American Apparel jumps into the immigration debate
by Carmen Van Kerckhove
We’ve been pretty critical of American Apparel on this site for its exoticization of multiracial people, its pseudo-pornographic ads, and founder Dov Charney’s overall ickiness.
But what do you think about their latest ad campaign (click pic for full-size image), which deals with the immigration issue? From The New York Times:
…The black-and-white quarter-page advertisements show American Apparel employees of Guatemalan origin — fully clothed. The ads have run in newspapers like The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times over the last month. Like the company’s usual sexually charged ads for T-shirts and leggings, the political ad bears the imprint of Mr. Charney, himself an immigrant from Canada.
“These people don’t have freedom of mobility, they’re living in the shadows,” he said in an interview. “This is at the core of my company, at the core of my soul.”
…“Let me be clear who makes our clothes. It is a collaboration between American-born people and non-American-born people,” he said. “I don’t think supporting immigration reflects negatively on my brand, and in fact, it makes it look like we’re a responsible business.”
…Some immigration experts criticized the advertisement and said it amounted to an admission that American Apparel uses illegal immigrants.
…Mr. Charney said the company was careful to make sure that its workers presented the necessary documentation for employment.
…Mr. Charney said American Apparel’s customers appreciate the company’s views on immigration. He said his customers were “borderless.” He named the company American Apparel, rather than “USA Apparel,” he said, on purpose.
“I think my Latino workers are American workers,” he said. “They’re from the Americas. We’re all here together.”
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Aaminah wrote:
I am not familiar with the company or their usual ad campaigns (sounds like I’m not missing much), but I agree with the text of this ad. Nowhere in the ad is there any implication or admission of hiring illegals. He’s saying this is a nation that is based on immigration and that his business thrives on it so he supports it. He’s saying that there shouldn’t be the necessity for immigrants to come here illegally or for those who are illegal to be mistreated because of their status, they should have the opportunity to obtain legal status. They come with good intentions and they meet needs and contribute to this country whether they happen to be legal or not.
On the other hand, I am suspicious of a large company making such an appeal and how self-serving it actually is. Does this stem from real concern for the plight of immigrants and a desire to make sure they have opportunities to better their lives and “live the American Dream”? Or is it just posturing for the fact that he knows he can pay immigrants less, give them lower quality working conditions, never has to give them advancement opportunities, etc.? There is something just shady about companies that do use (and misuse) immigrant labor talking about reform so they can more easily obtain such labor for their use and further misuse. Acting like he is doing immigrants a favor is disingenuous.
Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 12:25 pm ¶
Angela wrote:
I am really familiar with the company and their advertising campaigns. They were running “Legalize LA” ads years ago. Before this was a headlining issue. I think they are being sincere and I applaud them for this.
Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶
Safiya wrote:
It’s nothing to do with the major sexual harassment suit Dov Charney is currently facing. Or is it?
Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 5:39 pm ¶
razzo wrote:
Companies have been putting forward ads for years — it’s just that they were on the right end of the political spectrum. Curious that a company takes on an issue from a left-wing point of view and all of a sudden it becomes a sensation. Kudos to American Apparel for courage. We could use more such companies as they are the cutting edge of innovation. See “The Creative Class and the Value of Tolerance and Diversity” at http://eristic-ragemail.blogspot.com.
Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 9:41 pm ¶
fash wrote:
Aaminah, I’ve had similar doubts when it comes to businesses supporting immigration reform, and after thinking about it quite a bit, I’m still not entirely comfortable with it, but reason tells me that it’s not some dirty plan.
Here’s the way I think of it: as it stands, undocumented immigrants are essentially powerless in the work place. They are able to be exploited, abused, and misused, and although some have joined unions and lobbied with them, for the most part they are part of an underground economy where they do all of the work and get none of the rights. With legal status, they would be able to stand up for their rights to fair wages and working conditions without risking deportation, so why would a business which wants to exploit immigrants push for a reform which would make it more difficult for them to do so?
In any case, we all know that our great leaders love to listen to Big Business…so it’s nice to have that power on our side for once. Still, I’m going to keep my eye on them.
Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 2:20 am ¶
Aaminah wrote:
Hi Fash,
To a degree, I see what you are saying.
