Fall Issue Sneak Preview!
Oh man. We’ve really done it now. Ya see, about six months or so ago, we decided that we were really sick of American Apparel getting a free pass from so many news media outlets for being the long-awaited savior in an industry that is built on the backs of sweatshop workers. We smelled a rat between the sexy ads and sexual harassment claims, and editors Mariana Ruiz and Jessica Hoffmann put together a 10-page investigative look into international hipsters’ favorite sexy shirt source. The issue is already stirring up a whole mess of shit, and most people haven’t even seen it yet.
You should definitely subscribe to Clamor to have the issue delivered to your door and support vital indpendent media. While you’re waiting for your subscription to kick in, take a moment to sneak preview the special section as a PDF here.
Oops: Case Still Pending.
In this Fall 2006 issue, we incorrectly reported that Mary Nelson, a store manager at American Apparel, had withdrawn her sexual harassment suit against CEO Dov Charney. It has come to our attention that the suit by Mary Nelson, a sales manager, is still pending, and that an unnamed store manager withdrew her suit against the company.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Well, our American Apparel coverage certainly has been getting a lot of attention! Check out the section here, and then read a sample of what people are saying:
Blogs
FAIR – Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Feministing
Media Bistro
Women in Media and News
Jossip
Philadelphia Will Do
Pinko Feminist Hellcat
Lying Media Bastards
Radio
Headline on Democracy Now! Monday 8/21/06
Jen and Keely on KPFK’s Uprising Radio, Tuesday 8/22/06
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:30 am
heads up:
After nearly 6 months of work and hundreds of hours of interviews and research, Knowmore.org is releasing its special report on American Apparel, LLC.
American Apparel is the largest garment manufacturer in the United States, and as of this writing employs roughly 4,500 workers out of a single factory in downtown Los Angeles. Its growth in the past five years has been astonishing; from 2002 to 2004, the company repeatedly doubled its annual sales figures, and has opened 130 retail stores worldwide in the past three years.
The company, which prides itself on its socially responsible practices, has had its ethics called into question by critics who accuse the company of union busting, harmful advertising, creating a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and managerial misconduct towards workers.
When Knowmore’s American Apparel entry came to the attention of CEO Dov Charney, he called to challenge our representation of his company, and demanded we take a closer look. He also offered us unprecedented access to his factory, workers, and management, which we accepted and engaged.
The result is this report; which represents the most complete Knowmore.org entry to date, and the most comprehensive look at Charney’s controversial company ever published.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
Dear Clamor,
At the first outset I could not believe you were attacking American
Apparel (AA), With the loss of so many jobs due to NAFTA and GATT I
really liked that I could get high-quality goods from American
workers. Needless to say I was shocked and appalled to find out about
their Union busting tactics. Clamor, you have broken my heart but
opened my eyes. I will never buy an AA garment again, at least not
until they are Union.
Thanks,
Mike Lemmons
USWA Local 1014
Gary IN
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I work at American Apparel as part of the media team.
We have no problem with the opinions expressed in the Clamor piece. We disagree with them, but that’s bound to happen whenever there is a discussion on any complicated issue. The writer of the Knowmore.org is critical of American Apparel, but we think it is a really great article because it presents all relevant facts in an objective way, so that an intelligent reader can form her own opinion about us based on it.
We have a problem with the Clamor piece because it is presented as an investigative report, and it contains many serious factual errors. (This is not surprising since no one from Clamor actually investigated.) We are concerned that Clamor readers will assume that what they read in this piece is a true and fair statement of fact, form a negative opionion about us based on it, and that we will lose them as customers. Mike Lemmons’ comment above mine shows that our concern is not unfounded.
To Clamor:
I don’t understand why you think our considering a legal action against you is “incongruous” given the difference in the amounts of profit we make. (BTW, $250 million in sales is not the same as $250 million in profit. Just another error of fact in your investigative report).) Should a magazine with an operating budget of $150 thousand a year be held to a lower standard of journalistic integrity than a better funded magazine? Should a profitable company compromise it’s goodwill to let a little magazine cash in on scandalizing it?
As the Knowmore.org article on American Apparel proves, responsible and competent journalism need not be expensive. It just takes integrity and hard work. If Clamor staff conducted itself in accord with journalistic standards while writing the piece on American Apparel, the legal action (if it should come to that) will prove it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
American Apparel keeps mentioning these “factual errors” without actually saying what they are. How bout telling us what Clamor got wrong?
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Working on it! It’s a long list.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Q: How many American Apparel employees does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: Screw in a lightbulb? They’re too busy screwing each other!
No wonder it’s taking them so long to come up with this list of errors.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Weronika Cwir wrote:
“We have a problem with the Clamor piece because it is presented as an investigative report, and it contains many serious factual errors.”
Again, and I’m not sure why this has to keep being repeated, WHAT ARE THE ERRORS? You sound like the Bush Administration, saying over and over again “Nope, you’re wrong, believe me” without actually providing any information.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
For those who pine for real information, I recommend reading the knowmore.org article while American Apparel employees are juggling a huge trade show, an illness, a visit from little sister, and a thorough preparation of a response to the Clamor “investigative report.”
I’ll post the link to this response in another comment here by tomorrow.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:38 am
While it’s understandable that the company’s employees are very busy both personally and professionally, it is lazy and irresponsible to post a comment citing “many serious factual errors” in the report, and then give no examples, even after repeated requests.
