The Kuk Dong Story

This is David Boje. I am David and Nike is my Goliath. It is my second trip to the State of Puebla, Mexico and my first to the City of Atlixco. I first went to Puebla as a faculty advisor with a group of some 50 MBA students from Loyola Marymount University to tour the VW factory in Puebla, in 1993. On March 26^th, 2001 I began my second trip, this time traveling with Grace Ann Rosile and J. Dámaso Miguel Alcantara Carrillo. Carrillo once lived in the State of Puebla and knew Atlixco, the city where Koreans had constructed several Kukdong International factories to make garments for Nike and Reebok.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss the ability of the consumer, as well as the academic, to navigate the complex and convoluted politics of sweatshop monitoring. Monitoring produces reports and promises by corporations to make reforms, but when women actually stand up for their rights as human beings, and claim the right to living pay, food without worms, and the right to organize, what happens? In the current global economy, the monitoring reports are filed, the promises are filed, and then the transnational corporations and the subcontract factory owners, merely cut and run, to open up some new sweatshop, away from the gaze of activists, citizens, consumers, and corporate-paid monitors. More than this it is the story of "real" empowerment, when women sweatshop workers, grow their own power. There are many monitoring firms, who are paid by corporations to issue reports to the public. In this study, we contrast four such reports, all completed on the same factory:

This is the story of what happens when the fox guards the hen house. The word "hen" is a slur, a derogatory, used by the State-sanctioned union enforcer, as he spoke to a Kukdong worker. Hens and foxes is a trope, in use, part of the language of Kukdong. The hens are the workers, 85% of whom are young and female. There are other foxes such as the national union, the Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants (FROC-CROC) who signed a bargaining agreement with the Korean owners of Kukdong International to set aside rights of workers, that are otherwise commonly agreed to by other foreign investors in Mexican maquiladora factories.

Asking a corporation to hire and pay a monitor, who by any other name is a consulting firm, is like asking the fox to hire a monitor to guard its hen house. It is a tale of the clash of corporate and independent monitors, between Verité, PWC, and ILRF who are the foxes, FLA who accredits Verité as its first ever monitor (to respond to this crisis in Atlixco), and WRC who monitors the activity of the foxes and foxes' consultants.

But what is unique about this story is the hens got together and with a few roosters, did organize their own independent union, the Kukdong Workers Coalition (KWC). And the women did win the battle to get their independent union to be recognized. But, will this make any difference in the long run, if Nike and Reebok, just cut and run off to find a new hen house? Finally, this is a story of violence and terror, used to intimidate young women working for the Korean-owned subcontractor. It is a story of human triumph over the forces of transnational corporate terror and their alliances with state forms of terror. This is a story of peaceful resistance by the disempowered to become powerful resistors to the hegemony of global capitalism. It is non-violent resistance to violence perpetrated against women workers. Ironically, this story of non-violent resistance to terror, occurs before, during, and after, an overshadowing story of the events of September 11th.

We are continuing to analyze the transcripts of the interviews we did with two Kukdong women. Here are some excerpts. Note that we are translating back and forth between English and Spanish in the conversation. This is the all English translation of all several exchanges. Note that there is information here about two miscarriages that are not reported in the FLA's monitor report (Verité), or for that matter in any of the four major reports and follow-ups.

There is also detail that we will add about the lack of good faith on the part of the Korean management negotiations with the women workers during their takeover of the factory. And there is a definite story of attempts by management to mislead and control the media, by for example, keeping reporters away from the women who were brutalized, and especially away from the two women who had miscarriages. The women we interviewed support the WRC claim that there was child labor employed in the factory. We begin with the issue of worms (maggots) in the food and lack of bathroom rights, move to the manipulation of the good faith negotiations by the women, the shutdown and takeover of the factory by the women from January 10th to January 12th, to the issue of the violence and the death of the two unborn children. We then look again in the transcript at the issue of media control, and end with more confirmation of the sexual harassment at the plant.

Miguel She asked me about the interviews. This kind the interviews for what reason?

Dr. Boje For five years, I have been working in this research for Nike Corporation, Rebok Corporation to see the factories conditions if they are good or not good...Purpose of the research is to tell about the women their own story. No trough the media to know the story. Corporation said the story, no Kukdong story.

Miguel Huu!.. They say about the food. If they did not finish the food today they give the other day. Some times we, they found some kind of worms on the food.

