Garment Workers Are Taking on Nike, Americans Should Join Them

Abiramy Sivalogananthan

February 14, 2025
\Facebook

\Twitter\Reddit\\Bluesky\\Email\

Photo by Josh Redd

Absent in the raging debate over trade policy and tariffs is a truth about the economy that those of us in poorer countries know all too well: U.S. corporations and their billionaire owners profit from massive supply chains that exploit low-wage workers in the Global South.

For decades these unregulated supply chains have been praised as “development.” But in reality, they entrench low pay and disastrous working conditions, fostering a “race to the bottom” for workers globally as well as in the United States.

Perhaps no company is a more influential offender than Nike.

Nearly 30 years ago, the anti-sweatshop movement forced Nike to end its use of child labor. But since then, Nike has actually figured out how to pay an even smaller portion of its retail sticker price to the workers who make its products.

In 2022, Nike authorized $18 billion in stock buybacks, which primarily benefit wealthy investors, while garment workers — the vast majority of whom are women in the Global South — faced massive wage losses and wage theft during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Leni, a member of the Indonesian union Gabungan Serikat Buruh Indonesia (GSBI), makes Nike shoes in a factory with thousands of workers, most of them women like her.

“I want the world to understand the truth of workers’ lives behind these products,” Leni told me recently. “I had a baby and another small child when COVID hit in 2020. The factory slashed our wages and offered no support. We couldn’t even put basic food on our families’ tables. As we learned that Nike made record profits during the pandemic but offered us no relief, we were furious. There is no Nike and no profits without us.”

“My factory has not even paid the mandated minimum wage increases in my region,” she continued. “We have had enough! We demand that Nike end wage theft in its supply chain and pay us what we deserve.”

Leni is part of a group of union activists from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and India with a plan to fight back. These brave workers have committed to speak publicly despite the risks of retaliation.

The Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) has brought together unions across our region. We are organizing across borders in a transformative fight for living wages and human rights protections. The “Fight the Heist” campaign — coordinated by AFWA andGlobal Labor Justice (GLJ) — has focused its demands on Nike, with its supply chain of over 1 million garment workers.

Our support in the U.S. labor movement has grown too. In July 2024, the Coalition of Labor Union Women and the Communications Workers of America Women’s Committee joined GLJ to organize actions in eight cities across the United States. We’re so excited to see allies in the U.S. relate to our fight against corporate greed and for the value of women’s work.

At the end of 2024, the Fight the Heist worker activists ran hundreds of organizing meetings with their coworkers. They discussed the gross inequalities of Nike’s supply chain — for instance, Nike’s CEO got paid more than 24,000 times more than a worker in Sri Lanka making Nike’s clothing in 2023.

At the end of those conversations, activists challenged their coworkers to join a public photo petition. Through the petition, workers are demanding that Nike recognize their essential work and provide the pay they deserve.

Now, over 1,000 workers across the region have decided to stand up together. On March 21, their photos will go public as allies across the world share the petition and demand that Nike’s executives look them in the eye.

These abusive practices only make it easier for corporations to lower wages in working standards in the United States as well. So will you join us?

Take the “One Thousand Photos — One Thousand Shares” pledge at ActionNetwork.org, share it widely, and support the union activists leading the fight to transform garment supply chains.

Abiramy Sivalogananthan is the South Asia Coordinator for the Asia Floor Wage Alliance. 

Neutering the CFPB: A Banker Speaks Out

Seth Sandronsky

 February 14, 2025
FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph Source: Mx. Granger – CC0

Randell Leach is the CEO of Beneficial State Bank, a regional community bank based in Oakland, CA. He and I conducted via email the interview below about the ongoing shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and what it means for both the financial sector and consumers.

Seth Sandronsky: Generally, what do you think about the head of Office of Management and Budget calling for the CFPB to cease investigations and end the beginning of new rules?

Randell Leach: Halting the CFPB’s enforcement and rulemaking efforts only helps predatory lenders and others who are scared of transparency and accountability. The powerful banking lobby has long fought against CFPB, as it does with other regulators. So I’m sure that some bankers are welcoming this shutdown. But I believe that’s incredibly shortsighted. Since its creation, the CFPB has redirected more than $21 billion back into the pockets of American consumers while establishing safeguards against unfair and deceptive financial practices. Ceasing the agency’s vital work not only lets predatory practices go unchecked, it also sows chaos and confusion in the financial system — a system that relies on predictability and stability.

