Lewis Hamilton's Reebok Deal

i remmber kubica saying the polish press make stuff up about him/what he says. something like "yes, no, maybe, yes" gets turned into a full page interview

Note to all

The subject is Lewis Hamilton and his Reebok deal

If you don't like my position try to debate it, use of insults by some indicate a lack of ability to offer a counter debate or just plane old stupidity.

Originally posted by as65p


Still you have to wonder how the other 21 guys manage to mostly avoid those nasty bubble-traps... In any case, compared to Lewis.

I don't buy the "because he's so famous" excuse. It's the same as with other celebrities, some are in the news all time and some not, and it's got not much to do with their fame, let alone ability. It's still their choice, you've got Paris Hilton and Lewis on one end of the scale and Harrison Ford and Kimi on the other end.;)

Hamilton has had certainly the most amazing rookie season in history. At the same time I've never seen a driver talk so much unadultered bollocks per number of words. Wonder what record will last longer...

I agree to some extent. He does need to shut up. Almost ignore them. I said it before, I hope the press turns on him, so that they don't ask him so many questions. I would prefer if he were thought a recluse, but was driving well, than his current public image.

Originally posted by SlateGray
Note to all

The subject is Lewis Hamilton and his Reebok deal

If you don't like my position try to debate it, use of insults by some indicate a lack of ability to offer a counter debate or just plane old stupidity.

Guys, make sure you obey here, or he may send you a private message. Then you will be in big trouble.

Originally posted by SlateGray
Note to all

The subject is Lewis Hamilton and his Reebok deal

If you don't like my position try to debate it, use of insults by some indicate a lack of ability to offer a counter debate or just plane old stupidity.

But you made the subject what a wanker Hamilton is because he has a Reebok deal;you came up wioth silly comments about him supporting slavery; tell me, are you aware exactly where every single product that you use comes from? If you don't, can we say you support slavery, too, as the chances are something you once wore/ate/whatever was produced in less than savoury circumstances?

Originally posted by as65p


Still you have to wonder how the other 21 guys manage to mostly avoid those nasty bubble-traps... I

No you don;t - the media aren't as interested in them.

Originally posted by Lifew12


But you made the subject what a wanker Hamilton is because he has a Reebok deal;you came up wioth silly comments about him supporting slavery; tell me, are you aware exactly where every single product that you use comes from?

No.

Originally posted by Lifew12
If you don't, can we say you support slavery, too, as the chances are something you once wore/ate/whatever was produced in less than savoury circumstances?

Yes you can!

Though Lewis has been incredibly naive in his handling of the media, but more importantly someone somewhere has failed in allowing him to walk straight into these walls.

Originally posted by F1Johnny


I agree to some extent. He does need to shut up. Almost ignore them. I said it before, I hope the press turns on him, so that they don't ask him so many questions. I would prefer if he were thought a recluse, but was driving well, than his current public image.

he was critised for ignoring the press after france...

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Though Lewis has been incredibly naive in his handling of the media, but more importantly someone somewhere has failed in allowing him to walk straight into these walls.

Agreed. I thought his father would have been more aggressive in managing that aspect of his profession, but clearly not. Unfortunately, hiring an "outsider" to do it now will not be received well and will most likely not work.

This is something he needs to figure out himself (with some guidance from his father), but it could mean he has to hit rock bottom with the press before it registers with him.

Originally posted by pingu666


he was critised for ignoring the press after france...

If he drove a good race in France, it would all have been forgotten, and more so maybe credited for his performance.

Originally posted by Orin


Why would people who live off their parents money need to choose between an appalling job or starvation?

They don't. They sermonize about evil evil sweatshops.

Hamilton is clearly displaying hints of delusion and megalomania in his interview statements. That's what happens to an immature person who is surrounded only with people who are kissing the ground he walks on.

Originally posted by Lifew12


No you don;t - the media aren't as interested in them.

I covered my view about that argument in the next sentence...

Originally posted by F1Johnny


I agree to some extent. He does need to shut up. Almost ignore them. I said it before, I hope the press turns on him, so that they don't ask him so many questions. I would prefer if he were thought a recluse, but was driving well, than his current public image.

Well i know from last year how it feels if the driver you support makes you squirm...;)

Originally posted by as65p


Well i know from last year how it feels if the driver you support makes you squirm...;)

I support 2 drivers. LH and Kimi. I had concerns about his "image" from last year with his post race interviews.

Originally posted by SlateGray
Ironic that the first black driver in F1 would support slavery!

