The Horrific Reality of the Garment Manufacturing Industry and Why it Needs to Change
Fast fashion. We all see it’s allure, immediately purchasing the trendiest styles at an extremely affordable price. Brands spitting out a multitude of collections a year, so many cute clothes, and you can have so many. But what is the real cost? Sweatshop labor, a consistent violation of basic human rights, and safety. With every purchase, imagine garment workers pouring their blood, sweat and tears into sewing for 12 hours straight in a low lit, crowded, unsanitized, rat infested factory. Only to earn about one to two dollars per piece of clothing made, and that’s if the factory resides in the United States. Otherwise maybe only a few cents (Morse). The garment manufacturing industry has exploited undocumented workers within Los Angeles, and all over the world for years now. While some may prioritize profit, or worry for foreign economies. No longer can we ignore the violations of human rights that occur through taking advantage of immigration. Livable work environments for all including fair wages, regulated supply chains, and safety and sanitation measures should be readily enforced. Ultimately to begin to strengthen support for immigration in the United States, and in countries all across the globe.
But let’s start at the beginning, as early as the 1800s immigration here in the US first became prevalent. According to the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, with emerging technology during this time trendy clothing became more affordable than ever. Demand increased, and opportunities were realized through the recent immigration (Cheek and Moore, 10). This means that immigration has always been a part of the equation when it comes to fast fashion, and the demand for clothing consumption has only increased as years have passed. The term fast fashion first arose at fashion week in the 1990s when brands like Zara were able to produce an abundance of clothing collections per year such as 10, 12, or even 20, instead of the previous 2–3 collections a year (Maiti). In this era a new form of exploitation of immigration became popularized. Brands soon discovered that clothing can be produced much cheaper when they outsource the labor to employ workers in differing economies. Also realizing that the development of complex supply chains where brands subcontract from company to company, hides brand involvement with unethical labor. To make a full circle of history, brands have rediscovered that immigration is an easy target for quick labor, as clothes can be produced even faster if the labor is employed here in the United States. Look at the largest garment manufacturing industry in the country that resides right here within Los Angeles. This garment industry is wrought with unfair wages, and takes advantage of California’s large immigration population.
At the current moment, factories pay their workers at ‘a piece rate’, meaning their wages are solely determined by the amount of clothing pieces they produce, rather than a set wage. If one worker makes four pieces of clothing an hour, they receive about four to six dollars an hour. Undoubtedly in Los Angeles this is way too far below minimum wage, as it is practically unlivable. Patt Morrison notes that workers in these factories are largely undocumented Latinx or Asian immigrants. Many of these workers are not well-versed in American legislation, and may not realize the extremity of the violations (Morrison). Not to mention how documentation statuses can also hold workers back from fighting for better pay, as they do not want to run the risk of deportation. About now you may be wondering what is currently in place to help the situation. Well according to the California Labor Federation, “The Garment Restitution Fund was created by the California legislature 20 years ago to ensure that garment industry workers whose wages were stolen are made whole…” but “workers who have already proven what they’re owed are on a waiting list of 5 to 20 years to be compensated for thousands of dollars in stolen wages.” (Lin) Clearly this is a broken system in need of reform, simply put, the law is easily avoided when companies pull from the migrant workforce. Signifying that immigrant labor is at the heart of the issue.
Granted, you may be looking for clarification on how exactly companies get away with violations of human rights? To a certain extent they don’t, it has been popular knowledge for decades now that outsourcing, immigrant labor, and horrific conditions are all components of the manufacturing industry. It may even be in the back of your mind when you walk into the mall, or visit a website to purchase a new item. But the lack of transparency from brands to their consumers in the manufacturing industry allows issues to stay hidden. Even with social movements that revolve the improvement of sweatshop labor gaining traction with young passionate consumers, which in some accounts has led to detrimental scandals with brands like Nike and American Apparel (Ballinger). Most frequently brands come out unscathed, and if they are caught, brands deny knowledge of unfair wages, and unsafe conditions, and continue on with business as usual. As the more complex the supply chain, the more complex it will be to affiliate the company with the workforce. Along with the fact that supply companies across the globe keep matters relatively informal in order to avoid government regulations like safety, wages, and taxes, which ultimately increases supplier competitiveness and maximizes profit (Dedeoglu, 668). The lack of formality in supply chain relations, and supplier management keeps matters unrecorded. As in undocumented immigrants are the perfect labor force to keep occurrences under the rug, and across the globe are the easiest target for harsh labor conditions. The power imbalance between western economies and developing countries, similarly to the power imbalance between government officials, and immigrants without legal status, is key to understanding the faults in the global manufacturing industry. As we continue to examine how we can better support the migrant workforce here in the U.S, similar problems around the world are among us. Just as prevalent, and seemingly more extreme.
