I've long found their ads in pseudo-alternative weeklies offensive, but I guess I'm just a second-waver....

Don't these stores sell men's clothes too, and employ male salespeople? What are the dress/ makeup requirements for them, I wonder.

The women employees are NOT to wear makeup, but pluck their eyebrows, NOT to wear underwire bras, and better yet, not to wear bras at all.

Simply spread this news item and find out more about this story. Dov Charney has made a reputation for himself as an "ethical capitalist" - here, he seems anything but. Sexual and personal harassment were features of the sweating system as much as low wages and unsafe working conditions were. Many of the demands of working women a hundred years ago were coached in the moral language of their times: protecting working women's "honour" and "dignity", demanding foremistresses, etc.

Demand that this employer respect legislation on the subject of sexual and psychological harassment. Support all union organising drives (not just formally, but by word of mouth) in stores and on campus - a lot of AA employees are students. Idem for complaints about sexual or personal/psychological harassment.

Do they operate around here?

Here is a NOW article about them, although as usually, NOW is more than a bit soft on sexploitation (so old-fashioned!) NOW on AA

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Simply spread this news item and find out more about this story.

---

That's for answering that. I've been feeling somewhat overwhelmed and defeatest lately at all that's happening in the world. Like nothing I could do makes any big difference.

[ 16 July 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

And yet, I am immediately wondering: is that just me rediscovering my inner Second Wave self? I really will be curious to read younger feminists reacting to him personally and to the enthusiasm of the marketeers for a "postmodern" view of female liberation.

quote:

---

(Charney didn't support a union drive in his factory, and he says he's de-emphasizing the sweatshop-free angle because it's "passé.")

---

Oh, gawd, yes, dahlings -- so tawsome.

quote:

---

"ethical capitalist"

---

Here's where the waters get murky for me: I'm 20, which seems to be fairly close to the age of the girls in the ads. I wonder what they think of the backlash, because it's not just Charney's work we're critiquing, it is the girls as well.

The girls who model for the pictures have obviously consented and been paid to do it. Basically, they are selling their sexuality. Who am I to say they shouldn't do that? If at the end of the day she has no moral qualms about it, who am I to judge her? It's not something I would do, but that's a personal choice. So if it is something they want to do is it really exploitation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/fashion/sundaystyles/10HARASS.html?8hpib

http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/fashion/another-freaking-american-apparel-item-111928.php

http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=786

this is the best link:

quote:

---

...tells me they were also sized very small...

---

quote:

---

for those who just refuse to wear the oversized, unshapely T-shirts offered elsewhere. Many of our fitted styles are stretchy and can accommodate a wide range of shapes

---

edited to add: 'Hefner' looks better but I can't be bothered. . . .

[ 16 July 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]

Consensual? Perhaps for some, and perhaps in a strictly literal way. But as a few women come forward to challenge Charney legally, to talk about the kinds of pressure they felt, I think they deserve support.

quote:

---

Come join our team.

Innovation for the clothing industry.

4,000 people making it happen.

Challenging both the right and the left.

Not dominated by logos or politically correct tribalism.

Challenging the boomer dominance of the economy.

One of the fastest growing clothing companies in the U.S. Committed to doing things differently.

American Apparel is a progressive and provocative retailer, distributor and manufacturer of knit T-shirts and related garments. The company is committed to reinventing the way business is done in the clothing industry.

We are trying to make garments without having to resort to the use of exploitative labor. With over 4,000 employees, we do not outsource any cut and sewn work; all of our garments are made at our 800,000 sq. foot downtown Los Angeles facility.

We are opening stores all over the United States. Because the business is growing so rapidly, there is tremendous possibility for advancement. Sales people can move on to get management jobs at the stores, as well as design, merchandising and marketing positions. There are also great travel opportunities.

We are currently recruiting intelligent, friendly and hard-working people for our sales team. Submitting a picture is recommended but not required.

---

You know, it's really too bad, because otherwise it sounds like such a great enterprise. You can sell sexy clothes without sexually harassing your employees.

It's a pity, really.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Actually, I think some sectors of the economy at least are dominated by rather elderly people who are actually pre-boom...

Otherwise, a lot of code words there. They know that the "no logo" campaign has worked, but they are also trying to shift minds back a little by sliming the left for "politically correct tribalism." Hee.