If these errors are indeed “serious” and “factual”, it shouldn’t require “thorough preparation” to give even one example off the top of your head. No one in this thread is demanding the full rebuttal AA is preparing. We just ask that if you are going to accuse Clamor of bad reporting, that you cite some of these errors outright–I would think that exposing the errors would be your primary goal, rather than just making accusations, so as to clear AA’s name all the more quickly.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Thank you Clamor! I subscribed a few days ago based on my reading of the articles. As a feminist, all I needed to do was see Charney’s deposition in one of the harassment cases a few weeks ago on NBC(?). Plus the ads creap me out and I am SO NOT an anti-sex feminist either.
Considering that AA has had this piece for much longer than Weronika has been posting, I too am eagerly awaiting this huge list of factual errors.
*tapping toe*
August 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
hey weronika:
it is important to point out that the things clamor is saying have been out there for a while. i, until recently, have been buying your stuff, but i have to say that all of this is pretty disturbing. we are not spending any more of our cash on your company until you ummm… come clean.
it makes sense that you all want to take some time to form a response, but you all should do it soon.
thanks.
-matt
August 25th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hey.
We sent our detailed response to Clamor yesterday, but made a decision not to make it an open letter right now — it would be discorteous to Clamor staff to do so before giving them a chance to correct the situation.
So for now, here is a simplified and abbreviated explanation of factual errors:
Union Drive:
Clamor’s assertion that that American Apparel “denied the union access or neutrality at the factory” is false. In fact, Dov Charney refused to impose the unionization, but he told UNITE representatives that he would not stand in the way of holding elections on the issue. He invited UNITE to pick a date on which to hold elections, and to choose whatever third-party monior UNITE wanted to monitor the elections. UNITE chose not to hold elections.
National Labor Relations Board found no wrongdoing by Dov Charney or American Apparel’s management in the matter of the unfair labor practices claim filed by UNITE against American Apparel.
Sexual Harrasment Allegations:
Clamor talks about the sexual harassment lawsuits that have been filed against Dov Charney, but ignores the fact that two of those lawsuits have been dismissed by the plaintiffs with prejudice and without any finding of liability by Charney or anyone else at American Apparel. In addition, none of the lawsuits allege that Charney engaged in a sexual relationship or that he inappropriately fondled any of the plaintiffs involved.
Other:
The statetement that American Apparel possesses a textile factory “straight out of the ’40s” is false. The building where most manufacturing happens was built in 1920, and was adapted by American Apparel to house a very up-to-date garment factory.
Clamor improperly attributes to Charney the statement that most domesticated violence is initiated by women.
Clamor reported that American Apparel only used the term “Sweatshop Free” after Sweat X opened. This is false.
The statement that “Cynthia Semon of the media-relations desk at American Apparel was contacted for this article and initially replied, but was unresponsive to questions poses” is flatly untrue. One of the writers sent Cynthia two e-mails. She responded to the first one with her own full contact information and a request that the writer provide full contact information for himself. The writer replied with his first name only, and when Cynthia failed to see anyone by that name mentioned on Clamor’s website she assumed the e-mail was a prank and took no further action. Clamor made no further effort to contact Cynthia, or any other American Apparel employee who deals with media.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Weronika, the KM article is actually far more damning. Try reading the sodding thing. One wonders if you all are finally starting to feel the heat from the people you tried to target as your market.
But thanks for lecturing us all on journalistic ethics. I love how someone who lectures us about journalism can’t be bothered to rebut one damn thing Clamor said. And it’s quite amusing how a company and its chief executive can bitch and moan about a lawsuit culture and then threaten to . . . sue.
:::Rolls eyes:::
August 27th, 2006 at 9:43 am
[...] For more on this story, click here. Also, here’s a blurb from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. [...]
August 27th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
anyone else not surprised at all that weronika didnt come through? guess it takes a little bit longer for them to make shit up.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
it doesn’t take ANY investigation to see AmApp’s sexist ad campaign.
(then again, if women want to portray themselves as hos, i guess it’s their right.)
August 29th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Hey Clamor, I am not sure why the comment I left on Friday still isn’t up… I have saved the text, so if it got lost, please let me know.
At the very least, could you please post this comments so that your blog readers know that American Apparel isn’t ignoring their request for a list of factual errors?
Please also post my e-mail: weronika [at] americanapparel [dot] net. I’ll respond to your blog readers in private if for some reason you would prefer not to post my responses on your blog.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Sheelzebub, I read Knowmore.org article closely a few times, and I don’t find it damning. I think it is not unusual that given the same facts two people can form entirely different opinions; everyone has their own assumptions and values that influence how they perceive things. I don’t claim that my values are better than yours, and if you formed your negative opinion of my company based on the facts presented in the Knowmore.org report… Well, that’s unfortunate for my company, but it is fair. But if you formed that opinion based on inaccurate fact, that’s unfortunate and unfair.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Obviously “fact” is subjective. Weronika’s “facts” are influenced by her paycheck. I think that’s all we really need to know.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Weronika, Charney made those comments about domestic violence to the McGill Daily.
Here’s the quote in context:
Political correctness, in his opinion, has created an unbalanced culture that’s unnaturally constraining. “Feminism is extremely restrictive. You can’t call a woman a bitch, you can’t call her this, you can’t call her that. But that’s what life’s really like. Yet she can do whatever she wants. It’s out of balance and that’s why young people haven’t embraced feminism, because it’s out of balance.”
