While my focus is, and will continue to be in the apparel industry, I am a fan of upcycling in any arena. The first step of the Reclaim Project, Education, is in progress, and so it is time to start step two: The Production of First Products. While this sounds quite grand, many of the first times are quite small. The first of these has just been posted to etsy and e-bay. What is it, you ask? They are Santa Keys. Ever since I was very little I loved skeleton keys. They are beautiful, artistic and, today, quite useless. Within the Steampunk genre they have seen a promising resurgence as something to keep instead of throw away, but are often twisted or soldered into art pieces or jewelry. I was trying to find a way for the keys to stand on their own when I thought of the idea of the Santa Keys. Here is the story...
What child could bare the thought that Santa could not come in to leave,
The wonderful gifts of which they dream the night on Christmas Eve?
So, leave your key and wish so hard on the magical eve before,
And you will find that special thing with the key that unlocks any door.
Have you ever heard of Santa's Keys?
I have. Let me tell you the story...
In the beginning, there were no locks on doors. As he went from town to town and home to home, Santa Clause could slip in quietly and fill the shoes of the children with sweets and toys. As the world grew, doors began to have locks, but all homes had fireplaces. Dear Mr. Clause could easily slip down the chimney to place gifts under the trees and in the stockings hanging from the mantles. One year, Santa found that too many doors were locked and too few homes had chimneys. From the worry that good girls and boys might not get their presents that year, Santa had his elves make magic keys. If a child set out one of these keys at night, Santa would be able to bring in the wondrous gifts for each child.
So, on Christmas Eve, put out your key and think of your one wish. If you think it hard enough, in the morning you will find it, together with the key for you to use the next year.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Post the Sixth, Or Just What Is Pretty, Anyway?
A week back a long time friend of my husband posted an ill fated rant* which quickly descended into being a good old fashioned Internet Whipping Post Candidate. After a few posts in his defense, I called it a day/night and went on with real life, determined to get him to go out with my husband as his wing man at the first opportunity. Now that some time has passed and things have had time to stew, the thing that keeps coming to mind is "Just What Is Pretty, Anyway?".
I passed my 30th birthday last November, and within the last year I have run into girls who were both at the top and bottom of the "heap" in High School. I, of course, was closer to the bottom than the top, number three I think. The thing I noticed was that while all of these, now, women were quite lovely in their own ways. One worked at her families restaurant, another had gone into metalworking, another was a stay at home mother and so forth. But a couple had become what I can only describe as dumpy. Perhaps frumpy is a better word, but the effect was obvious.
Cut to a discussion my husband and I had the other evening. Last July we stayed at the home of another old friend to my husband. The fiancée to this friend is a woman with beautiful proportions, but a disposition that fluctuates from interesting (as in the good kind), to manipulative/passive aggressive. I have only met one friend of hers and she is another woman with beautiful proportions, but both women I can only describe as also dumpy.
If their figures are so well defined, their bone structures well placed, what leaves the impression that they are not attractive?
Let's move to the converse. The last time I was in Seattle, there was a woman walking down the opposite side of the street about a block ahead of me. She ended up crossing to the same side I was on. The thing I remember clearly about her were her posture and the huge smile she flashed to anyone who looked her way. This is incredibly rare in Seattle. It was non-existent in LA, and moderate in Berlin. Those being the only bigger cities I've been to, I figure a disclaimer is in order. In any case, in Seattle it is very rare. Even on reasonably nice days most folks tend to shlump around, whether emanating that emo vibe or because they're damp and cold, or because they are truly down on themselves I do not know. But the effect is that regardless of their physical attributes, the city as a whole is pretty unattractive. Another example is a girl who is nearly a twin to me, almost exactly one year younger with more charisma than I have words for. She is not overly attractive, though not ugly by any stretch. But she can always be found with some new beau, loaded with money and driving a nice car. Many, many times I have had both female and male friends wonder "how she does it".