Ooh, and boomers are bad. Check.

They still want a free ride on the word "progressive," but they want you thinking that anyone who isn't also "provocative" is not really progressive at all. Progressives have moved on from being boring and asexual, you know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
Buy you clothes from the Gap, Costco etc, realising that they are probably sewed by a 10 year old in a sweatshop, figure out what they would have cost made by an adult making a decent wage, donate the difference to Oxfam or some other worthy cause.

---

Ha. They don't have to cost what they do in any case. It's not the labour that costs, it's the advertising and shareholders that cost a lot.

GAP and other sweatshop emporiums are expensive not because of the labour practices but because they take a huge profit. Fair-trade, sweat-free clothes could cost the same as GAP clothes.

Personally, if I want to use that tactic, then I will buy clothes at Zellers, where the markup isn't so high, and then donate the difference to whatever charity helps sweatshop workers.

But actually, what normally happens with me is that I practically never buy new clothes anyhow, first of all because I can't be bothered clothes shopping when I have wearable clothes in my closet, and secondly because it costs too damned much. And I hate trying to find stuff on unorganized thrift-shop racks. So I usually make do with what I have.

BTW, I was amused at this quote from the NOW article that lagatta posted:

quote:

---

You might not know it, but you probably have an American Apparel T lurking somewhere in your wardrobe.

---

Yeah, I doubt it, considering that their XL is a size 12.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

(I wouldn't ordinarily consider 36 to be "middle-aged": god knows I'm almost that old. But if this dude is acting like he's having a midlife crisis -- he is. Eeuw.)

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nikita:

The girls who model for the pictures have obviously consented and been paid to do it. Basically, they are selling their sexuality. Who am I to say they shouldn't do that? If at the end of the day she has no moral qualms about it, who am I to judge her? It's not something I would do, but that's a personal choice. So if it is something they want to do is it really exploitation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
[QB]Martin, I don't think the point is American Apparel being the worst company in the world, but their misleading advertising based on their "no sweat" cred, when actually the company has been involved in union busting.

---

I'd like to see some evidence of that. All I've heard is they don't like unions and tried to persuade employees not to join a union. I'm in a union and I like it that way, but, let's face it, no employer likes unions.

Having witnessed the disputes between my own employer and my union, I can imagine what "forcing them to attend anti-union meetings" was. Somebody called a staff meeting and posted that pay and benifits at AA were better than the (unionized) competition. Boom. Complaint. They could be bona-fide anti-union folks like Wal-mart, but I'd like to see the proof, given that the worst they're being accused of is pretty tepid stuff.

quote:

---

I find their porn-aesthetic ads VERY creepy (especially the copy), but then I'm not the demographic they are pitching to.

---

quote:

---

some people find anything that hints at heterosexuality creepy

---

Incidentally, you can watch Dov starring in his own soft-porn-with-the-female-employees movie right on his own website. E.g.

quote:

---

The American Apparel Movie: American Apparel short film gives a thorough and insightful look into the company.

---

An "insightful" look? I'll say.

[ 23 November 2005: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]

[ 24 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 24 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

The UNITE HERE campaign was launched in September 2003. Even though American Apparel workers made higher wages, they lacked certain benefits guaranteed to union garment workers. Stephen Wishart, a senior research analyst with UNITE HERE, writes on its Web site, BehindtheLabel.org, "Issues such as no paid time off, lack of affordable healthcare, production methods, and treatment by supervisors were the main issues of workers trying to organize."

When American Apparel heard the news, management got tough. Wishart reports, "The company's activities included holding captive meetings with employees, interrogating employees about their union activities and sympathies, soliciting employees to ask the union to return their union authorization cards, distributing anti-union arm bands and T-shirts, and requiring all employees to attend an anti-union rally. The company's most devastating tactic, though, was threatening to shut down the plant if the workers organized."

These are rather excessive means, especially for a company that made its name by touting improved labor standards. Eventually, a complaint was filed to the National Labor Relations Board. The company backed off from the tactics, but the plant remains non-unionized as a result of Charney's union-busting blitzkrieg.