Participant2 Yes, when we bring the worms to Human Resources they said that they were not worms.

Miguel They said that when they took some worms and they showed to Human Resources Manager. No, no, no they are not worms. Yes they put bad. And then what other kind of services they offered to you?

Participant1 Heee, he did not give us permit to go the bathroom although we were

Working, if we were talking between us, he told us that we should not talk because we came to work, that was our problem.

MEDIA MANIPULATION OF THE COVERAGE OF THE FACTORY SITUATION AND SHUTDOWN BY THE WORKERS BY THE FACTORY MANAGEMENT:

Miguel The owners, the owners manipulated the movement, and later government through media said. OK, we need to send the policeman to the company because the workers have made a kidnapping for the owners inside the company.

Miguel Inside the company. That was the argument or excuse to send the policeman.

Dr. Grace It is the ridiculous criminal. The families, they do not know what happen.

Miguel All of them. Newspaper, TV, and the Radio. Media says, what happen if if we, they says that we are people that create a kidnapping. We are like criminals.

Dr. Boje Can you tell them if they have the story of how they had the idea with the workers at the beginning.

Participant2 Other thing that strike day, the workers covered the doors because we did not permit that Koreans will exit. From where they escaped?

Participant1 From where, they were with the workers that they did not stay in good fit with us. From where the Koreans left?

Participant1 As there were bricklayer working and they were bringing and going big pots, we think that for that way, they left because Koreans were duty, all their clothes were duty.

Participant2 But what happen? As the strike started we did not to affect the other workers. We wanted to dialogue for better package of benefits but Koreans did not accept it, but there was not dialogue. So, most people were thinking that bricklayer came to work because they needed to work for hold their families, as such as us. So, workers decided to permit to workers to enter inside company. Because the problem was not against bricklayer; however, suddenly some body told us that Koreans were out the building with two trucks. The two trucks were full with persons that they did not participate in the movement. But why? These persons did not stay with the strike. at least to me, if a Korean there had said me, you know; working, there had told me. You know, I an m going to give some thing if you are here. In other words, I am going to pay to you although you are not working. If I have babies what am I go to do?

HOW NEGOTIATIONS DID NOT HAPPEN DURING THE FACTORY TAKEOVER AND TWO WOMEN HAD MISCARRIAGES AS A RESULT OF THE BEATINGS THAT TOOK PLACE:

Participant2 And let me tell you one thing, when we invited to the Koreans to negotiate, definitely they did not accept to negotiate with us. But do you know why? Because they had their plan made. For that reason, they did not negotiate. Koreans stayed all day until 10:30 P.M., after 10:30 P.M. this time, 500 policemen arrived and they were jumping the walls, they did not enter for the door. They were jumping the walls and they started to hit people.

Participant2 Sleeping, policemen hit every body. Several Persons were pregnant, there were abortions.

Miguel When, when the Koreans they want to negotiate with the Koreans on the day. They did not say, every thing was in calm, they just stay in the company, Koreans and the other people two hundred people. Nine, no Ten thirty (10:30 p.m.) on the night, about five hundred policeman were jumping the walls and then take the soil and hit people. And two women had abortions.

MORE ON KEEPING THE MEDIA FOR COVERING THE STORY OF JUST HOW BRUTALIZED THE WOMEN WHO WENT TO THE HOSPITAL AND THE TWO WHO MISCARRIED WERE (This would have been from January 12th to about January 27th, the hurt women were kept away from the media):

Participant2 The point is that, we had the movement. We had persons in the Metepec hospital; No body could to enter to see the people in the hospital. They had every thing under control. They talk to the media or with each person and they said that nothing was wrong. Every thing was in calm and correct.

Miguel it is like plastic, it is like not aluminum, it is some kind of fire is.

Participant2 Koreans had a fire problem, sorry my husband is fireman and he told me that they had a big fire. He said that sheet suffered a collapsed and they did not permit to enter any person and media.

Miguel Fir mans yea. She says that they had an accident, a fire over there. They did not permit that newspaper or reporters to enter. They preferred to lose every thing.

Participant2 It was big. They lost to many packages, the fire problem started at 11:00 P.M. and they finished until next day on the morning.

Miguel She said that was big fire but exactly, she does not know. They started 11:00 P.M. and they finished around 6:00 A.M. to control the fire. She says that they lose to many packages.

Miguel they decided to leave because they had too much pressure and violence and intimidation.