It would seem that it all comes down to carriage and personal perception. Any woman, or man, who carries themselves with honest confidence will be more attractive than if they show ego or machismo, "attitude". By simply showing confidence a person starts out one step ahead. That immediately tells the world "I am worth it", "I am good enough", "I deserve good things". And, interestingly enough, that makes people want to give them good things. Whether or not they are a worthy mate is all in personal perception, but one of the fundamental things to making a person pretty is how they project themselves. So, chin up. It doesn't take the perfect body or idea hair, the right clothes or fragrance, just confidence.
To bring this back to the unfortunate blogger, I have a vague idea of what he finds physically attractive, and of those there are a number in the area, however, if they are slumped over a cellphone texting someone, he just might not see them.
*Just a quick note, please keep in mind that this is just a rant. We all have them.
I passed my 30th birthday last November, and within the last year I have run into girls who were both at the top and bottom of the "heap" in High School. I, of course, was closer to the bottom than the top, number three I think. The thing I noticed was that while all of these, now, women were quite lovely in their own ways. One worked at her families restaurant, another had gone into metalworking, another was a stay at home mother and so forth. But a couple had become what I can only describe as dumpy. Perhaps frumpy is a better word, but the effect was obvious.
Cut to a discussion my husband and I had the other evening. Last July we stayed at the home of another old friend to my husband. The fiancée to this friend is a woman with beautiful proportions, but a disposition that fluctuates from interesting (as in the good kind), to manipulative/passive aggressive. I have only met one friend of hers and she is another woman with beautiful proportions, but both women I can only describe as also dumpy.
If their figures are so well defined, their bone structures well placed, what leaves the impression that they are not attractive?
Let's move to the converse. The last time I was in Seattle, there was a woman walking down the opposite side of the street about a block ahead of me. She ended up crossing to the same side I was on. The thing I remember clearly about her were her posture and the huge smile she flashed to anyone who looked her way. This is incredibly rare in Seattle. It was non-existent in LA, and moderate in Berlin. Those being the only bigger cities I've been to, I figure a disclaimer is in order. In any case, in Seattle it is very rare. Even on reasonably nice days most folks tend to shlump around, whether emanating that emo vibe or because they're damp and cold, or because they are truly down on themselves I do not know. But the effect is that regardless of their physical attributes, the city as a whole is pretty unattractive. Another example is a girl who is nearly a twin to me, almost exactly one year younger with more charisma than I have words for. She is not overly attractive, though not ugly by any stretch. But she can always be found with some new beau, loaded with money and driving a nice car. Many, many times I have had both female and male friends wonder "how she does it".
It would seem that it all comes down to carriage and personal perception. Any woman, or man, who carries themselves with honest confidence will be more attractive than if they show ego or machismo, "attitude". By simply showing confidence a person starts out one step ahead. That immediately tells the world "I am worth it", "I am good enough", "I deserve good things". And, interestingly enough, that makes people want to give them good things. Whether or not they are a worthy mate is all in personal perception, but one of the fundamental things to making a person pretty is how they project themselves. So, chin up. It doesn't take the perfect body or idea hair, the right clothes or fragrance, just confidence.
To bring this back to the unfortunate blogger, I have a vague idea of what he finds physically attractive, and of those there are a number in the area, however, if they are slumped over a cellphone texting someone, he just might not see them.
*Just a quick note, please keep in mind that this is just a rant. We all have them.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Post: The Fifth or Reclaiming Sustainability
 |
| Two variations on a Superadobe and wood frame construction for business/factory use |
 |
| Southwest/ Desert environment concept |
 |
| Pacific Northwest/ mountain and grassy environment |
 | ||
| Turf roof planted with regional foliage and vegetable garden |
The models here were constructed in the Second Life platform. Currently, they are incomplete inside due to the limitations of the platform. However, they are available to view at the following Slurl. http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Caledon%20Mayfair/81/79/547
If you do not have a Second Life account, they are free. If you have any questions about how to navigate to see these, please feel free to post here.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Post: The fourth or There and green again.
