re: Dov C; have you read his interview in Jane magazine from last summer?

I couldn't find a copy of the article, but I read a few quotes and got the broad outline. Only in California.

The first link above the fold was absolutely insane; however, the second one doesn't work.

It's an interesting question as to whether someone should stop buying AA products as a result. If the attitude is "well, the civil suit will take care of that" while not pursuing other economic sanctions, then he may just chalk it up as a price of doing business and continuing on. It's the reason the Pinto case had punitive damages.

That's certainly relevant. I thought about noting that one reason I sound so blasé about the case is that it's absolutely apparent to me that this guy's actions constitute sexual harassment, and I have confidence that it's going to be evident in court. I don't see how Charney could convince a jury that because an employee agreed initially or on occasion that she was comfortable with him, say, masturbating in the office, that she abrogates the right to completely reverse her opinion whenever she chooses. I don't have a complete picture of the facts, but it seems that the pending harassment cases claim that Charney expected acceptance of a sexually open work environment as a precondition for employment or condition for continuing employment. I think the court is going to politely remind him that there are laws against employers trying to relive their fantasies of 1969 at the workplace.

The plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages; I would imagine that if they get them (and I hope they do, if they win), AA's dedication to fair labor will be put to the test.

See this recent throw down on the same subject at Bitch Magazine's blog:

http://www.bitchmagazine.com/

seems like this guy crossed the line in ways i didn't realize when zunta first posted about this. if it is indeed this blatant a case of sexual harrassment, then i agree, he shouldn't get a pass on it just because he's a steward of good labor practices.

but i'm kind of with kriston, on a practical level: that's a personal dispute that is in the process of being resolved; boycotting the product would only hurt the well-paid seamstress, right? tough call.

thankfully, when it comes to fashion, temple's mall offers only a steinmart.

---matty

It's interesting to read this because I just quit American Apparel. I worked in various retail stores all over Montreal and was with the company for more than a year.

At first I loved the company and I loved the marketing campaign. I liked how they used factory workers, friends, anyone off the street as models and didn't airbrush, photoshop or put a lot of make up on them. I can live with the provocative (though potentially offensive) nature of the ads because I still believe in the company's policies and I still like how, at the very least, these women look like someone you might meet off the street. Also, the pictures have a nice raw quality to them.

The problem with the company, I think, is how utterly disorganized it is. Dov loves this controversy. He gloats about it. And as the company grows, this could be a problem. Worse yet is the downright awful management they have (at least in the Montreal area). It absolutely sucks, which is why I left.

And about the union issue, this is what I heard from Dov Charney himself: The factory workers, many of whom speak little English, were encouraged to unionize but for benefits they were already receiving from the company. (This is all bit fuzzy since I was told this story last year.) Dov claims that when he explained they would have to pay union dues for benefits they were already getting for free, they were furious and protested against unionization.

I don't know how to test the validity of that story, I'm just giving the other side of the argument.

Hi, I'm TM from Jewlicious (your link above). I have to admit that as I've learned more about the company and its employees, I am saddened that our site plays a role in this controversy.

Ultimately, Charney has been doing something that virtually no other clothing manufacturers of any size are doing these days. Who makes clothes in the US? How many companies employ 4000-5000 people at fair wages with benefits in the garment industry? For that matter, how many do it in any industry where the work can be shipped off to China?

To me, those jobs - whether they are used as part of a marketing strategy or not - are far more important than Charney or his alleged sexual issues. In fact, when I think about thousands of families, many of them blue collar (and as the poster above noted, some without English language skills), being able to work and earn respectable wages because Charney has been able to grow this company, and compare that to whether a few employees were intimidated or not by his sexual overtures, it is clear to me which is the more important. There's no contest.

TheMiddle
Jewlicious.com

YOR WROTE ABOVE: I don't follow consumer politics very closely and only practice consumer politics in a superficial way—please, correct me where I'm wrong. I understand that NLRB has come down on AA over its resistance to an employee union, so my understanding of the company's priorities may be inaccurate.

THE FACTS ARE:

The NLRB did not come down on American Apparel. They gladly posted posters in the factory, on a no contest basis, and the NLRB never even heard the unions claim. The workers did not want the union. That was obvious to everyone in the Los Angeles labor community. Just ask Senator Gil Cedillo or other legitimate California based politicians or members of various NGO's based in LA.