My visit to American Apparel
venturehacks.com
venturehacks.com
'But BusinessWeek spoke with seven former workers who say they were offended by what they called a highly sexual atmosphere at American Apparel. They told stories of senior managers who pursued sexual relationships with less senior colleagues and rewarded their favorites with promotions, company cars, and apartments. "It was a company built on lechery," says a former stock person. "I thought it was a male contemporary perspective on feminism, but it turns out to be just a gimmick," says another ex-employee. And another: "I made sure to stay away from the store when I knew [Charney] was coming into town. It's not one person -- he's aiming for all women.'
I generally have little patience with these kinds of feel-good PR-ish stories.
Take the lessons learned from AA and make your company better. Just because Charney is a little nutty doesn't mean the entire company/model/approach is bad. In fact I think the business world could use more people like Charney with an open mind and free (if not overly-sexual) spirit.
You said yourself that AA workers could not get the same money anywhere else... surely you don't think it's acceptable for Charney to ask his employees for sex in a situation where (according to you) he has so much power?
In general, I think good/legal vs. bad/illegal behavior is not just a simple sum of its parts where, say, 3 good deeds outweigh 1 rotten deed by 2. After all, when your neighbor turns out to be a child predator, are you going to say, oh well, that's ok because he's been a good church-going fella for the past 30 years?
If your high-school calculus teacher turns out to be a child predator, that doesn't invalidate everything you learned about calculus.
Charney doesn't deny taking part in any of the activities described in the article.
How is it an allegation when the guy himself admits it was true?
And sorry but your argument is typical straw-man. Of course I don't claim that all apparel ever manufactured disappears out of existence now that we found out about AA's lack of ethics. What's the point of assigning me a clearly retarded point of view just so you can refute it?
Obviously I don't think that it would invalidate an entire branch of mathematics if I found out that my calculus teacher was a pedophile. However, I would strongly object to an article profiling a him as ethical and using him as an example for others to follow, which is what the original post is doing.
Nobody here cares about American Apparel. In the context of news.yc, this article is only interesting in what lessons it might hold for other entrepreneurs. As has been said before, there are undoubtedly positive lessons and cautionary lessons.
FTA: >Charney says all three women did substandard work and gave no indication before they left that they had felt harassed. Charney says he never engaged in any of the acts of which he is accused.
So 8 paragraphs in, the first time mentioning his "sexual crimes" in workplace culture, where it ALSO mentions his response, is a flat out denial. Where does he say he did this?
A good deed doesn't undo an evil deed, surely - but the opposite isn't true. All the bad deeds in the world doesn't make your good deeds less good.
It reminds me (as your comment did) of my basic premise on journalism over the last 20 years - which is that the business section is full of complete hosebags who've demolished the entire industry in the name of PR and capitalism.
Though I agree with you about the business press. That's a whole other problem (much related to what I just said).
I've since grown completely accustomed to it, and now don't even notice it, except when I go back to Europe.
"This should embarrass the heck out of any executive who thinks he has to outsource in order to find cheap labor. Or at least call into question his fundamental competence as a leader. If American Apparel can manufacture low margin clothing efficiently enough to beat the sweatshops (in California no less), then anyone should be able to. If they try hard enough."
I think he's misunderstanding why their business model works. Sending your commodity product to China to be make extra-cheaply is one strategy. Building a high quality product that proudly displays it's Made-In-America-ness and tugs at our patriotic heartstrings while charging 2x the price as the Chinese-outsourced competition is another. There is room, in almost every industry, for both a Kia and Lexus.
And you do have to outsource to find cheap labor. $12-$15/hr with full benefits is not cheap for a factory. I'm guessing he just misphrased what he meant on that one.
Looks like it is this script: http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/venturehacks.json?...
Seems a little rude. I don't like a generic dialog box popping up asking for my credentials to an unrelated site...
Are you still having a problem? Sometimes the Twitter widget in the sidebar at http://venturehacks.com gets a little wacky. I believe it is an intermittent problem with Twitter.
I thought it was very rare but perhaps it is more common than I thought? Is anyone else having this problem? I couldn't recreate it. Thanks!
Yes, the clothes are manufactured in LA and the workers get above minimum wage. However, at $25,000/yr that doesn't put them anywhere near a livable wage, and the fact AA makes and promotes what is essentially child porn far outweighs any benefits.
This guy said it best (with actual photos):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/american-apparel-ads-make-me-wan...
A better question: why is an American more entitled to a job than someone living in another country? The problem with most of the outsourcing arguments I've heard is that they come down to value judgments.
I do agree though - I dislike the "Buy American" argument. Other countries are out-doing us in many industries; instead of pledging allegiance to buying inferior goods and services, we really should be fighting back by innovating and simply making our stuff better.
Still the argument fails. One country benefits from its own free markets even when others close up or try Merkantilism on you.