This will be a bit lengthy, as it is yet another assignment for my English class, however please feel free to comment, ask questions and creatively dissect it. This is a rough draft so the more feedback the better. :)
Increasing public awareness of environmental problems has raised public demand for more conscientious business models (Gallarotti. 1995),(CMN. 2005). Apparel design and production can be a wasteful industry that negatively impacts the environment (Claudio. 2007). However, by changing a few aspects of the basic business model, we can create a sustainable design firm that is lucrative, has a positive impact on the local environment and minimal negative impact on the greater environment. The key details are found in the brick and mortar facility, design process and in manufacturing and production. By implementing the following changes, the business can stand to benefit both from being considered as a green institution, save money by reducing overhead costs and open up for funding by public and private parties looking to fund green operations.
The start of any business is in its facility. The basic requirements of an apparel production, as found in Table 1.1, rely heavily on electricity and water. If the structure is built with insulation in mind, it will minimize the amount of electricity needed for heating or cooling. For the sake of example, a combination single story building built from super adobe or cinder block with turf roof would optimize the amount of natural insulation while preserving the bulk of open ground space. One could hardly deny the marketability of a business operated out of something that looked like a Hobbit house, Image 1.1 (Clark. 2011) and 1.2 (Vigil. 2011). Second, providing as many sources of natural light as possible minimizes the need for additional lighting during daylight hours. Using ample skylights and prisms to take advantage of overhead light will further minimize the need for additional lighting. Additionally, positioning the building so that it receives maximum light, while not receiving direct sun during the hottest times of year, will aid in temperature maintenance and consistent lighting. Finally, rooms with the majority of natural light should be used as the production rooms while rooms with less light can be reserved for uses such as restrooms, storage, dye processes and others which may be less frequently used Image 1.3. Third, supplementary power sources should be used to offset the remaining electric burden. Based on location, wind and solar additions can be installed. Finally, a gym for a business is often seen as a perk, however creating a gym with cycles hooked to generators and battery packs can act as an additional power supply for the whole operation. According to Adam Boesel, of Green Microgym, the Human Dynamo prototype “can produce 200 watts to 600 watts of energy an hour” (Glascock. 2008).
The second aspect is the design process. In this, there are often many places where materials are wasted, thus impacting both the environment and costs. The draping and drafting processes can reduce their waste by working with recycled papers and by making greater use of scrap for draping. Once basic slopers are established, additional creative design can be done via computer to minimize scrap paper production. Computers are being used more in this process since it is more cost efficient to complete much of the drafting via computer program than by hand. Programs like CAD allow for grading and truing to be done automatically. Another practice, becoming more popular for larger firms, though is slower in coming for smaller firms, is to arrange patterns for cut with minimal scrap. This both minimizes costs and minimizes waste of resources.
Manufacturing and production serve the greatest impact to both cost and the environment. To start the process, material selection is a key component. The materials in Table 2.1 have been chosen based on their minimal impact on the environment. Any product that can be reused will help to reduce waste and, when using services like RecycleMatch, can cost far less than virgin product. When looking at recycled product, natural fibers have minimal impact, however with polyester only one company has perfected a system of recycling that does not create more negative impact than the production of virgin polyester. Victor Innovatex has created eco-intelligent polyester which is suitable for some applications, but not necessarily for apparel design yet. However, Teijin Fibers Inc. has announced its intent to produce what they are calling ECO CIRCLE PlantFiber (Tejin Staff. 2011). As research continues, recycled polyester may be added to the list, it is not currently environmentally beneficial enough to be considered at this time. Of the other materials, bamboo is, perhaps the most renewable. As a grass variety, it is possible to harvest bamboo without removing the root structure or having to replant. Leather is not a material that can be recycled, as such, however it can be raised in organic conditions and can be upcycled or reclaimed from other applications. Perhaps most importantly, in the production and manufacture category is the importance of minimizing waste through improper fit or poor quality. On average, each person in the US throws away 68lbs of clothing and textiles over the course of one year (Claudio. 2007), according to the EPA. Though much of this is due to consumer mindset, much too can be attributed to clothing wearing out quickly or being ill fitting and unwearable. By creating a more direct fit to customer approach, much of that wasted production can be eliminated. The most similar model to this approach would be a traditional tailor’s shop. Slopers are developed based on a set of core fit models of varying body types. For example, one hippy shape, one bust heavy shape, one slim and one apple shape. From these core lines the core styles would be developed. The end line would contain a full set of looks flattering to each figure and available in a set number of prints or colors. Instead of the single fit model approach this would maximize fit for a wider audience and minimize garment discard due to ill fit.