Participant2 I understand that there was treat against the people that suffered hurt.

Miguel you received some kind of intimidation or as a sexual aggressively from the Koreans Supervisors.

Participant1 On the strike, Koreans broken all the workers cards. When we entered, check in, when we exited, we check out. They destroyed several places.

Particiapant2 He said that if you as woman suffered sexual harassment. What if a supervisor gives pressure to you? One times a Korean people and a person from the Union Labor.

Participant1 but, there were cases that Koreans Supervisors had some kind of relationship with workers of the Company.

Miguel For that reason, he says that his mean goal was to invite you to know from original voice the real impression, no through the media, television, newspapers, radio etc Because we need to know what happen with the women.

WE SHOW PHOTOS 1 and 2 (SHOTS OF WORKERS AFTER BEING BEATEN, ONE BEFORE MOVE TO AMBULANCE, ONE IS A SHOT OF WOMEN IN THE AMBULANCE:

Participant2 But, but, but the photos that appear they are not real. Because they show partnership that they are not real. We do not know some people that appear on the photos. So, this is a photo that I do not remember I can not see a photo that show a woman bringing a girl. She was very hurt in her face. Other photo shows the policemen following people.

Miguel Inflammation, she says that carefully because some photos are not real. She says, I know what is the real situation. Because I know the real circumstance on the problem in that moment.

Participant2 How not, you know, because, here only the photo is showing the girl. May be they took this photo when she was fighting. When they were inside the company, at least a trivial photo. Pero las que vienen en ese, esas vienen real y se ve como estan subiendo la camilla hacia la Cruz Roja.

Miguel For example, she says that may be they are not real photos because only there is a woman. In reality there were more women with several physical problems.

NOTE: There is much more on the interview tapes. The two former-Kukdong workers agree to dig up some better photos.

We turn now to photos and summary of our journey to Atlixco from March 26th to March 31st, 2001. IN particular we tried to document the existence of other factories that were alleged by towns people and city officials to be links in the supply chain feeding garment production to Kukdong, then to Nike and Reebok, and then shipped for sale to university college campuses.

List of Figures with photos of our journey to Atlixco March 26 to March 31st, 2001 (please click on each photo page).

Figure 1: Kukdong International of Mexico, S. A. de C.V. MAIN FACTORY SITE

The monitors wrote their reports by inspecting facilities and interviewing workers from this site.

Figure 2: Top is Kukdong worker walking home to Atlixco City; Bottom is Kukdong worker riding bus to village outside of Atlixco City.

Each work day 15 to 20 buses transport the workers to villages half an hour to an hour outside of Atlixco. No transportation is provided to workers from Atlixco City. We did not attempt to interview any of these workers. There are no photos of the workers we did interview.

Figure 3: Mr. Lee's Pacific Continental Textile of Mexico S. A. de C.V. (PCT) Factory that supplies the Kukdong Main Factory

Our study and interviews revealed that that soon after the main Kukdong International factory opened (see Figure 1), the four partners had significant conflicts and disagreements over the management of the factory. To resolve the disagreement Mr. Lee constructed ten other maquiladora factories that would do out-sourced production for the main Kukdong factory (see Figure One). Figure 3 is a shot of the Pacific Continental Textile Factory.

Figure 4: PCT factory help wanted sign.

Figure 4 shows a help wanted sign explaining the excellent benefit and employment opportunities. In reality Mr. Lee's factories have the most complaints during the month of March, 2001 of all the Kukdong affiliated factories. Five workers who complained to the local labor office about not receiving their Christmas bonuses, lack of benefits promised, and not being about to recover the one week and in some cases one month wage deposits were fired. The workers took their case to the Puebla Labor office which has initiated formal judicial proceedings against Mr. Lee.

Figure 5: Top is photo of Kukdong Factory; bottom is Miguel ( J. Dámaso Miguel Alcantara Carrillo ) trying to talk his way inside the Kukdong factory.

In Figure 5, Miguel attempts to get access to the factory for an interview. Jose Luis Rodriguez (FROC-CROC union representative) came to the gate and told Boje and Carrillo that there was no one there to be interviewed. After Miguel told him we were leaving the next day (Saturday), he said we could stop back on Monday.

Figure 6: PCT factory with female workers bundling stacks of garments to be sent to the Kukdong Main factory.

