apparel

Huffington Post…

One hundred years ago today, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in lower Manhattan. After locked doors made flight impossible, many workers leapt to their deaths to escape the flames. One hundred and forty-six people died, in a tragedy that helped catalyze a national movement for workplace reform. Unfortunately, we do not need to look back a hundred years to contemplate the horror of garment workers falling from the high floors of a burning factory. The last such nightmare befell workers barely 100 days ago , on December 14, when thirty workers were killed and more than a hundred injured at a factory producing for Kohl’s, JC Penney, Target, Wrangler, Phillips-Van Heusen, Oshkosh, Gap and others. The sad irony on this centennial of the Triangle tragedy is that the abusive conditions, poverty wages and shoddy garment industry safety practices that unions and social reformers decried in 1911 have not been eliminated. They have been outsourced. Faced with rising wages, strong unions and enforceable safety regulations in the United States, clothing brands and retailers have moved virtually all of their production overseas. Today, America’s dresses, jeans and t-shirts are produced in the contract factories of the developing world, where lax regulation, microscopic wages, and the near total absence of unions and collective bargaining ensure the cheap and flexible production the industry craves. The similarities between the fire at Triangle Shirtwaist and the recent disaster are eerie and instructive. As at Triangle, the December fire at That’s It Sportswear, a large garment production facility in Bangladesh, swept rapidly through the ninth floor of the building. Survivors reported that locked doors impeded workers’ escape. Many had no choice but to try to climb down ropes made of pieces of clothing hastily tied together. Some fell from the makeshift ropes; others, unable to reach the ropes, jumped to their demise. This conflagration was only the most recent in a long series of mass fatalities in Bangladesh’s burgeoning apparel sector. Nine months earlier, another contract factory, this one making clothes for H&M, caught fire . Twenty-one workers died, their exit reportedly blocked by padlocked doors. It is no mystery why companies have been flocking to Bangladesh, which is now the world’s fourth largest garment exporter. The apparel manufacturers of 1911 Manhattan did not waste time and money on niceties like workplace safety or tolerate the inconvenience of labor unions and neither do their modern day counterparts in Bangladesh. The country’s weak safety protections are part of a rock-bottom cost structure that features wages of 20 cents an hour and implacable hostility to unions. Brands and retailers have paid lip service to the need for reform in Bangladesh’s factories, especially since a building collapse in 2005 that killed 64 workers, but the disasters keep happening and the orders for cheap clothes keep pouring in. Walmart alone now buys more than $1 billion worth of garments a year from Bangladesh. This is the contradiction at the heart of the contemporary apparel industry: the brands and retailers say they want to eliminate sweatshop conditions, but demand prices from their contractors so low that the only way they can stay in business is to keep abusing their workers. When the Bangladeshi labor movement called last year for a minimum wage of 35 cents an hour, the factory owners insisted, plausibly, that the brands and retailers would never accept the resulting price increases. Factory owners in Cambodia, where 200,000 workers recently struck for a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour, made the same claim, as have factory owners in India, another country where garment workers have died in multiple factory fires over the last year. Apparel brands now even complain that China is too expensive. Global outsourcing has enabled apparel companies to escape the regulatory strictures imposed though half a century of labor reform in the US. At the same time, the companies have largely succeeded in evading moral accountability for the abuses committed by their overseas factories, even as they benefit from the low prices those factories provide. Protecting workers requires new mechanisms for holding corporations accountable. One hopeful sign has been efforts of universities, spurred by student activists, to impose labor rights standards on their apparel industry partners: makers of university logo sweatshirts and t-shirts, like those selling briskly thanks to”March Madness.” Students and universities have achieved remarkable labor rights breakthroughs involving workers producing overseas for Nike and Russell Athletic and have also helped facilitate the opening of a model garment factory in the Dominican Republic where workers have a living wage and union representation. Meanwhile, labor rights organizations have called on the companies that do business with That’s It Sportswear to accept an aggressive and independent fire safety inspection program at hundreds of their supplier factories in Bangladesh. Many of the companies have promised to do so; time will tell if they fulfill that pledge. Broader accountability efforts along these lines are essential to achieving a new round of apparel industry reform that can finally protect the people who make our clothes from workplace horrors that should have been stamped out a century ago. Scott Nova is Executive Director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a labor rights watchdog, with over 175 affiliated universities and colleges.

