Sen. Kerry from Mass. Meets With Sweatshop Operator
Unknown
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON AUGUST 04, 2003 16:51:35 ET XXXXX
From the Drudge Report:
KERRY IN SWEAT FLAP ON EVE OF UNION CONVENTION
Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry hit turbulence on convention eve at the AFL-CIO, the largest US labor federation,
after it was revealed the candidate has been wined, dined and fundraised by the controversial Susie Tompkins Buell.
Friday's WASHINGTON POST style-section splash on Buell -- the co-founder of the ESPRIT clothing company -- failed to include
stunning allegations of sweatshop profiteering!
Before Kerry presents his position Tuesday night in Chicago on protecting the right of workers to organize, a sweaty review of
Buell's ESPRIT:
The Department Of Labor Raided Eight Sweatshops In San Francisco, Including Three Which Were Manufacturing Goods For Susie
Buell’s Company.
Ø Three Of The Eight San Francisco Garment Contractors Raided By The Department Of Labor Were Manufacturing Clothing For Esprit.
“Just six months earlier, in a bust of eight Bay Area garment contractors, three of those cited were working for Esprit.”
(Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø The Department Of Labor Found That An Esprit Contractor Doctored Payroll Records And Refused To Pay Overtime. “Those three,
according to D.O.L. documents, were doctoring payroll records and not paying overtime. After the shops paid the back wages, at
least one seamstress complained to the state Labor Commission that the employer was asking for kickbacks.” (Laurie Udesky,
“Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø An Esprit Contractor Paid Its Workers Less Than Minimum Wage. “Although the minimum wage is barely livable at $4.25 an hour,
the shop contracted by Esprit paid only $3.75 with no overtime.” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation,
5/16/94)
Ø A Labor Investigator Said He Believed Clothing Companies Are Responsible For Garment Workers Who Manufacture Their Goods.
“D.O.L. investigator Harry Hu is less philosophical: ‘Clothing manufacturers are responsible because the garment workers are
sewing garments that belong to them.’ Indeed, to catch manufacturers who turn a blind eye to contractor abuses, the D.O.L. has
threatened to enforce the ‘hot goods’ provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This allows the government to halt the
shipment of goods out of state if a contractor violates child labor, minimum wage or overtime laws.” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops
Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø The Department Of Labor Wanted Esprit To Cease Shipping Goods Made By The Sweatshops. “The D.O.L. says Esprit has been
cooperative in holding payment to contractors until investigations are finished. But Hu cautions that manufacturers aren’t going
far enough. ‘We don’t agree with what Esprit is doing right now … We want Esprit and other manufacturers not to ship the goods,
but they ship them anyway.’” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø A Company Spokesman Said It Was More Important For The “Socially Responsible” Esprit To Stay In Business Than It Was For The
Corporation To Pay Its Garment Workers A Livable Wage. “Esprit’s affable spokesman Dan Imhoff says that garment workers should
be paid a wage that ‘allows them a reasonable life style.’ But asked specifically about what Esprit could do to insure this, he
shifts the responsibility back to the contractor. ‘The bottom line is Esprit has to pay its own workers a fair wage. Do you
think a socially responsible business would survive if it would pay twice as much to its contractor? How can a company stay in
business?’ This is getting in a very tough nerve. ‘Perhaps,’ he continues, ‘Esprit isn’t the shining example that you want. …
Esprit can only change so many things at one time.’” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø Even Some Sewing Contractors Decided Not To Solicit Esprit’s Business Because The “Socially Responsible” Company “Bid Too
Low.” “Outside the glamorous fashion world in San Francisco some sewing contractors talk guardedly of their frustrations with
high-profile manufacturers. One says her shop stays away from Esprit because they ‘bid too low.’ Others complain that
manufacturers will not even quote them a price for work until they finish a job. Contractor Louis Quan, who in the past worked
for Esprit, makes the point: ‘When it gets down to the bottom line, they’re going to use price as a guideline, whether a
manufacturer is socially responsible or whatever.’” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø The Department Of Labor Raided The Sweatshops Manufacturing Esprit Clothing In the Same Year That Buell Launched A Campaign
That Asked Customers To Finish The Statement: “If I Could Change The World, I’d…” “That year Esprit also received much favorable
publicity for a campaign that invited consumers to fill out cards finishing the sentence, If I could change the world, I’d…
Esprit turned the responses into an $8 million public education/ad campaign. ‘We thought, wouldn’t it be great to give voice to
these people. … there was so much passion,’ explains Esprit public relations director Cassie Ederer. One respondent, an
African-American woman, wrote in: ‘If I could change the world, I’d end racism and the killing of my people in the streets.’”
(Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø The Nation, An Ultra-Liberal Magazine, Suggested That The Women Toiling In Esprit Supported Sweatshops, Would Have Said: “If I
Could Change The World, I’d Be Paid A Decent Wage.” “Had they been asked, some of the women who sew for Esprit might have said,
‘If I could change the world, I’d be paid a decent wage.’ Last year the Department of Labor raided a San Francisco garment shop
that works on contract for Esprit and owed its workers $127,000 in back wages.” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,”
The Nation, 5/16/94)
· In The Mid-1970s, The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sanctioned An Esprit-Owned Factory In San Francisco - One That
Paid Its Workers $2 An Hour And Was Closed By Buell When The Workers Tried To Unionize.
Ø In The 1970s, Esprit Purchased A Sewing Company In San Francisco And Paid The Mainly Female And Asian Workers $2 An Hour.
“With the company’s rapid growth, a sewing company had been purchased in San Francisco’s Chinatown. And if conditions in
Esprit’s headquarters seemed utopian, they were anything but at the Great Chinese-American Sewing Company [GCA]. The
predominantly female, Chinese workers were being paid just $2 an hour and suffered sweat shop indignities such as not being able
to use the bathroom between breaks.” (Richard Rapaport, “The Rise, Fall And Repositioning Of Esprit And Its Founders: Goodbye
Susie,” California Business, 8/92)
Ø The NLRB Found That The Esprit Factory Threatened Employees In Order To Keep Them From Organizing A Union. “The company was
accused, and later found guilty, by the National Labor Relations Board of illegal interrogations, threats of discharge, to
withhold paychecks and even threats - later acted upon - to close the shop to stave off unionization. This lead to an ugly
strike which marred Esprit’s image during this period.” (Richard Rapaport, “The Rise, Fall And Repositioning Of Esprit And Its
Founders: Goodbye Susie,” California Business, 8/92)
Ø On January 28, 1977 The NLRB Found That Esprit Closed The Factory Because The Workers Tried To Form A Union. “The
Administrative Law Judge found that … the reason for the GCA closure was not solely economic. That the precipitating reason was
the advent of the Union. He therefore found that the GCA plant closure with the consequent termination of employees violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. To remedy the unfair labor practices, he ordered that Respondents reopen GCA and recognize and
bargain with the Union.” (National Labor Relations Board, 227 N.L.R.B. 1670, January 28, 1977)
Ø In Its 1977 Decision, The NLRB Ordered Esprit To Cease And Desist From:
“Interrogating employees concerning their activities on behalf of the Union.”
“Threatening to discharge employees for engaging in activities in support of the Union.”
“Threatening employees that their paychecks will be withheld unless they turn over to Respondents any authorization cards they
execute for the Union.”
“Promising and then granting employees a pay raise to induce abandoning support of the Union.”
“Informing employees that the Great Chinese American Sewing Company will close its plant unless they abandon support of the
Union.”
“Discharging any employee for engaging in concerted protected activity or for soliciting authorization cards for San Francisco
Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.”
“Terminating any of their operations in retaliation for activities of their employees in support of the Union.”
