LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Maria Echaveste : Help For the Hourly Worker--From Someone Who’s Been There

‘Higher wages” and “America First” are two resonant issues raised in the GOP presidential campaign. These two terms are especially charged for Maria Echaveste, a former migrant worker who has traveled from the fields of the Southwest to a position of power in Washington--where she is top administrator of the Labor Department’s wage and hour division.

Echaveste serves as point person in the Clinton administration’s fight for a higher minimum wage--and battles daily against the same abuses she experienced growing up in a family of migrant laborers.

In the 1950s, her parents immigrated as part of the then-popular “bracero” guest program that brought waves of Mexicans to work in the U.S. Southwest. By the time she was 12, her family had settled in the Oxnard area, and, as the oldest of seven children, Echaveste became a surrogate mother to her younger siblings.

Seeking to escape her grim surroundings and her father’s stern rearing, Echaveste turned to the world of books. She flourished in school but her academic promise almost went unfulfilled when her father tried to block her from accepting a scholarship to Stanford University. Determined, Echaveste mustered enough courage to assert that it was not his call. She graduated in 1976, then took a brief assignment with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights before obtaining her law degree from University of California Law School at Berkeley in 1980.

Today, Echaveste, 41, is a key member of Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich’s team. Reich admits he is a “huge fan” of Echaveste, whom he describes as “gutsy, determined . . . and a fighter for the downtrodden.” Though he acknowledges that her Latino background is a valuable asset, he says it is her outstanding legal and management skills that makes the difference in the department’s efforts to eliminate sweatshop conditions--like those uncovered in El Monte last summer.

Before joining Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign as his national Latino coordinator, Echaveste worked for a New York law firm. And, every weekend, she commutes back to New York to be with her husband, Stanley Schlein, a real estate attorney.

Question: One of your key enforcement strategies has been to put pressure on big manufacturers. Has it worked?

Answer: In 1993, we decided to concentrate on low wages and to increase the use of the “hot goods” provision, which allows us to go after manufacturers who receive goods . . . in violation of labor laws. Mostly, we concentrate on contractors--but retailers and major labels have a role to play; retailers want to know if their goods are being made in bad shops . . . . But the contributions of every player will allow us to eliminate them--especially since 40% of retailers’ goods are now on private labels. So large numbers of retailers regularly visit contractors’ shops.

Q: Many subcontractors are small businesses owned by recent immigrants. Will your efforts drive them out of the country?

A: Sixty years ago, America made decisions about certain minimum labor conditions . . . to prevent the exploitation of workers, women or children. There are people not playing by the rules, and they make it competitively impossible for others. Competition is not derived solely from the cost of labor but rather how you improve production, distribution and marketing methods. Today in the apparel industry, labor accounts for only 8% of the cost. So we need to ensure that labor standards are applicable across the board.

Q: There are limits to increasing profits. Would the administration consider relaxing standards?

A: The answer is an unequivocal no! The president has made it clear that the minimum wage should be increased. More importantly, let’s not minimize the growth potential in the apparel industry. Right now, the garment industry is the largest employer in L.A. County. So what is going on here? I just returned from a meeting . . . discussing the apparel industry. We feel that as retailers reduce their foreign warehouses, they may not be able to rapidly replenish their stock. So manufacturing companies in the U.S. will be in a better position because their deliveries can be timely and assured.

Q: Under NAFTA, won’t manufacturers just use the “quick service” option that guarantees a three-day turnaround from south of the border?

A: As you know, this administration is extremely supportive of NAFTA. It’s true people will gravitate to other countries, but it doesn’t justify importing Third World conditions to this country. Many workers in L.A. and New York are both legal and illegal immigrants. However, the fear that jobs will move doesn’t justify workers not making minimum wages?

Q: Is the department actively pursuing situations similar to those slave labor-like sweatshops in El Monte?