Charney’s rant against the “lawsuit culture” of the West seems convenient, considering the man is rumoured to sleep with each and every one of his female models, and once masturbated in front of an interviewer from Jane Magazine.
He pursues his point. “Out of a thousand sexual harassment claims how many do you think are exploitive? There are almost no sexual harassment charges from men against women. They’re not acceptable – it’s considered that only women are the victims.
“Women initiate most domestic violence, yet out of a thousand cases of domestic violence maybe one is involving a man.” And this, Charney decries, “has made a victim culture out of women.”
Ms. Semon’s letter, linked in a follow-up post here, states that Charney doesn’t support the idea that women initiate domestic violence. Yet his statements in this interview belie this. If this was falsely attributed to Charney, one wonders why American Apparel didn’t demand a retraction then.
Regarding the sexual harassment case: No where in the article did they assert that the plaintiffs charged Charney with fondling them or “engaged in a sexual relationship” with them. It was pretty clear that the women charged AA with creating a hostile work environment.
Finally, I formed my opinion of AA through the actions of Dov Charney (actions that he’s copped to, BTW) and the actions of his employees and cheerleaders, who seem eager to prude-bait, red-bait, and pitch hissy fits anytime someone has the gall to look askance at AA’s practices or Charney’s behavior.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
hey weronika, i have a question or two for you. i found this link to a webcomic that made fun of american apparel…whose writer received a “very weird and very uncomfortable call” that it be taken down.
http://tinyurl.com/l5a34
is american apparel so scared you’re afraid of satire based on public information? do you actually think by harrassing journalists (and webcomic writers) you’ll keep what’s going on in your company hidden?
evan
August 31st, 2006 at 12:29 am
Ganapati, facts are not subjective.
Fact: corporate salaries at American Apparel are rather low. Fact: I used to make three times as much as I am making now when I worked as a software developer. But enough about me.
Fact: Clamor writers got things that are on public record wrong in their articles about American Apparel. Fact: Clamor writers did not interview people involved in the events they reported. Fact: One of those writers works for a union.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:39 am
Facts are completely subjective. Take Pluto, for instance. Until last week we all thought it was a planet.
Journalists are not perfect, nor are “progressive” corporations, but at least Clamor has rectified the one fact that wasn’t accurate, which actualy makes American Apparel look WORSE since the sexual harassment dispute hasn’t yet been settled. Thank you for that “fact”.
And just to clarify, you’re saying that because the writer of the union article works for a union we’re not supposed to believe his claims? The logical conclusion then is that because you work for American Apparel, we shouldn’t believe your claims either.
Subjective Fact: You’re wasting your time on this blog and doing American Apparel a disservice.
Please come up with more substantative criticisms or use your (paid) time more effectively.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Evan, the comic you mention came out before I started at American Apparel. Somewhere out there in there blogosphere there is another URL where I saw it at some point, and I left my comment about the whole thing (the comic and the call it mentions) there.
To answer your questions:
1. American Apparel is not afraid of satire; in fact we welcome it when it is smart and funny. The Daily Show and Colbert Report both made fun of our overtly sexual — OK, nearly pornographic — ads, and we loved it so much we put it up on our website and gave them friends & family discount. A group of friends in LA did a spoof of our ads and used them to advertise their indie comedy show, and we put that up on our website too, and since they are in LA, we’ve made friends in person. We have absolutely no problem with Clamor’s spoof of our ads.
2. We have no motivation or desire to keep what is going on at the company hidden from anyone. The factory is open to tours — it has become somewhat of a tourist spot in LA — and we are open to dialogue with journalists, both independent and professional, and with anyone who is interested. Clamor is welcome to visit and talk to primary sources, just as Bernard Dolan from Knowmore.org did.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Sheelzebub, the context in which Dov Charney cited that statement is explained in Cynthia’s letter to Clamor, but since that letter is not linked from their site I can only assume that they are not comfortable putting these details on their blog (BTW, we at American Apparel are — Clamor is welcome to make any communication with us public). If you are really interested in this, please write me at weronika@americanapparel.net and I will send to you the relevant portion of the letter.
August 31st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
so what’s different about that comic? because they’re little and you can threaten them and push them around to make them change their content, something you can’t do with the daily show or colbert report? or, for that matter, the new york times.
http://tinyurl.com/f59om
“Among the allegations(of dov charney’s actions): using crude language and gestures, conducting job interviews in his underwear, ordering the hiring of women in whom he had a sexual interest and giving one of the plaintiffs a vibrator.”
gee, that’s a lot harsher than what clamor is alleging. did the new york times receive a “very weird and very uncomfortable call” from your pr department? why are you threatening clamor?
August 31st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Ganapati,
In case of Pluto, it may not be called “a planet” now, but the fact that it is a mass orbiting the Sun remains. The classification was changed because as technology got better, we learned more about this distant mass: how small it is compared to what we call planets, how it’s orbit is influenced by other planets, etc. Based on this new knowledge, what has changed is our interpretation of the facts about Pluto, and thus, our classification of it.
The facts of what went on and stills goes on at American Apparel are easier to ascertain than Pluto’s mass or orbit is. It takes talking to people who experienced the events one is interested in, and examining public documents (and I don’t mean blogs). Basically, it can be achieved through the process known as “investigative journalism.” In my humble opinion, if one were to go through such process and ascertain the facts, one would not classify American Apparel as a “union-buster” or claim that the work environment here is “hostile” to women. (Unless, of course, we redefine what “union-buster” and “hostile environment” mean, but that’s a matter of semantics, not of investigative journalism).