“With legal status, they would be able to stand up for their rights to fair wages and working conditions without risking deportation, so why would a business which wants to exploit immigrants push for a reform which would make it more difficult for them to do so?”
This, I do not agree with. I know plenty of legal immigrants that are still not paid fair wages, have substandard working conditions, and are exploited by large companies and feel there is nothing they can do about it. Some of those legal immigrants are my family (my step daughter is even a citizen now and still was treated very badly and worked in horrifying conditions). It is true that illegal immigrants have it worse in many ways, but it is not true that legal immigrants have alot of options and rights either, or that they are able to effectively fight for them without fears. Even if you are here legally, you are still at the mercy of your legal status being taken away and being deported anyway, and I know there are companies that play that up to their employees locally – that they can get their visas revoked etc. – to keep them in line.
Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 4:28 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
Sorry… hit the send button too quickly…
meant to add: Companies can ask for immigration reform so that they have access to legal workers and it is still self-serving. By having greater access to legal workers, the company is not worried about getting into trouble for hiring illegal workers, worried about raids, losing workers to deportation, all kinds of legal issues and fines etc. That doesn’t mean that they are necessarily pledging to treat those legal workers totally better. All they are saying is “we need burros – please make it easier for us to get them”.
Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 4:32 pm ¶
Fred Sanders wrote:
Of COURSE American Apparel has countless illegal workers on its payroll. How do you suppose it has managed to remain a union free shop for all these years? Charney uses illegal workers to stop the infiltration of unions because the workers are too scared to complain about it – are they going to sue and then get deported?
These people don’t have freedom of mobility, they’re living in the shadows,” he said in an interview. Why would Guatemalans with legal US status not have freedom of mobility and live in the shadows?
American Apparel was a marketing gimmick to get young hipsters to believe they were supporting some highly leftist politics by buying ordinary cotton textile products at a mark up. Charney is a genius because he sold to the vain hipster class essentially false vanity and they couldn’t buy enough.
American Apparel’s strategy of making people feel like they are buying the politics of good is mirrored in Chevron and Chevrolet’s ubiquitous ads talking about “alternative energy” and how to stop global warming when both spend massive resources to crush any chance of that actually happening because it would hurt their profitability. Both profit from big cars with poor gas mileage and both want to perpetuate that system as long as possible.
American Apparel gets its production cost competitiveness in employing illegal workers because it doesn’t have the added cost of union issues, which is really quite expensive. Other manufacturers have to pay import duties, or deal with unions. American Apparel faces neither expense.
That American Apparel could achieve cost competitiveness by finding a way to be one of (if not the) biggest non union textile manufacturers in the United States and then sell its products at a mark up because foolish and vain young hipsters feel like they are helping a company “committed to paying high wages” is a testament to why doing business in the United States is so fun and gratifying. The shoppers here are highly gullible and they are all armed with credit cards.
Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 4:04 pm ¶
Fred Sanders wrote:
Oh, and the only reason the INS hasn’t raided American Apparel yet is because President Bush spoke there just a little while ago about what a great place it was – most likely as a political stunt to point to non-union manufacturers as the best of the lot. A raid on American Apparel and the arrest of a lot of people over there would make Bush look really bad, so I expect that they are going to put it off a while.
But Charney certainly isn’t helping them with his wacky antics. You have to wonder if someone from high up in INS doesn’t call him and say, “hey, STUPID, could you try to keep a low profile for a little while?” For Charney to place ads in newspapers all over the country admitting to having illegals on payroll make INS look like they are too political. The text of the ad makes it obvious, people LEGALLY INSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES DON’T HAVE THEIR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT RESTRICTED AND LIVE IN THE ‘SHADOWS’ – ONLY ILLEGAL WORKERS DO AND CHARNEY SAID THESE GUATEMALANS ARE ON PAYROLL.
INS will raid all sorts of companies, but not ones that publicly announce an illegal workforce if doing that will harm campaign contributors or make the president look stupid. That stinks of corruption. Walmart and so many other companies that INS hit hard at least arguably had some doubts about whether their illegals were illegal. American Apparel has now publicly announced in major newspapers countrywide that it PURPOSELY has lots of illegals on payroll and the administration and I bet INS does nothing.
You have to wonder if sufficient campaign contributions would allow a person a pass on all sorts of criminal investigations. I mean could you effectively run a racket, deal drugs, engage in all manner of illegal activities with little risk of prosecution if you made the right contributions?