“Refusing to bargain in good faith with San Francisco Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
including bargaining about the decision to close the Great Chinese American Sewing Company plant at San Francisco, California,
and the effects of said decision on the unit employees.” (National Labor Relations Board, 227 N.L.R.B. 1670, January 28, 1977)
Ø The NLRB Criticized Esprit’s “Paternalism” After Susie Buell’s Husband Referred To The Factory As A “Sort Of Model Sewing Shop
In The Social Sense Of The Words.” “According to the National Labor Relations Board, Esprit threatened, harassed and intimidated
the workers, and then shut down the would-be union plant. The N.L.R.B. … wrote a scathing criticism of Doug Tompkins’s ‘thread
of paternalism,’ lambasting him for shutting down his plant in response to ‘perceived ingratitude.’ The N.L.R.B. says Tompkins’s
paternalism was also apparent in his description of the factory - his insistence, for example, that the shop was a ‘distinctive
experiment,’ a ‘sort of model sewing shop in the social sense of the words.’” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,”
The Nation, 5/16/94)
Ø Ten Years After Esprit Closed The Factory, The Company Paid $1.2 Million To Its Former Sweatshop Workers. By The Mid-1990s,
Esprit Still Had Successfully Defeated Any Attempt To Organize A Union. “Esprit vigorously challenged the N.L.R.B.’s decision in
appellate court, which upheld the board and ordered payment of back wages. More than ten years after the plant closed, Esprit
paid $1.2 million to those of the former workers who could be tracked down. Tompkins no longer owns the company, and spokesman
Imhoff, asked about the unionbusting, says only, ‘That’s before my time.’ But, he ventures, ‘it’s a private company, and I
imagine they didn’t want to go public.’ There have been no successful organizing efforts since at Esprit.” (Laurie Udesky,
“Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
While Susie Buell Profited From The Toil Of Low-Paid Minority Workers, Her Firm Marketed Itself As Socially Conscious And
Offered Its Head Office Employees Extravagant Perks.
· From The Company’s Inception, The Owners “Infused [Esprit] With A Strong California Sensibility And Liberal Social
Conscience.” “Esprit de Corp. was founded in 1970 by Doug and Susie Tompkins, who infused it with a strong California
sensibility and liberal social conscience. The company’s wholesale business grew rapidly throughout the late ‘70s and into the
next decade. International partners helped turn it into a global brand. Esprit never let success get in the way of its
less-than-conventional attitude.” (Marianne Wilson, “Shopping Esprit,” Chain Store Age, 5/1/02)
· Esprit Marketed Their “Socially And Environmentally Responsible Clothing” To Young People. “[S]hoppers in the woodsy, airy
outlet of the youth-oriented clothing company Esprit browse beneath giant posters hanging from the ceiling imploring them to ‘Be
Informed. Be Involved. Make a Difference.’ The shoppers can select from Esprit’s ‘Ecollection’ line, made from organically grown
cottons and wools tinted with natural dyes. ‘Socially and environmentally responsible clothing’ is how Esprit’s brochure
describes it. Politics at the level of consumption has been profitable for Esprit…” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The
Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
· By 1973, Esprit’s Head Office Contained A “Richly Landscaped Exterior” And A Roof-Top Garden. “This grandiosity of vision
became clear in 1973, when the $12 million a year, 150-employee company moved into a new headquarters. It was a former wine
storage facility which Doug renovated with a richly landscaped exterior inside of which was built well-lit work areas, lounges,
showers, a full kitchen and a roof garden.” (Richard Rapaport, “The Rise, Fall And Repositioning Of Esprit And Its Founders:
Goodbye Susie,” California Business, September, 1992)
· Esprit’s Main Office Employees Received Access To The Company Gym And Lectures From Feminist Activist Gloria Steinem. “The
work force at the company’s main offices in San Francisco enjoys perks that range from a company gym and compensation for
volunteer work on the cause of their choice, to an in-house lecture series featuring such figures as Earth First!-er Dave
Foreman and Ms. founder Gloria Steinem.” (Laurie Udesky, “Sweatshops Behind The Labels,” The Nation, 5/16/94)
· While Their Workers Earned $2 Per Hour, Esprit Offered Corporate Employees Rafting Trips To Africa And Hiking Adventures In
The Grand Canyon. “The company expanded into 34 countries, and worldwide licensed sales grew to $1.2 billion, although Esprit
collected only one-third of that. … Employee benefits were so lavish that Esprit was dubbed Little Utopia. Perks included raft
trips in Africa, free language lessons, and backpacking trips to the Grand Canyon.” (Laura Zinn and Michael Oneal, “Will
Politically Correct Sell Sweaters?” Business Week, 3/16/92).
Developing...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2003
Not for reproduction without permission of the author