Normally you're pretty funny (in a laughing at you way) but that one was just low. Zero class.

Originally posted by Gareth
Normally you're pretty funny (in a laughing at you way) but that one was just low. Zero class.

Truth hurts

Perhaps Lewis can help change the practices of these types of companies, or......... he can just take the cash and look the other way.

Originally posted by SlateGray

Truth hurts

How is your take on irony "Truth"?

Originally posted by SlateGray

Truth hurts

Perhaps Lewis can help change the practices of these types of companies, or......... he can just take the cash and look the other way.

Describing being sponsored by Reebok as supporting slavery isn't the truth, I'm afraid.

Using it as an attack on Hamilton, whilst throwing in his race, is also low and classless I'm afraid.

Originally posted by F1Johnny


How is your take on irony "Truth"?

Lewis promotes products that are manufactured in less than ideal conditions.
After all some of the workers are making as much as $0.84/hr = $3,066.00 per year.
That’s assuming 10 hrs/day 365 days a year other wise the income would be much lower
40 hrs a week x 50 weeks x $0.84/hr = $1.680.00
Nice, that would be lunch money for Lewis

Originally posted by SlateGray


Lewis promotes products that are manufactured in less than ideal conditions.
After all some of the workers are making as much as $0.84/hr = $3,066.00 per year.
That’s assuming 10 hrs/day 365 days a year other wise the income would be much lower
40 hrs a week x 50 weeks x $0.84/hr = $1.680.00
Nice, that would be lunch money for Lewis

It would be nice to to know if you would be going on such a tirade if it was Alonso getting sponsered.

I think you'd find much worse sponsership going on.


Lets look at Ferraris sponser shell and their damage to the environment,
what about tobacco advertising, most seem in favour of that inspite of the deaths smoking have caused

Originally posted by Anomnader


It would be nice to to know if you would be going on such a tirade if it was Alonso getting sponsered.

I think you'd find much worse sponsership going on.


Lets look at Ferraris sponser shell and their damage to the environment,
what about tobacco advertising, most seem in favour of that inspite of the deaths smoking have caused

All good points. Perhaps you could start a thread

globalisation is magic, i admire it. global capital and brand engineering, yes ... not no, yes.

the fact this single contract succesfully upsets the feeble-minded no-logo anti-capitalists as well as the usual shower of resident hamilton hating clowns is a double bonus. 10mill of shareholder's money is cheap for that kind of entertainment value.

always interesting to judge a guy by the quality of his enemies, and looking at the lame and talentless array of simple-minded imbeciles that are suddenly offended by this kind of deal, he's got absolutely nothing to worry about. buy something nice with the money L.

Originally posted by Lifew12


But you made the subject what a wanker Hamilton is because he has a Reebok deal;you came up wioth silly comments about him supporting slavery; tell me, are you aware exactly where every single product that you use comes from? If you don't, can we say you support slavery, too, as the chances are something you once wore/ate/whatever was produced in less than savoury circumstances?

Actually, it was me that brought up the sweatshop supporting point. I would make the same point if it were Alonso, Kimi, Massa, Heikki or anyone else. The fact is that these multinationals need to understand that by supporting sweatshops they are creating the situation in which they exist. If multinationals refused to deal with sweatshops, the employers would create better working conditions for their workers.

Like it or not, that is a fact. Lewis is getting paid extremely well by McLaren and as such is in a position to be more picky about who he chooses to associate himself with. 10 million over several years is nothing. If he publicly refused the sponsorship, he would not only prompt the issue into the public, thus making them more likely to do something about it, he would also encourage sponsorship from more ethical companies. Instead he bent over and agreed to be the public face of a company creating sweatshops in 3rd world countries in exchange for 10 mil. Maybe as the public face of Reebok he can go and visit the factories and talk to the people who he helped to condemn for a few bucks.

Originally posted by Josta
If multinationals refused to deal with sweatshops, the employers would create better working conditions for their workers.

Or they would be out of a job. The Jockey factory closed or is about to close here and people are out of work. What are they going to do now.

Originally posted by F1Johnny


Or they would be out of a job. The Jockey factory closed or is about to close here and people are out of work. What are they going to do now.

Hmm, it doesn't actually work like that. Bottom line is that if sweatshop owners had the choice of create better working conditions or go bankrupt, what do you think they would choose?

Originally posted by Josta


Hmm, it doesn't actually work like that. Bottom line is that if sweatshop owners had the choice of create better working conditions or go bankrupt, what do you think they would choose?

