From: Leila Salazar (leila@globalexchange.org)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 21:49:14 EDT
To all who believe in the rights of workers...
Below you will find:
1. Info on GAP shareholder meeting and Call to Action on GAP and Levis!
2. Statement about the California State Supreme Court May 2 Ruling re Nike
and Commercial Speech, By Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange
3. Article from San Francisco Chronicle,
Calif. court says Nike can be sued for false ads
Last week, justice was on our side with the announcement by the California
Supreme Court which said that Nike cannot use the 1st Amendment to protect
it from misleading the public about the working conditions in factories that
it conducts business with (see statement and article below). Unfortunately,
the ACLU thinks that Nike does have the right to free speech and is probably
going to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We think this is
ridiculous, considering that Nike lies to the public and that it is not an
individual, it is a corporation out to make profit.
On the positive side, however, this victory is precedent setting. As a
reminder, the major charges in the Saipan lawsuit brought about by Global
Exchange, Sweatshop Watch, UNITE and the Asian Law Caucus (the San Francisco
Case) are that all of the defendant companies (including GAP, Levis, JC
Penney, Abercrombie and Fitch, Dayton Hudson and the Limited) engaged in
unfair business practices (a violation of California Business and
Professions Code ?17200) by falsely advertising their garments as being
sweatshop-free, by violating the federal law prohibiting the shipment of
"hot goods" in interstate commerce, by aiding and abetting their Saipan
garment factories' violations of the laws against involuntary servitude, and
by other misleading labeling and advertising practices. Now that there has
been ruling on Nike, we are positive about a favorable ruling for the San
Francisco Case.
The San Francisco Case is one of three cases in the Saipan Lawsuits,
however, so we still need to keep the pressure on those companies who have
not settled the lawsuits. The GAP and Levis are our primary targets and it
just so happens that GAP is having their shareholder meeting this Friday.
See below for more information on the meeting and WHAT YOU CAN DO.
Thank you for your continued support!
In peace and solidarity,
Leila Salazar
Global Exchange
****************************************************************************
1. Info on GAP shareholder meeting and Call to Action on GAP and Levis!
You are Invited to:
The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of The Gap, Inc.
To be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel
Located at 330 Tijeras NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Friday, May 10, 2002
10:00 a.m.
For the following purposes:
1. To elect a Board of Directors;
2. To ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the independent
auditors for the fiscal year ending on February 1, 2003;
3. To consider and vote upon a proposal to increase the number of shares of
our common stock available for issuance under our Employee Stock Purchase
Plan (from 13,500,000 to 24,500,000);
4. To transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting;
and,
5. To protest the use of indentured labor on the island of Saipan and to
finally announce that GAP Inc. will settle the Saipan lawsuit.
*****CALL TO ACTION*****
***If you live in New Mexico or have friends or family who live there,
please invite them to join UNITE (one of our partners in the lawsuit), in
protesting GAP Inc's use of sweatshops in Saipan and other parts of the
world.
***If you live outside of New Mexico, CALL GAP Inc. this Friday at
1-800-333-7899 (ask for the legal department) and demand that GAP Inc.
settle the Saipan lawsuit NOW!
Also, CALL Levis at (800) USA-LEVI
Tell Levi's that they have a responsibility to their workers in the US and
abroad. Demand that they settle the Saipan lawsuit immediately! Also, tell
them that they should respect their workers here in the US and not close
their remaining US factories, as they announced on April 9th, 2002.
If you would like more information on the Saipan lawsuit, please see
http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/corporations/saipan/update031102.html
If you have any other questions or concerns, please call Leila at
415-575-5536.
****************************************************************************
Statement about the California State Supreme Court May 2 Ruling re Nike and
Commercial Speech
By Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange
The California State Supreme Court May 2 ruling that Nike Inc. can be sued
for deceiving customers about working conditions in Asian factories is an
important victory for both workers and consumers (Court Says First Amendment
Doesnıt Shield Nike From Suit, May 2). For years, groups like Global
Exchange have been exposing the appalling conditions in Nike shoe factories
in Indonesia, China and Vietnam, where the majority of the companyıs shoes
are made. Confronted with the mounting evidence about young workers who were
grossly underpaid, overworked and exposed to toxic chemicals, Nike kept
churning out promotional materials insisting that the reports were false and
that the company did, indeed, treat workers with dignity.
Fortunately, the recent ruling of the California court says that the
companyıs public statements about its treatment of workers is not
constitutionally guaranteed free speech, as Nike argued, but ³commercial
speech² that has to be truthful.
This ruling has positive implications for another lawsuit that accuses the
Gap, Levis, J.C. Penny and 23 other companies of using misleading
advertising by using the ³Made in the USA² label or a ³sweatshop-free² claim
for products made under sweatshop conditions on the island of Saipan.
Garments made in the US Commonwealth of Saipan have actually been made by
workers from China, the Philippines and Bangladesh under appalling
conditions of low wages, forced overtime, overcrowded and unsanitary living
quarters, and such restricted personal freedom as to constitute indentured
servitude.
In the past decade we have seen how companies like Nike, the Gap and most
recently Levis, move their production thousands of miles away to take
advantage of ³cheap labor² and lax environmental regulations, and then spend
millions of dollars in promotional materials telling consumers what socially
responsible companies they are. While these companies have propelled the
global economy into a disastrous ³race to the bottom², perhaps this
California Supreme Court decision will allow consumers to demand that they
play fair or get out of the race. At the very least, theyıll now have to
tell us the truthand thatıs a big step forward.
Medea Benjamin
Founding Director, Global Exchange
****************************************************************************
Calif. court says Nike can be sued for false ads
Thursday May 2, 4:43 PM EDT
(adds comment from Nike lawyers, ACLU)
By Andrew Quinn
SAN FRANCISCO, May 2 (Reuters) - Sportswear giant Nike Inc. (NKE) 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."
Nike's lawyers said they would probably appeal the decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
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 aged 18 to 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,
Oregon-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.
But its decision to allow the suit to go forward marked a potential
setback for Nike and other firms that 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," said Alan Caplan, one of the lawyers
who filed the original suit. "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."
ACLU SIDES WITH NIKE
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed an amicus brief
supporting Nike's position, said the California decision was bad news for
businesses around the country.
"This is not a good decision for free speech values. Free speech is the
loser here," said ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick, noting that some of the
"speech" covered by the California decision involved such traditional free
speech outlets as letters to the editor of the New York Times.
"There is a huge chilling effect. It is very expensive to be defending
your statements in a court of law. This decision is going to have national
impact."
Nike lawyer Jim Carter said the company would probably seek review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, saying the California decision stripped the company of
its basic constitutional right to defend itself against unfair
allegations.
Nike spokesman Vada Manager, meanwhile, said the struggle over free speech
was diverting attention from the real progress Nike has made in improving
conditions and wages for Asian laborers who make some 85 percent of its
footwear.
"Is a worker better off today than they were in 1998 when the suit was
filed? The answer is yes. And we are going to continue programmatically to
(make improvements)," he said.
"By no means do we think we have it all the way perfect. But over the last
5 years the situation has really improved."
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/BGfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
USAS webpage: http://www.usasnet.org
Unsubscribe from USAS list:
email blank message to usas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 02:52:32 EST