Look, obviously the CFPB is not a panacea, but it plays a strong role in creating a financial market that’s conducive to fair competition, innovation, and the financial wellbeing of consumers. Public trust in banks is already fragile, so it’s hugely important to have a strong agency protecting consumers.

Without the CFPB doing its job, we’re going to see more predatory lenders take advantage of customers and more individuals and families at risk. That’s not good for the financial sector or the economy as a whole.

SS: Any comment on President Donald J. Trump moving to reverse medical debt and overdraft protections that the CFPB had implemented?

RL: We don’t yet know how far this enforcement freeze will go, how long it will last, or what the precise future of these rules might be. It’s not very helpful to speculate. What’s important is that the uncertainty is itself harmful to American consumers and businesses. All we know for sure is that the financial wellbeing of everyday Americans is at risk the longer this effort to undermine consumer protections goes on.

You can disagree with specific regulations or raise concerns about how they’re implemented. But let’s not lose sight of the facts. Medical debt is one of the leading causes of financial distress in this country, and the protections that the CFPB put in place were designed to make sure that people weren’t unfairly targeted by debt collectors when they were already struggling. High medical debt is more a symptom of the structural problems with our healthcare system (high costs and limited insurance coverages), and not necessarily a reflection of a consumer’s ability to manage their finances and their willingness to repay. Similarly, the rules on overdraft fees were meant to make sure that people weren’t punished too harshly for mistakes like overdrawing an account by just a few dollars or for banks choosing a methodology of processing checks that is more harmful to consumers. These types of things can add up quickly, especially if you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

If these rules get reversed, it will significantly impact people’s financial health. There are at least 205 million people across this country who are eligible to receive relief from the CFPB’s enforcement and supervisory work. So when we talk about reversing these policies, we’re talking about a massive number of Americans who are losing essential protections, for whom interacting with the financial sector will now be more risky and costly and less fair.

SS: Any comment on Elon Musk’s potential conflict of interest? NPR is reporting: “The fact that Musk is now engaged in payment businesses that would be regulated by the CFPB at the same time he’s trying to tear down the CFPB puts in sharp relief the conflicts of interests here and how much this disserves the general public,” said Richard Cordray, who led the CFPB under President Barack Obama. “The whole situation is rife with conflicts of interest.” 

RL: Any effort to dismantle or weaken the CFPB — regardless of who is behind it and what interests they might serve — undermines public trust in the financial sector. This is particularly concerning given the rapid evolution of financial technology and payment systems. As new financial products and services emerge, we need more oversight and accountability, not less. A strong CFPB helps ensure that innovation in the financial sector serves the public interest while protecting consumers from harmful practices.

The fundamental question isn’t about any individual or company, it’s about whether we want strong protections in place for American consumers so they can access financial products and services without being taken advantage of. The CFPB, while not without flaws, has helped advance that goal.

And yes, potential conflicts of interest should be vigorously investigated and addressed to ensure the integrity of our governance system.

SS: Any comment on Democrats’ response? The Hill is reporting: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and nearly 200 other Democratic lawmakers are demanding that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees be removed from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). “Your efforts to dismantle the CFPB are dangerous, and we will fight them at every turn,” the Democrats wrote in their Tuesday letter addressed to Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Budget Management and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.”

RL: I’m encouraged to see Senator Warren, who helped establish the CFPB, and other lawmakers taking action to maintain this vital regulatory framework. After all, protecting Americans from unfair financial practices and ensuring transparency in our banking system shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Just last year, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled to uphold the CFPB’s funding structure.

Why is protecting consumers so divisive? We’re talking about essential safeguards that were put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, when millions of Americans lost their homes and savings due to inadequate oversight of financial institutions. I don’t think any of us want to go back to that. We want to make sure people can save for retirement, buy homes, and start small businesses without falling prey to predatory lending practices. Frankly, that should be a priority for political leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Seth Sandronsky is a Sacramento journalist and member of the freelancers unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild. Email sethsandronsky@gmail.com

The United States is Falling Apart and the World is Taking Notice

Daniel Warner

 February 14, 2025
Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

The United States is imploding. The reign of Donald Trump is not only challenging and threatening the very foundations of its constitutional democracy, it is calling into question the U.S.’s post-World War II hegemonic role. Empires or hegemonic powers rise and fall. Often they are defeated by emerging powers. Sometimes their decline takes place over time. But rarely do they self-destruct as spectacularly as the U.S. is doing. The U.S. implosion is dramatic in its intensity and rapidity. In just over three weeks, Donald Trump has been able to redefine the United States’ position in the world from a global power to an international outcast. Despite whatever military and economic power the U.S. still has, its image and global leadership have been undermined by President Trump’s foreign policy decisions.

