El Monte Case Sparked Efforts to Monitor, Root Out Sweatshops
When more than 60 Thai nationals were freed from virtual enslavement at a makeshift El Monte garment factory a year ago today, the retail industry was not in the business of rallying efforts to eliminate the expanding scourge of sweatshops.
But even critics of the industry say retailers are now beginning to take steps to uproot sweatshops from the ranks of their clothing suppliers.
Although government regulators and garment industry activists say the retail industry could do much more, they also cite the following developments:
* Breaking with the practice of leaving garment industry enforcement in the hands of apparel makers and their regulators, the National Retail Federation has been sponsoring seminars to show clothing contractors better methods of identifying sewing shop subcontractors who are violating wage, safety and child labor laws.
* After months of discussions about the possibility of arranging independent inspections of their apparel suppliers, Sears, Roebuck & Co. and a handful of other retailers are starting to hire third-party monitors.
* After clashing with critics over the sweatshop issue, retailers are now soliciting the advice of anti-sweatshop activists on how to stop labor abuse in the apparel industry.
The demand for reform intensified with the discovery of modern-day peonage at a converted El Monte apartment complex last August. Thai nationals were forced to toil up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week for less than a dollar an hour. Their captors are now incarcerated, while the workers remain in Southern California on visas for crime victims. Ironically, all but three of them are working for legitimate apparel producers.
*
“Everyone was stunned by El Monte,” said Tracy Mullin, president of the National Retail Federation. “It was a wake-up call for the federal government, for manufacturers and for the retail industry. From that moment, the retail industry realized it needed to play a role in reform.”
Among those applauding the change in the retail industry’s attitude is Richard Reinis, founder of the Los Angeles-based Compliance Alliance, a nonprofit group that monitors clothing manufacturers’ subcontractors.
Reinis said the retail industry initially refused to consider his proposals requiring manufacturers to hire independent workplace monitors. But in recent weeks, retailers and retail trade groups have asked him for help in developing anti-sweatshop strategies.
“The initial reaction [of retailers] was fear--fear that publicity surrounding the issue would adversely affect them,” Reinis said. “The second reaction was concern about possible legal liability. Recently, there’s been a noticeable change in the industry’s attitude--a change for the better. However, some retailers are responding better than others.”
Sears is among those taking the kind of steps that Reinis and other reform activists have been demanding. The retail giant last month hired an independent firm to inspect its top 50 suppliers in California, as well as their subcontractors. The monitoring project is a pilot program that may be expanded nationwide, Sears spokeswoman Jan Drummond said.
Other retailers say they are considering hiring independent monitors, but few have actually done so. Instead, many are sending letters or new contract language warning suppliers not to violate labor and safety codes. Activists and labor unions call such responses symbolic and ineffective.
In one bid at a more innovative approach, Talbots Inc., a Massachusetts-based operator of women’s apparel stores, says it recently set up the only inspection program to require monitoring at all of the subcontractor shops of its major clothing suppliers. The initiative comes several months after the U.S. Department of Labor discovered a sweatshop operator among the retailer’s suppliers.
“This is important because the problem is not the prime suppliers,” said company spokeswoman Margery Brandfon. “The violators are usually the subcontractors further down the apparel chain.”
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is conducting its own monitoring of domestic clothing suppliers, recently decided to adopt a new technique--unannounced inspections.
The initiative was partly in response to a disclosure that a New York City sweatshop was among those supplying Wal-Mart with a line of clothing endorsed and promoted by television show host Kathie Lee Gifford. Wal-Mart and Gifford had already been stung by disclosures in May that children at a Honduras sweatshop were among those making her line of clothing.
*
The series of embarrassments has prompted Gifford to assume the role of reformer. She helped U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich organize last month’s Fashion Industry Forum in Virginia.
Much of the pressure for retail involvement in the sweatshop fight comes from Reich, who is trying to pressure the industry because he believes retailers have the leverage to force reforms in apparel manufacturing. For example, Reich plans to continue to issue “bad guys” reports identifying the retail destination of goods that regulators discover at sweatshops.
“El Monte marked the beginning of genuine public outrage over sweatshops,” Reich said. “This technique of naming names, which started as a result of El Monte, is also putting additional pressure on retailers and we’re now gaining additional cooperation.”
Most retailers oppose “bad guys” reports--and not just because such negative publicity could hurt sales, industry leaders say. Instead, they want the Labor Department to do more to help them identify violators in their supplier networks.
The clash over strategies continued this week as Reich attempted to recruit retail support for the creation of a clothing label certifying that a garment is made in compliance with labor laws. Some apparel manufacturers, including some who also operate stores, are scheduled to meet with President Clinton today to discuss the idea, sources said Thursday. However, many retail industry leaders will not attend, contending that such labeling is no guarantee of labor law compliance.
Retailers’ initiatives, likewise, are also drawing fire. For example, union activists do not believe third-party monitors will aggressively uncover labor abuses if they depend on retailers for their paychecks.
“Retailers need monitors who are truly independent,” said Susan Cowell, vice president of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Workers. “They might use the Catholic church, which is active in human rights. Or they might use human rights groups.”
Cowell said retailers could change the dynamics of the apparel production chain by paying suppliers more. If retailers paid clothing manufacturers more, they might be more selective in their choice of subcontractors.
Despite those criticisms, Cowell said she is encouraged by recent developments. “Just getting retailers to begin to address this problem is enormous progress,” she said.
