Full disclosure: As I write this piece, I’m wearing a gray American Apparel T-shirt. In fact, I own more than one T-shirt from this company. The clothing is comfy and stylish, and you can get it for a price you can live with and without the burden of supporting sweatshop labor. Once an obscure clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles, American Apparel… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (45)Page 1 of 1 pagesInteresting piece. Somehow, it’s more annoying when a company that trades on its fairness to its workers as part of its branding is caught union-busting, using very young girls in its marketing, etc.
The marketing message of American Apparel must be backed up with a genuinely progressive approach to their workers if it isn’t to be an exercise in hypocrisy.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 5:40 AM Wow. Your article is interesting but it brings nothing new to the table. All you are doing is joining the anti-AA media bandwagon and repeating biased opinion that masquerades as fact.
Where shall we begin? AA’s ads? Oh my lord - sexy ads with models as young as 15?? How old do you think the provocatively posed models in most fashion magazines are? Anywhere from 14 and up. And sexy ads are the norm in the industry - it’s fashion for God’s sake!
What you fail to mention is that none of AA’s models are professional models. They are all real women who despite not being anorexic or over 6 feet tall or retouched by Photoshop, still manage to be sexy. That’s pretty revolutionary I think. Having seen first hand the toll taken by the usual images of impossible to achieve beauty that permeate the fashion world, I can tell you AA’s ads, porn stars and all, represent a refreshing shift in the often destructive paradigm. Some misogynist Charney turns out to be.
As for the sexual harassment lawsuits, well, they’re just lawsuits, years away from being disposed of. The fact that AA has not agreed to quietly settle these cases out of court is sort of telling. But so far the only person being transparent is Charney. I wonder how the defendants’ lives are going to hold up to similar public scrutiny. But then again, it seems no one cares - there’s a witch hunt atmosphere in the air and everyone is out for blood. No one is digging deeper and looking at all the facts.
And what about the aborted UNITE campaign? I mean given the existence of many little sweatshops in LA where the conditions are truly atrocious, UNITES campaign at AA could be seen as a juicy cash grab. Despite what Stephen Wishart, a senior research analyst with UNITE HERE tries to portray, AA workers do have affordable health care ($8 a week). And I mean talk about an unbiased source… The other allegations I heard about UNITE’s campaign include the notion that union organizers told workers (most of whom have poor english skills) that the boss wanted them to sign the union cards, and that they used other deceptive methods to get signatories. Lets not also forget that UNITE has its own very chequered past - the union has been busted on numerous occasions for corrupt practices like accepting payoffs from owners of “unionized” sweat shops to look the other way in the face of labour violations. You would have known this had you dug just a little deeper. Unionizing AA would have been a massive score for a seriously cash strapped union suffering from the export of US based manufacturing jobs to 3rd world sweat shops.
American Apparel differs massively from its competitors. Its competitors are no longer manufacturers. They are marketers who leave the often icky work of actually making something in the hands of impoverished 3rd world employees. Freed from the burden of having to adhere to fair labour standards or to have to worry about environmentally sustainable manufacturing processes, all they have to focus on is how to make the next logo adorned piece of crap running shoe into this season’s must have purchase. There’s quite a difference there, as far as I can tell. Please let me know if I am missing something.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 5, 2005 at 8:42 PM “Please let me know if I am missing something.”
Only the facts have eluded you so far.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 8:52 PM Nice totally useless response kingfelix. My query was sincere, my comment was loaded with independently confirmable facts and you come back to me with ... nothing. Good job. Let me once again reiterate - please let me know if I am missing something, anything. Please show me where anything I have said is wrong or innaccurate in any way. I await any reasonable response with baited breath.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 5, 2005 at 9:11 PM “As for the sexual harassment lawsuits, well, they’re just lawsuits, years away from being disposed of. The fact that AA has not agreed to quietly settle these cases out of court is sort of telling. But so far the only person being transparent is Charney. I wonder how the defendants’ lives are going to hold up to similar public scrutiny. But then again, it seems no one cares - there’s a witch hunt atmosphere in the air and everyone is out for blood. No one is digging deeper and looking at all the facts.”
okay. well, this passage is misogynistic. your phrase “i wonder how the defendants lives are going to hold up to similar public scrutiny” is a step away from “well, if you wear a short skirt, what do you expect.” sexual harrassment is sexual harrassment, regardless. now, if the defendants themselves turn out to have sexually harrassed others, then, yes, that may take the gloss off.
anyway, where is the independently confirmable facts in this post of yours? it’s all opinion and speculation as the above paragraph demonstrates clearly.
go and look up what a fact is, prepare to be amazed.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 9:16 PM Oooh. He used the misogyny trump card! Nice. Well, kingfelix, you know there are a number of ways one can defend oneself from any accusation, sexualy based or otherwise. The issue at hand in the cases in question is whether the defendant created an environment that was so hostile that it in effect became a form of sexual harassment.
