Am I buying sweatshop-free clothing?

November 16, 2005 11:00 AM

I usually try to buy clothes made in first world country, by looking at the label (Milan, London, made in LA). I always assumed that the Western world had minimum wages, and other progressive standards that say, made in China didn't. I use this to justify the high cost of the goods, but my father informs that this is untrue and the expensive hand labor of ripping the jeans, sanding, etc. are done in places such as LA -- but are sweatshop conditions (by employing illegals, ignoring labor laws, etc.). Is this true?

I have no doubt illegal immigrants are hired and conditions are substandard, but he indicated that usually these places hire children (under 16), pay below minimum wage and practice such things as not letting employs out for lunch. While I would poster that this sometimes happens, he indicates that this apparently is widespread and the places do get busted -- but sweatshops still pop up all over the place. I'm specifically talking about "Chip and Pepper" jeans. I'd also like to know about some of the so-called designer brands -- Dolce & Gabanna, Prada, Burberry. I have no doubt they are made in the country they say they are (it's illegal to state otherwise in the US), but am I being fooled into thinking that it's only marginally better than buying from China, Thailand and other notorious low labor standard countries?

NB I'm aware of the WSJ article indicating the move to Egypt and Eastern Europe for some designer-ware but in the US the label still indicates that it was made in said countries.

posted by geoff. to Clothing, Beauty, & Fashion (19 answers total)

not a direct answer, but a connected issue. you may want to reconsider buying things made with american cotton (which is frequently advertised as being "sweatshop free"). stiglitz, in globalization and its discontents, argues that the havily subsidised american cotton industry undercuts the industry in developing countries and so causes poverty.

taking that further, and answering your question more directly, it tends to be better for a country if goods are made within the country; shipping raw materials from the third world to the first for processing (as in the case of clothes made in milan from imported materials, say) reduces development opportunities for the third world - countries tend to become trapped in primary industries (farming, mining), which generate small revenues and are sensitive to fluctuations in the global market and problems like weather, over-production, exhaustion of resources , etc.

i don't have an simple answer saying "you should buy X", but these are further points to consider when you try to come to a decision yourself.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:10 AM on November 16, 2005

Look for the union label.

Back when 'child sweatshop' was big news in the late 1980's/early 1990's, we were taught that an one of the ways to avoid sweatshop clothes was to buy union-made stuff.

Of couse, this was in northern Minnesota, in a strong Union area.

But it's still true.
posted by unixrat at 11:13 AM on November 16, 2005

I am pretty sure this is all true. I think your dad has things right. I know someone whose family owns a garment shop, and they hire people without proper work permits. I am guessing they don't pay minimum wage.

Also, your assumption that factories in the developing world are always worse than those in the west is probably wrong.

This is from Street Cents, a show for kids here in Canada:

Just because the label says "made in Canada" doesn't mean it wasn't made in a sweatshop. It's actually possible that the house next door is a sweatshop. Street Cents found a study done in 1999 by a professor at the University of Toronto. The report says, in Canada, close to 40,000 women work at home sewing for big companies. They're sometimes mistreated. And, sometimes make as little as $2/hr.

Likewise, just because the label says, "Made in China," doesn't necessarily mean it was made in a sweatshop. Some developing countries have factories with health clinics. Some even pay their employees fair wages.

The thing is, we can't just pick one company and say they're the bad guys. It's the whole system that has to change.

posted by chunking express at 11:13 AM on November 16, 2005

I have no doubt they are made in the country they say they are (it's illegal to state otherwise in the US)

US colonies can (or were) advertise their products as American made. For example, many items from Puerto Rico are made under substandard labour conditions, yet proudly display a "Made in USA" label. Or at least it *was* like that, I don't know if the bill passed or not.
posted by shepd at 11:15 AM on November 16, 2005

what you describe - american sweatshops employing foreigners - is described in the fiction of carlos fuentes, if i remember correctly. maybe the book crystal frontier. in particular, he describes factories along the mexican border, with workers crossing over to go the factory. i presume that is based in fact.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:16 AM on November 16, 2005

Yes, it's true. Every few years you'll see an exposé article in the NYTimes, LATimes, etc.
posted by cribcage at 11:18 AM on November 16, 2005

