American Apparel CEO Slams Competitors Over Bangladesh

American Apparel CEO Slams Competitors Over Bangladesh

By Kim Bhasin | HuffPost | 05/11/2013 9:40 am EDT
Excerpts:

“As its name implies, American Apparel has long marketed itself as a home-grown source of clothing, in contrast to brands that rely on workers in poor countries to make their wares.

In the wake of the deadly collapse of a garment factory in Bangladesh last month, the company’s famously blunt chief executive is dialing up the rhetoric more than ever, accusing his competitors of the worst forms of exploitation.

"I think man has evolved and we're moving away from slavery," American Apparel CEO Dov Charney told The Huffington Post this week. "This situation of manufacturing clothing and paying wages that won't even buy you an iPhone after a year is not going to work. Start making clothing in a human way."

American Apparel released an ad to remind consumers that the brand is "sweatshop free," along with a letter from Charney admonishing his counterparts in the apparel industry for unflinchingly chasing cheap labor around the world.

Workers at the American Apparel factory in Los Angeles make an average of $12 an hour, according to the company. Though a few dollars above California's $8 minimum wage, that's just 94 cents more than the poverty-level wage of $11.06, according to 2011 data from the Economic Policy Institute.

Moreover, the company stands accused of blocking union activity and chasing organizers off its premises.

Advertising watchdogs also have criticized American Apparel for its overtly sexual marketing tactics, and Charney has faced several lawsuits alleging sexual harassment, which he famously proclaimed were a "testimony to his success."

"I'm not an angel," said Charney. "I'm a normal guy, but we're paying a fair wage or at least attempting to pay a fair wage. We haven't nailed it, but we're trying to do it”

American Apparel knows this firsthand. The company had to let go a large chunk of its workforce in 2009 after an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that thousands of employees were unauthorized to work in the country.

"Anything below two or three bucks an hour is outrageous," said Charney. "I don't care where it is in the world. The purchasing power of 10 bucks a week in the poorest of poor locations is bogus."

read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/dov-charney-bangladesh_n_3253763.html
......

With Chamey employing illegal aliens for a few cents over the minimum wage, I don’t think he has much to say that many Americans want to hear. He is following the WalMart theory of 3rd world pay for long hours with overtime not paid.

This puts the American worker back 50 years but paying today's prices for everything...all while corporate America is glutting down astronomical profits off the American 2013 form of slavery in the workplace.

 

From one perspective, it may help us out if US firms outside of the US have to pay a sliding scale equivalent to a US minimum wage; and call it part of our exportation of democracy product.

 

Bangladesh clothing factory collapse search ends...

Bangladesh collapse search over; death toll 1,127
May 13,`13 -- Nearly three weeks after a Bangladesh garment-factory building collapsed, the search for the dead ended Monday at the site of the worst disaster in the history of the global garment industry. The death toll: 1,127.

See also:

Bangladesh collapse survivor gives up garment work
May 13,`13 -- The 19-year-old seamstress who spent 17 days trapped in the rubble of a collapsed factory building said Monday that she will never again work in a Bangladesh garment factory.

 

If anyone really thinks Americas care about this type of thing, over cheap clothing, they should think again.

 

Indeed.

Nowhere did Jesus say "Thou shalt not exploit the poor to get cheap clothes and shoes!"

A 12 yo little girl worker's tears of exhaustion and hunger make a nice blouse feel even sexier when worn to hot nightclub for a night of $25 appletini's and some kinky sex!

 

I don't think that needed to go the religious route.

However, I think the reality is American's don't realize that they are their own worst enemy. They clamor for cheaper products but don't realize at the cost it's going to take to get it. It's really a case of wanting your cake and eating it to, it just doesn't work. This is how Wal-Mart has catapulted itself into a corporate conglomerate, regardless of the rhetoric.

People want human rights for all in the world but if they all were paid the same as Americans, their night club outfits wouldn't be as cheap as they once were. It's either that route or deflation. Apparently, deflation is the new 'D' word in America these days. One way or the other, folks will have to chose a path. It'll be interesting to see which way they chose to go.

 

Squabble over Bangladesh Reform Plan...

European, US Retailers Split on Bangladesh Reform Plan
May 14, 2013 — Major U.S. retailers, including Gap Inc., declined to endorse an accord on Bangladesh building and fire safety backed by Europe's two biggest fashion chains, a trans-Atlantic divide that may dilute garment industry reform efforts.

See also:

Walmart to inspect vendors factories...

Walmart to Inspect Bangladesh Factories
May 14, 2013 - The world's largest retailer, Walmart, is ordering inspections of all 279 of its suppliers' factories in Bangladesh and will publicly announce the results.

 

What if we merely tax Firms for the wage differential in order to speed up the development of any local economy that would benefit from higher wages and that form of potential increase in that local, middle class.

 

What if we hold the company who built the collapsed structure responsible?

 

what an interesting concept.

 

interesting. Please elaborate on how that would work.

Let's use Target as an example

maybe they offer a sweater for $25. That sweater is made in Vietnam. If it were made in the USA perhaps it would cost $50 at the store. You see, increased supply chain costs drives up the final cost to the consumer because the retailer still needs to make a profit from sales.

So, do we tax Target the $25 difference for each sweater sold? What govt agency would be responsible for determining the cost of goods if they were made in the USA vs overseas?

So, if I am following you correctly, and there is now a tax of $25 and the sweater becomes $50 sale price, will Target be able to sell as many? Remember, they aren't earning any more profit per item so their bottom line would be affected and job cuts enacted as well as store closures.

From where does the consumer get the additional $25 to buy the same item? Or, does Target still only charge $25 for the item and then go to their money tree out back for the other $25 tax?

Please explain how your proposal might work?

 

I believe local States have precedence.

 

It would remove some incentive for firms to move operations merely for lower wages. I am only referring to an equivalent to our minimum wage. It should also have the effect of increasing the standard of living in that locale. A more affluent population in that locale may want to purchase US goods and services.

 

again, please elaborate. There are no "incentives" for moving a plant or office other than lowering costs. Competition is the reason why businesses must be ever vigilant of costs. It is not like govt or academia where the real world doesn't exist.

So again, please elaborate on your idea. You tossed it out there and I anxiously await how it could be implemented and the anticipated positive results.

 

Thank you for illustrating that point. We only can't compete on lower wages without a "race to the bottom". In any case, it would be an alternative to "buying American" in our global economy.

 

please elaborate. You tossed out a proposal and now revert to a silly notion of "race to the bottom"

Did you ever purchase a foot long at Subway during their $5 promotion? Many people did and it brought more traffic to the stores and resulted in repeat business even after the promotions but as long as the price stayed low. Subway then reduced the portions per sandwich to lower their costs. If they didn't, then the needed price increase would have driven away the newly found customers.

That is the reality. People have an ever diminishing amount of money in this economy and look for value and low price.

I still await more details about your proposal

 

Do you believe wages in other States in our global economy have no effect on wages in our States in that same, global economy? If not, then how can a notion that conforms to that paradigm be so, "silly"?

 

I still await details about your tax concept until jobs return

You suggested it and we're waiting with baited breath

 

If your first hypothesis is inaccurate, so must any line of reasoning subscribing to it.

In any case, it is about market friendly principles being applied in a manner recognizable by rational choice theory.

Hypothetically, reducing any incentive to base considerations solely on wages could be a metric for any Firm wanting to make such decisions. Under this scenario, and in that alternative, simply removing some tax preference for making decisions solely on wages could achieve an effect of reconsidering such business strategy while improving the standard of living of persons in States external to the US.

 

The tragedy in Bangladesh was a wake up call to many people.

What most people don't realize is that pretty much all major wearing apparel companies do audit their factories- but not all do it to the same extent.

Sec is right though- it is competition that drives this- competition between retailers, competition between suppliers.

What has driven change is public opinion- believe it or not, its better now than it was- scandals at Nike and Gap have shown big companies that they don't want to get identified by the public as employing child laborers or with workers dying in fires.

Because of major importers, wages and working conditions in China and elsewhere have improved- but then companies move to even cheaper places like Bangladesh.

Taxing won't work- public opinion can- its the reason why finding out who was having their garments made in this sweatshop would be a good thing.

 

thanks for the quote

what tax preferences?

And again, please defend your suggesting about imposing a tax on retailers who sell foreign made products

 

So you're attacking people for not living by what Jesus said, even though you're not willing to live by what Jesus said? Let me guess... you'll say you don't like hypocrites, right?

lmao@liberalsobsessedwithjesus

 

Funny you should mention Nike: I generally won't buy their products. I figure they have to put too much money into sports endorsements. I guess we're all different.

 

Nike actually has one of the best inspection program around- but they got their the hard way.

 

I generally buy New Balance tennis shoes. I did buy a pair of Nikes and they were fine. I suppose my objection is twofold: I generally believe that a company who has to advertise so much is not putting money into the actual product. I also am generally not a sports fan. I think Tiger Woods and whomever else are doing just fine without me paying for overprice products with their smiling face on them
That's the tought process anyway.

And the reality is probably what you just said: Nike makes a good product, has the inspection thing down, etc.. Clearly they wouldn't be able to afford these endorsements without a quality product.

I guess in the end it's just the anti-establishment in me still steering me around a bit.