What Price Fashion If That ‘Bargain’ Came From a Sweatshop? : Labor: As before, the garment industry exploits immigrants and children. Unlike before, we have protective laws that need only to be enforced.

The Times articles describing garment sweatshop operations in Orange County were a shock to those of us who take a “Made in the U.S.A.” label as assurance of a law-abiding as well as a quality manufacturer. It is abhorrent that adults work in exploitative conditions; it is tragic that children do.

A century ago, child labor was common in America in many industries, including the “needle trades.” Youngsters of all ages did assorted jobs helping their parents make clothing in home sweatshops. Others worked in sweatshops in tenement basements and factory lofts. Children under 14, then the minimum age for employment, were hidden under cloth-draped tables or taught to lie about their ages when factory inspectors made the rounds. It was common for the youngsters to work up to 15 hours a day for about 40 cents.

There are other striking similarities between yesterday’s and today’s sweatshops. One is the abuse of immigrant workers. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, immigrants who’d “made it” typically employed more recent arrivals under horrendous working conditions. Many of the same excuses were given then as now: Nobody else will hire them because they can’t speak English; it’s better for them to work at a low wage than starve; bad as conditions here may be, they are better than in the old country. Yesterday, the old country was usually Russia, Poland or Italy; today, it’s Vietnam, Mexico or El Salvador.

Descriptions of the mini-sweatshops springing up today in garages and apartments resemble those graphically described by reformers Jacob Riis and Jane Addams at the turn of the century. Again children work with parents late into the night in cramped, airless quarters also used for eating and sleeping. Infants breathe air contaminated by dust from cuttings of material. The threat of tuberculosis and other respiratory disease has reappeared.

As in the past, fire is a particular hazard in the “needle trades” because of the highly flammable quality of cloth. This was seen in all its horror in the recent fire in a high-rise garment-industry building in downtown Los Angeles. In 1911, a disastrous fire at the Triangle Waist Co. in New York, which took 147 lives, became a rallying point for legislating workplace safety standards. Yet, as even a Los Angeles Fire Department official acknowledged, safety codes must be enforced, and enforcement has a low priority in government budgets.

When unions were stronger, they acted as watchdogs to police workplace safety enforcement. Now, much of our clothing is manufactured by non-union companies. We must find new ways to guarantee that the clothes we purchase, at least those made in America, are manufactured in accordance with labor laws. One way is to look for the union label when we shop. It does provide some guarantees.

Another solution worth reviving originated in the National Consumers’ League in the late 1890s when few unions existed. The movement spread from New York over several states. The league devised a label issued only to companies that adhered to certain standards in wages, hours, rest periods and sanitary conditions, gave equal pay for equal work irrespective of sex, and did not employ children. The agreement also required that all stitched goods be made on the manufacturer’s premises. Lists of participating firms were published. Why can’t a similar system be used today? Why can’t labels be attached to garments verifying that they were made in compliance with labor laws?

We need to make tough decisions about our own participation in maintaining the status quo. “Bargains” may indicate cost-cutting at the garment workers’ expense. We probably will have to pay more for lawfully made clothes, and that may require indulging ourselves and our children a little less or wearing the same outfits a little longer.

For their part, public officials must be committed to forcing garment makers and subcontractors either to comply with existing legislation or cease operation. Appropriate city, county, state and federal departments must see that these companies are licensed to do business, pay city taxes, withhold income tax as required, make payments on behalf of employees for Social Security, unemployment and disability benefits, and maintain health standards with respect to air, light, seating, drinking water, restrooms and so on.

Sadly, enforcing all the pertinent laws will close down marginal subcontractors and put people out of work. But is this a valid reason to justify a situation where clothing is manufactured with the labor of children? I think not. If a company can’t operate without exploiting its workers, child or adult, then it should go out of business.

But what about the plight of those who lose their jobs if marginal firms close? The surgery to cut out sick businesses will bring hardships, but public, private and volunteer agencies can help families bridge the transition. And one better-paid wage-earner per family may compensate for three or four earning a pittance.

Putting the sweatshops out of business is a formidable, difficult task. If we must pay higher prices to buy clothing made in conformance with proper labor standards, so be it. It’s bad enough that sweatshops thrived yesterday and are back in business today. We must say “no” to them for tomorrow. It is a moral imperative.