This is the shot of about eight to ten female workers at Mr. Lee's PCT factory, who are bundling stacks of garments, which from our vantage point look like sweatshirts. Community residents and a local Labor Office attorney we interviewed, said that the production from the PCT factory is sent to the Kukdong factory. If this allegation is factual, then the implication is that the monitors have only been inspecting one of the eleven or more factories in the Kukdong International supply chain located around Atlixco City.

Figure 7: Mr. Lee's S&J International Factory and help wanted sign.

This is a photo of another of Mr. Lee's factories, S&J International.

Figure 8: Kukdong Factory garbage dump between factory building and water treatment facility

Outside the main Kukdong factory is a water treatment plant. Between the main factory buildings and this water treatment plant is where the factory pitches its garbage in a land file about a third of a block in size. No environmental monitoring occurred in any of the monitoring reports we reviewed.

What is the issue here? According to Nike and Reebok moral codes of conduct, all their subcontractors must respect freedom of association, one of the acknowledged human rights. It is the job of monitors such as PWC, to write assurance reports that verify human rights are or are not being violated, and the job of Verité and ILRF to go and sort out a story of what happened and send their monitoring report to the corporate board who pays their contract fees (Reebok and Nike), and to Fair Labor Association (FLA), who asked them to do the monitoring reports so as to verify FLA and the two corporate codes of conduct were or were not in force at one of the Kukdong International maquiladora factories in the city of Atlixco, Mexico. The bigger issue is the right of women workers in sweatshops contracted to Nike, Reebok and other transnational corporate firms to organize their own representation and have their voices heard around the world. And the right of the women, having stood the test of terror, and had their union voted in, to have some assurance that the transnational corporation will not just cancel its orders (or not renew them), and move on to repeat the same scenario. Keep in mind that of the 730 Nike factories, we do not know the identity of about 650 of these, nor do we know how many smaller factories are feeding the production of the 730, and exist in even worse conditions.

According to the Time Line we assembled from the four monitoring reports, news accounts, and our own on-site research, as summarized in Figure One, Nike’s monitor PWC had been reporting on the problematic situation in Kuk Dong as early as March of 2000. Nothing, apparently was done, until January 10th, one brave maquiladora factory worker sent a request for help across the Internet, and more attention arrived when news of the beatings of January 12th began to circulate.

Nike’s (2001) web site attests to their own neglect of the Kukdong situation, as do reports by Austermuhle (2000) and Kepne (2000). March 2000 is the same month Kuk Dong began manufacturing sweatshirts for Nike; it then began to make them for Reebok in December 2000 (Verité, 2001: 1). Kukdong is a Korean-owned factory that makes sweatshirts for the Universities of North Carolina, Maryland, Michigan, Arizona, Penn State, Georgetown, Michigan State and Oregon, amongst others we do not know (Labor Bulletin, 2001). In mid-March 2000, there were approximately 1,800 workers at Kuk Dong producing one million sweatshirts for Nike and 40,000 for Reebok last year. These sweatshirts were then sent to various university campus apparel stores and bookstores for sale to students, faculty and staff. Some belong to FLA, others to WRC, and several to both, who have their respective codes of conduct for working conditions under which campus apparel may or may not be manufactured.

The reports of the two women we interviewed and the local city officials confirm, that when production began in March 2000 the women were promised many benefits, that would materialize in five to six month's time, but few did. Then as production demand increased, the women report that the Korean management turned more brutal, intimidating, and violent. There were as the WRC and Verité studies confirm act of physical violence by Korean managers to the women workers. The factory became a less attractive place to work, and many town women left. This tipped the balance of employment toward the more rural and younger women brought to the main factory by bus.

As labor conditions worsened at Kukdong International, the number of workers dwindled from 1,800 to fewer than 900 by January 2001 when the strike and factory take-over by the workers began. Women we interviewed complained that they were not getting the benefits promised, the pay was below the legal limits, there were maggots in their food, and there were continued reports of sexual harassment.

In early March 2001, the factory employed only 600 workers, 585 in production and 85% are women, between the ages of 16 and 23 (Verité, 2001). A significant portion had lied about their age, and were less than 16. However, all records of employees less than 18 years of age were no longer in the files by the time the monitors did their inspection.

When we did our study of the factory, from March 27^th to March 31^st, there were 780 workers at the factory and the factory capacity was for 2,500 workers.

