Hipsters beware – your American Apparel essentials may soon be in jeopardy.
Late last month, the Los Angeles-based manufacturer announced the decision to fire 1,800 of its employees. This statement followed an extensive federal investigation, which reported unscrupulous hiring practices regarding the legal status of the company’s employees.
This case is the first widely publicized example of the Obama administration’s new approach to illegal immigration by way of discrediting federal investigation, as opposed to the Bush-era raids and subsequent deportations.
In a White House press release detailing the aspects of coming immigration legislation earlier this year, Obama indicated that new strategies would involve “tightening up our borders, or cracking down on employers who are using illegal workers in order to drive down wages – and oftentimes mistreat those workers.”
Interestingly, the first publicized implementation of this policy was inflicted upon a company known for its unusual use of domestic-based manufacturing plants and fair wages for workers.
American Apparel prides itself upon a corporate philosophy of “vertical integration”, a model that centers on domestic innovation and production. The company began manufacturing in the heart of Los Angeles when no other company would venture into the gang-filled and poverty-stricken territory. They now employ over 5,000 workers at an average of $12 an hour pay rate, and offer benefits.
The American Apparel business model provides a contrast to the Midwest meatpacking conglomerates, which are well known for their abuse of illegal immigrants and disregard for labor standards.
“It is my belief that immigrants bring prosperity to any economy,” wrote Canadian-born American Apparel founder and CEO Dov Charney in his pink slip letter to terminated employees.
“Although many people forget, migration has been going on for thousands of years, and it will continue for ever [sic]. My true dream is that one day we will all live in a world without borders,” Charney’s letter continued, conveying emotion and referencing Charney’s own immigrant background.
This is not the first time American Apparel has been at the center of a public relations firestorm. CEO Dov Charney has been implicated in at least three suits of sexual harassment by former employees.
According to journalist Claudine Ko, Charney also masturbated in front of her numerous times during the course of her interviews about the clothing company.
Charney has been quoted as saying, “Feminism is extremely restrictive. You can’t call a woman a b—-, you can’t call her this, you can’t call her that… Yet she can do whatever she wants. It’s out of balance and that’s why young people haven’t embraced feminism.” Later in the same interview, Charney is depicted as famously stating, “Women initiate most domestic violence.”
The timing of the decision to let the employees go is also notable; the firings occurred in the midst of a global recession and a massive fiscal crisis in California, with unemployment doubling from percentages earlier in the decade. Some figures in the California legislature have argued that freeing up these jobs will enable U.S. citizens to achieve greater employment.
However, the massive immigrant population in California has created an employment situation in which employers have grown to expect lower worker demands.
Nancy Martinez, co-president of Connecticut College’s MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, a national Chicana/o heritage, rights and politics student organization) chapter, stated that, “[American Apparel] treats its workers well, giving them a lot of other things that companies don’t. These immigrants are going to go to sweatshops and get mistreated and paid nothing.” She also pointed out that the Obama administration’s approach was favorable to previous methods, remarking that “…it is really upsetting to see them being fired, but at least they are not being deported.”
Martinez appreciated Charney’s pro-immigration reform stance, but, she also serves as co-chair of Conn’s Feminist Majority, and found allegations of the controversial CEO’s inappropriate relationships with employees to be very problematic.
At this point in the immigration debate, all parties involved concede that a continuation of Bush-era policies would be unacceptable.
Professor Maria Cruz-Saco indicated that a continued program of raids and deportation “would be severely criticized by the international community and would bring back doubts about U.S. immigration policy.”
This is especially true in light of the administration’s late summer commitments to Mexican President Felipe Calderón, which promised extensive revision of immigration policy. That is not to say that immigration legislation is at a stand still; on Wednesday, October 14, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, member of the House subcommittee on Immigration, outlined the core principles for a reform bill.
This past weekend at Conn, the community did its part in highlighting illegal immigration at the Undocumented Migration Conference, which covered wide-ranging topics surrounding the issue.
The college provided a forum to discuss the changes needed and to raise awareness, both among the international scholarly community and the college’s student body.
In a prepared speech to thousands of pro-immigration protesters on Capitol Hill, Rep. Gutierrez explained that “…we simply cannot wait any longer for a bill that keeps our families together, protects our workers and allows a pathway to legalization for those who have earned it. It is time we had a workable plan making its way through Congress that recognizes the vast contributions of immigrants to this country and that honors the American Dream.”
So next time the dress code calls for spandex and bright colors, we may think twice: just how American is that apparel?
Sources for this article included KnowMore.org. Additional reporting by Samantha Herndon.