There are more practices that can be changed to optimize the operation of a green apparel company, but facility, design and production are the largest contributing factors. Due to the rise in concern for the environment, the US Government (USDA) has allocated $11 million for grants (ProtectingOurEnvironment Staff. 2010). In addition to private grants, there is more money available than ever for business that operate “Green”. So, not only does an apparel firm which implements these changes benefit from the peace of mind that goes with a job well done, but they also benefit from minimizing their cost of production and stand to gain funding from sources previously unavailable to them. It pays to be green.
References
Clark, M. (2011). Grass roof houses. Wikipedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grass-roof_houses.jpg
Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: Environmental impact of the clothing industry. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115:A449-A454. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a449. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2007/115-9/EHP115pa449PDF.PDF
CMN. (2005). Demand for Organic Dairy Products in USA Exceeds Supply. Sustainable Marketing .com. http://www.sustainablemarketing.com/content/view/115/80/
Giulio M. G. (1995). “It Pays to Be Green: The Managerial Incentive Structure and Environmentally Sound Strategies" Columbia Journal of World Business 34.4 (1995): 38-57.
http://works.bepress.com/giulio_gallarotti/17
http://works.bepress.com/giulio_gallarotti/17
Glascock, S. (2008, August). Calories come off and lights come on. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/25/nation/na-gym25
Khalili, N. (2011). What is Superadobe? Cal-Earth: The California Institute of Earth Art and Architecture. http://calearth.org/building-designs/what-is-superadobe.html
Michigan State University. (2006). What is a green roof? Green roof research program.
Natural-Environment Staff. (2008). Why recycled polyester isn’t necessarily Eco-Friendly. Natural Environment Blog. http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/2008/01/27/why-recycled-polyester-isnt-necessarily-eco-friendly/
ProtectingOurEnvironment Staff. (2010). Green business grants. Protecting our environment: Wildlife conservation. Sustainable Travel. Nature Photography. http://protectingourenvironment.com/green-business-grants/
Tejin Staff. (2011). Tejin to launch bio-derived PET fiber in 2012. Tejin: Human chemistry, human solutions. http://www.teijin.co.jp/english/news/2010/ebd101210.html
Vigil, D. (2011). Earth 1. Earth One gallery. http://calearth.org/galleries/earth-one.html
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Post: The third, or The grass is always greener.
As an owner of an environmentally conscious apparel design firm, I would like to shed some light on the problem of greenwashing. Greenwashing is a practice used by some companies to give the illusion that their products are more environmentally sound than they really are. It is an unethical practice that confuses consumers and sometimes shakes consumer confidence in truely green products if they find the product purchased is not actually what they paid for. Currently, greenwashing falls under the heading of false advertising, which can be hard to prove. Greenwashing is a long standing problem that needs much more attention.
Just what is greenwashing? There are a number of definitions, but for the sake of reliability, here are two. The first is from The World Summit "(the) phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty." (Linder 2010. p9) and the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image" (Linder 2010. p10). So, while some definitions are more vague and some are more reactionary, these are the ones I feel are most effective.