I am not saying that the reason you should, Ganapati, should disbelieve a Clamor writer because this writer happens to be a union employee. I am saying (and this is not my own humble opinion — it comes from the Code of Ethics promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists) that journalists should at all costs “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.” In this case, the writer’s employment by the union creates a potential conflict of interest, and, therefore, his piece should have been presented as opinion or commentary and not as “Special Investigative Report.”
As for me, I agree, you should put my statements up to very close scrutiny. I do not pretend to be a journalist bound by ethical standards, and, what is more I acknowledge that my goal is to protect American Apparel’s good name. My employer believes that I am doing a fair job of it, and that is it not a waste of my paid time, and, since I my loyalty is with my employer, I will have to disregard your advice to stop posting comments.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Evan, I have no idea what was the substance of the “very weird and uncomfortable phonecall” that the comic writer received. What I, Weronika, did was to leave a comment about it another blog, and that comment was not a threat. In fact, it started an a friendly exchange between me and the blogger. As for the phonecall, all I can do is speculate, and if it came from Dov Charney, it is possible that it said something obscene and dangerous-sounding. I have had him threaten me with “cutting off my penis and fucking my wife” (and I am a woman!) for failing to re-schedule one of his appointments. What can I say? He can say bizzare stuff when you push a button. I find it hillarious, but that’s because I know him; other’s might find it uncomfortable. As for vibrators, I don’t know what it has to do with this discussion, but since you bring it up… He gave me one of those too. The box has pictures of people using it on their backs, though I have heard that it can be used on, um, private parts. I haven’t unwrapped it yet, so I don’t know. I don’t really care either.
But let’s get back to this situation. We, as in people who work for Dov, do our best to keep on good terms with the media, big and small. We have been treating Clamor with the same courtesy with which we treat New York Times, but also, we hold them to the same journalistic standards to which we hold NYT. I fail to see what is threatening in our conduct with Clamor. They have an option of posting a retraction and an apology — really a standard thing to do for a media outlet whose failure to adhere to journalistic standard (even if inadvertent) resulted in misinformation. But they themselves claim that should this matter ever go to court, they are certain they would be vindicated, so they chose to stand by their story. So wherein lies the threat? Please advise.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:42 am
W-
Exactly my point. With new knowledge, the classification of American Apparel as a company with progressive standards and fair working conditions has now changed for many people who support these ideals. Now American Apparel, while continuing to espouse these ideals, isn’t considered (for many) a progressive company anymore, suffering the same fate as Pluto.
And claiming that someone who is involved in union organizing can’t write a journalistic article on a union that he or she is not involved in represents a ‘conflict of interest’ is like saying that a stripper from the Pink Pony in NY can’t write a journalistic article about the working conditions for strippers at the Lusty Lady in Seattle because she is a stripper at a different club on the other side of the country. There is no conflict of interest there. In fact, the knowledge and insight that the writer brings because she is a stripper herself is exactly why I would be more inclined to read the article. I think that most people have enough reasoning to take into account that Clamor is pro-union and the writer is pro-union so the article will most likely also be pro-union. This information isn’t hidden. It’s right at the end of the article in the first line of Jim Straub’s bio.
And my suggestion about not continuing to regurgitate your comments is aimed more at your employer than at you. Obviously you’re just repeating the line you’ve been given to repeat, despite having no evidence to back up what you’re saying and trying to pass off your opinion as fact. So, if American Apparel wants to waste money on such a poorly constructed PR campaign, who am I to tell them how to spend their $250 million in sales?
September 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
“I have had him threaten me with “cutting off my penis and fucking my wife” (and I am a woman!) for failing to re-schedule one of his appointments. What can I say? He can say bizzare stuff when you push a button. I find it hillarious.”
Really?! You find sexual threats “hillarious”? I think that quote alone is restraining-order worthy.
What we seem to be arguing here is not so much about facts, but about what is and is not professionally, socially, and personally acceptable. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many other people agreeing that such verbal threats and abuse are “hillarious”. But thanks for adding that anecdote to the public record.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Weronika, having an verbally abusive, sexually manipulative boss is nothing new nor interesting. It’s been happening for years and whatever you call it it’s still illegal.
As for Jim Straub being a union organizer, that’s not unusual for a writer in Clamor. They frequently use activists and organizers to write stories about, well, activism and organizing. For example, reading through this issue the article about trans people is written by a person who is transgendered, the article about marketing strategy is written by a doctoral student in Sociology and the stem cell article is written by two people involved in the field, among other examples. You seem to have a problem with it but like Gan. said it adds to the story.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Ganapati, by all means, contact my employer to complain about the quality of my work. Lobby the Society of Professional Journalists to change their Code of Ethics.
But if you think that my response proves “your point exactly”, you are somewhat confused. My point is that if Clamor had learned and reported the facts (as in: who did what) of the union drive at American Apparel then they would probably not think of us as union-busters. And if they did still, then we would have to discuss what “union-busting” means. You see, I am just trying to add some intellectual rigor to this whole discussion.