Here you have a company confess in national newspapers to breaking criminal laws. What happens next will be a powerful indicator of how far this little banana republic of ours has come. If INS doesn’t raid Charney, I am going to call up and see if I can safely get into some highly lucrative illegal businesses if I grease the right palms. I’d say those Guatemalans in the company’s ad are closer to being at home in the United States than they now realize.
Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
I get your point Fred, but you should consider qualify such statements as “The shoppers here are highly gullible and they are all armed with credit cards.”
Obviously not all of Americans are totally gullible, or we wouldn’t be discussing this (though I would agree that a high percentage are gullible and ignorant), nor are all of us “armed with credit cards”. Plenty of us will never have a credit card in our entire lives.
Posted 20 Jan 2008 at 5:35 pm ¶
DavidJ wrote:
Dear Fred Sanders:
It boggles the mind how UN-informed you are!
Do you actually believe that the LARGEST apparel mfgr. in the US, close to the border, with the highest public profile would risk hiring illegal employees while complaining about the issue?? Or could it possible be that because Dove is an immigrant himself AND his workers have friends or family that may be illegal OR that since LA has an enormous immigrant (legal and illegal) he is in close proximity to the issue. Hmm.
And Why no unions? Because they pay better and give better benefits. (Without screwing them for membership fees..a la unions).
Wake up or go back into your coma.
DavidJ
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 2:29 pm ¶
fash wrote:
Fred–Could you please refrain from calling people “illegals”? It’s dehumanizing.
Also, INS no longer exists.
Aaminah–Oh, I agree. But you can still admit that undocumented immigrants are a lot more vulnerable. This is also why I oppose a guest worker program, because it’s only going to breed more exploitation…but yes, you’re right that many permanent residents and citizens are exploited, but even so, a path to legal status will still give undocumented workers a greater chance to avoid this.
I also agree that it is self serving to do this, but I still say I’m glad that for once big business is on my side. They’re intentions may not be good, but hopefully the immigrant rights movement can harness for the support to influence legislators while at the same time making sure that it doesn’t get out of hand.
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 3:24 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
I would also like to say that this statement: “people LEGALLY INSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES DON’T HAVE THEIR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT RESTRICTED AND LIVE IN THE ‘SHADOWS’ – ONLY ILLEGAL WORKERS DO” is debateable. Particularly in fact for certain groups such as Guatemalens and Salvadorenos. I personally know people who are here legally but they have to report where they work, where they live etc. and can not pick up and change anytime they might be so inclined or their visa would be revoked. Certainly, companies that “sponsor” workers ensure just this exact situation – freedom is restricted. Or their freedom may be restricted because they are surrounded by people that assume all people their color are illegal and so they are always at risk of harrassment etc. I know others who come legally, do everything right, file for asylum and then wait for years, all the while trying to be “good” Americans only to have their asylum claim denied anyway. Fear of this can and does force some who are here legally to “live in the shadows” and end up being here illegally despite having made all the appropriate attempts to do things legally.
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 6:26 pm ¶
macphotog wrote:
AA pays a mion of $12.50 per hour plus benefits!
That is really good, in an area of LA that pays workers in the garment industry by the piece. “piece-work’ nevre even gets close to minimum wages.
http://americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/20040531labj.html
I don’t necessarily agree with their politics/work environment/etc., however, they do pay decent wages, and do NOT run a ’sweat-shop’.
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 7:49 pm ¶
fash wrote:
I know others who come legally, do everything right, file for asylum and then wait for years, all the while trying to be “good” Americans only to have their asylum claim denied anyway. Fear of this can and does force some who are here legally to “live in the shadows” and end up being here illegally despite having made all the appropriate attempts to do things legally.
Amen. The whole system needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up.
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 11:35 pm ¶
Jake wrote:
At least an apparel company is talking about it! But I did not agree with everything in the article, either. Sometimes it sounded as though the reason why immigrants should be “legalized” was because it helps “our” economy and “our” country. It sounds like Americans are trying to -use- immigrants to advance our country — except this time in a “legal” way. “The hard work of immigrants…creates more jobs for US workers.” I think immigrants are entitled to rights in America apart from the fact that they help me get a job..?
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 4:17 pm ¶