Assuming the sweatshop owners don't pass the extra cost on to the Reeboks, some of them may very well close down. the companies will move somewhere else.

Just out of curiosity, are these companies breaching the minimum wage laws in the countries? I think minimum wages in most countries are poor and unacceptable and I fully support paying a fair wage, but if they are not breaking the law, it becomes a question of how charitable the company wants to be to stakeholders other than their shareholders.

Originally posted by Josta

Hmm, it doesn't actually work like that. Bottom line is that if sweatshop owners had the choice of create better working conditions or go bankrupt, what do you think they would choose?

Your options are a bit unrealistic, aren't they?
Usually sweatshop owners have the choice of create even worse working conditions than anyone else or go bankrupt. If they don't, the multinational leaves the country and goes to another even poorer country.

Originally posted by giacomo
Your options are a bit unrealistic, aren't they?
Usually sweatshop owners have the choice of create even worse working conditions than anyone else or go bankrupt. If they don't, the multinational leaves the country and goes to another even poorer country.

If a few big names had the guts to stand up and be counted in place of just getting richer they might be able to change the direction of these things.

Originally posted by SlateGray

If a few big names had the guts to stand up and be counted in place of just getting richer they might be able to change the direction of these things.

Really? Don't think that 'a few big names' have enough power to suspend the mechanisms of capitalism.

Originally posted by F1Johnny


Assuming the sweatshop owners don't pass the extra cost on to the Reeboks, some of them may very well close down. the companies will move somewhere else.

Just out of curiosity, are these companies breaching the minimum wage laws in the countries? I think minimum wages in most countries are poor and unacceptable and I fully support paying a fair wage, but if they are not breaking the law, it becomes a question of how charitable the company wants to be to stakeholders other than their shareholders.

That is bullshit. Ultimately, if Reebok don't employ sweatshops then they still need to have the same volume of shoes produced. Therefore, the sweatshop can either cease to be a sweatshop, or go bust. Will the price go up? possibly, though not definitely. Bear in mind that sweatshops exist to make maximum profit. They do so by exploiting poor people. They could make profit by not exploiting poor people, just less profit. At the end of the day, businessmen don't cut their noses off to spite their faces. If a sweatshop can get away with treating their workers like dirt, they will. If they can't, they won't. The enablers here are the likes of Reebok, Nike et al.

You say they will move elsewhere. Where will they move if the multinational western companies insist on the same level of treatment wherever in the planet they are?

With regards to cost, do you believe that a pair of shoes manufactured in a sweatshop in malaysia is better quality than a pair of no brand shoes sold in tesco? One costs 100 pounds, the other costs 10. Difference is not quality but brand name. Reebok could employ non sweatshop companies to manufacture their goods, which would also generate more employment as the workers would be working less hours needing more people, pay more and still make an absurd amount of profit.

I am a capitalist through and through. I believe in making money, but when it comes down to making money by exploitation, then where does it end? Presumably, you would have been in favour of utilising concentration camp victims in WW2 to make profit? Or maybe pimping 12 year old girls in Zimbabwe. It would make you money after all, (it would also be legal).

Josta, for a 'capitalist through and through' you understand suprisingly little how capitalism is working in a globalized world.

Originally posted by giacomo
Josta, for a 'capitalist through and through' you understand suprisingly little how capitalism is working in a globalized world.

No, you understand surprisingly little as to what capitalism means. You cannot use globalisation as an excuse for exploitation. Under your definition of capitalism, pimping 12 year olds in Zimbabwe is OK. After all, you can make a lot of money, and not break the law. Capitalism in action??? Or is it simply immoral wankers using people for cash?

The thing is that people who go against such tactics gain advertising and capital from taking such a position. This is capitalism in action. For instance, helpdesks not in Mumbai as an advertising point. Fair trade a prominent advertising campaign.

The fact is that sweatshops exist for 1 reason, that is that western companies use them. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Therefore, Nike, Reebok et al are entirely responsible for the sweatshops where children are forced to work long hours in dangerous conditions.

Capitalism or exploitation?

Now you are the one who is talking bullshit.

Nobody here endorsed the prostitution of 12 year olds.
Nobody but you even had such a sick idea.


And of course I did not praise the mechanisms of capitalism. I just pointed out their existence, without any moral rating.

