# data[].attributes.body
Putting others needs before yours just being a helpful person to anyone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nike is one of the business world's shining examples of how to clean up an image: In the 1990s, the company was plagued by reports that it used sweatshops and child labor. Pressure grew until 1998, when Nike cofounder Phil Knight publicly committed to changing the company's practices, and Nike spent the next decade doing just that.

Now, Nike's sweatshop problem is threatening a comeback. On July 29, students and activists around the world participated in a day of protest against Nike, organized by United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS). The demonstrations, in cities such as Boston, Washington D.C., Bangalore, and San Pedro Sula in Honduras, represented an escalation of allegations against Nike that have been slowly bubbling up.

Among them are claims that workers at a Nike contract factory in Hansae, Vietnam, suffered wage theft and verbal abuse, and labored for hours in temperatures well over the legal limit of 90 degrees, to the point that they would collapse at their sewing machines. Nike is also accused of cutting jobs at the Hansae factory and pulling production from a factory in Honduras with a strong union presence, resulting in hundreds of workers losing vital jobs. The company has also allegedly denied the independent monitoring group Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) access to inspect its contract factories. The WRC was founded in 2000 by universities, international labor rights experts, and student groups, including USAS, to ensure that products bearing university logos were made under conditions that respected workers' rights. (The organization says it had no part in the USAS protests.)

The WRC issue could become a serious one for Nike. The sneaker giant owns a major part of what the WRC estimates is a $4 billion retail market for university-logo products, the largest share of which is apparel. Georgetown, Northeastern, and Rutgers-all among the WRC's 190 university affiliates-have already with Nike or said they will allow their contracts to expire due to the company's stance on factory inspections. The University of Washington, meanwhile, has temporarily extended its expiring contract with Nike as it awaits the outcome of Nike's mediation with Georgetown. ( Update: Nike and Georgetown announced an agreement on Aug. 30 that gives the WRC formal access to Nike supplier factories making products for WRC affiliates.)

The conditions alleged at the Hansae factory were revealed in a (pdf) published in December. "[Hansae's] customers, including Nike, which has been making university logo goods at the factory for more than a decade, have been auditing the factory for years," it noted. "Yet these brand and retailer audits never identified and never corrected most of the serious labor rights violations taking place at Hansae. Instead, these were not uncovered until the WRC launched its investigation in October of 2015."

According to Scott Nova, executive director of the WRC, Nike abruptly ceased cooperating with the organization in late 2015, around when the investigation of Hansae began. "Why they stopped, I do not know," Nova says, though he believes the group's independence from universities, unions, and the companies it monitors could be one reason.

"Nike is obligated, under many of its licensing agreements, to provide access to relevant factories for universities' inspectors," Nova said in a statement. "Nike's discomfort with the WRC's independence from industry funding and control is not a valid excuse for ignoring these obligations. We hope Nike will return to compliance."

Nike, however, contends that its stance toward the WRC has not changed. It never regarded the WRC as an approved monitor of its factories, and never gave it access to any itself.

In a statement, Nike added that it remains committed to independent monitoring. But of the WRC, it said, "We respect the Worker Rights Consortium's (WRC) commitment to workers' rights while recognizing that the WRC was co-created by United Students Against Sweatshops, a campaigning organization that does not represent the multi-stakeholder approach that we believe provides valuable, long-lasting change."

Beyond allowing the WRC access to factories, USAS also demands that Nike return to its full production levels at Hansae. Nike, it claims, reduced its order volumes after the WRC, putting workers out of jobs. "This is standard corporate cutting and running," says Angeles Solis, international coordinator of USAS.

Nike confirms that it reduced order volumes at Hansae. But it has also worked steadily to help correct the violations found at the factory, according to (pdf) by the Fair Labor Association.

USAS has also demanded that Nike reinstate its production at a factory in Honduras that it says Nike pulled out of completely, affecting more than 400 workers and costing many their jobs. "Historically, there's been a strong union fight there," Solis says of the factory, "so workers are suspecting that's anti-union hostility."

