campaign
> PO Box 11584
> 1001 GN Amsterdam
> The Netherlands
> tel: + 31 20 4122785
> fax: + 31 20 4122786
> e-mail:ccc@xs4all.nl
>
> ++++++++ This is the cleanclothes mailinglist. Messages posted to this
list
> will be received by all the subscribers of the list. Messages can also be
> posted by all subscribers to the list. Therefore the messages posted on
this
> list are not necessarily reflecting the opinion of the Clean Clothes
> Campaign. To respond to one subscriber of the list you have to mail the
> message to the mailing adress of the subscriber, not to the mailinglist.
> Messages only directed to the clean clothes campaign in the Netherlands,
for
> example, should be mailed to ccc@xs4all.nl ++++++
>
>