Read more from the original source:
Scott Nova: Outsourcing Tragedy: On the 100th Anniversary of Triangle Shirtwaist, Workers Are Still Dying in Garment Factory Fires

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

At last year’s annual WWD Apparel & Retail CEO Summit, the talk was all about recession and inventory control. But at this year’s gathering in New York, the assembled execs buzzed about technology. Now that retailers seem to be moving out of crisis mode, they’re back to investing in new bells and whistles for their stores and websites.

Continue reading here:
Five Ways New Technologies Are Changing Stores And Shopping

{ 0 comments }

Kelsey Timmerman: 5 Reasons American Apparel Is on the Path to Bankruptcy

August 24, 2010

From the Financial Post ‘s story American Apparel a hipster darling no more as bankruptcy looms : “Dov Charney is at the moment of truth,” said Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a national retail consulting and investment banking firm based in New York City. “And all roads for him lead to hell. He’s got to pick the best of the worst choices.” Dov Charney is the controversial CEO of American Apparel , the US’s largest remaining apparel manufacturer. Dov is reportedly very hands on when it comes to clothes and, reportedly his female workers . I wrote about AA in my book Where Am I Wearing? as an option for engaged consumers who are looking to support American-made products. But recently the company’s stock has fallen lower than the necklines of their T-shirts — 66%. It’s doubtful that the brand will go away, but it sounds like they might be in for a restructuring and that likely means Dov will have to go away. This is a shame. Despite his alleged transgressions, I hate seeing someone forced from doing the something that they love. That said, why is American Apparel in this position? Here are five reasons: 1) Sex Sells except when it doesn’t No company has taken the advertising mantra “sex sells” to the level of American Apparel. I mean really, does anything say “come shop here and you’ll get laid” more than this? American Apparel sells T-shirts, socks, and everything in between, but most of their ads feature women barely wearing anything. I’ve never seen a copy of their catalog, likely because they are stuffed beneath the mattresses of every 13 year-old boy from here to Tuscaloosa. If men bought and wore pantyhose, this ad alone would keep them out of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, women buy pantyhose. The fact that their ads are oversexed (and Dov, the face and crotch of American Apparel is too) could have contributed to their decline. 2) Don’t mess with Woody Allen AA ran an ad with Woody Allen in it without his permission. Allen sued and won. Now AA is breathing it’s last breath. Woody Allen is still doing fine. Just saying… 3) A referendum on mustaches Need I say more? 4) Garment workers aren’t supposed to be paid a decent wage Last year AA had to layoff 1,500 workers under threat of a raid by the federal government to investigate claims of illegal immigrants working. Illegal or not, the workers were paid a respectable wage with respectable benefits. American Apparel workers made American Apparel products. This is something unheard of today. There’s no such thing as a GAP garment maker. The folks who make GAP work for some other factory in faraway places. Maybe it’s economically impossible for a brand to actually make something other than a commercial in today’s market. 5) Too cool for school I own two of their collared shirts and a few of their T-shirts. However, much of what they make is too cool, too fushcia, too (dare I say) ball hugging for me. I don’t know a single guy that owns a pair of pink pants, let alone pink briefs. — Which if any of the above factors played a roll in American Apparel’s troubles? I can’t say. Regardless, we live in a world where engaged consumers have limited options already. The loss of American Apparel would limit them even further.