The standard is not an objective one - it is fully subjective and depends on the individuals involved. Someone working as a Chippendale’s dancer can expect a certain sexual atmosphere at the work place whereas someone working as a public librarian might reasonably expect less. Similarly, someone with a deeply evolved sensitivity might take offense to sexual innuendo that would have no effect on someone with a more liberal outlook.
This has nothing to do with a “blame the victim” approach you are trying to ascribe to me. Also this is just one tack that someone might take in order to address accusations. Again none of this has anything to do with misogyny, unless of course you believe that any and all accusations of sexual impropriety should be disposed of without recourse to the justice system. Not that the justice system is perfect of course, not by any means, but we have to work with what we have. I don’t hear you suggesting an alternative.
OK. Independently confirmable facts. Lets see…
Here’s a nice article about UNITE from the Village Voice: Fitch, Robert, “Look behind the union label: How UNITE learned to live with sweatshops.” Village Voice, 1/20/98 - I am sure that if you Google it you can find it somewhere. It’s not on the VV Web site. Try Lexis Nexis if you’re in University.
As for their being cash strapped, that’s no secret. I mean the AFL-CIO is on the verge of breaking apart. The labor movement is down to 8% of the private sector work force, same as it was in 1901, and down from about 33% 50 years ago. Less unionized laborers means less union dues means less cash. I mean I could go on and on - here’s a link:
http://www.forward.com/articles/3682
There are more. Go to Google.
AA’s refusal to settle the lawsuits out of court is fact. Call them if you like - their phone number is on their Web site.
Like I said, I could go on and on. I have at the very least provided some facts. You’ve provided me with ... nothing.
I mean what do you consider a genuinely progressive approach anyway? Start talking substance and stop relying on sloganeering and big words devoid of meaning and maybe, just maybe, we can get somewhere. In the meantime, I have a life I need to return to.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 5, 2005 at 10:01 PM Ha ha. Big words.
Well, I picked up on your paragraph as it was full of wild speculation. I refer you to it again,
“As for the sexual harassment lawsuits, well, they’re just lawsuits, years away from being disposed of. The fact that AA has not agreed to quietly settle these cases out of court is sort of telling. But so far the only person being transparent is Charney. I wonder how the defendants’ lives are going to hold up to similar public scrutiny. But then again, it seems no one cares - there’s a witch hunt atmosphere in the air and everyone is out for blood. No one is digging deeper and looking at all the facts.”
“sort of telling…” What does it tell us? What are you insinuating here? It certainly is not a fact.
“... the only person being transparent is Charney.”
Is that your gauge of innocence/guilt? More insinuation.
“I wonder how the defendant’s lives…”
I’ve dealt with this. They may all be perfect, who knows, more insinuation.
“But then again, it seems no one cares - there’s a witch hunt atmosphere in the air and everyone is out for blood.”
How did you independently confirm a witch hunt? Do you have an electronic device for measuring witch hunts? Where is the epicenter of the witch hunt? It’s wholly speculative, laughable in its paranoia.
“No one seems to care.” - erm, again, is this a fact? No-one seems to care. Did you tour the universe divining how many people care? Or did you take a random sample. Please indicate your polling methods.
“No one is digging deeper and looking at all the facts.”
Hmmm, well, this may be true. You yourself are certainly guilty of not being able to look at the facts. The only thing you’ve dug deeply into here is your own store of wild imaginings.
See, I don’t need to contribute an alternative position to demonstrate that your post was full of wild speculation and insinuation. It can be seen that your balance of facts to fantasy is low, and for that you have my sympathies.
But you must learn the ways of logic if you are to pretend to offer us the “benefits” of your “research.”
Apologies if there are any long words here that you don’t understand, perhaps you can ask a grown-up to assist.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 10:12 PM “big words devoid of meaning”
please supply a list of words without meaning, you seem to have made a philosophical breakthrough.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 10:21 PM Are you seriously illiterate? Or simply disengenuous? Are you so hell bent on winning a silly pissing contest, so committed to proving your dominance that you put on blinders? Did I say my comment was made up entirely of facts? Of course there is speculation in it, I’m not omniscient!
Sheesh.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 5, 2005 at 10:23 PM can’t you see the big picture, that your inane speculations show you have a specific angle on the article that casts doubt on the veracity of the few facts you provide.
the point is - how much credence can your facts be given when all your speculations and insinuations seek to apologise for AA’s behaviour, both in its business and in the specific charges laid against Charney.
i am not illiterate or disingenuous, but keep going with your big words.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 10:50 PM it’s also quite clear that you are not omniscient. you are almost the polar opposite of such a state, and relax, i don’t think anyone will be moved to accuse you of omniscience anytime soon. not on this evidence.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 10:52 PM Hmmm. I think you’re projecting. I was just seeking balance, and instead, when I read this article, I got more of the same.
All you’ve been able to come back with is childish argumentation. Do notice that you’re not at all addressing any of my points - not at all. You say I am engaging in “wild speculation” but what you’re doing isn’t any better. In fact it’s worse. You have brought nothing to the table except for name calling and clever put downs.