BTW, Ganapati, if you ever happen to read an article written by anyone who claims to be a stripper from Pink Pony in NYC, DON’T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Pink Pony (situated on Ludlow in New York’s Lower East Side) is a caffee/restaurant, and striptease is not on the menu. That was my impression from my single visit at Pink Pony, but since I know that my perception is as fallible as anyone else’s, I just called them to check, and they confirmed that they are not, IN FACT, a strip joint.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Keely, since I don’t have a penis or a wife, I was not at all concerned about having the first cut off and the second fucked by another. But I know that fears are not always rational. I, for example, have a crippling fear of insects. And I feel harassed by invitations to potluck dinners with co-workers, especially if I am told that everthing I bring must be organic. Also, I have a morbid fear of working with people who are obtuse and/or humorless. But I don’t at all mind inventive sexual metaphors used for emphasis in the workplace. To each her own, I guess.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Nate, I agree, I don’t see what is so interesting about the way my boss talks. I don’t mind it, other people who work with him don’t mind it (or if they do, they don’t communicate directly with him), and it has nothing to do with the really interesting things that go on at American Apparel. I said nothing about “sexual manipulation”, because I have not experienced any from him, so I don’t know where you got that.
I also agree that people who are passionate about a subject can provide really interesting commentary about it. But people who have a professional or economic interest in a subject are usually not the best candidates to provide an objective overview of it, as even if they wish to be fair, they might not be able to help their bias. This is why physicians are advised against treating their own family, and it might also be why journalists are advised to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pm
after reading this article and all of the comments chronicling Charney’s exploits i will now FULLY AND CONSTANTLY support american apparel.
anyone that i know would buy more american apparel that i know.,
girls included.
they love dirty old men.
you all do.
you all love gettin down and dirty with guys like Charney, but c’mon, when the sh*t hits the fan and people find out that you have been naughty PLEASE dont sue for sexual assault.
feminism sucks. american apparel rules. and i will buy my future femal coworkers vibrators if i damn well please. that right is all but explicity protected by our own Constitution, which as you know carries more weight than the bible ’round here.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
note. the above idiot would very much like you to click on his link so you will be taken to his dumb-ass band’s myspace page. feel free to indulge him if you’re looking for a good laugh of if you haven’t shaken your head in disbelief lately.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
she_had_it_coming, while I don’t see eye-to-eye with you on the issue of feminism, and I think that at 37 Dov is not a “dirty old man”, just “a man who likes to have sex and to talk dirty”, I am glad that we have gained you as customer. I liked the song that played when I went to your myspace page.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Weronika, you don’t agree with me. My point wasn’t that this conversation is boring, but that your company is neither alternative nor progressive (nor interesting and cutting edge) by having a boss who is a sexual predator and screams abuse at his subordinates. And whether or not YOU personally like it, which it seems you do, the laws in our country ( in case you weren’t aware, there are some http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html ) protect people from this sort of bullshit.
I’m sure you’re going to assert that everyone at your company loves getting hit on, screamed at and being given sex toys, but I suspect there are at least a few employees that just want to do their job and are keeping their mouths shut, no pun intended.
As for a respected SEIU union organizer out of Las Vegas who was not involved with the unionizing campaign writing an article about the union attempt at AA, that’s no more or less a conflict of interest in my opinion than a passionate unpaid activist writing about activism by others in their field of work.
September 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
This discussion just cost AA business. A not-for-profit silkscreen coop was considering using their products. I blocked.
September 2nd, 2006 at 4:09 am
this discussion could cost AA a lot more business if we could list some viable progressive alternatives so that those of us reading all this and (understandably) amazed by how rediculous buying from AA is know where to look in the future. ideas?
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:46 am
The names of the strip clubs have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
What a ridiculous comment! And further evidence to how you waste your time at work. Heh!
And can you please provide the full contact info of your supervisors? I’d LOVE to make a complaint.
HERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVES TO AMERICAN APPAREL:
* No Sweat – http://www.nosweatshop.com (and you apparently get a 10% discount when you use the code “CLAMOR”)
* Alternative Apparel – http://www.alternativeapparel.com
* Justice Clothing – http://www.justiceclothing.com
September 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 am
Nate, I, like most people, enjoy being hit on by people I am attracted to. I was never, in the ten months I have worked for him, hit on by Dov Charney. He does not seem to me to be a sexual predator. I, personally, feel neutral about being given sex toys.
Whether or not the way my boss communicates with his employees constitutes sexual harassment is up to court to decide based on extensive evidence. It is not up to you to decide based on anecdotal evidence.
Whether or not it is ethical and professional for a union organizer to write an article about a union drive he was not involved in and not to investigate the facts of the case is up to Society of Professional Journalists to decide. Again, that decision is not up to you.
The decision to read Clamor and base your opinions about my company is entirely up to you, of course.
And up to you, David Christian, and Portland. I am very sorry that we are losing your business as a result.
Whether or not you peel the labels “progressive” and “alternative” off the name American Apparel is a matter of monumental indifference to me, since I don’t know what those terms mean exactly. If “progressive” and “alternative” are irreconcilable with “having a brash potty-mouth for a CEO” — if this is more important than the fact that this CEO is an open and honest person — then we don’t deserve (or want) those terms.
All I care about is that you realize that American Apparel provides well-paid garment manufacture jobs to over 4000 people in United States, that people who work for American Apparel get generous benefits, and that the management of American Apparel respects, and always did, the rights of the workers to unionize.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Everyone is welcome to visit our factory, talk to our workers, and help them organize.