Read the full article →

Kelsey Timmerman: 5 Reasons American Apparel Is on the Path to Bankruptcy

August 24, 2010

From the Financial Post ‘s story American Apparel a hipster darling no more as bankruptcy looms : “Dov Charney is at the moment of truth,” said Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a national retail consulting and investment banking firm based in New York City. “And all roads for him lead to hell. He’s got to pick the best of the worst choices.” Dov Charney is the controversial CEO of American Apparel , the US’s largest remaining apparel manufacturer. Dov is reportedly very hands on when it comes to clothes and, reportedly his female workers . I wrote about AA in my book Where Am I Wearing? as an option for engaged consumers who are looking to support American-made products. But recently the company’s stock has fallen lower than the necklines of their T-shirts — 66%. It’s doubtful that the brand will go away, but it sounds like they might be in for a restructuring and that likely means Dov will have to go away. This is a shame. Despite his alleged transgressions, I hate seeing someone forced from doing the something that they love. That said, why is American Apparel in this position? Here are five reasons: 1) Sex Sells except when it doesn’t No company has taken the advertising mantra “sex sells” to the level of American Apparel. I mean really, does anything say “come shop here and you’ll get laid” more than this? American Apparel sells T-shirts, socks, and everything in between, but most of their ads feature women barely wearing anything. I’ve never seen a copy of their catalog, likely because they are stuffed beneath the mattresses of every 13 year-old boy from here to Tuscaloosa. If men bought and wore pantyhose, this ad alone would keep them out of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, women buy pantyhose. The fact that their ads are oversexed (and Dov, the face and crotch of American Apparel is too) could have contributed to their decline. 2) Don’t mess with Woody Allen AA ran an ad with Woody Allen in it without his permission. Allen sued and won. Now AA is breathing it’s last breath. Woody Allen is still doing fine. Just saying… 3) A referendum on mustaches Need I say more? 4) Garment workers aren’t supposed to be paid a decent wage Last year AA had to layoff 1,500 workers under threat of a raid by the federal government to investigate claims of illegal immigrants working. Illegal or not, the workers were paid a respectable wage with respectable benefits. American Apparel workers made American Apparel products. This is something unheard of today. There’s no such thing as a GAP garment maker. The folks who make GAP work for some other factory in faraway places. Maybe it’s economically impossible for a brand to actually make something other than a commercial in today’s market. 5) Too cool for school I own two of their collared shirts and a few of their T-shirts. However, much of what they make is too cool, too fushcia, too (dare I say) ball hugging for me. I don’t know a single guy that owns a pair of pink pants, let alone pink briefs. — Which if any of the above factors played a roll in American Apparel’s troubles? I can’t say. Regardless, we live in a world where engaged consumers have limited options already. The loss of American Apparel would limit them even further.

Read the full article →

Kelsey Timmerman: 5 Reasons American Apparel Is on the Path to Bankruptcy

August 24, 2010

From the Financial Post ‘s story American Apparel a hipster darling no more as bankruptcy looms : “Dov Charney is at the moment of truth,” said Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a national retail consulting and investment banking firm based in New York City. “And all roads for him lead to hell. He’s got to pick the best of the worst choices.” Dov Charney is the controversial CEO of American Apparel , the US’s largest remaining apparel manufacturer. Dov is reportedly very hands on when it comes to clothes and, reportedly his female workers . I wrote about AA in my book Where Am I Wearing? as an option for engaged consumers who are looking to support American-made products. But recently the company’s stock has fallen lower than the necklines of their T-shirts — 66%. It’s doubtful that the brand will go away, but it sounds like they might be in for a restructuring and that likely means Dov will have to go away. This is a shame. Despite his alleged transgressions, I hate seeing someone forced from doing the something that they love. That said, why is American Apparel in this position? Here are five reasons: 1) Sex Sells except when it doesn’t No company has taken the advertising mantra “sex sells” to the level of American Apparel. I mean really, does anything say “come shop here and you’ll get laid” more than this? American Apparel sells T-shirts, socks, and everything in between, but most of their ads feature women barely wearing anything. I’ve never seen a copy of their catalog, likely because they are stuffed beneath the mattresses of every 13 year-old boy from here to Tuscaloosa. If men bought and wore pantyhose, this ad alone would keep them out of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, women buy pantyhose. The fact that their ads are oversexed (and Dov, the face and crotch of American Apparel is too) could have contributed to their decline. 2) Don’t mess with Woody Allen AA ran an ad with Woody Allen in it without his permission. Allen sued and won. Now AA is breathing it’s last breath. Woody Allen is still doing fine. Just saying… 3) A referendum on mustaches Need I say more? 4) Garment workers aren’t supposed to be paid a decent wage Last year AA had to layoff 1,500 workers under threat of a raid by the federal government to investigate claims of illegal immigrants working. Illegal or not, the workers were paid a respectable wage with respectable benefits. American Apparel workers made American Apparel products. This is something unheard of today. There’s no such thing as a GAP garment maker. The folks who make GAP work for some other factory in faraway places. Maybe it’s economically impossible for a brand to actually make something other than a commercial in today’s market. 5) Too cool for school I own two of their collared shirts and a few of their T-shirts. However, much of what they make is too cool, too fushcia, too (dare I say) ball hugging for me. I don’t know a single guy that owns a pair of pink pants, let alone pink briefs. — Which if any of the above factors played a roll in American Apparel’s troubles? I can’t say. Regardless, we live in a world where engaged consumers have limited options already. The loss of American Apparel would limit them even further.