Nike says it only left the factory because Gildan, the Canadian apparel manufacturer that recently purchased American Apparel, forced it to. "It was not Nike's decision to exit the STAR factory, owned by Gildan Inc, in Honduras," Nike said. Nike insists it has worked with Gildan to minimize the job losses.

USAS is not convinced. "Nike has the ability to pressure Gildan to address this, and so far they have not," Solis says.

Gildan acknowledges that it took over production at the facility, which it acquired when it purchased Anvil Knitwear in 2012. It has used that factory and one other to make clothes in Central America for other brands, and says it consolidated Nike's production in the other facility to optimize its Anvil production.

The reasons for the change were explained to the unions, says Gildan spokesperson Garry Bell. "It is important to say that these changes were not made in any respect because of the existence of a union in this facility," he says. He also adds that workers were offered the opportunity to relocate to their other factories in Honduras. Many did, while others left voluntarily, he says.
This story has been updated with Gildan's response. It has also been corrected to clarify that University of Washington has not yet cut ties with Nike or chosen to let its contract expire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nike is facing a new wave of anti-sweatshop protests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nike was the poster child for cleaning up a scandal-ridden image, but its sweatshop problem is threatening a comeback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abercrombie and Fitch? More like Abercrombie and Ditch.

The apparel retailer has seen its reputation nosedive over the past two weeks since controversial comments made by its CEO Mike Jeffries resurfaced online, according to brand researcher YouGov BrandIndex.

(In case you missed it, Business Insider published a story that contained comments Jeffries originally made in an interview with Salon in 2006 saying he doesn't want "fat" or "not so cool" kids wearing his company's clothes.)

YouGov's BrandIndex measures positive versus negative feedback about a brand. The chart below illustrates consumer perception among 18 to 34 year olds as compared to American Eagle and H&M.

Jeffries is now doing his best to remedy the situation. He even posted a rebuttal on Facebook saying that his company is "completely opposed to any discrimination, bullying, derogatory characterizations or other anti-social behavior."

But the mea culpa may not be enough. Many, including Kirstie Alley, have condemned Jeffries' comments. A YouTube video deriding Abercrombie and Fitch's self-prescribed cool kid image has already reached over 4.5 million views.

A phone call request for comment from Abercrombie and Fitch was not immediately returned Thursday evening.

(Hat tip: Business Insider)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LOOK: This Is What Happens To A Brand When Its CEO Hates On 'Fat' People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abercrombie and Fitch? More like Abercrombie and Ditch. The apparel retailer has seen its reputation nosedive over the past two weeks since controversial comments made by its CEO Mike Jeffries resurfaced online, according to brand researcher YouGov BrandIndex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
iPhone late on Thursday did the right thing and finally apologized for the iPhone slowdown scandal. In a lengthy letter to customers, Apple explained why iPhones with older batteries are slowed down and announced new measures meant to address your concerns.

Apple is making battery replacements for out-of-warranty iPhones cheaper than ever, although the procedure is not free of charge. Rather than paying $79 for a new battery, you'll have to pay just $29, and the price will stay in place through December 2018. On top of that, Apple will release new iOS features that give users "more visibility" into the health of their iPhone's battery.

That said, Apple's apology is far from perfect, and there are plenty of annoying things about it.

First of all, Apple never acknowledges that it misled iPhone users when it released the iOS 10.2.1 update last year. It never told users that, once the iPhone's battery has a certain age, iOS will slow down the phones. Preventing unexpected shutdowns is definitely commendable. Nobody wants that kind of smartphone "feature." But Apple failed to properly inform users of what's going on.

"At Apple, our customers' trust means everything to us. We will never stop working to earn and maintain it. We are able to do the work we love only because of your faith and support - and we will never forget that or take it for granted," Apple ends the letter. But what Apple did was to take the user's faith and support for granted.

But wait, there's more under the Recent user feedback section:

Over the course of this fall, we began to receive feedback from some users who were seeing slower performance in certain situations. Based on our experience, we initially thought this was due to a combination of two factors: a normal, temporary performance impact when upgrading the operating system as iPhone installs new software and updates apps, and minor bugs in the initial release which have since been fixed.