Response by poster: Well shucks, but is this common in Western Europe too? I always assumed that they had even stricter laws regarding labor practices ...
posted by geoff. at 11:29 AM on November 16, 2005

Yes, there are definitely people in the US and in Canada working for less than minimum wage. Many of these are illegal immigrants, many are also legal immigrants. The companies get away with it by using a piece work system. In Canada, at least companies that pay using piece work have to set the peice work rate such that a person working at a reasonably speed would make minumum wage. But they don't. And many of the workers don't know their rights, and even if they knew their rights, they don't have the power necessary to complain (sure they could file a complaint with the ministry of labour -- and then lose their jobs on a pretense, and good luck finding a job somewhere else). Much of this piece work is done at home and people who take piece work home have their whole families working at it.

My aunt (legal immigrant in Canada) worked as the pattern maker for a textile (non-clothing) company. For a while she used to bring home piece work to make some extra money (not the pattern-making stuff, but the things that the home-workers would do) and we'd all do it while watching TV. That was until my aunt figured out what the hourly rate worked out to (less than $2/hour) and figured it wasn't worth it. Of course, she had her regular day job to do. Most people doing this work aren't so lucky.


(it's illegal to state otherwise in the US),

What does it mean for something to be made somewhere? Very few things are made entirely in one place. The raw materials grown in one place, supplies (fabric, thread, buttons, etc. bought from who knows where), parts made in one place and shipped for final manufacture elsewhere etc. etc.

I ask these quesitons not to be semantic and annoying, but because the manufacturers ask these questions too. The company my aunt worked for eventually moved much of its production to China. They brought the goods to the factory in Toronto and then added the last button/sewed one final seam/packed it up nicely and then slapped a "Made in Canada" label on it. After all, the manufacture was completed in Canada.
posted by duck at 11:43 AM on November 16, 2005

For the big Italian designer brands, it depends on the range - cheaper and less specialised stuff like denim and t-shirts are more likely to be outsourced to places where labour is cheaper as in Eastern Europe (and it will say that on the label). The higher ranges of clothes and accessories, and items of a more sartorial kind, are manufactured locally. See this (from a fashion industry publication): Where leading Italian labels produce their collections.
posted by funambulist at 11:54 AM on November 16, 2005

There's other ways of manipulating the laws to get that "made in USA" tag, such as using some US raw materials, having all the labor done overseas, and then assembling the garment in the States to try to weasel into the letter of the law. Enforcement agencies do not necessarily have the means to strictly enforce these policies anyway.

In addition to Puerto Rico, don't forget the US Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) , with mostly Chinese and southeast Asian workers.
posted by desuetude at 11:56 AM on November 16, 2005

I would check out the sorts of vendors and manufacturers linked to from the blog at

www.treehugger.com

Their focus is on sustainable/enviro friendly consumer products, but the companies they favor all tend to be in the Patagonia vein, which is to say they're much more socially conscious in addition to being enviro firendly. Buying from, e.g. vivai can help you kill two conscience-inhabiting birds with one stone worth of purchasing power.

As a side note, yes this sort of thing does tend to be expensive, but the products are worth it in terms of workmanship alone.
posted by gnomicPerfect at 11:57 AM on November 16, 2005

is this common in Western Europe too?

it is in the clandestine workshops that violations of human rights at work are most common and most serious. The scale of the phenomenon of clandestine workshops, which are found mainly in the clothing sector, poses a sure threat to the viability of legal enterprises because of the unfair competition which they represent. In Europe, the concentration of clandestine workshops is such that the European Apparel and Textile Organization (EURATEX) advocates the adoption of European-level measures to combat the phenomenon. Some years ago, estimates from trade unions and NGOs suggested that more than 15,000 workers in the Netherlands were involved in clandestine work in the clothing sector a figure that exceeded the number of registered workers. Other concentrations of clandestine workshops are found in France (in the Chinese quarter of Paris), in Belgium (Brussels, in the “Triangle” quarter), in the United Kingdom (the Manchester area) and in the south of Italy. The workshops concerned, which employ large numbers of illegal immigrants, have specialized in copying and pirating well-established brand names, and in the rapid production of small runs of fashion items. They sometimes operate in a more professional way than the small legally operating workshops which respect labour laws and pay taxes. This commercial professionalism generally goes hand in hand with labour practices that are contrary to the most rudimentary principles of respect for human rights at work. Working hours for workers who are denied any protection come within the definition of forced labour given by the ILO’s Committee of Experts. Other practices involving the confiscation of immigrant workers’ identity papers have also been noted by the bodies responsible for combating clandestine labour. These and other practices, for example, housing illegal workers in hazardous and unhealthy dormitories (such as cellars) are all very much part of this practice of forced labour. Europe is not the only developed region with a growing number of clandestine workshops practising forced labour. In the United States, the problem of “sweatshops” has received much media attention and has mobilized public opinion.