Good job! I hope you’re proud of yourself.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:01 PM you do not provide balance by being an apologist. i’ve brought more to the table than your lamentable efforts. i’m going to put my fingers against my head now and pretend you never happened. i imagine your parents have often tried the same thing.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:15 PM accusing me of projecting is childish. i have given your post some analysis. my own thoughts on AA are not powerful enough for me to be projecting.
childish.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:16 PM Wow kingfelix, you are so awesome. So much for openmindedness and enlightened discourse. First I was a misogynist and now I am an apologist. Spectacular retorts. You really learned me,learned me good. And in the meantime, the level of discourse on the matter has not progressed one iota. Again, bravo, I tip my hat off to you.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:22 PM i hope your hat comes alive and chokes you to death, slowly.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:24 PM you are apologising. it’s their in your comments, in your insinuation, see earlier post. you are apologising and explaining away. FACT, remember.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:25 PM and you just can’t stop taking the bait. you are obviously a cretin who needs the last word. have it to yourself, cos i’m gone.
good luck with life, you’re going to need it.
Posted by kingfelix on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:27 PM It kills me when writers don’t do their research. Now with blogging, its an epidemic. Stories are put out just like this one & a virtual game of telephone begins. Remember that game? You sit in a line & whisper something to the person next to you & they do the same and it travels down a line until the person on the end has to give their interpretation of the sentence after everyone prior has muddled it up. That’s kind of what blogging is at times. You hear a small piece of a story, then write about it somewhere & it gets diluted until the only story left is a juicy one. With American Apparel it seems that now people just want to hear the scandalous story. The sex. The little guy, who became the good guy, who is now the bad guy. We love to see our heroes fall. It’s a recurring theme in the omnipresent pop culture we salivate over.
The comments posted about an article like this tend to state opinion as fact. Without having experienced the situation first hand it’s impossible to know what went down. That is why I offer my story of the events that took place with UNITE. I was there.
UNITE came to American Apparel in 2003 for a very short & intense union-drive. During the 2 weeks that they were at the factory, they spent their time fraudulently acquiring the home address of workers, visiting their homes on weekends & assuring them that that joining the union was what the company wanted. They didn’t mention their high membership fees. Or their limited health plan that runs a person close to $200 a month. They wanted to get as many cards signed, as fast and as quietly as possible.
Once the workers found out that the union was selling them on a story that neither true nor complete, they felt had. They researched & organized. They uncovered horrific stories about Unite like this: http://cesr.org/treatedlikeslaves
Those who had signed up asked for their cards back since they had been filled out under false pretenses. There was a protest (set-up solely by the workers, not by Dov) to ask the union to leave & respect their decision to remain un-unionized.
Unite, who had failed, packed up & left. Shamed by the outcome, they launched a smear campaign against to generate publicity for themselves. They claimed the drive failed due to Dov’s intimidation tactics that included threats of closing the factory down. This is completely false. During the drive, a letter from Dov was distributed in multiple languages, to every person employed by AA that states:
“It is critical that everyone understand that no worker will be punished nor will their job opportunities be diminished in any way if he or she chooses to support a union or the concept of unionization…”
If you want to see the rest of the letter, contact me. I also invite you to visit the factory & speak to any of the 1,000 workers who was involved. That is what I don’t understand. Why don’t any of the authors of these recent negative articles feel that it might be interesting and balanced journalism to interview workers who were there for all of this. Instead they pull quotes from an article by an analyst (aka supporter) of Unite, which was posted on behindthelabel.org, a web site funded by Unite! Seems a bit unbalanced, no? Its also odd that all of these finger-wagging articles popping up now, yet over the past 2 years there hasn’t been any coverage of this. But I digress.
Unite filed a claim with the NLRB, which was settled on terms of no admission of guilt. No factual hearing ever took place (nor did the debate that Dov challenged Unite’s president to) and the company moved on and continued to grow and prosper.
But now this failed union-drive is being spun into a completely different story. My hope is that people are interested enough to hear all sides & actually do the research, even if its not as fun as the US Weekly version.
Posted by ramona on Aug 7, 2005 at 6:29 AM Although i didn’t write this blog, i feel that accurately expresses the false protrayal of american apparel owner, Dov Charney, and the company itself:
Hey richleader,
I’m a feminist lesbian in law school majoring in Ethics in Business Practices and minoring in Sociology. I am just finishing my 3rd year final on the fallacies of Dov Charney and the ethical company he runs. My goal was to expose the “monster” that I knew he was, to confirm the nasty here-say once and for all, and to get some cold, hard facts about the contradictions of the company. In order to convict, I had to dig deep.
After 6 months of intense research, numerous visits to the AA factory in LA, where I interviewed 37 random male and female employees who work in various aspects of the company, and after a 4 hour intense phone debate with Dov Charney himself, I’m at a loss. I have been digging for the real story on it all - the lawsuits, the union-busting, the porno-esque ads, the accusations of him having sex with employees and models, and anything else I could find. I heard both sides of the story, and more. Here are some of my findings.
Yes - he masturbated and more in front of the Jane reporter. I talked to her too. She loved it.
Yes - he has 100% consentual sex with some employees of the company. End of story. I could tell you more, but it’s none of our business.