Sweatshops located all around Southeast Asia, and South America are encompassed with horrific working conditions. Conditions that include countless accounts of abuse of women and children, crowded disease ridden factories, and workers being locked into buildings without fire escapes. One of which, tragically led to the known fire in Dhaka, Bangladesh that killed over 1000 garment workers (Loomis). Since the severity of workplace violations is so prominent, as of recently China and Taiwan have become hubs for immigration of the garment manufacturing industry across the world. Workers are migrating from the Philippines, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Myanmar and more, with hope for better conditions in stronger economies. Shen Haimei notes that while the U.S has been receiving large immigrant populations for centuries now, this immigration in China and Taiwan is fairly new, so the process of even obtaining legal status is quite difficult (Lin). Understandably, the first step of improvement would be making green cards readily available to immigrants. But as we know, we don’t have control over decisions made by foreign governments, therefore what can be done here in the U.S. to improve the current state of sweatshops all across the globe.
Furthermore, we can first analyze what actions have been previously considered to restructure these garment manufacturing industries? The government has considered ceasing all actions of outsourcing, and transferring manufacturing jobs for American companies back into the U.S. to provide greater job support (Dedeoglu, 663). But this will prove ineffective. While it does eliminate U.S. affiliation with sweatshops, it ultimately avoids any accountability for fueling the current situation. The U.S. also does not have control over production in China, or Bangladesh, so the problem we’ve created will continue to occur even if our affiliation is removed. Including the fact that this would take jobs away from hundreds of thousands of workers all across the globe, significantly hurting their global economies. Lastly as we’ve seen previously in Los Angeles factories, even if clothes are produced inside the U.S. that does not mean they are produced ethically. Obviously there are better solutions at play to improve the matter.
Currently, the California Senate is voting on SB62, otherwise known as the Garment Worker Protection Act. According to Pay Up Fashion, the GWPA does three things; ends the pay by the piece rate for garment workers, demands accountability for brands guilty of labor violations, and enforces transparency between brands and their customers. The latter, being the most important aspect out of the three, allows consumers to clearly identify who is making their clothing and make a more informed decision. Without the GWPA, these immoral production processes are hidden and swept under the rug, making consumers unaware of labor violations when they purchase clothing. But this is not the only noteworthy component.
In regards to the other aspects of the GWPA, the one facet I would change is the current state of accountability for labor violations. It is currently unclear what potential repercussions will include. I believe repercussions should begin at hefty fines and extend to serious legal consequences that could involve convictions and even jail time to inhibit brands from continuing to find loopholes for cheap labor. Here some could argue that finding who within all of a particular brand should be held responsible for violations would be a very complicated process. However these severe consequences would provide a clear incentive for brands to make ethical choices.
Finally regarding the first aspect of the GWPA, enforcing the minimum wage for all labor workers is vital as it ensures at the very least a lifestyle that provides the bare necessities. To conclude why passing SB62 is so essential I’ll offer you this; if the garment worker protection act is passed, this would be an exceptionally positive step in the right direction to protect the labor force and relatedly increase support for immigrants in the United States. California’s passing of SB62 would create a perfect model for the rest of the U.S. to follow. In leaving a good impression, the rest of the world will hopefully take similar steps to protect the industry and support immigration, starting with the enforcement of minimum wage for all. In countries like the U.S. and China, if obtaining a green card, and legal status wasn’t so difficult workers would not be subject to such mistreatment. So until we can make legal status more attainable we should increase support anyway we can.
Nevertheless, some may still argue against reform by believing that sweatshops are essential to the global economy. It is true that sweatshops can benefit developing countries by taking citizens out of unemployment, and from the opposing point of view; horrible conditions and unfair wages are a byproduct of the process. Garry Canepa at the Northeastern Economic Society disputes “My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few. While seemingly counterintuitive, many economists agree that these sweatshops play an important role in development.” (Canepa) While I understand how foreign sweatshops economically benefit from western companies outsourcing to bring in income, and profit.The incomes are barely livable, and more importantly human welfare should not be at the expense of profit.
Admittedly, the unfortunate factor is that it is not that easy to find funding in Bangladesh, or the Philippines. If these countries permit fair wages, and spend money on safety measures like air filters, they will no longer be able to compete in the industry with less impoverished countries like China and Taiwan. Their ability to get the cheapest labor is how they can get outsourcing contracts, and much of their economy depends on this. (Canepa) While I can agree that this is a matter we must take into account. Brands who are outsourcing to these labor forces should be held responsible for faults in safety, and wages. So what can we do?