The Short Version of the Story - The Kuk Dong story is about how mostly young women workers struggled against a national union called FROC-CROC, Korean maquiladora owners and managers, and Nike and Reebok corporate PR teams so they might exercise collective bargaining rights guaranteed to them in corporate, FLA, and WRC codes of conduct as well as by Mexican law.

In our study, we found that it was as the rise in complaints against Mr. Lee who had left Kukdong factory management to open about ten other factories around Atlixco, where he could sustain the same and even more brutal conditions than in the main Kukdong factory, that resulted in the State finding that a new union could be voted in at Kukdong. Why? Because it is the complaints at the Mr. Lee factories that went forward and created a Mexico investigation of Korean-owned maquiladoras. The pressure was such that the ambassador from Korea got into the act.

The Story of the Gauntlet - A gauntlet is two parallel lines of men swinging clubs and shields, through whih the panicked women must run to achieve their exit from the factory. The gauntlet was organized and administered on the evening of January 12th. As the women negotiated and tried to set up their own independent union (SITEKIM, finally named SITEMEX) they were confronted with the violence and force of not only the Police in riot gear, but a goon squad of FROC-CROC state union men. From January 9 to 11 the young women took over the factory and locked themselves inside. They tried to talk to the Korean managers inside the factory, but some brick-laying workmen entered and secured the escape of the Korean managers, shortly after the factory takeover had begun. Family members and friends of the women holding the factory, like it was the Alamo, brought them food and blankets. They also brought the children to be with their working and now protesting mothers. On January 12th, Melquiades Morales Flores, the governor of the state of Puebla, sent 200 Mexican police dressed in full riot gear. The police force was led by Renee Sánchez Juárez, FROC-CROC secretary-general for the state of Puebla. The riot police were led by hired FROC-CROC construction workers, and this group did brutally attack 300, mostly female workers, beating those they could catch, with clubs, and sending 15 to the hospital. In our interviews with two workers and a local labor lawyer who were there, we found out that at least two of the women were pregnant, and two lost their babies as a result of the violent and cruel attack. Despite the brutality, the workers held on and bargained for and signed a contract for an independent union. But, as we shall see, the State, FROC-CROC union and the Korean maquiladora owners and their lawyers were able to co-opt the leaders of the independent union movement and intimidate workers with a continued police presence in the factory. Each day and evening the workers went out to negotiate with the Korean managers and attorneys, to list their grievances, and to ask they be allowed the right to organize. But, the Korean managers and lawyers laughed in the face of the women and ridiculed them, over and over again. Then, the bribes began, and workers were told they would get raises and other benefits if they deserted the cause. And workers who were dismissed before, during, and after the factory strike were forced to sign agreements stating they now supported the old State FROC-CROC union, in order to obtain their jobs back and get an promised increase in pay. Interviews we obtained with a local attorney and two female workers who were present during the three-day strike, and who witnessed the breakup of the strike, gave us information that was not reported in the Mexican press, nor the Verité monitoring report. Specifically, that the media was being manipulated throughout the events, the 15 hospitalized women were kept incognito, and the story of the death of the two fetuses was squashed completely.

The young Mexican women of courage and persistence risked everything, to create an independent voice for themselves, to drop a line here or there to the press, and stage a worker protest against exploitation and abuse. They also took over the factory for three days, refusing to let more abuse into the factory gate and asked to negotiate in good faith with the Korean owners and managers and the FROC-CROC representatives who were just outside that gate. But the Korean owners and their lawyers said, “We can not understand you or what you say.” They laughed at the worker representatives. The workers moved back and forth between the factory and the community, bringing food and blankets provided by friends and relatives.

Those who passed the Korean owners, managers, and their lawyers were recruited to leave the Kukdong Workers Coalition (KWC) and if they did, would receive an increase in pay and benefits. Some of the supervisors who organized the protest and quite a number of workers agreed to accept the Korean’s offer. The strategy over the three days, then was to divide to protest, to split support for the KWC, and after it was pretty well a divided affair, the Police and union strike breakers were sent in to beat on the 300 workers who remained in the factory.