Yes - he has an uncensored (and to my grandmother, offensive) mouth and he has used the word “PC-oppressed faggots” to describe, well, male and female PC-oppressed faggots. It has nothing to do with them being gay. He speaks freely in the company of his contemporaries, and they do the same. He talks about girls the same way that my lover and I do, and the same way my 24 year old brother does. It is not abnormal, nor is it offensive to a progressive contemporary adult.
Yes - American Apparel is a non-union company. No, they are not anti-union. In 2003, the union was rejected by the 1,500 industrial employees based on their being content with current management and benefits, and their rejection of the monthly union dues. Most importantly they felt deceived by the union leaders themselves, who at first collected signatures with a false endorsement and instruction to join from Charney. When workers found out that Charney had in-fact no knowledge of the union drive, they were enraged. According to industrial employees I interviewed, they rejected the union to the extent that they stopped work midday and staged a grassroots rally against the organization. This collective decision and rejection is a triumph to many of the workers to this day.
If you look at it from another p.o.v., I’m sure the union saw a nice opportunity with American Apparel for a big fat monthly check coming from the largest cut and sew factory in the industrialized world. Imagine getting 1,500 members at once. That would be their largest income in one shot to date. Hmmm. I once did a report on corrupt unions, and everything I learned relating to AA and the union efforts hit very close to home.Yes - there are 3 pending sexual harassment lawsuits. I am now positive that they are pretentious and false charges stemming from disgruntled ex-employees that are trying to get a piece of the big fat pie that is about to become a triple decker wedding cake. I am actually preparing a collection of my relevant findings for Charney’s attorneys.
By the way, none of the accusors have suggested that they were ever sexually physical with Charney. If there are going to be sexual harassment charges, how about one from someone who has actually made out with him??
In the end, the only thing I can convict Dov Charney of is being uber horny, sickly passionate, rationally ethical, and transparent to a fault.
Posted by rachelv on Aug 7, 2005 at 6:31 AM Mr. Paul,
With all due respect, this is some the shoddiest journalism I’ve seen since I wrote for a campus paper.
First, had you bothered to contact any of the plaintiff parties, you would have discovered that there is, indeed, no signed affidavit regarding any explicit request for masturbation. Rather, you chose to recycle the content of already published articles.
Secondly, your quoted source regarding Charney’s alleged union busting is a labor orgnization piece of propaganda. Were you that eager to defer to the single-sided opinion of party with an explicit and articulated agenda, you should have at least bothered to acquire a direct quote. Furthermore, some attempt to contact an AA employee present during the union incident would have been appreciated. Aside from none of the allegedly coerced employees having bothered to contact any media outlet even though the LA Times is in the same neighborhood as the AA facility, all media agents that have hitherto reported on this topic have neglected to reach out to any of the workers. I supposed I’m just disappointed that In These Times didn’t bother to surpass the mainstream.
Finally, I find your relying on personal, past experience, an affront to sound journalism standards. In the least, you should have again undergone an interview. Ideally, however, you would have abstained from writing on a company that had obviously hurt your feelings by rejecting your application for employment.
Posted by JulioCaeser on Aug 8, 2005 at 12:37 AM Dov Charney…its so obvious that he is being exploited, just like Kobe o’Bryant and R Kelly…
if you don’t like him then don’t go into the stores, don’t waste your time writting blogs and don’t waste your time with something you don’t even like.
What else can we ask for from a schmata business pro besides good business practices.Dov Charneys American Apparel is here to stay and it will humiliate the common apparel business owner.
Posted by JulieM on Aug 8, 2005 at 4:10 AM I can really feel the love in this forum!
I’m pretty loathe to get invovled in this dispute (I don’t want anyone hoping that articles of clothing come to life and murder me). However, I do want to make a few points that I think are relevant.
First, lawsuits alledging sexual harassment are indeed serious. And when someone cultivates a public sexual persona as Charney, it’s hard to resist attributing guilt before even considering any evidence. And ‘not guilty’ verdicts often don’t really quell the suspicion expressed by ‘c’mon, the dude obviously did it.’ Nonetheless, surely the accused have some right to the benefit of the doubt; I’ve seen multitudes of posts that begin by saying ‘there are charges against Charney…’, go on to mention ads and the openly sexual nature of the company, and then conclude with ‘so the company is screwed.’ We all know that this is a slippery line of argument. So, why don’t we all do what is reasonable, which is wait for the case to come out, examine the details and then come to conclusions?
Second, (and this pertains ONLY to the harassment suits) there are companies and there are people that run companies and they aren’t the same thing. Harry Stonecipher, ex-CEO of Boeing got into trouble regarding sexual harassment and was forced to resign. No one claimed that Boeing was rotten to teh core, and the company chose to deal with its problem accordingly. So, say that Dov is guilty: shouldn’t we be separating the character of the man from the character of the company? If the harassment happened (and here I’m not even denying that it did), shouldn’t the appropriate thing to do is see how the company reacts?