To elaborate, the notion of corporate social responsibility has been explored frequently within brands since scandals like I mentioned earlier occurred at Nike and others. The idea that brands should be held responsible for their own production processes, otherwise known as “private, voluntary regulation” by Richard Locke is in my opinion a qualified solution. Brands must ensure that their manufacturing process, outsourced or not, maintains a certain labor standard. The proven solution with a Nike supplier in Mexico was mindset, from the higher ups to the employees ultimately increasing communication and collaboration about what the workers needed fostered positive relationships, and created a healthy supply chain (Johnson and Locke). When brands lose communication, and have feint relationships with supply managers, the enforcement of labor standards is lost in translation due to differing social expectations, and the supplier’s possibility for profit. But real relationships, and collaboration proved to be the best way to get all components of the supply chain to work together to create a healthy work environment.
If all of the western brands that helped create the outsourcing monsters we see today, took responsibility for the violations of human rights that take place we would see improvement in the garment manufacturing industry. Many brands that have profited off these labor forces for decades have more than enough funds to increase livability, and moral work standards abroad. Zara’s CEO for example, is worth $72.7 billion, and the average Zara garment worker in India is paid $121 per month. H&M’s founders are worth $20.2 billion, and the average garment workers in Bangladesh were paid $113 per month (Remake Organization). It is quite visible that these corporations can easily afford to protect their labor forces with the colossal wealth gap that is present. Anyone that says foreign economies will suffer if sweatshops are improved upon, is dismissing the fact that the brands that supply these sweatshops with work have the money to share the wealth, and compensate workers. Companies like Zara can begin by enforcing minimum wages for work forces abroad, creating a maximum for hours worked, adding safety features like fire escapes, and fostering relationships with their employees local, and global.
To conclude, the fact of the matter is that the Western brands we all love and support are all a part of the problem. Your favorite store in the mall that produces 10–12 collections a year, is definitely utilising sweatshop labor forces. This includes Zara, Asos, Forever 21, H&M, Boohoo, Shein, Nike, and at this point pretty much any large brand you can think of probably has affiliations with the garment industry. As consumers we must beware of labels that greenwash us with the word ‘sustainability’ into thinking that the brand is ethical. Consumers too must be responsible for supporting unethical brands. Consumerism that promotes high trend turn around, and fast fashion makes the garment industry what it is. Therefore it is a collaborative duty for all consumers to fight for those who do not have a voice, and support important bills like SB62, and solutions to this pressing issue. And lastly, shop smarter.
Works Cited
Ballinger, Jeff. “Nike’s Voice Looms Large. (Labor Organizing).” Social Policy, vol. 32, no. 1, 2001, p. 34+. Gale Academic OneFile,
Canepa, Garry. “Why the World Needs Sweatshops.” NUES, 19 Oct. 2016, web.northeastern.edu/econsociety/why-the-world-needs-sweatshops/.
Cheek, Wanda K., and Cynthia Easterling Moore. “Apparel Sweatshops at Home and Abroad: Global and Ethical Issues.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, vol. 95, no. 1, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, 2003, p. 9–10.
Dedeoglu, Saniye. “Garment Ateliers and Women Workers in Istanbul: Wives, Daughters and Azerbaijan Immigrants.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 47, no. 4, Frank Cass & Company Ltd, 2011, p. 663–668.
“Everything You Need to Know About California’s Landmark Garment Worker Protect Act.” PayUpFashion, 16 Feb. 2021 payupfashion.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-californias-landmark-garment-worker-protect-act/.
Haimei, Shen. “Inflow of International Immigrants Challenges China’s Migration Policy.” Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/opinions/inflow-of-international-immigrants-challenges-chinas-migration-policy/.
Johnson, David, and Richard Locke. “Can Global Brands Create Just Supply Chains?” Boston Review, 10 Apr. 2019, bostonreview.net/forum/can-global-brands-create-just-supply-chains-richard-locke.
Lin, Jennifer. “Honor a Promise Made to California’s Garment Workers.” California Labor Federation, 25 July 2019, calaborfed.org/honor-a-promise-made-to-californias-garment-workers/.
Maiti, Rashmila. “Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment.” Earth.Org — Past | Present | Future, 13 Apr. 2021, earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/.
Morrison, Patt. “Fast Fashion Is Cheap, Wasteful and Hurting the Planet — and You Can Stop It.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 18 Sept. 2019, www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-17/patt-morrison-dana-thomas-fast-fashion-environment.
Morse, Alison. “The Dirty Truth Behind Los Angeles’ Garment Sector.” Remake, 24 July 2020, remake.world/stories/news/the-dirty-truth-behind-los-angeles-garment-sector/.
Remake Our World. “Zara Made $1.05 Billion During The Pandemic” Instagram. Inditex. 10 March 2021. https://www.instagram.com/p/CMQg7ZbHcpo/