We now believe that another contributor to these user experiences is the continued chemical aging of the batteries in older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices, many of which are still running on their original batteries.

So Apple is basically telling us that it's not testing iOS updates appropriately. That it's not thoroughly checking new iOS releases on older devices. That iPhones with chemically aged batteries aren't in use anywhere at Apple, so these performance issues aren't noticed by the iPhone users that matter most, Apple engineers.

Apple had to wait for user feedback to realize that the iPhone slowdown, which Apple caused, is to blame for the poorer user experience on older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices.

One of the main selling points of iOS, at least for developers, is that major releases are still available for phones and tablets that were released three or four years ago. But most of these devices run on chemically depleted batteries. Did nobody at Apple think to check whether iOS 11 can offer a decent experience on an iPhone 6 that's slowed down via software?
One more thing.

Going forward, Apple doesn't seem to make this CPU throttling policy optional. As a long time iPhone user who owned and will own devices with chemically depleted batteries, I'd like to be able to choose in the future whether iOS should slow the phone down or not.

Instead, Apple will keep slowing down devices, and it confirmed, again, that the iPhone 7 models are now included. Does that mean iPhone 8 and iPhone X are next?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The most annoying things about Apple's apology for slowing down iPhones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
iPhone late on Thursday did the right thing and finally apologized for the iPhone slowdown scandal. In a lengthy letter to customers, Apple explained why iPhones with older batteries are slowed down and announced new measures meant to address your concerns.

# data[].attributes.headline
Timberlands ceo say no African Americans in their shoe 

# data[].attributes.subject
Timberlands ceo say no African Americans in their shoe 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Timberland's CEO said he doesn't want black people to wear Timberland boots.

On 3 December 2014, the now-defunct web site Naha Daily published an article that quoted Timberland's (unnamed) CEO as saying he didn't want to see "Blacks and Latinos" buying and wearing the company's boots:

Timberland new appointed Ceo lost it at a earnings press conference and revealed that hed rather not see Blacks and Latinos in his boots in the summer time admitting that its just tacky to wear boots in the Summer.

Theyre work boots, but lets be honest. They dont like to work Said Timberlands new appointment in a shocking reveal during a press conference.

Timberlands former Ceo declined to comment stating that he doesnt want to say if he disagrees nor agrees with the new Ceos statement. Rappers such as Notorious B.I.G. mention the Timberland brand in many of his hit songs and black people are already thinking hes probably rolling in his grave after hearing that black people are actually wearing boots in the summer time.

However, none of this was true, as Naha Daily 's disclaimer identifies the site's content as "completely fictional" and "based off current events in urban culture and entertainment." Among the site's previous stories were articles headlined "Police Dog Wins Medal for Killing Ferguson Protester" and "Cop Shoots 1Yr Old Black Baby After Mistaking Pacifier for Gun."

This fake news piece mirrored an older false rumor that Timberland is owned by the Ku Klux Klan.
Got a tip or a rumor? Contact us here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timberland CEO: 'I'd Rather Not See Blacks in My Boots'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timberland's CEO said he doesn't want black people to wear Timberland boots. On 3 December 2014, the now-defunct web site Naha Daily published an article that quoted Timberland's (unnamed) CEO as saying he didn't want to see "Blacks and Latinos" buying and wearing the company's boots: Timberland new appointed Ceo lost it at a earnings press conference and revealed that hed rather not see Blacks and Latinos in his boots in the summer time admitting that its just tacky to wear boots in the Summer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Biggest Corporate Scandals of 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Mylan's epipen price hike to Roger Ailes being accused of sexual harassment at Fox News, 2016 witnessed plenty of bad behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google: The World's Most Ethical Company? | Boss Digital

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ask any SEO battling with the latest algorithm update to describe Google and 'ethical' is not the first word likely to spring to mind. But this year, research organisation Ethisphere have voted Google one of the world's most ethical companies (WME). According to Ethisphere, 'WME honorees not only promote ethical business standards and practices internally, [...]