September 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
alternative apparel, los angeles alternativeapparel.com
article one, santa ana
apparel agent, los angeles
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 am
http://www.unitehere.org/buyunion/promo.asp
September 4th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Ganapati, the point I was making in my response to your comment about Pink Pony was that when one is basing one’s argument on facts, it is important to make sure those facts are correct. In this case, your sloppiness in that regard paralleled Clamor’s sloppiness in reporting on American Apparel. Pink Pony is not a strip joint, so it is not an appropriate example in an argument about reporting on working conditions of strippers, and American Apparel is not a union-buster, so it is not an appropriate subject for an article about anti-union tactics.
To make a complaint about me, please contact Cynthia Semon. Her full contact information is in the Press Center section of my company’s website (www.americanapparel.net). It is very easy to find, and I think it will be a good exercise in fact-checking for you. For good measure, you can cc Dov Charney (if you are making this complaint by e-mail, his address is dov[at]americanapparel.net).
September 7th, 2006 at 12:28 am
So, let me get this straight:
You think American Apparel is evil because its founder wears his company’s underwear in front of his workers, says bad words, and gives his employees vibrators as presents.
You think this labor union is good even though in the past 5-10 years it has had proven ties to extortion, bribery, child labor, sweat shops, arson, and MURDER?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
September 8th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Weronika is a shill, a sad P.R flack who can’t even do her job right.
I used to work at American Apparel in Toronto and I have personally talked to Dov Charney on the phone. A woman called Laurel Miciak who worked in Montreal had just resigned from AA and sent a letter out to everyone in the company including several media outlets outlining the reasons for her resignation, which included some allegations of sexual favours being exchanged for advancements on the part of Canada’s head of operations.
Dov freaked out and personally called every AA store in an attempt to “rally the troops”. I was the most senior person at this Toronto store when he called us, and myself and another person were on the line for over half an hour while Dov called Laurel “a dirty slut, a fucking whore” and mentioned how he wanted to “jerk off into her face” amongst other luminary verbal gems. I am not paraphrasing here, I am quoting.
The link below is to Laurel’s letter, which is widely available now.
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/top/american-apparel-resignation-letter-180321.php
Oh and Weronica on the link below you state that dov does not do drugs, which is a lie…at least it was up to last year.
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/american-apparel/american-apparel-responds-to-resignation-letter-181364.php
Dov once went to the Queen street store opening around 2 years ago and bragged about how he was stopped in Utah with weed in his possession. And I heard numerous anecdotal accounts from those who know him well that he is a consumate indo smoker…So am I, more power to him, but don’t go around saying he doesn’t do drugs.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
There are times when I take a moment to observe my generation and it makes me want to throw up in my mouth. I can’t decide if it’s because I feel that two-party politics has obviously rub off on all of us in that we feel we can only choose one of two stances, or if it’s simply because I find extreme left wing politics as boring and exhausting as extreme right wing thought.
The fact of the matter is that Clamor’s article was biased, and in my personal opinion that is a reflection of poor journalism. American Apparel is all about the grey areas, and in no way does the company attempt to deny that. As an employee there I have observed a few consistencies in the company’s character. Sometimes I feel as though it is absolute chaos, which is inevitable considering how the hierarchy of the organization consists of young and young-minded individuals. Some of us can be jerks and Dov is often over-the-top. Our company is extraordinarily abnormal, but in no way are we dishonest or insincere in what we’re doing.
Assigning a union representative to cover a story on union discussions at a factory is irresponsible. It would be one thing if Jim was writing an editorial, but he wasn’t and it is very clear what Clamor’s intentions were here in featuring this article- casting American Apparel in a negative light. Weronika’s responses on this board have been stellar in showing just that. By the way, whoever is criticizing her for spending part of her work day responding to this board must be missing a fucking chromosome. Try writing an expose on the Gap, or any bullshit billion dollar clothing manufacturer, and see if they have a representative participating on a response blog. Dishing juvenile jabs at Weronika for responding to your, at times, ultra-liberal garbage posts (I mean, someone compared her to the Bush Administrations for fucks sake) is ridiculous.
I guess I’m just getting heated because I’m tired of intelligent young people hating on things just for the sake of having something to bitch about. Here is a company that is doing the right thing when it comes to manufacturing ethics and setting an example for other retail companies to come, and yet we’re all pissed over in Williamsburg and Ft. Greene because it’s starting to become popular. Just like how your friend was pissed when his girlfriend was roommates with the BFF of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! and they didn’t recognize him when approaching them at a sold out show. Pull your heads our of your asses and do something useful, like coming down here to Pennsylvania to help us get Santorum out of office. You can even stay at my house and we’ll hold hands as we go door-to-door together as long as you talk to me about someone that’s fucking worth listening to (which doesn’t include your bullshit college kid postmodern theories on Charvey’s marketing techniques).
By the way, could someone over at Clamor tell Colin I said hey? I came across his picture in one of the spoof ads. I was his roommate at one point. We had heart to hearts in the bathroom as he took shits. Oh, and Jim, I’m from Pittsburgh if you want to talk about growing up in the rustbelt.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:50 am
To Former AA employee and everyone else who has been calling me a shill: I believe you use the word incorrectly. It implies that I do my job surreptitiously, and that’s just not true. I fully disclose that I work for American Apparel and that engaging in a dialogue with the media and presenting my employer’s position is part of my job. “P.R,” which stands for Public Relations, is appropriate.”Flack,” although it has pejorative connotations, is fair: I am aware that my job makes people mistrustful of me. But the fact that I am a publicist does not automatically invalidate things I say. To use my job as an argument against me is intellectualy lazy. And comments on the quality of my work do not belong on this forum (please direct them to me and to my employers instead). As for comments about my being “sad”… Please don’t worry about me.