Considering these definitions, the act of greenwashing is highly unethical. Given the hightened awareness of our responsibility to the environment, more consumers are spending more and taking more time to select "green" products. When the product they buy is not what they have been led to believe, the producer of that product is creating a false image and violating the consumer's trust. A good example would be British Petroleum. Over the last few years, BP changed it's logo to a green and yellow sunburst type flower with the letters bp in green above. Their slogan also changed to "Beyond Petroleum". Their advertisements focused on the ways they were moving toward greener processes. However, hot on the heels of an explosion at their refinery in Texas which killed 15, BP's negligence caused an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that dwarfs that of the Exxon Valdez (Mulkern. 2010).
When consumers are met with cases like BP, or with aisles full of "All Natural" products, they can start to become confused about just what is and is not environmentally friendly. This, in turn can cause consumers to loose confidence in products that are organic, recycled or otherwise environmentally sound. How many times have you been comparing two breakfast cereals, one that is certified organic and the other is made from organic ingredients? What about when you look over and see yet another that says it is made with all natural ingredients? Two of those terms are defined by the USDA, the third is greenwashing. Certified Organic means that the product is 100% organic as defined by the USDA. Products that are 95% organic can use the label Organic. If the product contains at least 70%, it can use the wording "made with organic ingredients" (Mayo Clinic Staff. 2010). The terms "all natural", "made with natural ingredients" and others are simply green marketing, but have not legal definition.
Overall, the only law that greenwashing can run afoul of is false advertising. False advertising is defined as "Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Farlex. 2011). Outside of that, informing the public about greenwashing and prevention of it are in the hands of the citizens. In the interest of providing the best information available on the process of greenwashing in order to save credibility of those businesses who are providing good, environmentally friendly products, here is my letter. Hopefully, the next time you are in the grocery store, or in the outdoors gear supplier and reach for the Natural cereal or the recycled polyester coat, you will be able to make a more confident choice that you are getting the product you really want.
Linder, Marcus. (2010?)A critical review of greenwash definitions. Center for Business Innovation. Sweden
Mulkern, Anne C. (2010). BP's Oil spill bill could dwarf Exxon's Valdez tab. New York Times. New York
Mayo Clinic Staff. (2010) Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255
Natural-Environment.com. (2008). http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/2008/01/27/why-recycled-polyester-isnt-necessarily-eco-friendly/
Farlex.The Free Dictionary. (2011). False Advertising. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Advertising
Just what is greenwashing? There are a number of definitions, but for the sake of reliability, here are two. The first is from The World Summit "(the) phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty." (Linder 2010. p9) and the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image" (Linder 2010. p10). So, while some definitions are more vague and some are more reactionary, these are the ones I feel are most effective.
Considering these definitions, the act of greenwashing is highly unethical. Given the hightened awareness of our responsibility to the environment, more consumers are spending more and taking more time to select "green" products. When the product they buy is not what they have been led to believe, the producer of that product is creating a false image and violating the consumer's trust. A good example would be British Petroleum. Over the last few years, BP changed it's logo to a green and yellow sunburst type flower with the letters bp in green above. Their slogan also changed to "Beyond Petroleum". Their advertisements focused on the ways they were moving toward greener processes. However, hot on the heels of an explosion at their refinery in Texas which killed 15, BP's negligence caused an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that dwarfs that of the Exxon Valdez (Mulkern. 2010).
When consumers are met with cases like BP, or with aisles full of "All Natural" products, they can start to become confused about just what is and is not environmentally friendly. This, in turn can cause consumers to loose confidence in products that are organic, recycled or otherwise environmentally sound. How many times have you been comparing two breakfast cereals, one that is certified organic and the other is made from organic ingredients? What about when you look over and see yet another that says it is made with all natural ingredients? Two of those terms are defined by the USDA, the third is greenwashing. Certified Organic means that the product is 100% organic as defined by the USDA. Products that are 95% organic can use the label Organic. If the product contains at least 70%, it can use the wording "made with organic ingredients" (Mayo Clinic Staff. 2010). The terms "all natural", "made with natural ingredients" and others are simply green marketing, but have not legal definition.