These heroic women shoulder the battle against corporate PR teams, the Korean lawyers, and the national union FROC-CROC to create their independent union, the Kukdong Workers' Coalition (KWC). Two of the five workers fired for taking leadership in their factory successfully entered the factory and their story was broadcast live on local radio. One of the five took a pay increase and became a recruiter who went to the homes of each worker and offered them an increase in pay and benefit if they were leave KWC and sign up for the FROC-CROC union as their sole representative. But for a few holdouts, they did not play their ascribed docile character roles, and refused to look the other way and pretend nothing had happened to co-opt their effort to establish the KWC. That is the version of the story we obtained in our interviews with several eyewitnesses. Another version of the story:

The question is how will this story play out and be retold as it circulates in the AA Industry Tamara (Boje, 2001)? Figure 1 summarizes the time line we will elaborate.

Ø December 9, 1999 CROC signed a collective bargaining agreement between Kukdong and "Sindicato de Trabajadores de Odicios Varios en General de la Industria y el Campo "Gral. This agreement was made when only a handful of workers had been hired. CROC has the right per this agreement to fire and discipline workers who engage in what would otherwise be legal union activities. Workers at Kuk Dong have never been consulted nor have they consented to being affiliated with the FROC CROC union. The agreement with CROC expires January 15, 2002.

Ø In March 2000 Kuk Dong, owned by Hyu Su Byun of Korea, began to manufacture for Nike and since December 2000 for Reebok.

Ø March 6-12, 2000, Martin Austermuhle of Penn State University accompanies PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) monitor on an inspection of three Nike factories in Puebla, including the Korean managed and owned, Kuk Dong factory. A brief report is posted on the NikeBiz web site. The longer report (Kepne, 2000) lists several violations and documents that Nike knew through PWC what was going on in Puebla.

Ø The Kukdong general manager confirmed that a supervisor had struck a worker with what he described as a “small hammer” on December 13, 2000, and that that the company had not disciplined the supervisor at that time (See WRC Report # 2, June 2001).

Ø December 14, 2000 Kuk Dong management issued a memo to supervisors threatening them with disciplinary measures for engaging in physical and verbal abuse of workers. One Korean supervisor was fired for hitting a worker (Verité, 2001: 6).

Ø December 15, 2000 – Workers refused to eat factory food to protest its poor quality; then five worker-representatives are written up by management.

Ø January 3, 2001 – five worker-supervisors were fired: The five fired worker-representatives are: Marco Santiago Perez Mesa, Marcela Muñoz Tepepa, Josefin Hernandez Ponce, Mario Nicanor Sefina, and Eduardo Sanchez Velasquez (Labor Bulletin, 2001; Alcalde, 2001). This dismissal was a result of the workers’ refusal to eat the factory food on December 15, 2000. Only one of the five worker-supervisors signed a letter of resignation. 20-30 other workers were forced to sign letters of resignation. The other four worker-representatives were dismissed without being informed in writing the reasons for their dismissal as the law requires (stated at the end of article 47 of the Federal Labor Law). Kukdong workers began to organize a work stoppage in support of the demand to replace the CROC with a new union and rehire their fired supervisors.

Ø January 8, 2001 - a majority of the 850 workers conducted a temporary work stoppage, demanding the reinstatement of the five dismissed supervisors, payment of Christmas bonuses as required by Mexican law, and recognition of their independent union in place of the CROC one. They also demanded to see a copy of the collective bargaining agreement between Kukdong and CROC. Workers were told by a Korean manager (Rafael) they would have an answer by 8 A.M. (Rafael never showed, nor did he appear on the 9th).

Ø January 9, 2001 the Kukdong company fired or forced the resignation of 25 workers who had complained about low wages and rotten food in the cafeteria (Axthelm & Pitkin (2001).

Ø January 9 to 11, 2001 – 850 workers continued the work stoppage, and at 8 A.M. took control of the gates at the Kuk Dong factory demanding that the five workers be reinstated and made a list of demands, including better food and a copy of the collective bargaining agreement. The TV media arrived January 10th. Management refused to negotiate with the workers.

Ø January 11, 2001 - as strikers picketed the factory gates, known "enforcers" of the FROC-CROC union attempted to provoke a confrontation with the 300 or so workers present.

Ø January 12, 2001 - Governor of the State of Puebla, Melquíades Morales Flores, sent 200 Mexican police dressed in full riot gear led by Rene Sanchez Juarez and thugs from the State-sanctioned union FROC-CROC and attacked 300, mostly female workers beating them with clubs, sending 15 to the hospital, two still remain hospitalized as of Friday morning; two organizers, Claudia Ochoterena and Josefina Hernandez, were kidnapped by the judicial police and later released. Rene Sanchez was reportedly at the scene pointing out which workers the Police should detain or attack

Ø January 13, 2001 - leaders of the independent union, Kukdong Workers' Coalition, signed an agreement with Kukdong management and the local labor board (Arbitration and Conciliation Board of Puebla) in Atlixco, Mexico saying that they would return to work.

