News » October 6, 2003

Trés Cheap

UNITE tangles with anti-labor boutique

By David Moberg

When H&M, the highly successful “cheap chic” Swedish clothing retailer, opened its first Chicago store on fashionable North Michigan Avenue, some things went as planned: Young, attractive clerks dressed in black cheered and danced to music as a long line of youthful customers walked in the door. But H&M hadn’t planned on another opening-day feature: a couple hundred protesters, many of them garment workers in red UNITE T-shirts, shouting “no justice, no peace” and carrying posters reading “Abuse is in style at H&M.”

UNITE organized the protest at the opening to bring public pressure to bear on H&M, as it and many other unions often do in their organizing campaigns. They intend to continue a variety of pressure tactics until the company agrees not to interfere with UNITE’s efforts to organize, says UNITE senior researcher and organizer Scott Zdrazil. H&M has yet to respond to the union’s actions.

H&M is a heavily unionized company throughout Europe with a corporate policy that states “all workers should be free to join associations of their choosing, and they should have the right to bargain collectively.” But when 200 employees in its New Jersey distribution center decided in August that they wanted a union, H&M responded like many U.S. corporations, workers and union organizers say: The almost entirely Spanish-speaking, immigrant workforce was forced to sit through anti-union meetings and videos, received letters outlining how to repudiate their signed union membership cards, and were subjected to closer surveillance.

After eight months on the job, Jose Santos, 21 and wearing a Phat Farm T-shirt, was promoted to full time at the New Jersey warehouse and supports the union effort. “The company can make us work as much overtime as they want, but there’s no fixed schedule,” he says. “Part-time people also sometimes work 40 hours, but they don’t have the right to medical insurance or any benefits.”

He remains “100 percent for the union” despite the company’s attempts to divide stronger union supporters from the less resolute. “The company actually has been trying to convince us we don’t need a union,” he says. “Now they’re smiling, but before it was, ‘Do this or we’ll show you the door.’ ”

Carmen Duran, a 36-year-old single mother who started with the company part time, sought to boost her hours in part so she would be eligible for health insurance. The Bronx, N.Y., woman is working full time now but still can’t afford coverage because it costs around $250 a month, roughly one-fourth of her income. She’s also upset at the lack of a fixed schedule, which makes it difficult for her to care for her two teenage children. “There’s a lot of abuse,” she says. “The schedule is ridiculous.” And with the organizing campaign, she now complains about being closely watched by supervisors.

Inside the Chicago store, H&M spokeswoman Karen Belva, in an elegant black pantsuit and heels, insisted that the company recognizes the rights of the protesters and for workers to organize. “They have every right to organize,” she says. “We don’t have an anti-union policy.” But the company’s attitude in these areas isn’t so clear. Last May, managers at PT Kahatex Sweater in Indonesia, which makes clothes for many European and American retailers including H&M, locked out 537 employees who refused to accept wages below the legal minimum, and two leaders were arrested. Many workers have yet to receive severance packages they were pressured to accept.

UNITE has begun signing up members at H&M’s seven retail stores in New York, where the union historically represented retail clothing and drug store workers but has not organized in many years. While enjoying a trendy work environment, H&M retail workers start at minimum wage, less than those who work in the distribution centers.

The effort to organize retail workers is new for UNITE, which has concentrated on commercial laundries and distribution centers related to its historic base of apparel and textile manufacturers. These manufacturers have been heavily hit by imports from low-wage companies, mainly as part of sourcing strategies by big retailers like H&M. “As the industry is controlled more by retailers, it is critical in order to represent workers in distribution and production to influence the primary retailer,” Zdrazil says.

The union also is appealing to Swedish unions to pressure H&M management to recognize UNITE. “What’s exciting is we are linking workers who sew clothes, ship clothes and sell clothes,” says organizer Mary Kay Devine. “We’re working on the street and going on a global scale. Companies are going global. So is UNITE.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Just out of curiosity…  have Swedish media been contacted re: H&M’s unwillingness?  In my opinion, being a former resident of Sweden, the most effective way of dealing with H&M would be to publicise the story in Aftonbladet (http://www.aftonbladet.se) or Dagens Nyheter (http://www.dn.se) - the two largest newspapers in Sweden. 

  The last thing H&M would want, would be to have their precious image tarnished on the home market…

  Posted by Lech Linkiel on Oct 9, 2003 at 7:09 AM

  So what’s going on here?

  the union is attempting to encourage the workers to form a union through proselytizing.

  The company is attempting to discourage the same in the same way.

  What is wrong with that?

  Posted by Nus on Oct 31, 2003 at 8:01 PM

  The problem with employers discouraging unions is that employers have tremendous leverage over their workers. Workers can be easily intimidated because their livelihoods depend on their employers. Seems to me that all business should be worker-owned and controlled democratically, but in the absense of that we need absolute neutrality on the part of the owners re: whether workers should join unions.

  Posted by Jake Werner on Nov 3, 2003 at 8:20 PM

  “Seems to me that all business should be worker-owned and controlled democratically”

  Why does this seem to be the right thing to you?

  How can workers own a business that requires 100s of millions of dollars in investments which are currently obtained through stockholder ownership?

  Have you any examples of such a practice ever working?

  Posted by Nus on Nov 3, 2003 at 9:12 PM

  First, because people should always have a say over the decisions that affect them. If we believe in democracy in politics, the same should hold for our work lives.

  Second, because democratic businesses are much more likely to provide fulfilling employment, adequate compensation, and an enjoyable work environment.

  Third, because removing profit as the ultimate arbiter of business decisions allows you take into account the effects that business has on the community, the environment, and other workers.

  Fourth, because democratic businesses are more efficient. Instead of the waste produced by alienated workers and conflict between management and employees, they have workers with a real stake in the business. Sociological studies back this up.

  A democratic economy would require much smaller businesses, but the economies of scale that are lost would be much less once you factored in the massive negative externalities that are part of the current system.

  Posted by Jake Werner on Nov 20, 2003 at 5:52 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Also featured The Bushite Strategy ...
War on the Poor
Free Arianna

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!