Why might one want to keep employment in his country alive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
No.
The link you provided doesn't count. First of all, it's on a humor site, and the article definitely seems to belong there. But more importantly, it provides no evidence that the models are underage, the photos it shows don't appear to be me to be of underage girls, the photos aren't quite pornographic anyways (though admittedly fairly close), and it doesn't even provide any evidence that AA attempted to represent them as underage.
I'm completely willing to hear that AA is making child porn--I have no affiliation with them or anything like that--but you haven't provided any evidence and therefore you shouldn't make the claim.
I agree with you that the models are not technically underage. Moreover, I know from previous articles about AA that they make the models sign releases confirming they are of age. However, I think that makes it worse and I'd like to explain why.
We already know that what constitutes porn is in fact subjective and was "officially" defined as such by the Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio
So what I'd like to point out is that the very reason that AA needs that little signature is because they know they are (1) making pornographic ads and (2) using models that look underage. If either of those two were untrue, the free-wheeling, open-minded people at AA would surely not resort to legal means to cover their ass.
As far as not providing evidence, what is harder evidence than actual photos of AA ads? I don't see how it's relevant what website they are posted on. Photos are photos.
But hey, I am happy to link to more. If you don't think these are prime pedophile material, I don't even know what to say... you must be one "open-minded" dude.
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006_07_10_9.jpg http://www.wasuvi.com/images/scan0004.jpg http://www.adrants.com/images/the_tap_panty.jpg http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/aaad.jpg http://www.jenisfamous.com/uploaded_images/leggings-720878.j... http://www.trendhunter.com/images/phpthumbnails/21343_1_230....
As for the photos: like I said before, they don't look underage to me. I've additionally checked this with a few people in other age ranges of both genders, just to be sure I wasn't crazy, and the consensus was that they all looked like adults.
P.S. The "If you don't agree with me, you're <insert x here>" approach is a bit silly. I do like to consider myself pretty open-minded, though :)
Its certainly not impossible. 15$ an hour is pretty good.
burger king workers - unhappiest people you'll see anywhere... excepting teens and other temporary situations, completely unemployable outside the fast food industry
street vendors - mostly cash income, probably make more than reported $15/hour, probably have other jobs to support them through the cold winter months
bus workers - unionized, make up to $70k/year
broadway ushers - mostly volunteers or actors who only work until they "make it" and only to network with other theater people
busboys - mostly illegal mexicans with little other choice, excepting some high end restaurants where they make more than $15/hour and do it as an apprenticeship to better paying jobs
I think most people who say that $15/hour in a major city like New York or LA is pretty good would not themselves concede to subsist on that little while working that hard... and I know what I am talking about, having done some of those hard-labor jobs when I first immigrated into the US. It only works in temporary situations such as students or apprenticeships, or as a means to support higher artistic aspirations.
I would bet all of my money that not a single person on here (including those 6 who upvoted your comment) would choose a career of a $15/hour laborer for themselves, and I think it's a little patronizing to say that it's ok for others.
Would I go back to that job? Hell no. Hauling literally tons of crates around a factory floor each day, climbing inside freezing semi trailers in the dead of the Canadian winter... all for that kind of pay? No thanks.
But that doesn't mean the pay is necessarily bad for someone who, unlike my fortunate self, has no choice in his jobs.
I do agree though - in the context of NY or LA, $15 is not a survivable wage. It's the kind of wage that keeps you alive, but also keeps you trapped in your dead-end job forever.
(I'm not saying that migrants/immigrants can't survive in our culture without English, but being able to speak English well might allow them to find careers they otherwise couldn't.)
Also, keep in mind that workers get paid for any ideas they come up with that save the company money or create a new product. They'll also get paid if they're used a model. So there are side-opportunities.
In the end, it boils down to treatment. Sure, its not a great, glamorous job -- making clothing -- but they're treated well compared to their contemporaries in the industry. At the end of the day, a 50K job coding is a 50K job coding, but I think we'd all rather work at the place that has free back massages and a ball pit.
So, can I have all of your money now? Or would you like me to direct you to a charity to which you can donate it on my behalf?
Why?
Why?
Ok? What does that mean? If the market value of someone's work is less than or equal to $15/hour, then $15/hour is a fair price for it.
Surely there is nothing more patronizing than to suggest that people should be paid some arbitrary amount that seems appropriate to you, rather than the actual value of the work they do.
First, I am choosing to live in New York to exactly the same degree that those immigrant workers are choosing to live in LA, second, I am an immigrant worker myself, and third, as I pointed out, cost of living in LA is very similar to NY.
If you want to argue on facts, let's hear something other than "you are spoiled and don't know what you are talking about".
15 US$ * 50h/week * 48weeks/year = 36,000 U.S. dollars, I had a single apartment at 1050$ per month and a car while making 38k so I know it's reasonable to make it like that. Now having a wife and kids on that is not going to happen in that area but NY is more a place for the young or the rich.