I hate going off-topic, but since Former AA employee raised a point about my boss and drugs on this public forum, and since Clamor allowed that comment, I must respond. My statement about Dov not doing drugs comes from a private e-mail I sent to Ben Popken, the editor of Consummerist, as an explanation of why I didn’t comment on Miciak’s letter. In that letter I explain that I don’t comment on facts I don’t know, and I started working for AA after Miciak left. I was Dov’s assistant, bought his groceries, did his laundry, ran his errands, and worked with him at the place where he was living at the time. I have never been asked to buy “weed” or stuff that goes with it, or any other drug, for him. I have seen people around him smoke joints, but I don’t think he ever did, not around me in any case. That could be because at the time he was working on financing every waking hour, and I imagine that would not be possible if one were stoned. The point of my letter to Popken was that Charney is not a lush who pays his employees poorly while spending money on drugs.
But enough about me and about drugs. I believe that the discussion here is about the quality of the Clamor report specifically, and about responsibilities and obligations of investigative journalists more generally. That’s the interesting discussion here.
September 11th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
The point, Stacy and Weronika is that there are some things that just aren’t right with this company:
1. It is not right for the CEO to call an ex employee a slut or talk about wanting to masturbate in her face (oh but he’s such a character and over the top!!)
2. It is not right to promote young women over anyone else with no rhyme or reason other than they look good and they appeal to the libido of senior management.
4. It is not right to go against the Canadian Charter of Human rights to explicitly discriminate against someone because of how they look. And at one point explicitly discriminate against males, with a female only hiring policy (which has now been stopped)
5. To refer to some of the women you have hired as “mopeds, you ride them once and it’s fun, but you don’t want to have one forever”
This isn’t just “something to bitch about”..these are serious issues stemming from the behavious of the founder of your company….a company which prides itself of being progressive in labour issues, but which paradoxically prides itself on allowing certain behaviours to take place which haven’t been acceptable since the 50’s, if ever!
And furthermore these are issues that the company as a whole seems dismissive of.
Witness Weronikas rebuttal to my first mention which went on and on about her being called “a sad PR flack” (who cares, its a freaking message board, spend your employers time and money defending relevant allegations and issues, not your cyber-virtue)and about his drug use, but did not address what Dov said to me about Laurelle.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Former AA employee — I have already said on this message board that Dov is a brash potty mouth. If you would like to engage me in more of a dialogue about this, please write to me, or, if you want to make it public, do so on another forum. This discussion is mostly about reporting on the union drive issue.
But I will address your points now, since you raised them:
1. I agree that the comment is crass, but do you mean “it is not legal” or “it is not polite” or “it is not morally right”? If you would like to talk about it, please write to me, as this would be really off-topic here.
2. This one is not right for business reasons, so I wholeheartedly agree with you. Fortunately, at American Apparel one can advance one’s career — work on interesting projects and be given more responsibility — by exhibiting initiative and competence, and by bolstering it with hard work. Even if one is very very critical of senior management and very vocal about it. I am speaking from experience.
3. What happened to 3? It seems to be missing.
4. There is no such thing as the Canadian Charter of Human rights. Do you mean Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Canadian Human Rights Act? The first applies only to conduct of government, not conduct between private individuals, and the second applies only to workplaces integral to federal undertakings… But never mind which statute you apply; Canadian law still allows employers to discriminate against certain individuals if they can show that that the work requirement that leads to discrimination is rationally connected to performance on the job, was adopted in good faith that it is necessary for legitimate work-related purporses… But I am getting ahead of myself: since the alleged “girls only” policy was abandoned, there wouldn’t even be a human rights law case; while “sex” is covered as a ground of discrimination, “personal style” is not.
5. That comment sure is distasteful, but I don’t think it is illegal.
Speaking of comments about individuals: my cyber-virtue is important professionally both to me and to my employer, since I am my employer’s representative in cyber-space. That’s why I protect it. On a purely personal note, Former AA employee, I am surprised that you profess to care about your former co-worker Laurelle’s reputation, but sling insults at your former co-worker Weronika. Is it because you think a “shill” is not an insult and “slut” is? Or is it because you believe that somehow it is right for you (but not for Dov Charney) to do it?
September 13th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Oh my god Stacy! I cannot praise you enough! You have, in a mere 556 words, formulated a perfectly crafted critique of some of this generation’s disaffected self-appointed guardians of all that is good and all that is true. Black and white makes for a great color scheme in the context of a pair of totally rad Van’s running shoes (now owned by Nike, oops!) but it’s a totally ignorant way of perceiving the world. This was amply demonstrated by the self righteous article and comments related to Clamor’s deeply flawed write up on American Apparel.
To the rest of you, go ahead and spend your hipster dollars on t-shirts made by a unionized Indonesian shop where the average wage is $117 a month. Feel better now? No sweat indeed.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
The Society for Professional Journalists has no authority over anyone or anything. Journalism isn’t like medicine or law. Freedom of speech means anyone can practice journalism using whatever methods they want.
In the case of libel, someone is writing false information about someone else to ruin his or her reputation. So in this case you can talk about whether the facts are true or not but don’t bring up journalism standards as they mean absolutely nothing coming from a PR person.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Smirk — a very sensible comment.