Third, with respect to unionization, I see a lot of allegations and very few hard facts. I also see a suspect source (I don’t want to be called out on the fallacy of ad hominem, but it is reasonable to question sources that aren’t disinterested when weighing evidence). Let’s look quickly at the single source that Ari Paul quotes from: Stephen Wishart.. (Sorry, Ari, I like your article but I have to question you on this one). Wishart is, as Ari notes without comment, an analyst/spokesman for UNITE HERE. Seeing as UNITE HERE is the company that was involved in the unionization effort, we have some reason to think that Wishart is NOT a disinterested party. I mean here are some words from Dov that seem to rebut what Wishart says:
...we support our workers’ rights to appoint a union to represent their interests. If my workers wanted a union, they would have one. We even offered the union an election. They declined it, because they would have been embarrassed by the results. People discovered it involves dues and would institutionalize many elements of the workplace.
(From an interview iwth the LA Business Journal, May 2004).Clearly you wouldn’t take Charney’s word for it (and to be fair, neither would I!) because he is an interested party. By the same token, Wishart’s claims are suspect on account of his particular role as analyst for the company that is claiming grievances.
Wishart’s article, furthermore, nearly no hard evidence at all. He sites one example of an employee who claims a supervisor told him that:
...If the Union came into the Employer, it was possible that the Employer would have to shut down and move locations. He said that where Unions enter companies, problems are created and companies choose to move locations.
Assuming this happened (and I’m willing to give benefit of the doubt), then there is very mild evidence for intimidation. Many instances would amount to systematic attempts to prevent unionization in a clearly illegal way and should result in the censuring of the company. But surely this is rather scant evidence.
For a kind of more balanced report , see http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2004-03-01/501.asp
(continued below)
Posted by stenis on Aug 8, 2005 at 2:17 PM The author also uses Wishart as a source and he sounds a great deal more concessionary than in the article above. There is also a comparison of the benefits AA employees receive as compared to a competing local company that is unionized by UNITE. Workers apparently complained that they didn’t want unions because UNITE approached them in a confrontational manner and negelected to mention that unions invovled dues. In fact, UNITE seems to admits to initial ‘miscommunications’. Does this mean that AA didn’t conspire against a union in nefarious ways? No, but it certainly takes away a bit of the plausibility to the claim that there was a strong employee desire for a union that was squelched by AA execs who intimidated them. To be totally honest, if I had to go on just the limited evidence in the pool so far, I would have to say that both sides seemed to have botched things rather badly.
Finally, it should be noted that even by watchdog organization standards, AA employees are treated very well especially by industry standards. According to Angela Salas, of CHIRLA (the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles), “There is no doubt this company is very progressive. They pay the right wages, treat workers well.” UNITE HERE’s Wishart said: “[Charney] has tried to make a good place to work…We also think it’s good to manufacture in the U.S., create decent wages.” [These quotes are both from the article sited above]. So let’s not all go nuts demonizing AA treatment of its employees just yet: if they acted illegally with respect to unionization, they should be made to pay for it. But we shouldn’t carry around an image of a company that is regressive in its treatment of its workers. There doesn’t even seem to be any real signals that a union would provide tangible benefits.Does this mean that AA is definitively not guilty of anti-unionization activities? No. Do allegations of sexual harassment against Charney definitely show him to be a sexual harasser? No. All we have is evidence to work with and hopefully we can be open minded enough not to suppress our knee jerk reactions and look a little more closely at the broad spectrum of facts.
Posted by stenis on Aug 8, 2005 at 2:18 PM Progressive Corporation!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
That’s almost as good as “Iraq has WMD,” or better still, “fair and balanced news”. To actually believe that stuff requires an entire lifetime of concerted brainwashing.Progressive corporation: THERE IS NOT SUCH THING. GOODNESS!
Posted by al-Dakari on Aug 9, 2005 at 1:32 AM Ari Paul’s article is on target. Many media stories have focused on the so-called irony that an allegedly responsible “sweat-free” employer like Dov Charney (owner of American Apparel [AA]) is also a sexual predator and exhibitionist. But its not an irony at all, because Charney and AA is NOT a responsible employer. Charney is a slick PR man. When the anti-sweatshop movement began making headway on campuses in the 1990s, Charney began promoting AA as sweat-free, hoping to cash in on the growing number of “conscience” consumers who looked to buy products made under environmentally- and worker-friendly conditions. Charney convinced many reporters and politicians—and even some activists—that AA was a model employer.
But the reality is more complicated. Charney busted a union organizing drive, harrasses female workers, creates a hostile atmosphere for employees, pays many workers below a living wage, and doesn’t provide employers with full family health care. He does not respect workers’ rights. Workers who depend on the good graces of their employers (regardless of their claims to be well intentioned) are ultimately vulnerable to economic downswings and outright exploitation. The only way to know if a garment factory is “sweat free” is to look for the union label, which AA does NOT have. There ARE garment factories in the US where employees have union contracts, get full family health benefits, decent wages, three and four weeks of paid vacations, a decent pension, and respect from supervisors. When you buy a shirt, a dress, a suit, or a t-shirt from these companies, you can shop with a conscience. This isn’t the case at AA.Here are the facts about Charney’s union-busting: In September 2003, UNITE launched a unionization drive at AA, leafleting the factory and visiting with workers off-site. The drive, in which workers were asked to sign cards authorizing a union election, proved to be short-lived. Within a week, according to sworn affidavits filed by nonunion workers as well as union organizers, the company allegedly engaged in unlawful activities to thwart the election. Specifically, UNITE charged that AA had
§ excluded union organizers from the company parking lot, threatening them with arrest if they didn’t leave;
§ threatened to shut down the factory if organizers entered;
§ questioned employees about their support for the union, including asking those who had signed authorization cards to withdraw them;
§ surveilled employee union activities.
