Do you think that transnational companies like Nike should abide by North American human rights standards?
930572
I believe for corporations or citizens to invoke Constitutional rights, there should be a legal obligation to respect the same of others affected by policies or actions.  Thus corporations would be held to the same Constitutional standards as government, since similar collective authority is being exercised that must be checked against the right of individuals.  This common standard of "Constitutional Ethics" may be enforced by legislation or by public education and social pressure of market forces by informed consumers.  Otherwise, there is a clear power imbalance if corporations freely exercise the same right as individuals, and the same collective influence as government, but no responsibility for checks and balance by due process of law to protect the interest of others to the same extent.  Such injustice violates the very nature of government and law based on "consent of the government" as the spirit of any binding social contract.
677578
To some extend I agree with you. There must be an international ethics for everybody to obey. Sue them...
867674
it has gone over the top in part, but we live in a society that is getting more like america in relation to everyone sues anybody for gain..... there a natural response .... they covr themselves on everything, and if they find something they haven't got covered then they'll add a law!...\n\njust because they exist they need not adhere to them,... if you don't want to wear steel top capped boots for example, then thats your decision, if the company have provided such them and you chose not to wear them and a slab of contrete crushes your toes.... you don't have a leg to stand on!.... and your left with a busted foot...\n\nso they are there for a reason.\n\nup to people whether they want to run the risk
863442
That is the price of having the freedoms we do.....if we started banning some forms of trade we would get people saying they are taking away rights......with freedom come having to see and hear things that we don't like....Do I like when companies do that, nope but what can you do....start taking away more freedoms....then people would really be pissed....
943357
Yes they certainly should, and I don't think it should be a question of being 'allowed' either. They should make the decision themselves for what they feel is best for their country without overbearing 'superpowers' breathing down their necks.
146773
There is no universal definition of Human Rights. There should be but due to dictatorships in different countries and war etc some countries don't even care about human rights. As sad as this is it is unfortunately true.
162404
No. The US atheletes should compete for glory and honor for their country and for their sport. Paying the atheletes would taint the competition and undermine the true purpose of the olympics.
1117831
Are you kidding?  would you like to have your life run by Somalis? or anyone from the middle east?  c'mon have some sense.. .when the UN has countries like Syria on the human rights committee, we don't need a world government....
1040997
I think we should take care of our own before we worry about other countries.\n\n\ndp
497015
Where does Nike produce its shoes? \n\n\nDuring the 1970's, most Nike shoes were made in South Korea and Taiwan. When workers there gained new freedom to organize and wages began to rise, Nike looked for "greener pastures." It found them in Indonesia, China, and most recently Vietnam--countries where protective labor laws are poorly enforced and cheap labor is abundant. Also in China and Vietnam, the law prohibits workers from forming independent trade unions. This was also true in Indonesia until 1998, when dictator General Suharto was overthrown. These three countries continue to be the major places where Nike shoes are made. \n\n\nDoes Nike run its own factories? \n\n\nNo, Nike does not own any of the factories where its shoes are produced; it contracts the work to various factory owners. Nike say it is in the business of "marketing" shoes, not making them. However, Nike dictates the terms to the contractor: the design, the materials, the price it will pay. While companies like Nike used to try to avoid responsibility for factory conditions by saying they were "just the buyer," the anti-sweatshop movement has made this excuse unacceptable and forced the retailers—who are, after all, the ones who make the greatest profit—take responsibility for the workers who make their products. \n\nWhy pick on Nike, if other shoe companies are just as bad? \n\n\nFirst of all, we heard many, many complaints from Nike workers and local labor groups. The AFL-CIO office in Indonesia, for example, said that Nike factory workers filed more complaints about wage violations than any other shoe company. In the first two years that Nike was in Vietnam, one factory official was convicted of physically abusing workers, another fled the country during a police investigation of sexual abuse charges and a third was under indictment for abusing workers, as reported in The New York Times. \n\nSecondly, it's important to pick a company that can afford the cost of improvements. Nike is so profitable and sells its shoes for such high prices that it can well afford to double the workers' wages without increasing the retail price. \n\nThirdly, Nike is the biggest shoe company in the world and puts itself forth as an industry leader. Their Code of Conduct says: "in the area of human rights... in the communities in which we do business, we seek to do not only what is required, but what is expected of a leader." By targeting the industry leader, we hoped to make changes throughout the whole industry. This strategy has proven effective. Reebok, for example, has been making improvements in its overseas factories even though it has not been the target of a major campaign. Adidas, fearful