Just do it the right way: Nike, like any company, deserves UNC’s scrutiny

The University’s questioning of Nike following the closing of two of its subsidiary’s factories represents the right amount of scrutiny of the company’s operations.

In general, the University has demonstrated a strong desire for its licensees to meet basic workplace standards. It severed ties in March 2009with Russell Athletic after that company closed a factory with unionized workers.

On Monday, The Licensing Labor Code Advisory Committee expressed concern about Nike’s response to 1,200 workers left without severance pay and insurance following a factory closing in Honduras.

The committee’s decision was to further investigate the issue, as well as what the University could expect of Nike in response.

As a government organization and as a university, it is imperative that it refrains from licensing with companies that hold less than the highest standards. UNC has an impressive labor licensing code, adopted in February 1999.

But, unlike with Russell Athletic, it does not appear that Nike directly violated the Licensing Labor Code. It may not be obligated to provide for severed workers. But this does not mean that there are not definite actions that can be taken.

The University could demand more of Nike in choosing subcontractors whose businesses are more sound.

The fact that the subcontractor that closed the Honduran factory is now bankrupt suggests that Nike chose a weak business whose employees were vulnerable to being left high and dry.

And of course, UNC could ask Nike to demand that its subcontractors provide severance pay.

Our logo is a lucrative item. If Nike cannot meet expectations, then the University can and should take its license elsewhere.