---

rest of the article here

quote:

---

quote:

This strikes me as an appeal to prudery(by the activists, that is). According to the article, Charney asked permission to masturbate in front of the reporter, and she presumably said yes(or at least didn't walk out). Given that Charney was likely getting off on being watched masturbating, I'd say that qualifies as a consensual sexual encounter.

I think some would argue that it constitutes sexual harassment, especially if he proposes similar wank to his employees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:

Some of us find "creepy" the way that power relations and exploitation have been normalized in mainstream images of heterosexuality. Just because they aren't airbrushed, doesn't make them empower/ed/ing.

---

quote:

---

The factory is not unionized. Last year, Charney and the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, AFL-CIO, or UNITE, tangled over an organizing drive. The effort failed, and at one point hundreds of American Apparel workers staged a protest against the drive. The union says that the company management intimidated workers.

"By the third day of our campaign, people were not receptive. They were very afraid," says Cristina Vazquez, UNITE's regional manager in California and international vice president. She contends that American Apparel should set an example for other, smaller factories in the city by embracing the union.

UNITE, in a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, contended that Charney had meddled in union talks with employees. In a non-monetary settlement, Charney, who denied wrongdoing, agreed to post flyers spelling out workers' collective-bargaining rights, have the list of rights read aloud to employees and stay out of future talks.

Kimi Lee, director of the independent, nonprofit Garment Worker Center in Los Angeles, says that the center typically supports UNITE's organizing efforts. But, in the case of American Apparel, the center did not believe that workers would benefit.

The Garment Worker Center hears few complaints from American Apparel workers, and those that come up are typically minor and resolved relatively easily, Lee says. They tend to stem from a lack of management experience among floor supervisors who have been promoted with little training, as a result of the company's fast growth, she says.

---

The Garment Worker Center seems to be legit -- at least, their name came up over and over in relation to consumer boycotts, worker education, and unionization drives. Anyone have more info on them?

I don't know who's spin is closer to the truth here -- I'd like to. I think it's important that the company get a fair hearing, because having been an activist for twenty years and helping in organizing many different kinds of protest, I think a major weakness of progressives is that we're never satisfied.

In order for negetive pressure to be meaningful, positive support has to be possible. If people become so tied in to the protest dynamic that they can find evil in everything, institutions have no motive to change.

Here we have a company which, everyone agrees, is in many ways performing above-par for the garment industry. That should not make them immune to criticism. But if that criticism should prove to be specious, and the company is harmed as a result, we are inviting companies everywhere to ignore protests and, making their products in the cheapiest, shoddist way compatable with exploitive marketing, treat protest as a cost of doing business. Because if everyone is always a sinner, there's no point in bucking for a halo by treating people well.

quote:

---

Magoo, they have different sets of photographs. You only saw one set.

---

I checked out some of the racier pics. Yeah, typical soft-soft-core fashion porn. Probably not the kind of stuff you wanna be showing to your grandma.

- spying on activists

- thuggery

Yep, that's right, American Apparel sent an undercover store security agent to infiltrate a Montreal activist group, posing as someone interested in Buy Nothing Day wanting to play in the jam.

The agent then identified the players to AA's security goons, who kicked the players to the sidewalk.

This didn't stop the performance, though, which featured guest players such as Dov's father Maurice Charney (the real Maurice Charney) who yelled at the actor playing his son (funny stuff) and the Montreal police (called in by the store).

If AA was really as progressive a company as they claim to be, you'd think they would rather engage the artists in a discussion than spy on them and kick them out.

quote:

---

So, in the morning of Buy Nothing Day we get a few calls from people who heard about us from the Adbusters web site. About six people show up, three of them had a camera and asked if they could shoot the whole thing.

We get ready, explain what the script and roles and such, but when we show up at the American Apparel there were about 4-5 undercover security guards waiting for us. Which at this point we had no idea.

It turned out that the three people with the video camera were being paid buy america Apparel. Two of them looked like they could be AA employees asked to film the whole thing and the other one was a security guard who showed us his I.D. card:

---

quote:

---

BUY NOTHING DAY 2005
You did it!!!

On Friday, millions of people across North America did not participate -- in the doomsday economy, marketing mind-games, and the frantic consumer-binge that's subsumed our culture. Saturday saw celebrations erupt across much of Europe and Japan, making this BND one of the biggest and most international ever.

---