In addition, according to the affidavits, management put enormous pressure on workers to reject the union, which management portrayed as ineffective, dishonest, costly and counter to the workers’ interests. A common claim, as alleged in the affidavits, was that if the factory unionized it might be forced to close. Although workers were initially receptive to the union (more than a hundred election authorization cards were reportedly handed out the first day of the drive), the affidavits claim that a well-orchestrated program of antiunion activity quickly turned workers sour through false claims and thinly veiled intimidation.
The NLRB determined that the allegations were sufficiently serious “that injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the [National Labor Relations] Act may be warranted” (letter from NLRB to UNITE, October 15, 2003). In effect, the NLRB was prepared to take American Apparel to court. AA then settled the matter by agreeing to read and post an NLRB notice laying out its workers’ legal rights and pledging to refrain from engaging in the activities that UNITE claimed the company used to thwart the union drive. As is customary in such cases, the agreement also contained a clause stipulating that there was no admission of guilt on the part of American Apparel.
Posted by peterdreier on Aug 9, 2005 at 10:36 PM al-Dakari,
Progressive is a CONTEXTUALLY RELATVE term. It implies movement or evolution toward some, more desirable end. To generalize that no corporation can be progressive displays a serious degree of ignorance.
Corporations are simply one of many ways to manage finances and investment capital. The particular way in which one operates is depends ENTIRELY on its OWN by-laws. Just because huge, multi-nationals tend to all gravitate toward one, certain pattern of behaviour, there is no categorical reason to presuppose than any corporate entity will do the same.peterdreier,
The NRLB determined that ALLEGATIONS were serious, ut not necessarily true.
Do you have a link to this letter? My criticism of Paul’s piece was that he was unable to cite any concrete sources.
Furthermore, I’m curious to know why after AA posted the NLRB notice, no further unionization efforts ensued.
Posted by JulioCaeser on Aug 10, 2005 at 12:30 AM Julio,
Obviously you’ve never been part of a union organizing drive. Companies increasing engage in unfair and illegal labor practices, knowing that they may get caught (and even fined), but knowing, too, that the benefits of breaking the law outweigh the costs. By the time the legal issues are resolved (even if the company “loses” the legal fight), the union drive has been crushed, the key leaders have been fired and/or left under pressure, the other workers are intimidated, and the organizing momentum has been halted. (Here’s a parallel: Some of the people who killed civil rights workers are now being tried and convicted, 40 years later. You could argue that ultimately “justice” prevailed, but that would be stretching the notion of “justice.” The civil rights workers will never be brought back to life. And the killings and violence intimidated many people from participatring in the movement at the time). Kate Bronfenbrenner (a professor of labor studies at Cornell U) has documented how companies thwart union organizing using such heavy-handed and illegal tactics. This is why unions are so handicapped in the US - the labor laws (both in substance and implementation) are heavily biased against workers and unions, esp. compared with those in other democratic countries. Increasingly, unions are seeking ways to circumvent the NLRB process because it is so cumbersome and time-consuming. But, ultimately, we need to reform our federal law laws to level the playing field. In the meantime, the union-busting tactics of companies like American Apparel will continue.
Posted by peterdreier on Aug 10, 2005 at 12:42 AM peterdreier wrote:
“Charney is a slick PR man.”peter, you’re a pretty slick PR man yourself! OK, maybe not so slick… you may have at the very least attempted to portray yourself as somewhat balanced by preceding the term “sexual predator” when describing Charney, with an “alleged.” But whatever, let’s leave balance, fairness, the presumption of innocence and the finer points of libel to those who aren’t paid labor consultants (just Google “peter dreier” - no big secret there).
But wo momma - equating UNITE with the civil rights movement and American Apparel with the Ku Klux Klan? That was masterful! OK, maybe not so subtle but seriously, nice job!
Seriously though, I’m not trying to sound disengenuous. I really don’t know - what exactly was the union going to get the workers that would have justified the union dues etc?
And then once the NLRB notice was posted, why did UNITE give up? AA alleges that they offered to hold a vote on unionization. They allege that UNITE backed down because they knew the workers did not want to unionize. So now what you’re saying is that UNITE didn’t continue the good fight because, uh ... James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman had already been murdered by American Apparel. So to speak.
I’m sorry, I’m just having a hard time taking any of this seriously. You paint Charney as the embodiment of evil. AA portrays him as a boss who is adored by his employees. Polar opposites. Someone is full of shit. I’m just trying to figure out who.
