When People Say Dov Charney Is Exploitative, Immigration Is Not What They're Talking About

American Apparel CEO Dov Charney

There was always something transparently cynical about Obama’s lofty promise to “go after employers” instead of undocumented workers themselves, as if making it impossible for immigrants to find decent jobs were something other than persecution. But why, in the search for someone of whom to make an example, would the Obama administration decide on American Apparel? If you’re trying to convince us that you’re “protecting immigrants from exploitation,” wouldn’t it be more intelligent to go after a place that doesn’t specifically market itself as a socially conscious “anti-sweatshop”? A place that doesn’t provide healthcare benefits and pay well over minimum wage? Or offer free English classes? Why not, I don't know, find a factory that doesn't provide its workers with free bikes and on-site bike mechanics? There are plenty of sketchy, example-ready slaughterhouses here in the Midwest, and you can bet they don’t provide their undocumented workers with in-factory massages. Julia Preston’s New York Times report is heartbreaking:

“I learned how to think here,” said Jesús, who would not reveal his last name because of his illegal status.

The company provides health and life insurance, he said, and he earns about $900 a week, with taxes deducted from his paycheck.

Like many others, Jesús said his next move was to hunt for work in Los Angeles. He will not return to Mexico, he said, because he is gay and fears discrimination.

“Being realistic,” he said, “I guess I’m going to have to go to one of those sweatshop companies where I’m going to get paid under the table.”

About 1,800 people are about to lose their jobs not because the economy is bad, their performance is weak, or their employer is struggling. They’re losing their jobs because they happen to be without documentation in a country where it is near-impossible for poor Mexicans and Central Americans without family already here to obtain permission to stay. Obama has spent the past few weeks talking up the millions of people without access to health care in this country. His adminstration just added a few hundred to that number.

Photograph of Dov Charney by Stephen Shugerman/Getty Images.

Tags: american apparel, dov charney, illegal immigration, immigration

Kerry Howley is a contributing editor at Reason Magazine and an Arts Fellow at the University of Iowa's literary nonfiction program.

Comments

Obama's Work to Welfare Program

By: adina | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 20:00

If anything, we should focus on the unemployed immigrants or immigrants who do not pay for their own health care costs. Targeting employed immigrants is the best way to insure that people end up in the former categories. Why are we doing whatever we can to propel productive members of society into criminal work or onto the public dole?

How nice is nice enough?

By: MrJM | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 09:41

What standard should legal authorities use to determine if a law breaker is "nice enough" to be exempt from enforcement of the laws? Is "not a sweatshop" enough? Or must they be super-dooper nice to their illegal employees?

How about we set the standard at "nice enough to obey the laws of the country in which they are doing business"?

-- MrJM

P.S. DoubleX really needs to do something about all of the ad spam in the comments.

AA Wasn't the Only Target or an Obama Target

By: ockeghem | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 23:11

PGofHSM is right in pointing out that the NYT article stated that the American Apparel investigation was begun something like 18 months ago by the Bush administration. And I believe the article also stated that there were many other companies targeted, not just AA. Of course the media's going to seize on AA, because of its high profile and the fact that the people being fired were illegal immigrants with good jobs, good pay for what they do, and good benefits. The stereotypical sweatshop raid story isn't nearly as interesting or headline-grabbing.

And as a legal immigrant in another country, I agree with the comments above, too. (And I'm not a raging right-winger; quite the opposite.) There are plenty of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens in the United States right now looking for a decent job, and AA instead has given those jobs to people with iffy documentation. (Yes, I understand in some of these cases it was done 10 years ago, when most people in the U.S. legally didn't want to work stitching clothing at AA; but times are likely a bit different now.) I'm all for changing immigration law and allowing more workers into the country -- but until that's done, the fact remains that the people leaving American Apparel are illegal, know it, and admit it. So I just can't feel a lot of sympathy for them. It would be an indignity if the factory were raided and they were herded into jail. But that's not what the Obama administration did -- they were instead fired, which shouldn't have been a huge surprise as they knew their hold on the job was always somewhat tenuous.

it's not an accident that they're without documentation

By: PGofHSM | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 19:07

"There was always something transparently cynical about Obama’s lofty promise to “go after employers” instead of undocumented workers themselves, as if making it impossible for immigrants to find decent jobs were something other than persecution."

My parents are immigrants and they had no trouble finding decent jobs, because they entered this country legally. Ditto for other family members who have followed them, sometimes beginning with H1 visas when employers need their particular skills. Legal immigrants and citizens can find decent jobs when they're not being undercut by undocumented workers.

Also, the difference between the Obama and Bush strategies is that Bush conducted raids on workplaces, arresting and imprisoning the undocumented workers prior to deporting them. The workers who were subject to Bush's raids probably felt much more persecuted than the workers at American Apparel who are being given the time to train their replacements, pick up a last paycheck and leave on their own.

And as the article Howley uses for her source states, the background work on AA had already been done under the Bush Administration; the Bushies would have done another one of their raids (as, I suspect, a McCain successor would have done). Instead, Obama's Administration has spent the last several months negotiating with AA to come to a resolution that involves no penalties on either the employer or the employees -- just AA actually abiding by its obligations under federal law by not employing people who are not in this country legally.

If you don't like the law, let's change it. If AA can't find good workers who are legally in the U.S., it can apply for H1 visas to sponsor workers from other countries to bring them legally to America. Admirably, AA already is lobbying to reform immigration law. Hopefully more employers will join it and we can have more workers coming to the U.S. legally, instead of flouting the law, while would-be immigrants who can't just walk over a border wait patiently for their turn.

They're still breaking the law

By: lawyer-mom | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 16:53

The real problem here is immigration reform, not the administration's pursuit of the "wrong" company that employs illegal immigrants. I understand your point that the administration could have pursued less conscientious employers, but American Apparel was still breaking the law, on-site massages or not. So, if you want to have a debate about this, let's discuss what this is really about: immigration reform. And on this topic, I will agree with you that we need to enable more people to work in this county legally.