Overall, the only law that greenwashing can run afoul of is false advertising. False advertising is defined as "Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Farlex. 2011). Outside of that, informing the public about greenwashing and prevention of it are in the hands of the citizens. In the interest of providing the best information available on the process of greenwashing in order to save credibility of those businesses who are providing good, environmentally friendly products, here is my letter. Hopefully, the next time you are in the grocery store, or in the outdoors gear supplier and reach for the Natural cereal or the recycled polyester coat, you will be able to make a more confident choice that you are getting the product you really want.
Linder, Marcus. (2010?)A critical review of greenwash definitions. Center for Business Innovation. Sweden
Mulkern, Anne C. (2010). BP's Oil spill bill could dwarf Exxon's Valdez tab. New York Times. New York
Mayo Clinic Staff. (2010) Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255
Natural-Environment.com. (2008). http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/2008/01/27/why-recycled-polyester-isnt-necessarily-eco-friendly/
Farlex.The Free Dictionary. (2011). False Advertising. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Advertising
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Post: The second, or So far yet so near.
In my search for potential interviewees for this session's final project, I stumbled on a nice listing of apparel that is made in the states.
Apparel Made in the USA
Most of the listings that I investigated were small businesses that had a very patriotic theme and were very much a part of the movement to keep jobs withing United States borders. One that stuck out from the crowd was American Apparel (http://www.americanapparel.net/contact/profile.html). It is a line I had not given much thought to, since the aesthetic is more mainstream and my personal taste tends toward the historically mangled.
I am encouraged, upon investigating their site, to see that not only are the products made in the US, but the company actually is weighing in on some touchy topics in regards to their local community (found on their What We Do page) and the greater United States community. For example, being based in LA, the topic of immigration. From a business standpoint, I can see how this would dramatically benefit any company that relies on the production of goods. However, instead of taking advantage of illegal aliens and keeping costs low by blackmailing them, as some companies do (see the video from Post the First), they are encouraging citizenship, which would give those workers the same rights that you and I have. Those rights include wages and treatment according to our laws. They also have openly posted their opposition to Prop 8, legislation that defined marriage recognized by the state of California as only between a man and a woman, as well as their support for LGBT rights.
Since American Apparel is a publicly traded corporation, and beholden to their shareholders, this approach must be profitable.
This is exciting. For years we have heard how jobs are disappearing overseas because it is just not viable to pay workers reasonable wages on a production line. American Apparel is living proof that this is not the case. By in large, their ladies garments range from $15-$105, they pay their factory workers between $12-$14/hr and still they managed to pull in $545 million in sales during 2008. This is, for reference, what the Nike corporation makes in one quarter (based on their Q4 2009 net income http://www.nikebiz.com/media/pr/2009/06/24_NikeIncReportsFY09Q4.html ) and In addition, they have also received an A+ from the Better Business Bureau (http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/American-Apparel-13199717), Nike has not sought BBB accreditation. Nike is not necessarily the best yardstick, as they are both in the shoe and apparel manufacture as well as being in business longer (American Apparel 2003, Nike 1972). Pulling this all together, this shows that it is viable to keep jobs within our boarders and that there are functioning examples of this in mainstream apparel production.
Apparel Made in the USA
Most of the listings that I investigated were small businesses that had a very patriotic theme and were very much a part of the movement to keep jobs withing United States borders. One that stuck out from the crowd was American Apparel (http://www.americanapparel.net/contact/profile.html). It is a line I had not given much thought to, since the aesthetic is more mainstream and my personal taste tends toward the historically mangled.