A: We certainly hope El Monte is isolated. Most shops are not slave-like; however, people are working long hours in cramped conditions and, often times, not getting paid for weeks. We are targeting advocacy and community groups to identify the bad shops, so we can investigate them. We’re also addressing the more exaggerated situations, but this requires leg work, surveillance and overtime monies for investigators. Additionally, we hope to train more inspectors while educating contractors about sweatshop conditions. We are only 1,300 people and the projected government cutbacks mean “wage and hour” faces a 12% cut; so we must adjust. There are businesses glad about the proposed cuts, because they believe they can break the law with little chance of getting caught. That is just not acceptable. We are here to enforce the laws and do it in a more meaningful way. We will continue to focus where we know abuses exist, such as the garment industry, restaurants, hotels, motels, nursing homes and home care. Many Republicans feel “wage and hour” should just sit and take complaints. However, the most egregious offenses will never walk in, because sweatshop workers are afraid of authority and have language difficulties. If we only focus on complaints, we may help 400,000 individuals but there won’t be any theme, real momentum and our efforts will be scattered.

Q: After the El Monte incident, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich called for a meeting of major retailers. Did it yield tangible results?

A: A number of the major chains were at the New York September meeting and, as a result, the National Retail Federation has promulgated a code of conduct; so far, 200 of their members have signed onto these principles. It may not seem like much, but it’s a step for retailers to commit to compliance. Still, not all retailers agree how this should be achieved. Some say: “I always tell my manufacturers to comply with labor laws.” While others say: “I can institute monitoring programs.” The question is how effective can a monitoring program be if it reports back to the manufacturers? So we’re in discussion with retailers regarding independent monitoring.

Q: Does the continual supply of new illegal immigrants undermine your efforts?

A: The president had a comprehensive immigration package in his last budget which . . . increased resources for border control and “wage and hour.” His efforts were especially targeted at Los Angeles and Southern California, because we know the vast majority of undocumented workers come there to work. But what does Congress do? Congress gives the money for increased border control, but it cuts our resources.

Q: How can you stop individuals from accepting low wages?

A: We know in L.A. there is an underground economy. Any legal garment worker will tell you that, in the last five years, their wages have actually decreased. Why? Because the person next to them doesn’t have papers and is willing to work for less.

With the existence of a cheap, large labor supply in L.A., employers find it advantageous to hire them--which contributes to an explosion of sweatshops. We’re currently exploring joint enforcement against employers with the Immigration and Naturalization service.

Q: Would a “bracero” guest-worker program help stop illegal immigration?

A: From both my personal experience and all economic studies, “bracero” programs do not solve illegal-immigration problems. A guest-worker program is never temporary--because most workers eventually end up staying permanently.

If we’re really going to be honest about illegal immigration, whether in the garment or the agriculture industry: Legal workers . . . are not willing to pick strawberries for $3 an hour. They have other options. But, if you bring in a guest-worker program, you’re basically saying, “I’m interested in keeping wages low.” Something is wrong with a system where wages in agriculture have not increased in the last 10 years. How can that be? Food prices have increased!

The answer is to increase border control and enforce labor standards . . . .

Q: Do old migrant friends see your efforts as sabotaging their survival chances?

A: We’re a nation of laws and we have a right to control our borders. But let’s make it very clear, I don’t work for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

People come to this country because opportunities are here; but the fact that they break the immigration law does not justify employers exploiting these workers. Whether you are here legally or illegally, you are entitled to protection--because, otherwise, employers would always want undocumented workers. My job is to enforce labor standards, regardless of status.

Q: What kinds of housing standards have you established for migrant workers?

A: In the L.A. area, we have tried to work with growers as opposed to just assessing penalties. Growers want workers, but they don’t want to provide housing. So it becomes a community problem.

In any small Central Valley town, you’ll find 20 people living in a three-bedroom house. There is no way you can keep such a house in livable conditions.

Growers rightly say “Why should it be my responsibility?” I understand that, but my response is: “Why are you shifting that responsibility to the neighboring town?”

Q: Why did you leave a corporate legal position to join the government?

A: This sounds corny, but I’ve always believed in public service. My story is sort of like the American dream--which is why I got involved with the president’s campaign. I’m very concerned whether the American dream is going to exist for people, like me, who grow up in very poor circumstances, but who with a combination of determination, hard work and fortuitous circumstances have a chance.

Are we going to be the kind of country if you’re lucky enough to be in the haves category you succeed? But what about the rest? I really believe in this country and the opportunities it represents. I think, in my small way working in this agency, I can make a difference.