Originally posted by Josta


That is bullshit. Ultimately, if Reebok don't employ sweatshops then they still need to have the same volume of shoes produced. Therefore, the sweatshop can either cease to be a sweatshop, or go bust. Will the price go up? possibly, though not definitely. Bear in mind that sweatshops exist to make maximum profit. They do so by exploiting poor people. They could make profit by not exploiting poor people, just less profit. At the end of the day, businessmen don't cut their noses off to spite their faces. If a sweatshop can get away with treating their workers like dirt, they will. If they can't, they won't. The enablers here are the likes of Reebok, Nike et al.

You say they will move elsewhere. Where will they move if the multinational western companies insist on the same level of treatment wherever in the planet they are?

With regards to cost, do you believe that a pair of shoes manufactured in a sweatshop in malaysia is better quality than a pair of no brand shoes sold in tesco? One costs 100 pounds, the other costs 10. Difference is not quality but brand name. Reebok could employ non sweatshop companies to manufacture their goods, which would also generate more employment as the workers would be working less hours needing more people, pay more and still make an absurd amount of profit.

I am a capitalist through and through. I believe in making money, but when it comes down to making money by exploitation, then where does it end? Presumably, you would have been in favour of utilising concentration camp victims in WW2 to make profit? Or maybe pimping 12 year old girls in Zimbabwe. It would make you money after all, (it would also be legal).

What is bullshit? Not sure what you are referring to.

I actually do believe and have experienced on many occasions that the Nike, Pumas, etc are better quality than the "Tesco" brand. That has to do with the materials used.

I reiterate - I do not agree with sweat shops and again ask if these companies are breaking the law?

That said, quoting the cost of manufacturing the shoe at the factory is probably the smallest part of the cost of a sneaker. Marketing and distribution add massively to the cost of the product. Just look at the income statements of some of these entities and look at the marketing costs.

Your last sentence is bullshit. Why would I endorse imprisoning people because of their race and religion or forcing children to have sex for money? Where do I do say it is OK to break the law to make profit?

Don't get so emotional about it.

Originally posted by Josta

The fact is that sweatshops exist for 1 reason, that is that western companies use them. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Therefore, Nike, Reebok et al are entirely responsible for the sweatshops where children are forced to work long hours in dangerous conditions.

That's only the half of the truth.

The second half of the picture is that sweatshops exist for a second reason as well: Because people in poor countries are prepared to accept very very bad working conditions in order to survive. For those people even the exploitative nature of a sweatshop is their best realistic option.
Otherwise they would not work there but do something else.


This situation is very comparable with Europe during the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th and early 19th century.

Originally posted by giacomo
Now you are the one who is talking bullshit.

Nobody here endorsed the prostitution of 12 year olds.
Nobody but you even had such a sick idea.


And of course I did not praise the mechanisms of capitalism. I just pointed out their existence, without any moral rating.

In Zimbabwe, the legal age of consent is 12. It is illegal to pimp a girl under the age of 12, punishable by a fine of 6 dollars. Now, you are professing that as long as it is legal, capitalism allows for the exploitation of children. Therefore, what is the difference between legally getting an 8 year old girl to work for 12 hours making shoes for 10 pence, and legally getting a 12 year old girl to have sex for 50 quid? Exploitation is exploitation, whether it is legal in the tinpot country or not. This is not capitalism, it is exploitation.

Exploitation cannot be explained away by globalisation or capitalism. The simple fact is that Nike, Reebok et al are just exploiting people, including children, for cash. Now what is the problem with saying that this is a bad thing?

I never said that exploitation is a good thing. In fact, it is a bad thing.

That does not affect the correctness of all my statements, and the incorrectness of your statements about how to improve the situation of sweatshop workers.


And your example about the prostitution of children is pointless and disgusting.

Originally posted by giacomo
I never said that exploitation is a good thing. In fact, it is a bad thing.

That does not affect the correctness of all my statements, and the incorrectness of your statements about how to improve the situation of sweatshop workers.


And your example about the prostitution of children is pointless and disgusting.

Do you realise that sweatshops employ very small children? Do you not find that disgusting?

As to sweatshop workers, please tell me how sweatshops could continue to work if the corporations didn't give them any money? If Nike, Reebok et al simply used non sweatshops in the country, then the sweatshops would be producing nothing, whilst those that stopped being sweatshops, would be producing all of the product.

Please tell me how sweatshops could operate if the western corporations used non sweatshop resources in the country?

Josta, I can't say I agree with a lot of your business advice for Reebok. I'll pick a random quote:

Originally posted by Josta


That is bullshit. Ultimately, if Reebok don't employ sweatshops then they still need to have the same volume of shoes produced.