Ø January 14, 2001 Kuk Dong management began offering workers $1,500.00 pesos (about $150 in US dollars), if they agree to voluntary dismissal and then come back to work, but almost no one was returning to work. An independent monitor sponsored by the International Labor Rights Fund and agreed to by Nike reported that in order to return to work, workers were forced to sign support statements to the FROC-CROC (the current union at the plant, which is considered a union tied to the conservative Mexican political party, the PRI, and is widely discredited as a legitimate representative of workers in Mexico) [Alcalde, 2001]. Mexican-based sources report that workers are intimidated to return to work due to the 30-40 armed riot police who are consistently in the factory, the fact that returning workers are being force (Axthelm & Pitkin (2001).

Ø January 14, 2001 – an interview is conducted by WRC documenting the use of child labor and abusive working conditions and management practices by Korean managers. Hundreds of returning workers were either fired or forced to resign.

Ø January 17, management backpedaled and workers who were very active in the strike had their copies of the agreement taken from them by the Kukdong security guards, and were told they were being fired. They also refused to allow workers they thought participated in the January 9 to 11 strike to return to the factory (Labor Bulletin, 2001).

Ø January 19, Kukdong's general manager Hoon Park denies any workers were fired and reported that 550 workers were now back at work (Alden & Mandel-Campbell, 2001).

Ø January 20^th University officials at Indiana, Duke, North Carolina and other universities in the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) sent a monitoring delegation to study the allegations of workers' rights violations that can be substantiated. Workers and their relatives staged a large protest about Kukdong in downtown Atlixco.

Finding of Fact: Prior to mid-February, Kukdong continued to deny full reinstatement without penalties or conditions to many workers who participated in the stoppage. Since mid-February, Kukdong has largely, though not fully, ended this practice and the majority of workers who participated in the stoppage have now been reinstated. However, there are still a substantial number of workers who have not achieved reinstatement and some reinstated workers were subjected to penalties and preconditions, which were not subsequently remedied (See Second WRC report, June 2001).

Ø On January 23, 2001 the Fair Labor Association (FLA) announced that it had approved seven major brand-name apparel and sports shoe companies to participate in its monitoring program, that included Nike and Reebok. Those companies now (August, 2001) include: Nike, Reebok (for footwear only), Adidas-Salomon AG, GEAR For Sports, Levi Strauss & Co., Liz Claiborne, & Patagonia, Phillips-Van Heusen, Eddie Bauer, Gear for Sports, and Polo Ralph Lauren.

Ø January 25th, 2 independent monitoring agencies – WRC & International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF is an FLA affiliate, See Alcalde, 2001) released reports submitted by their monitoring teams confirming that Kuk Dong has violated the right to freedom of association as granted by Mexican labor law, the International Labor Organization, University and Nike and Reebok Codes of Conduct, and the first legally binding agreement signed January 13th.

Ø January 30, 2001 a Verité observer reported seeing 30 unarmed factory security personnel in civilian clothing patrolling work areas and production lines. 30 armed factory security guards were stationed at the factory gates.

Ø February 2, 2001 - deadline for workers to be re-hired at their previous level. Estimates are 200 of the 800 returned to work. Others were too intimidated to return to work, seeing the 20 to 30 armed police in riot gear who were at the factory.

Ø February 5, 2001 – Verité recently accredited by the FLA began its 5-day monitoring assignment.

Ø February 9th, 2001 - the Corporate Responsibility Vice President of Nike, Dusty Kidd, sent a letter to the President of Kuk Dong, Mexico asking for some very specific demands including special outreach for reinstatement to the original five fired workers, reinstatement of all workers who wish to return with their previous seniority (addressing the problem of returning workers being treated as new workers), and publicizing the fact that the company dropped the charges waged against workers and supporters involved in the strike at the beginning of the year.

Ø February 13, 2001 - FROC CROC, the illegitimate official union allied with management, has filed 21 counts of unfair labor grievances at the Kuk Dong factory.