I am encouraged, upon investigating their site, to see that not only are the products made in the US, but the company actually is weighing in on some touchy topics in regards to their local community (found on their What We Do page) and the greater United States community. For example, being based in LA, the topic of immigration. From a business standpoint, I can see how this would dramatically benefit any company that relies on the production of goods. However, instead of taking advantage of illegal aliens and keeping costs low by blackmailing them, as some companies do (see the video from Post the First), they are encouraging citizenship, which would give those workers the same rights that you and I have. Those rights include wages and treatment according to our laws. They also have openly posted their opposition to Prop 8, legislation that defined marriage recognized by the state of California as only between a man and a woman, as well as their support for LGBT rights.
Since American Apparel is a publicly traded corporation, and beholden to their shareholders, this approach must be profitable.
This is exciting. For years we have heard how jobs are disappearing overseas because it is just not viable to pay workers reasonable wages on a production line. American Apparel is living proof that this is not the case. By in large, their ladies garments range from $15-$105, they pay their factory workers between $12-$14/hr and still they managed to pull in $545 million in sales during 2008. This is, for reference, what the Nike corporation makes in one quarter (based on their Q4 2009 net income http://www.nikebiz.com/media/pr/2009/06/24_NikeIncReportsFY09Q4.html ) and In addition, they have also received an A+ from the Better Business Bureau (http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/American-Apparel-13199717), Nike has not sought BBB accreditation. Nike is not necessarily the best yardstick, as they are both in the shoe and apparel manufacture as well as being in business longer (American Apparel 2003, Nike 1972). Pulling this all together, this shows that it is viable to keep jobs within our boarders and that there are functioning examples of this in mainstream apparel production.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Post: The First. Or Just How Far Have We Come?
New York Times Garment Industry Article
After reading this article and watching the short video that accompanied it, I am even more motivated in changing the way the garment industry does business in the US. More specifically that it DOES do business here. Some of the responses to the article and film pointed the finger at union workers asking for "too much". Others recognized that it was the big business mindset and lack of awareness of long term effects of job exporting by the government that caused this problem. Time and again, especially in recent news, unions have been painted as somehow detrimental to workers because they ask too much of businesses. Those accusations ring false when one takes into account the reality that every human needs to live and deserves to be paid relative to their work. In a nation where 400 people have 80% of the money (and you can be sure they are not union employees) it would seem that there are larger problems than unionized workers.
Points learned by Reclaim...
1. Keeping production local and within the nation's boarders allows for quicker turn around and the ability to keep smaller amounts in stock. This is less of a financial risk than large scale production.
2. By employing locally and within the nation's boarders, money stays within the US, which keeps the purchasing public stronger and less susceptible to economic fluctuations.
3. As illustrated by the factory in the video, by employing workers for working wages and in essence staying loyal to them, the loyalty is returned. Turnover is lower and the quality of material is higher.
After reading this article and watching the short video that accompanied it, I am even more motivated in changing the way the garment industry does business in the US. More specifically that it DOES do business here. Some of the responses to the article and film pointed the finger at union workers asking for "too much". Others recognized that it was the big business mindset and lack of awareness of long term effects of job exporting by the government that caused this problem. Time and again, especially in recent news, unions have been painted as somehow detrimental to workers because they ask too much of businesses. Those accusations ring false when one takes into account the reality that every human needs to live and deserves to be paid relative to their work. In a nation where 400 people have 80% of the money (and you can be sure they are not union employees) it would seem that there are larger problems than unionized workers.
Points learned by Reclaim...
1. Keeping production local and within the nation's boarders allows for quicker turn around and the ability to keep smaller amounts in stock. This is less of a financial risk than large scale production.
2. By employing locally and within the nation's boarders, money stays within the US, which keeps the purchasing public stronger and less susceptible to economic fluctuations.
3. As illustrated by the factory in the video, by employing workers for working wages and in essence staying loyal to them, the loyalty is returned. Turnover is lower and the quality of material is higher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)