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.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
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)