Sweatshops become prevalent reality

Sweatshops become prevalent reality
With the economy stuck in a rut, too many fashion companies are turning to sweatshops
Kate Stearns

The Daily Evergreen

Published: 03/03/2009


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the ongoing economic recession, every apparel company, from Bergdorf Goodman to Target, has been forced to lower prices to survive. Companies like Marie Marie, a New York City-based fashion label formed by two WSU alumni, manufactured all their designs in the garment district in New York City before they were forced to go out of business. Manufacturing costs in New York City and the rest of the U.S. are rising, resulting in a move to production in factories that are less expensive.

In a 2003 New York Times article, Lydda Eli Gonzalez described the conditions at Southeast Textiles SA, a sweatshop factory in Honduras. The then-19-year-old said employees were cursed and yelled at by the managers. Women were forced to take pregnancy tests and fired if pregnant to avoid the medical and maternity leave costs. To keep up with production goals, employees were forced to work unpaid overtime. Gonzalez was one of the workers who produced shirts for P. Diddy’s fashion line, Sean John. A shirt in his line retailed at $40, while workers in the factory were paid $0.90 an hour.

Sean John isn’t the only apparel line that has manufactured clothing in sweatshops. Wal-Mart, Gap and our own WSU apparel has reportedly been previously produced at sweatshops.

The WSU administration signed a letter of intent last April to move all Cougar apparel to factories where human rights are monitored. On a larger scale, legislation was introduced to the U.S. Congress to prohibit the import, export or sale of merchandise goods made in sweatshops. This was proposed in January 2007 and co-supporters included President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Sweatshops are an ugly reality of the fashion industry, but to completely boycott these factories doesn’t mean that working and living conditions for the employees will improve. Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, defends sweatshops because he believes the factories are a way for workers to earn money and better living conditions. He writes that “sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty.” Sweatshops are a complicated issue, and something that fashion students and consumers need to learn about and judge for themselves. The truth is we need the low prices that result from using factories in China, Cambodia and other countries. If we were to abstain from sweatshop factories, it would not improve working conditions in those countries. As consumers we need to realize that labor in third-world countries cost less and that factory jobs are a way for employees to work their way out of poverty. Rather than restrict our business with these factories, consumers need to demand better conditions for the workers and be willing to accept the added cost.