You made me realize that I allowed my personal bias into this discussion. (That I have a professional bias because I am paid by American Apparel is a given, of course). This is probably because I grew up in communist Poland, where those who controlled information wielded enormous power and regularly abused this power. This might be why whenever I see propaganda that damages something I care about — and I consider the Clamor piece propaganda against a company and a business model I personally think is a positive force — I fight against it with a passion. Passion impedes reason, which is why a dispassionate court of law might be the best place to decide whether the Clamor piece is libel or not. But I don’t think The Society for Professional Journalists should be dismissed as irrelevant. Institutions that may not have legal authority still provide imporant checks and balances on power — in this case, power to disseminate information and influence opinion.
This why I don’t agree with you on this point; “freedom of speech means anyone can practice journalism using whatever methods they want.” I think that freedom of speech means that anyone can practice ADVOCACY using whatever LEGAL means they want, but they should not be able to pass that advocacy off as JOURNALISM when it is done in a way that does not respect journalistic standards.
And this is not just an academic matter of semantics; this should be an important matter for anyone who cares about truth. In a democratic country the public has a reasonable expectation to believe that what they read in printed publications is a an accurate statement of fact. I think that people who grew up with free press in countries where there are checks and balances on power may take this for granted, but I don’t take it for granted. That’s why I do what I do with convinction.
But I realise that my opinions have no power to influence anyone elses opinions. Nor should they: I am not bound by any code of ethics, and none of you know me personally, so you may reasonably think that I say what I say solely in order to get my paycheck. It would be much more effective to get people who are known and respected as purveyors of fair and unbiased opinion to weigh in on this…
With this thought, and since I have already stated all facts relevant here, I am signing off from this discussion. I thank everyone who has read my comments carefully and challenged me; you have made me rethink my positions, and even if I didn’t agree with you in the end, I found the excercise very uselful. Opinions atrophy when they are not challenged.
For anyone who would like to follow up, my address is weronika@americanapparel.net.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
On Alternative Apparel:
I’ve worked in the silk screening industry for years and I have been looking for an alternative to AA for some time now. I always come up stumped when people suggest Alternative Apparel. Besides the sexual politics how are they any different? While they enforce local labor laws at the overseas locations it is a probability that those local labor laws are anti-worker and pro-business and what exactly are adequate living wages?
Why are you pushing them as an alternative to AA? If anyone has more detailed information then what I am finding on the web it would be much appreciated.
September 16th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Alternative Apparel? Well… they manufacture in either 5 or 7 different unnamed countries depending upon what part of the Web site you’re reading. There’s no indication about the unionization status of any of their outsourced partners and all we get is their assurance that they visit all the factories 4 times a year to make sure that they “comply with the applicable laws and regulations of the localities, states, and countries in which they operate.” They also “…enforce total compliance with local labor laws that include child labor regulations as well as adequate living wages and the most current emergency equipment.” They enforce adequate living wages? What does that mean exactly? And how does the enforcement of local labor laws neccessarily help employees if the labor laws are made by the same people who own the factories staffed by disenfranchised workers? Alternative also claims that they “…provide not only employment, but also lifelong job skills to those who are lacking opportunity.” What on earth does that mean? I also notice that (gasp!) the models used on the Alternative Apparel Web site are quite attractive!
Say what you will about American Apparel, they are at least very forthcoming about every aspect of their business. Anyone interested knows in minute detail the wages and benefits earned by the employees. There are hundreds of photos available on the Web of the factory and the working conditions inside it. You know who makes the shirts, where they are made and under what conditions. You know exactly where the factory is and if so inclined, you may visit it. You know about their increasing use of organic cotton, the solar panels on the roof, the free staff bicycles, the masseuses, the english classes… in short, it’s clear that they have nothing to hide. Alternative Apparel however… they can’t even get straight how many different countries they manufacture in, let alone what those countries are and what local labor laws are being enforced.
Another manufacturer who claims complete transparency is NoSweat Apparel. They say they are open source manufacturers:
However, the list of manufacturers on their Web site is out of date. Also, the calibre of information about the wages, benefits and working conditions in any of the Union shops they cite is uneven. This is an important detail for those of us all to familiar with the existence of corrupt and even criminal unions.
Of the shops that they do provide real information about, unionized Universal Sportswear pays its employees less than American Apparel does and uses no organic cotton. Just Garments in El Salvador needed the help of Georgetown students to raise $16,000 just to stay afloat – and there is no information about their wages and benefits on the site. The most comprehensive information relates to the Bata factory in Indonesia that makes NoSweat’s awesome sweatshop free running shoes. You know, the one’s advertised with the scantily clad woman lying on the ground and the guy standing ominously above her? The unionized workers in that shop make less than $120 a month. That’s what an employee at American Apparel can make on a good day. The rest of the suppliers are given a pass by mere dint of the fact that they are unionized. Little more information is offered about them.
I’m sorry. I remain duly unimpressed. For my ethical dollar, American Apparel remains the best option. There’s is a truly transparent, open-source and ethical business model that works.
And I love LOVE their yoga pants!
September 17th, 2006 at 5:22 am
I’m sorry, what??
Regarding Dov Charney’s statement:
“Women initiate most domestic violence, yet out of a thousand cases of domestic violence maybe one is involving a man.”
What does that even mean?? It makes no sense, only 1 in 1,000 domestic violence cases involve a man? What is he saying, that most domestic violence cases are between lesbian couples??
Sounds more like nonsensical rambling than irrefutable evidence of misogyny.