from Labour Practices in the Footwear, Leather, Textiles and Clothing Industries
posted by andrew cooke at 12:01 PM on November 16, 2005

specialized in copying and pirating well-established brand names

That's like piracy to the music industry (not downloading, actual piracy as in printing cd's and selling them), you won't find the kind of labels geoff. mentioned using those illegal workshops anymore than you'll find Sony or EMI getting its cd's pressed by the piracy business.

If geoff. is buying designer stuff in the actual licensed shops rather than from the boot of a car then he can be sure they're not counterfeit.

I thought the question was about delocalisation in respect to the place the brand is located at, and delocalisation is not the same thing as illegal work conditions.
posted by funambulist at 12:15 PM on November 16, 2005

(correct: not necessarily the same -- but what I meant is, the two issues, counterfeit designer clothes on the hand, and cheaper and substandard work conditions in less regulated countries on the other, are not identical, because while a designer label will obviously never resort to the former, it may resort to the latter especially for the cheaper stuff)
posted by funambulist at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2005

See also: cleanclothes.org, specifically: Where should ordinary consumers buy their clothes?
posted by davar at 1:26 PM on November 16, 2005

I second the treehugger link. Also, if clothes are made super-ethically they're going to have a label that says so. I actually tend to buy from non-first world countries since they need my money more. For instance I just bought some nice Gaiam pillowcases that that had details about the coop in India where they were made, on the tag.
posted by scazza at 2:58 PM on November 16, 2005

Political t-shirt fashion designer Katharine E. Hamnett [wikipedia] tried for a long time to change the practices in her industry, and famously threw in the towel. Instead she's starting anew from the bottom up with a label committed to 100% sustainability and employee-friendly policies.

Made in the EU under EU employment law, and in ethically and environmentally certified factories in India.
posted by dhartung at 10:05 PM on November 16, 2005

According to Naomi Klein's No Logo, there is no way to be sure your clothing wasn't made by sweated labour unless you make it yourself, because all work is contracted and sub-contracted to no end. One Nike factory will abide by all the laws of its host country while another will not.

Here's what I do (and yes, I realize these remedies have their limits):

• I try to limit how much I buy (I believe one dresser and one closet full of well-chosen clothes is sufficient for anyone);
• I buy secondhand as often as I can; and
• I make a lot of my clothes (though of course the fabric may still have been made by sweated labour).
posted by orange swan at 6:33 AM on November 17, 2005

A lot of the garment industry workers in Montreal are Haitian immigrants. Typically workers will send money back to Haiti to support families working in the Haitian garment industry.

It seems to me that this facilitates paying Haitian workers below subsistence level incomes, because the Canadian employees will top-up the income level for Haitian families just enough to keep them alive and working in the Haitian factories. This system allows the industry to effectively pay the absolute minimum to its workers - subsistence level only - while continuing to manufacture some product here.

Here is some supporting information from CBC Radio One's Dispatches - "Haiti: A Country Never Dies" (2nd link is realaudio):

One of the things keeping it alive is remittance. A family's very survival often depends on the money it receives from relatives living outside the country.

In Montreal's Haitian community, the CBC's David Gutnick found one woman who alone supports 47 people back in her former home.

And he followed the money she sends, from Montreal to Haiti, to see just how it trickles down to the poorest.

Quoted from the documentary itself:

Anita's $7.50/hr job in Montreal is feeding 47 members of her family here in Port au Prince. When Anita works, the family eats. Every year Haitians, people like Anita, send one billion dollars worth of food and money back home. It is, by a long shot, the most important part of the Haitian economy.

posted by Chuckles at 6:07 AM on November 20, 2005