In These Times

Latest Comments view all 4

• • 09 Aug 05
  • 5:36 pm

  Ari Paul's article is on target. Many media stories have focused on the so-called irony that an allegedly responsible "sweat-free" employer like Dov Charney (owner of American Apparel [AA]) is also a sexual predator and exhibitionist. But its not an irony at all, because Charney and AA is NOT a responsible employer. Charney is a slick PR man. When the anti-sweatshop movement began making headway on campuses in the 1990s, Charney began promoting AA as sweat-free, hoping to cash in on the growing number of "conscience" consumers who looked to buy products made under environmentally- and worker-friendly conditions. Charney convinced many …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

• • 09 Aug 05
  • 7:42 pm

  Julio, Obviously you've never been part of a union organizing drive. Companies increasing engage in unfair and illegal labor practices, knowing that they may get caught (and even fined), but knowing, too, that the benefits of breaking the law outweigh the costs. By the time the legal issues are resolved (even if the company "loses" the legal fight), the union drive has been crushed, the key leaders have been fired and/or left under pressure, the other workers are intimidated, and the organizing momentum has been halted. (Here's a parallel: Some of the people who killed civil rights workers are now being …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

• • 09 Aug 05
  • 11:19 pm

  "d00m2k" doesn't have the courage to tell us who he/she is. She/he doesn't really want to engage the issues of how to identify a sweat-free factory and the issues raised in the In These Times article about American Apparel. So I'm not going to waste time with any further responses to her/him. One point, though: You can Google me all you want, but you won't find any evidence that I've been a paid consultant for any labor union, because I haven't. He/she can't seem to fathom the idea that people can be pro-worker and pro-union because its a matter of principle, …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

• • 10 Aug 05
  • 8:45 am

  A US garment factory where workers are unionized is not likely to be a sweatshop. That doesn't mean its utopia. It means that workers are likely to have wages above the poverty level, health insurance, paid vacations, safe working conditions, and a voice in their workplace. There is no democratic country in the world whose labor-management laws are as pro-management as in the US. The low level of unionization in the US is a direct result of this. Democratic countries with less poverty, inequality, infant mortality, and other problems have stronger labor movements. Unions are the major force in those countries, …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing