In September 2003, American Apparel workers began organizing with UNITE to address concerns like no paid time off, problems with production methods, conflicts with supervisors, and lack of affordable health care. (The company's Web site brags that the company will refer workers to free health clinics—wow, thanks a lot.)
In response, according to behindthelabel.org, Charney resorted to time-honored bad-boss techniques: interrogating and intimidating employees, distributing anti-union armbands (and T-shirts!), holding captive meetings, and worst of all, threatening to close down the plant altogether if the drive was successful. The union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, the result of which was that the company had to promise to drop its union-busting tactics, but for now, at least, the union drive is derailed.
So that's the company's labor record. Now, what about the sex harassment stuff? At this writing, three employees have filed two suits alleging, among other things, that Charney invited an employee to masturbate with him, gave an employee a vibrator as a gift, exposed himself to an employee, conducted business in his underpants, and instructed an employee to offer a shopper a job on the spot because he wanted to have sex with her.
A friend of mine is a sewing-room floor employee at American Apparel, and she's told me that UNITE compiled the signatures it did by telling near-illiterate employees that the union was something Charney wanted. Now who's exploiting the workers?
ReplyDeletestrange that your sole post on your own blog is -surprise- an attempt to exculpate Dov Charney. Why do i find your credibility somewhat lacking with regards to this completely circumstantial evidence, i wonder?
ReplyDeleteI work for American Apparel and I was there when the workers of American Apparel rejected the union drive that was held by UNITE. The organizers of the UNITE union failed to mention to the workers that if they joined they would now be responsible for a large membership fee and have to work for 3 months before they would even be eligible to sign up for a health-care plan that costs $200/month (A quarter of an average sewing operators monthly wages). There were bulletins posted all over the factory from Dov, that explained very clearly that in no way would anyone be fired or suspended if they chose to participate in the union. Why is it so hard to believe that these workers could not make their own decisions about the union? Is it because many don't speak English? Or is because they didn't go to your Ivy League, therefore aren’t educated? How insulting. Get over your white-male privilege trip and stop making victims of people. Strong, intelligent people who have immigrated here in the hopes of better opportunity here for themselves and their families.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, don't you think it's odd that when you click on the link to the Yaegar article nothing comes up? It's because the Village Voice took it down due to the lack of research that Yaegar did. There were no facts in the article and an obvious bias with no real argument behind it:
“In September 2003, American Apparel workers began organizing with UNITE to address concerns like no paid time off, problems with production methods, conflicts with supervisors, and lack of affordable health care. (The company's Web site brags that the company will refer workers to free health clinics—wow, thanks a lot.)”
Guess what? American Apparel now does have PTO. And I ask you to find an operation that does not have “problems with production methods” and “conflicts with supervisors”. How general can you be? Health-care, not a problem now. Affordable and accessible. And again how pompous for someone to try to knock free health clinics. Only someone who has been fortunate enough to afford insurance would be so bold as to do so.
The biggest reason that they took it down was because ironically, it was the Village Voice who wrote a scathing expose on the UNITE union and how it was just a money-making scheme that exploited it's members. It was a cover story and it was loaded with stories about how within UNITE’s administration there was widespread use of bribery, inhumane labor tactics, and intimidation of it’s workforce. How embarrassed she must have been when she realized she didn’t even check her own publications archives for information on UNITE.
And now there is talk that two of the plaintiffs want to go to mediation aka Settlement. Why now do they want to take that route when they were so hellbent on going to court and claiming that it wasn't about money. Strange, don't ya think?
As a former Unite-HERE staffer, ivy league or not, i seriously doubt the veracity of the claims you are making. My skepticism has nothing to do with my "Ivy League" or white male privilege, but comes from years of combined experience with the former HERE and UNITE.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Dov Charney launch an anti-union campaign after stating he would never do so. Why were workers threatened with plant closings? Why did he hold captive audience meetings and intimidate his employees? These are not the actions of someone who respects his workers. And its eems to me that it's you, not me, who is assuming that the workers must have been duped, that they are incapable of making their own decisions. I have said nor implied no such thing.
I read the village voice every week. I have no idea what story you're referring to. Please post a link.
The problem with the comapny referring workers to free health clinics is that Charney, like Wal-Mart is passing the burden of providing and paying for his worker's health care onto the state, which funds those clinics. Since all workers pay taxes on what they earn and buy, when Charney shirks his responsibility as an employer to provide such benefits, he is passing the cost onto workers. That's not pompous, it's the truth.
And as an addendum, i apologize if i seem flippant, dismissive or antagonistic. But you're misrepresenting my argument and position, which i find frustrating. So i'll try to clarify: Whatever Charney does right - high wages, benefits, etc., I have a real problem with him running an agressive and intimidating anti-union campaign. This is not something an employer who respected his worker's rights, decisions, and minds would do. I have a problem when workers get threatened with shop closures for daring to seek a collective bargaining agreement. Those are despicable fear tactics. I have a problem when an employer masturbates in front of and otherwise sexually harasses employees whose livelihoods depend on their subservient relationship to him. I really don't buy your suggestion that the sexual harassment complaints are all about money, and neither does most of the rest of the world. There's clearly something else going on here. Dov Charney, by all reports, came down on his workers hard and fast when they tried to organize a union. I condemn anti-union tactics because i believe the "Strong, intelligent people who have immigrated here in the hopes of better opportunity here for themselves and their families" you talk about deserve a voice on the job. Why is Charney denying them this?
ReplyDeleteand before i shut up, i'll link to this very interesting discussion of Charney and American Apparel from Pandagon
ReplyDeleteHave you ever checked out the AA plant for yourself. The employees there love Charney. Why would they love someone who left them so out in the cold?
ReplyDeleteBesides, UNITE has had two years to pick the ball back up on this one, and they've done squat!
You know why? Because the workers DIDN'T WANT the union, that's why. Siignatures in favour of the union were only ever solicited by telling the workers that Charney supported them, and when the workers found out they were being duped, they were enraged.
The only atmosphere of defeat was between the workers and the union, not between AA and the workers. Workers had made their OWN arm bands, for Christ's sake!
Besides, if anyone truly felt any undue pressure, the LA Times is only a couple blocks up the street, and anyone could have gone to the press, but didn't. You know why? Because this was teh first industrial protest against organized labour in US history, outside of agriculture. They just didn't want it.
Let it go. You're buuying into another trashy and sensationalist campaign by the media to create a demand for themselves. Think about putting that in your Ivory pipe and smoking it.
My problem with your comments, Zach, is that you have not checked your facts AT ALL. As someone who works for AA, I feel personally attacked when I read stories that are so poorly researched and based purely on fiction.
ReplyDelete"In September 2003, American Apparel workers began organizing with UNITE to address concerns like no paid time off, problems with production methods, conflicts with supervisors, and lack of affordable health care..."
This is pulled from an article that the Village Voice decided to shelf because it was completely misinformed. American Apparel offered health care for $8/wk at the time and continues to do so. There is paid time off now but you wouldn't know that since you didn't bother to contact anyone at the factory. Would you be ready to do that, now? I can set up a phone call or a tour of the factory with interviews of employees who experienced the Unite drive first hand.
"In response, according to behindthelabel.org, Charney resorted to time-honored bad-boss techniques: interrogating and intimidating employees, distributing anti-union armbands (and T-shirts!), holding captive meetings, and worst of all, threatening to close down the plant altogether if the drive was successful..."
Zach, did you fail to recognize that behindthelabel.org is a union sponsored web site? The article that you are referencing from that site was written by an "analyst" for Unite and is therefore might be a bit biased, don't you think? The union did file charges with the NLRB that were settled on the terms of no admission of guilt by either party. The NLRB never held a hearing that was based on any factual evidence but instead urged both sides to settle and avoid a very long and costly trial. None of Unite's claims were ever corroborated by any of the workers or any organizations in the anti-sweatshop community.
And as for the sexual harassment cases-no one has been proven guilty by a court of law. There are already unconfirmed rumors that the plaintiffs are seeking a settlement. As much as we would like to believe that all people that sue have just intentions, we know that isn't always the case. Some are in it for the money. Keep that in mind.
Again, I invite you to come visit the factory, speak to the workers, speak to Dov. If you are game.
i posted some further responses here.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry all of ya'll are hurt by reading negative articles about AA, but that seems like something just about everyone has to deal with in the professional world. Just curious, but what is it you do at AA?
ReplyDeleteNone of Unite's claims were ever corroborated by any of the workers or any organizations in the anti-sweatshop community.
ReplyDeleteWrong. Workers in the unionization drive signed affadavits stating that the company did try to bust attempts to organize.
And the golddiger defense is so original. BTW, it's the rare sexual harassment case that nets a huge jackpot for the plaintiff--and considering the nice smear job AA's shills have been doing on the plaintiffs, they might want to settle. I wouldn't be surprised if AA would want to settle, considering the fact that Charney copped to his behavior but can't see what the big deal is.
Madness. I work for AA, and to be quite honest most of you have no idea what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteMy office is down the hall from a sewing floor, and trust me workers are not exploited. I wont go repeating how good they have it since that exists everywhere on the net already. All I can do is confirm it from my personal experience. I can also tell you factually that they dont want a union.
Clearly, dov likes sex alot. The difference between him and your typical sexual offender is that dov is open and honest about his thoughts and behaviors. He does not FORCE anyone to put up with him. This is a significant distinction. If he has sex with employees, they are very much willing. If he masturbates publicly, it is your option to watch or leave.
People have choices. Dov chooses to be the way he is. If you choose to be offended by it, that is your right. You can choose not to buy AA products.
I choose to believe that you are a hypocrite. Why on eath would you target american apparel over the companies who destroy the earth and exploit children in the operation of their business? Is aa the only company using sex to sell clothes? Everyone does it, but most use wafer thin models with impossible body types. AA girls, who are in no way like that, make normal girls feel good about themselves, instead of making them run to the bathroom to puke. Dov likes sex too much? Well, he is getting sued. Lets see.
Yeah, that's totally it. i'm totally a hypocrite for asking any kind of question related to the holy church of Dovitude. Questioning Dov is clearly keeping Wal-Mart rich, so i should just stop and let the spunk fly where it will.
ReplyDeletePlease, people, can we try to keep the discourse a little more civil and a little less ridiculous?
Community Involvement
ReplyDeleteIn the wake of Hurricane Katrina, American Apparel donated approximately $600,000 worth of merchandise to tens of thousands of victims. The company sent a pair of employees in a rented truck directly into the disaster area, where they spent a week hand delivering 80,000 new T-shirts and underpants to shelters.
American Apparel community relations coordinator Roian Atwood told the Los Angeles Garment & Citizen (http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/20051012lagarment.html) that he and colleague George Lewis III were given a "carte blanche directive" from American Apparel co-owners Dov Charney and Sam Lim, and vice president Marty Bailey.
"They told us, 'look, this isn't Indonesia, this isn't across the ocean, this is our backyard," Atwood said. "They just told us to go and do whatever it takes to help." [63]
Honestly, check your facts first.
ReplyDelete