In simple terms you are right - you could say Reebok use premium pricing, so a small increase in manufacturing costs could be absorbed without having to increase prices. However, if the mark up per shoe is less that means less money to return to shareholders or less money for investment i.e not good given that the primary of objective of a company is to increase shareholder wealth.

Fortunately these days the majority of big corporations have bought into the idea of corporate responsibility. Acting ethically can increase customer goodwill and in turn, increase sales. I do acdept many companies are far from perfect.....

There's a lot of other points I disagree with in your post, but I could go on for hours




Anyway, does anyone have any evidence that Reebok still use Sweatshops or use children? I just found this on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia
In the past, Reebok had an association with outsourcing through sweatshops, but today it claims it is firmly committed to human rights. In April 2004, Reebok's footwear division became the first company to be accredited by the Fair Labor Association. In 2004, Reebok also became a founding member of the Fair Factories Clearinghouse, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving worker conditions across the apparel industry.

Tabloid articles don't count as evidence BTW. Many tabloids quote daily wages as evidence of sweatshops, but this is often far from the truth given that cost of living in these countries are often very low. High wages can also disrupt local economies. I'm not denying sweatshops exist in case you all jump on me

The fact that almost all my clothes are made in Taiwan/China/Malaysia (and I'm a big name brand whore)- why are we singling out Reebok/Nike here?

Originally posted by giacomo
Really? Don't think that 'a few big names' have enough power to suspend the mechanisms of capitalism.

Suspend is your word. Change was mine

Change comes from leadership. Lewis has a world stage this weekend.

Jesus, this thread has got a little heavy these past 12 hours.

Josta: I see that you are on a crusade and refuse to read or understand what others say. That's why I stop this here and go to bed now.

I need my sleep to be able to endure my tomorrow eight hours of capitalistic exploitation.

From Wikipedia website;


In the past, Reebok had an association with outsourcing through sweatshops, but today it claims it is firmly committed to human rights. In April 2004, Reebok's footwear division became the first company to be accredited by the Fair Labor Association. In 2004, Reebok also became a founding member of the Fair Factories Clearinghouse, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving worker conditions across the apparel industry.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reebok

Edit: It looks like Torch and I were posting at the same time.

Originally posted by giacomo
Josta: I see that you are on a crusade and refuse to read or understand what others say. That's why I stop this here and go to bed now.

I need my sleep to be able to endure my tomorrow eight hours of capitalistic exploitation.

OK, so you have no actual reply or argument. Fair enough. I hope you sleep well.

Originally posted by Josta

OK, so you have no actual reply or argument.

The level of this response reminds of your children prostitution 'argumentation'. Bye.

Originally posted by Josta


OK, so you have no actual reply or argument. Fair enough. I hope you sleep well.

Do you have a response to Torch and Fastlegs?

Originally posted by Torch
Josta, I can't say I agree with a lot of your business advice for Reebok. I'll pick a random quote:



In simple terms you are right - you could say Reebok use premium pricing, so a small increase in manufacturing costs could be absorbed without having to increase prices. However, if the mark up per shoe is less that means less money to return to shareholders or less money for investment i.e not good given that the primary of objective of a company is to increase shareholder wealth.

Fortunately these days the majority of big corporations have bought into the idea of corporate responsibility. Acting ethically can increase customer goodwill and in turn, increase sales. I do acdept many companies are far from perfect.....

There's a lot of other points I disagree with in your post, but I could go on for hours




Anyway, does anyone have any evidence that Reebok still use Sweatshops or use children? I just found this on Wikipedia:


Tabloid articles don't count as evidence BTW. Many tabloids quote daily wages as evidence of sweatshops, but this is often far from the truth given that cost of living in these countries are often very low. High wages can also disrupt local economies. I'm not denying sweatshops exist in case you all jump on me

The fact that almost all my clothes are made in Taiwan/China/Malaysia (and I'm a big name brand whore)- why are we singling out Reebok/Nike here?

OK, lets look at the "fair factories clearinghouse". It is an organisation set up by.......... you guessed it, Reebok.

In addition, from their website FAQ, is the following

Does participation in the FFC mean a brand or retailer has a quality compliance program or that it uses factories that are sweatshop free?

No, participation in the FFC does not mean that a participating brand or retailer is sweatshop free. Rather, the FFC is a tool designed to encourage more brands and retailers to implement programs cost-effectively to improve workplace conditions.

Originally posted by Josta



OK, lets look at the "fair factories clearinghouse". It is an organisation set up by.......... you guessed it, Reebok.

In addition, from their website FAQ, is the following

What about the Fair Labour Association? Did they set that up too?