Read the full article →

TradeCard Hires Supply Chain Veteran Bob Copeland to Deliver Next Generation of Collaboration Solutions

August 12, 2010

Former Kurt Salmon Associates Executive With Extensive Retail, Apparel & Footwear Expertise Will Lead TradeCard’s New Product Strategy

Read the full article →

Coyuchi Appoints New Management Team

August 12, 2010

Coyuchi Fills Key Niche in Organic Cotton and Natural Fiber Bedding, Bath Linens and Baby Apparel

Read the full article →

American Apparel Shares PLUNGE As Auditor Quits

July 29, 2010

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–American Apparel Inc. (APP) shares plunged as much as 25% Thursday after the retailer said accounting firm Deloitte & Touche resigned as its auditor, the latest blow for the cash-strapped company. In a vague filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, American Apparel said Deloitte had warned information had come to its attention that could materially affect the reliability of its audit report or the company’s 2009 financial statements, if investigated further.

Read the full article →

North Face, South Butt Reach Settlement In Lawsuit

April 9, 2010

ST. LOUIS — The North Face Apparel Corp. has settled its lawsuit against The South Butt, a company started by a Missouri teenager that markets parody clothing. The agreement entered in federal court Friday didn’t disclose terms. An attorney for The South Butt said it was an amicable resolution. The North Face attorneys declined comment. The South Butt was started two year ago by Jimmy Winkelmann of suburban St. Louis, now a college freshman. The company put out products with the tag line, “Never Stop Relaxing,” a parody of The North Face line, “Never Stop Exploring.” The North Face sued in December to stop The South Butt from making, marketing and selling its fleeces, T-shirts and shorts. The South Butt Web site was still offering the products Friday. ___ On the Net: http://www.thesouthbutt.com http://www.thenorthface.com

Read the full article →

Jones Apparel to Shutter 166 Stores in 2010

February 17, 2010

Jones Apparel Group, Inc. (NYSE: JNY) is planning to close 166 underperforming stores this year. During 2009, the retailer closed 99 and opened 20 stores, to end the year with 938 retail stores. Jones has not identified the brand or location of the remaining…

Read the full article →

Columbia Sportswear Company Names Susan S. Parham Vice President of Global Apparel, Accessories and Equipment

January 25, 2010

PORTLAND, OR–(Marketwire – January 25, 2010) – Columbia Sportswear Company ( NASDAQ : COLM ), a global leader in active outdoor apparel, footwear and accessories, today announced the appointment of Susan S. Parham as vice president of global apparel, accessories and equipment for the Columbia brand, succeeding Mark Koppes who has left the company to pursue other interests. Parham joins Columbia with more than 25 years of experience in the apparel industry. Most recently she has served as president of Lessons Learned, a consulting firm she founded in 1998 that focused on developing the business aptitude of global product professionals ranging from design to sales. Clients included Columbia Sportswear Company; multiple Nike divisions globally; Williams-Sonoma, Inc., including its Pottery Barn and Elm Street divisions; Under Armour; Gap; Lucy; Joseph A. Banks; Liz Claiborne; and several other well-known consumer brands

Read the full article →

Video: Jay Margolis Discusses U.S. Retailer Holiday Inventories: Video

November 27, 2009

Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) — Jay Margolis, former president of the apparel division at Limited Brands, talks with Bloomberg’s Betty Liu about the outlook for retailers during the holiday shopping season. Margolis says he sees lower inventories at retailers this year. (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