Ø February 13, 2001 - Chu Jim Yup Korean's ambassador to Mexico and Mexico's Secretary of Economic Development, Antonio Zarain discuss the Kukdong maquiladora situation (Becerra, 2001).

Ø February 19, 2001- Thirty-nine Kuk Dong workers, including two of the leaders of the independent union organizing effort whose illegal firings precipitated the original strike at Kuk Dong on 9 January, arrived at the factory early this morning to demand their unconditional reinstatement. Representatives from Nike, Reebok and the Korean International Solidarity House were present during the negotiation of the worker's reinstatement.

Ø February 27, 2001 - Mexican office of the International Labor Organization (ILO) completed freedom of association and collective bargaining training for Kukdong workers.

Ø March 14, 2001 - Verité monitoring report (2001) commissioned by Reebok and Nike based on 29 confidential worker interviews, manager interviews, factory union personnel interviews, analysis of factory documents, factory walkthroughs, and Verité observer reports filed from January 31st to February 2nd and again from February 5th to the 9th on the Kukdong International Mexico , S.A. De C.V. factory in Atlicco, Puebla, Mexico is posted on Nike web site along with Nike's press release (2001b) and remediation plan (2001c). Findings mainly corroborated the findings of the Worker Rights Consortium (2001d) and the International Labor Rights Fund (Alcade, 2001) who issued separate reports at the end of January. The Verité report confirms that Kukdong management contracted with the FROC CROC state union before any workers were hired. This included the finding that most workers are currently quite unhappy with FROC-CROC representation and that a union election should be by a secret ballot vote. "18 of 29 workers interviewed reported that the factory does not permit workers to form and join unions of their choice."

Ø March 18, 2001 - Members of the independent worker coalition at the Kuk Dong factory in Atlixco, Mexico gathered on Sunday, March 18 to meet the legal requirements for forming an independent union. By the end of the meeting, the unionists had taken the name SITEKIM, Sindicato Independiente de Trabajadores de la Empresa Kukdong International de Mexico or the Independent Union of Workers at the Company Kukdong International of Mexico. FROC-CROC did station three people with a video camera to tape the workers entering the meeting. A large majority of the workers in the factory are united in their support of SITEKIM (Axthelm & Pitkin (2001).

Ø April 12, 2001 - During the previous week, more workers attempting to return have been denied admittance at Kukdong, amongst them Martina Morales, a former line supervisor who, like most supervisors, played a leadership role in the work stoppage. Santiago Perez, one of the 5 leaders fired for opposing the CROC, continues to be denied employment. Despite the legally binding agreement of January 13 that should allow all workers to go back in without any specific conditions and Kukdong’s public statement on March 28 that all workers are being welcomed back, returning workers are told that the factory is at full capacity. New workers continue to be hired (Source Tim Connor update).

Ø April 13-19, 2001 - Nike testing the waters regarding cutting and running from Kuk Dong? On 13 April University of Michigan USAS met with the university administration -the General Council to the University "tried to explain how, while NIKE really didn't want to pull out they might have to because Kukdong is doing so poorly financially and that they wanted to know, they being Kukdong, if we, USAS, would place an order with them to get the sweatshirts that they make....."

University of Southern California said the same thing to USAS at USC recently.

Evidently Amanda Tucker said a similar thing during a forum at the University of Arizona. She said that Nike had spent thousands of dollars on Kukdong and that in the future it may not be profitable to do business there. University of Arizona may have indicated they'd be interested in placing more orders from Kuk Dong (I think this meant directly rather than through Nike or Reebok, but this wasn't entirely clear).

There is some interest amongst USASers in pressuring their Universities to increase orders from Kuk Dong, provided that Kuk Dong first allows a free and fair election so that workers can determine who should represent them at the factory.

Sounds like Nike is testing the waters to see what the reaction would be if they cut and run from Kuk Dong. It's really important that it be very clear to them that this would provoke sustained outrage. Kuk Dong is the best chance yet of getting the right to freedom of association respected in at least one Nike supplier. If Nike gets away with breaking away from the buying relationship it will be a big set back in the campaign to get Nike to respect human rights.

Tim Connor, Coordinator, The NikeWatch Campaign

Ø April 20 Josefin Hernandez Ponce, (see Hernandez, 2001 for reference), one of the 5 dismissed worker-supervisors, gave an interview with Gerry Hadden on NPR.

Hadden: "In the town of Atlixco, 3

The Kuk Dong Story: When the Foxes Guards the Hen House