The word “implode” is rarely used in international relations. The decline of empires or hegemonic powers is usually due to external forces. The Roman Empire fell because of a series of invasions by “barbarian tribes.” The Ottoman Empire fell because it aligned with Germany during World War I and was formally dismantled after the War because it had chosen the losing side.

The United States is now in the throes of losing its global position by an implosion based on President Trump’s policies. Internationally, Trump has undermined the U.S.’s global image and influence by systematically provoking allies, neutrals and competitors. Besides targeted tariff threats and proposals for territorial expansion into Greenland, Panama and Canada, the president has made two policy decisions that have led to universal condemnation with major global repercussions.

The first is his decision to gut the United States Agency for International Development (A.I.D.). While there are certainly inefficiencies in any institution that spent $38 billion in 2023 and operates in 177 different countries, A.I.D. has been fundamental in projecting a positive American image throughout the world. As an example of its outreach, Samantha Power, the former administrator of A.I.D., wrote in The New York Times how out of the $38 billion spent, “nearly $20 billion was for health programs (such as those that combat malaria, tuberculosis, H.I.V./AIDS and infectious disease outbreaks) and humanitarian assistance to respond to emergencies and help stabilize war-torn regions…Other U.S.A.I.D. investments…pay dividends in the longer term, such as giving girls a chance to get an education and enter the work force, on growing local economies.”

Foreign assistance is all about human capital. It is a crucial element in projecting soft power. When President John F. Kennedy established A.I.D. in 1961, he said in a message to Congress; “We live at a very special moment in history. The whole southern half of the world–Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia–are caught up in the adventures of asserting their independence and modernizing their old ways of life. These new nations need aid in loans and technical assistance just as we in the northern half of the world drew successively on one another’s capital and know-how as we moved into industrialization and regular growth.” He acknowledged that the reason for the aid was not totally altruistic, “For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area. Thus our own security would be endangered and our prosperity imperilled. A program of assistance to the underdeveloped nations must continue because the nation’s interest and the cause of political freedom require it.” The fear of Communism was obvious in 1961. The motivation behind U.S. foreign assistance is always humanitarian and political at the same time; the two can never be separated.

Today, the United States is competing with China and its Belt and Road Initiative for global influence. Trump’s freezing and defunding U.S. foreign assistance is not a defeat to China; it’s a default, a no-show. Defunding and freezing foreign assistance effects millions of people throughout the world and invites even allies to look to China as a partner in trade and development.

Whereas the A.I.D. example is an excellent case study of a major power purposefully retreating globally (withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the Paris Accord on climate change included), Trump’s proposal for the Gaza Strip is an outright, active, foreign policy autogoal. (A former advisor to Bernie Sanders called it Trump’s “apocalyptic daydream.”) Trump’s insistence that the United States will take control of Gaza, evicting almost two million people from their homeland in order to create a place “better than Monaco,” “the Riviera of the Middle East,” has generated international condemnation. “Forcible displacement of an occupied group is an international crime, and amounts to ethnic cleansing,” Navi Pillay, chair of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, told Politico. “There is no way under the law that Trump could carry out the threat to dislocate Palestinians from their land,” she said.

Politically, the Foreign Ministry of Saudi Arabia, a key actor in stabilizing relations in the Middle East, forcefully dismissed the proposal; “Saudi Arabia also reiterates its previously announced unequivocal rejection of any infringement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, whether through Israeli settlement policies, the annexation of Palestinian lands, or attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land,” it said. Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries have also rejected the plan. King Abdullah II of Jordan gracefully avoided directly responding to the plan during his joint press conference with Trump. But following the meeting, the King said on X, “I reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. This is the unified Arab position.” The only country who seem pleased is Israel, with Prime Minister Netanyahu smiling like a Cheshire cat listening to Trump present the plan during their joint press conference.

In three weeks, Donald Trump has imploded whatever positive image the United States might have had internationally. While he may think he is doing what his MAGA followers want, international reactions – save Israel’s – are further nails in the coffin of United States hegemony. No major military defeat was needed, no internal civil war tore the country apart. The President of the United States did it all by himself.

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.