Nike is one of the largest, most popular and profitable shoe and clothing companies in the world. This is why it is a wonder that the reality for many workers overseas making Nike shoes and clothing is far less rosy. Workers are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, they are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. Nike publicizes itself as one of the leaders of corporate responsibility. However, they do not comply with several human rights obligations overseas in countries like Thailand, Pakistan, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. In these countries, production facilities called sweatshops have been running for almost 35 years employing workers as young as 13 years of age. The conditions of these factories are adverse to say the least and deprive workers of the moral human rights they should be entitled to. Sweatshops are unethical, immoral and demonstrate Nike's ignorance towards their social responsibilities abroad. Within these facilities, workers endure stressfully long days under undesirable conditions, often with no breaks and very little pay. All the while this is going on overseas, and sponsored athletes are being paid million-dollar salaries here in North America. Although Nike's reputation has been foiled through the tabloids regarding this issue, they have been making a substantial effort to "clean up" their production messes in the East.
             Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but where subcontractors make products for Nike?
             A subcontractor is defined as an individual or company hired by a general or prime contractor to perform a specific task as part of the overall project (brainydictionary.com). It is actually Nike, not the subcontractors that ultimately set the pace of production as well as the wages of the workers. If a subcontractor wants to stay in business, he must accept the timeline set by Nike...