of being tarred with the Nike brush, is starting to make changes as well. \n\n\nAren't the workers happy to have the factory jobs? \n\n\nNike has indeed brought many jobs to Southeast Asia, and workers certainly want jobs. But they want their dignity, too. They don't want to be physically or verbally abused by their supervisors or to work excessive overtime for extremely low wages. Job creation and worker exploitation should not go hand in hand. It is not enough to simply create jobs; Nike should be creating opportunities and prosperity, paying wages that allow its workers to pull themselves out of poverty. \n\nWhile company officials say that many workers line up to get these jobs whenever there are openings, they fail to mention the numerous strikes that workers organize to protest unfair labor practices. In April 1997, 10,000 Indonesian workers went on strike over wage violations. In the same month, 1,300 workers in Vietnam went on strike demanding a one-cent-per-hour raise and in 1998, 3,000 workers in China went on strike to protest not only low wages, but hazardous working conditions. And remember, in these countries, workers who protest put themselves at great personal risk. They can end up fired and blacklisted
1165750
Here's what Nike has to say about that:\n\n"Nike is interested in progress and improvements in the fields in which it operates. In order to implement this policy, we maintain an extensive research and development program and employ a large number of scientists and technical people.\n\nNike only considers unsolicited ideas that are patented or, under certain conditions, described in a filed patent application. Nike does not accept unsolicited advertising or marketing proposals of any kind.\n\nPlease do not send sketches, prototypes, documents submitted under the Patent Office disclosure program or any other non-patent or non-patent application information. We will return them to you without review. Idea submissions sent via e-mail will be deleted from Nike's system.\n\nIf you would like information on patenting your idea, we suggest you consult a patent attorney for assistance. If you already have a patent, please call Nike at (503) 671-5727 for further information or if you would like to request a copy of the guidelines and agreement, please send your name and mailing address to:\n\nNike, Inc.\nIdea Submissions\nOne Bowerman Drive DF 4\nBeaverton, OR  97005"\n\nHope that helps!
841124
The United Nations Human Rights Council replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights.\n\n1.) It is generally internationally recognized that people have a right to an adequate standard of living, and access to affordable housing. That may not necessarily be "wherever they want", however. It is also generally accepted that the right to an adequate standard of living is dependant on working.\n\n2.) Simple: crack down on the employers. Reduce the available jobs, and the immigrants will go home and/or stop coming. Immigrants come now because they have economic freedom and access here that they don't have at home - if I were a Mexican, I certainly would consider going to the US for work - feeding and providing for my family is more important than the law. If that access is taken away, then it'll go a great deal towards stopping the immigration problem. The fence idea is absolutely idiotic, and is generally demanded by people who have never seen the border, much less lived and/or worked there.
182999
It woudl be nice as most corporations are international compnaies however who would enforce the standard?
221489
You're question is very interesting.  As you know we are in a globalized world.  This is not the first wave of globalization--it's the third.  The other waves happened centuries ago.  Anyway, because something is sold to someone living outside the borders of the US, doesn't necessarily mean that you will lose your freedoms.  They still have to operate under American law & standards here in the US.
163344
Bigotry takes many forms and attempts to disguise itself behind issues that many people can support (i.e., law and order, national security, etc). The issue here has never been about national security. Many people would like us to think that this is the case but it isn't. The truth is that most people are bigoted when it comes to Arab companies owning companies that do business in the United States. Let's look at all of the issues here. First, national security is not threatened by the deal. The company would not control port security nor would it have access to any information that would allow it to bypass security measures which are in place that it couldn't already bypass without purchasing an interest in the port. Second, the company would do financial harm to itself and is very unlikely to risk a sizable investment in our ports to further some ideological agenda of others. Third, any ownership of an interests in ports could jeopardize our national security even if its an American company therefore it makes no sense to discriminate simply because the company is based out of the UAE.
743142
That is an excellent question. Of course, we don't to the torture ourselves, we outsource it to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It is appalling that a country that prides itself on human rights now conpsires to violate the Geneva convention while attacking other sovereign nations for the very same crime. I, for one, and deeply ashamed.
278217
First guy's right.  I think Bush's stance is that why should we follow all these expensive rules if other countries don't have to.  (By other countries, we're talking developing nations - so the argument is that as a developed nation, we have a greater responsibility.)\n\nOf course, Bush's argument has a point -- how can we compete in an increasingly global market if we start off already behind (our companies have to adhere to standards that other countries companies don't.)