You’re quick to throw accusations at Charney - Professor Dreier, could you please enlighten us on some of the allegations and criticisms waged against UNITE? Some of the, you know, criminal activity and rampant systemic corruption? How STAND is now more about managing Real Estate and running a Bank ... look that’s just stuff I read. I’d really love your take on that. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Really I am. I’m all ears.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 10, 2005 at 3:39 AM Oh and please respond quickly as my hat seems to have come alive and is in the process of choking me slowly.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 10, 2005 at 3:42 AM “d00m2k” doesn’t have the courage to tell us who he/she is. She/he doesn’t really want to engage the issues of how to identify a sweat-free factory and the issues raised in the In These Times article about American Apparel. So I’m not going to waste time with any further responses to her/him. One point, though: You can Google me all you want, but you won’t find any evidence that I’ve been a paid consultant for any labor union, because I haven’t. He/she can’t seem to fathom the idea that people can be pro-worker and pro-union because its a matter of principle, not profit.
Peter Dreier
Posted by peterdreier on Aug 10, 2005 at 4:19 AM Courage? Peter please, that’s weak. I am nobody. This is the Internet, how do I even know you are who you say you are? Does it REALLY matter?
Now Peter, if I’ve made a mistake, forgive me. But the first thing I saw on Google about you, titled Dreier Bio (2003) stated “He has worked closely with a wide range of ... labor unions ... and has worked as a consultant for a variety of foundations and government agencies, including ... the California AFL-CIO, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor ...” If that’s a mistake, please accept my apologies - I didn’t think you were the Peter Dreier who is the director of the Napa Housing Authority, earning $142,000 according to this recent article. But you do sound like the Peter Dreier quoted in The Jewish Journal of greater L.A as you use the same language in this comment as you did in the Dov Charney interview. But whatever. It’s all good. So you have an agenda. That’s great. I seriously have no problem with that. You’re right in the thick of it too - in that article in LA City Beat you warn of the possible end of the labor movement within 20 years. That whole AFL-CIO imbroglio sounds interesting. One learns so much on the Internet!
I would like to think that I too am pro-worker. I seriously come from a totally blue collar background! You unfairly said that “She/he doesn’t really want to engage the issues of how to identify a sweat-free factory.” Peter! Come on! You know as well as I do that historically just because a factory was unionized, it did not automatically mean that it was sweat free or good for the workers.
I’ve been direct about the fact that I am no expert on anything. I asked pretty straight forward questions because there are things that I’d really like to know. I’m sorry that my little questions scared you off. I am still willing to listen to anyone who is willing to make the case for the Union.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 10, 2005 at 1:23 PM A US garment factory where workers are unionized is not likely to be a sweatshop. That doesn’t mean its utopia. It means that workers are likely to have wages above the poverty level, health insurance, paid vacations, safe working conditions, and a voice in their workplace.
There is no democratic country in the world whose labor-management laws are as pro-management as in the US. The low level of unionization in the US is a direct result of this. Democratic countries with less poverty, inequality, infant mortality, and other problems have stronger labor movements. Unions are the major force in those countries, as in the US, for progressive public policies.
This is why, as “d00m2k” discovered, I have worked closely with unions, occassionally as a consultant. For free.
Posted by peterdreier on Aug 10, 2005 at 1:45 PM Peter, you keep skirting around the issue. And can you please stop putting my handle in italics, it’s annoying.
You know as well as I do that in the past, ostensibly unionized factories had in fact been out and out sweatshops and that this was done in collusion with union officials. I am not suggesting that that would be the case now. But it certainly has been the case in the past. You know that as well as or even better than I do.
That’s all I was saying.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 10, 2005 at 2:19 PM Peter,
I hate to get all ‘why are you ignoring the stuff that I said’ on you, but I have to ask: why are you ignoring the stuff I said?
First, there ARE ways to know whether or not a company is sweat free besides unionization. You can talk to employees. You can do investigative reporting. You can consult watchdog organizations and ask them for their findings/for their lack of findings (if the company, for example, won’t act in co-operation). Most of us don’t have the time or money to do these things but AA is a prime case and as I mentioned, even Wishart of UNITE was willing to say that AA works hard to make a good environment for their employees. As did Angela Salas, of CHIRLA (the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles).
Second, the beginning of the unionization drive you speak of was hampered partly by UNITE failing to mention that the benefits of a union came with dues. Even UNITE admitted to bungling this (calling it a ‘miscommunication’). This doesn’t absolve AA of anything, but it does help explain why the union wasn’t instantly embraced by AA employees as a whole, and explains why workers soured on the unionization drive.
Third, and most importantly, the benefits for AA employees seem to compare fairly well with local businesses that are unionized (see the stuff I said and the article I quote from). If I’m misinformed, I’d be happy to be corrected but I think it’s only fair to tell me where I’ve been misinformed and to provide some evidence.
And some day you should answer d00m2k’s question: why is it that UNITE gave up after the NLRB settlement?
Posted by stenis on Aug 10, 2005 at 7:13 PM Here’s a possibility ...