Edit: 36k = 28k take home so about a grand a month after rent.
PS: Trying to make it on 15$ an hour in NY, NY might seem stupid, but a good internship can be worth it.
If you work between lower manhattan and 33rd st, you can live in Jersey City and rent a huge 3 bedroom for $1500 ($500 split 3 ways). Commute time is 15-25 minutes.
The only changes to my lifestyle now that I have a real job is a) no roommates and b) I drink outside more than in, and pay less attention to happy hour.
The foreign workers are probably elevated much more (in comparison to their peers) because of their job than their counterparts here in the US are, but exploiting this difference in living wage is not ethical in the least.
I personally feel that free trade is far more ethical than nationalist isolation/protectionism. (It's not just Americans that are "entitled" to a high standard of living.)
(Watch this get downmodded out of oblivion.]
'A 5,000 person, $500 million low margin clothing company, operating from a single factory in the least business-friendly state of one of the highest "cost" manufacturing countries. Beating the overseas sweatshops and still growing rapidly.'
/article
vote with you dollars, not a gun (courts and legislation).
Having "American" in this brand will make countries laugh at how unsophisticated we are.
You are going to make something in America at least make something good like New Balance. We don't care to known for making neon green tights.
And on the "make something good" tip -- AA makes the highest quality and best-fitting T-shirts I have ever found. MILES ahead of the crap on sale at Walmart. And they do it in America, so they've earned the right to put it in their name.
Company politics and alleged lechery aside: they make a damn fine product, without cutting corners.
I am the owner of an AA tagged T-shirt; black, with a modest picture of a prinny on it, of good quality. So I see your point about the stuff being "good." But as to what's on display in the retail stores, their "designer fashion" is really truly gawd awful. I wouldn't call it "bland and tasteless" though--it is a full-on assult on one's sensibilities.
"I don't want to pay for the privilege of wearing a billboard."
Your are paying $20 for a plain grey t-shirt. You don't think you are paying for the AA billboards that are everywhere??
Again, I am not sure what you want from a T-shirt. AA shirts fit me great -- better than any other manufacturer. What is ugly about a T-shirt that fits?
I'm glad you are satisfied with your plain $20 t-shirt http://store.americanapparel.net/men-short-sleeves---t-shirt... based on it's fit and comfort.
In my subjective view, it just makes me sick to see American Apparel in other countries and people go in and see that "Americans" are about looking like 1970s high schoolers. Like it our not this brand does represent us.
What single brand does? American Apparel is a single clothing brand out of thousands that are exported from the US, and they are all different.
Certainly American Apparel represents a portion of the US, whether you like it or not.
I think you're too busy trying to troll that you forget that they're not trying to be Dior or Gucci.
And if you don't want to pay retail, just get them on Amazon. You can get yourself a basic shirt for $6 (and the aforementioned tri-blend for $9). There's a reason why a huge number of bands/artists print on AA shirts, they are top end.
Anyone who dresses themselves according to mannequins styled by 20something art school students is bound to look slightly ridiculous to those who are not 20something art school students. Most of the clothing is great and reasonably priced for what you get.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Wal-Mart clothes are 1/3 the price of what they should be?
And I don't think we as Americans needs to worry about other countries perceiving us as unsophisticated because of AA. There is plenty of low hanging fruit in that category already.
Checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_%28clothing%29 They are a Spanish company that do not outsource their manufacturing. They are able to keep their costs down and deliver the most trendy clothes to their customers. AA on the other hand made clothes that look like 1970s gym clothes.
I usually don't care about apparel brands, but I have a soft spot for Zara. They consistently create nice stuff for very reasonable prices. They make clothes that make you look good, as opposed to having attractive models looking good in whatever.
Their way of doing business is very hackerish (in the best sense), beautifully optimized.
No external marketing, they just put their shops in premium locations, letting their wares "sell themselves".
Instead of paying expensive prima donna fashion designers, they employ an army of young talented people. They constantly monitor fashion trends and consumer demands in their stores, able to rapidly innovate designs and change their production.
Their retail stock is completely rotated every two weeks, which creates an extra incentive for customers to come back to check what's new, and it also encourages Woot-type impulse buying, as the stock is limited.
Using state-of-the-art logistics they manage to keep their operations costs down. Thanks to their efficient procedures they can create better products for cheaper prices than competition.
$5.99. (just to save the long debate)
Wal-Mart clothes are precisely as expensive as they should be.
All other clothes are also precisely as expensive as they should be.
There's a very good reason why Wal-Mart clothes are 1/3 the price of other chains, and that word starts with a capital Q. Most people who've never worked in manufacturing call bullshit on this, but they really, really don't know the reality of things. You do get what you pay for.