U.S. Demand May Take Until 2010 to `Regenerate,’ Li & Fung Chairman Says

November 16, 2009

By Liza Lin and Wing-Gar Cheng Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — U.S. consumer demand may take until the middle of 2010 to “regenerate,” and it’s unlikely China can fill the gap as the global economy recovers, said Victor Fung , chairman of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. supplier Li & Fung Ltd. “The slide in retail sales has been arrested, but I think it may take a little while before demand will regenerate,” Victor Fung said in an interview in Singapore Nov. 14. “We will look toward the middle of next year for that to come back up, before you can see a perceptible pick up in demand.” Sales at U.S. stores open at least a year rose 1.1 percent in September, the first increase in 13 months, as discounts drew shoppers back to shops. Li & Fung , founded in China in 1906 near the end of the Qing Dynasty, is accelerating efforts to buy makers of clothing, cosmetics, home products, accessories and shoes as retailers increase reordering. Last month, Li & Fung said it will pay as much as $401.8 million for Wear Me Apparel LLC, a New York-based company that holds licenses for the Calvin Klein and Disney labels. Li & Fung, which made 61 percent of its HK$46.3 billion first-half sales in the U.S., also supplies Kohl’s Corp., Target Corp., Inditex SA’s Zara and Marks & Spencer Group Plc. Still, U.S. consumers are taking time to adjust to new spending habits and are probably waiting for a sustained halt in falling housing prices and jobless rates before they regain the confidence to spend again, Fung said. China Retail Sales Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly fell this month. The Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary sentiment index decreased to a three-month low of 66 from 70.6 in October. Although China’s retail sales rose 16.2 percent in October, the fastest pace since January, Chinese consumers aren’t “picking up the slack” in American spending, he said. “Globally, it’s hard to see the Chinese demand making up for the U.S.,” Fung said. “The Chinese are not going to eat twice as much and consume twice as much.” The U.S. and Europe are still markets that present “a lot of opportunities” for Li & Fung because the “mass merchants are now looking for value and things that are value for money for the consumer,” Fung said. Parent Li & Fung Group last month sold shares in Trinity Ltd. , its luxury menswear division. Trinity gained 1.2 percent to HK$2.45 at the midday trading break in Hong Kong. That’s 48 percent higher than its initial public offering price of HK$1.65. Trinity sells luxury menswear and accessories in greater China under brands including Gieves & Hawkes, Cerrutti 1881 and Kent & Curwen, and has a joint venture with Salvatore Ferragamo in South Korea and Southeast Asia. Li & Fung Group is waiting for its Toys “R” Us Asia retail unit to reach “critical mass” before it sells shares in an initial public offering, he said, without providing more details. “We’d like to make sure it is a much bigger entity before we do that.” William Fung , managing director of the listed company and Victor Fung’s brother, in April last year said Toys “R” Us Asia’s initial share sale may take place within four years while Trinity’s would happen within two years. To contact the reporter on this story: Liza Lin in Singapore at llin15@bloomberg.net ; Wing-Gar Cheng in Hong Kong at wgcheng@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Pelosi Says House Will Consider Extending First-Time Home-Buyer Tax Credit

October 8, 2009

By Lorraine Woellert and Jody Shenn Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers might extend an $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers that is set to expire Dec. 1. In addition, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said he is “hopeful” that lawmakers will allow Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration to continue financing larger mortgages past year-end. “There’s under consideration whether we extend the first- time homeowners’ credit,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters today in Washington. “And the question is, would that be just first-time homeowners or would you open it up to other purchasers of homes?” Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met with President Barack Obama yesterday to discuss ways to bolster the economy amid concerns that rising unemployment will be a drag on the recovery. “We have continued to have conversations with members about initiatives that work for them in their districts to create jobs,” Pelosi said. “We’ll also be hearing from some economists from right to left on the spectrum in the days ahead.” With the jobless rate likely to reach 10 percent by the end of the year, Obama and his advisers are considering a mix of spending programs and tax cuts beyond the stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year. Today, more than 500 companies and trade associations signed a letter urging Congress to extend business tax credits, including one for research and development, which are set to expire at the end of the year. ‘Major Tax Increases’ “Thousands of U.S. businesses and individual taxpayers would face major tax increases if these tax provisions expire,” the letter read. “An extension would bring more certainty in U.S. tax law, foster more effective business decisions, and encourage investment.” Bank of America Corp., IBM Corp ., American Apparel Inc. , and Norfolk Southern were among the companies signing the letter. Proposals under consideration include accelerated depreciation tax deductions for companies and extending the loss carry-back deduction from two years to five years. Lawmakers also are considering extending unemployment insurance benefits. Dodd is pushing legislation to allow government home-loan agencies to finance up to $729,750 in high-cost areas. The loan guarantees are set to otherwise fall to $417,000. “We need to keep this support in place,” said Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat. Fannie and Freddie Dodd spoke at a hearing focused on the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by regulators last year and are being supported by $400 billion in capital lifelines amid the housing slump. The Obama administration has said the issue can’t be resolved until the market stabilizes. Loan limits for Washington-based Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac of McLean, Virginia, and FHA, the U.S. mortgage-insurance agency, were boosted by lawmakers in February 2008 as part of efforts to curb a housing crash that then deepened. Higher limits were then affirmed as part of two other laws passed last year and this year. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on Dodd’s committee, focused on the oversight failings that led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their seizure by the U.S. in September 2008. Not resolving the companies’ status may boost the cost of supporting them, he said. “I fear the longer we wait, the more it’s going to cost the U.S. taxpayer,” Shelby said, though he later added that he doesn’t believe “we should do anything hastily.” To contact the reporters on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net ; Jody Shenn in New York at jshenn@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

BlueMountain Fund Rose 18% Through June With Bets Against Creditworthines

July 27, 2009

By Pierre Paulden and Shannon D. Harrington July 27 (Bloomberg) — BlueMountain Capital Management LLC, whose founders helped pioneer credit-default swaps, rose 18 percent through June in part by betting on creditworthiness declines at New York Times Co.

Read the full article →