Because the union messed up. And rather than engage in a futile union drive they knew was going to be unsuccessful, they decided that they could pull out and use the AA debacle as yet another example of high handed management tactics once again resulting in the disenfranchisement of labor. Had they lost a vote, had they not been able to get enough union cards signed, they would not be able to trot out over the top analogies comparing the Union to civil rights workers and AA to the KKK. By pulling out they acheived a certain small measure of victory which they continue to milk to this very day.
But maybe that’s just me being cynical. And I’m only guessing anyway. I’m open to another interpretation of course. At least no one’s been mean to me since that kingfelix guy split.
Posted by d00m2k on Aug 11, 2005 at 1:34 AM Ari, I read your article about American Apparal and Dov Charney.
I wanted to share some thoughts on this article, bec i am somewhat perplexed. I had heard of some of these issues you brought into your article and i feel that perphaps they are overblown. I remember “porn stars” being in ads in the past. If i include people who have posed nude, the number increases. We are dealing with a strong sexual energy in the clothing business, so when has it never been like this. It has just evolve.
You say he is hostile to women. Well how hostile could he have been to the reporter who had no problem of what he was doing. How uncomfortable was she if she hung around. I am not agreeing with his tactics or his actions, but the company and what it represents is doing something good.
Yes No Sweatshop, thats awesome! And on top of that its produced in this country. Wow. i have even read that many of the workers, are new immigrants who are given excellent benefits. There is an point in your article about unions, but are they all that great. I have worked for banks in the past and in my opinion they have lost their advantage of what they stand for. They were good in a time when owners were crooks. But as eccentric as Mr Charney is, he seems to treat them well. So if they don’t want one who cares.
I feel sometimes people are just out to attack the New Kid On The Block. He has a good business model, in fact, a great one. Perhaps this is many groups ganging up on him?
Posted by concerned22 on Aug 17, 2005 at 9:14 AM As per the original point with which I entered this discussion, Aug. 7, this is precisely the problem with substituting primary sources for secondary ones.
Whereas Business Week initially ran a piece that was less than favorable for American Apparel, it has now run something that lauds its distinction in the marketplace and even apologizes for it conducting business in an ethical way without necessarily taking up any specific cause. A link:http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050811_388618.htm
Essentially, the case is made where American Apparel’s needn’t be held to any standards based on how some of their practices are compatible with certain, more politically-charged, agendas.
Posted by JulioCaeser on Aug 17, 2005 at 9:21 PM I long ago decided never to take a writer seriously if he/she uses the phrase “Some as young as…”
Posted by j_brisby on Aug 18, 2005 at 10:01 AM I wish Ramona still reads this thread, because I’m interested in reading the complete text of the multi-language letter sent out by the company while the unionizing attempt.
If anyone could please forward it to me… its for academic research. Thanks!
bernardo.romero@hec.ca
Posted by bromero on Aug 23, 2005 at 7:40 PM If there is anyone in this forum who is following the legal proceedings please keep us posted!
Posted by Hoagy on Aug 28, 2005 at 4:00 PM Addendum:
From an American Apparel press release
JUDGE DISMISSES SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST AMERICAN APPAREL
No Further Legal Action in the Case Will be Allowed; Plaintiff Receives No MoneyNovember 7, 2005
Los Angeles (CA)-American Apparel, the Los Angeles based apparel company and largest T-shirt manufacturer in the U.S., today announced the dismissal of a sexual harassment lawsuit that had been recently filed against the company. A United States Federal District Court Judge entered the order in favor of American Apparel on November 3, 2005, dismissing with prejudice the case brought by a former employee. This ruling marks the end of one of three sexual harassment lawsuits brought against American Apparel.
In this case a former store manager who had worked for American Apparel only two and a half months claimed that she was exposed to a hostile work environment, in part because of a collage of vintage Penthouse magazine covers used to decorate the store. The company stated that vintage magazine covers (which included Playgirl and news magazines such as Life and Look), were art and fashion artifacts — a celebration of sexuality, pop culture and kitsch from the 70’s and 80’s.
The plaintiff elected to permanently dismiss her case without receiving any compensation. Presiding Judge Der-Yeghiyan agreed, ruled that dismissing the case was proper and entered an order which provides that American Apparel pay nothing to the plaintiff.
“The voluntary dismissal of this case by the plaintiff for no money is something we don’t normally see in our litigious society. This swift dismissal vindicates American Apparel,” said Joyce Crucillo, lead counsel for American Apparel. “The company hopes to resolve the remaining cases very soon.”
Posted by Jessica Clark on Nov 10, 2005 at 10:41 PM As per the disclaimer, Dov Charney claims never to have spoken with The Link. The Link article in question:
http://thelink.concordia.ca/features/05/01/04/033207.shtml
is a reprint from one from The McGill Daily. Does Charney claim he never spoke with them?
Posted by jcmclean on Nov 24, 2005 at 6:13 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ari Paul
- Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Sexist antics and union-busting cast doubt on American Apparel's progressive cred - Tibetans Face New Uncertainty in Exile
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
