Picking up the thread from a couple of days ago -- sorry, I'm on a bit of a rant -- a compelling argument against fast fashion is that it promotes continued maltreatment of workers. The New York Times reported a story about a customer in Britain who recently bought a summer dress at Primark and found a label hand-stitched inside saying "forced to work exhausting hours." A link to the story is here: http://runway.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ 06/24/primark-label-stirs/?_php=true&_&_r=0 Primark is a European clothing retailer that sells low-cost apparel. It manufactures in Bangladesh and in other cheap-labor countries. (Primark announced recently it will open its first US store in Boston). The only economic way Primark (and other low-cost retailers) can sell goods on the cheap is because they manufacture in facilities in cheap labor countries. How shocking and sobering would it be to unzip a new flouncy breezy summer dress to see a hand-sewn protest? It stopped me cold to imagine in my mind's eye a young girl with few options who, for cultural and economic reasons, feels chained to a repetitive task hour after hour, day after day, yet in quiet, but dangerous, protest, clandestinely sews a powerful plea into a dress. It took me back to a piece on display at the Museum of Art & Design that cemented me in place. The piece was huge - I mean seriously amazingly gigantic. It depicted a woman hunched over a sewing machine. The docent explained that the materials used to make the piece are labels from luxury clothing. I peered closer and sure enough. The artist took a photo of an actual sweatshop worker and spent a year stitching luxury labels together to resemble the photograph. I was astounded. The message delivered was visceral. The simple hand-stitched label in the dress sold at Primark screams the same message just as poignantly. | It’s not a one dimensional discussion though. The influx of textile and apparel manufacturing in those countries has increased the economy of the country and the standard of living of the people employed in those sweatshops. In Bangladesh, for instance, where there have been two horrific factory accidents causing thousands of deaths, the country does not want fashion manufacturing factories to move away because of the positive economic impact. Even advocates against sweatshops in Bangladesh want the factories to remain. However, they seek better working conditions and higher wagers. The abuse of the workers needs to stop. That will translate – economically, it must – into higher priced apparel. I will pay more for goods knowing that no one has been mistreated so I can wear a flouncy outfit. Am I naive in thinking that most folks will, too? If you want to know more about the sourcing of goods, food, health products, beauty products, and other items so you can individually determine the origin of the sourced materials, there’s an app for that! It’s called Buycott. (See above image). Another side of the complicated issue relates to the original designer. The original designer has a vision & to give life to the vision, the designer employs fabric designers to assist with the creation of a textile design, manufacturing employees to transfer the design to a textile and produce it, designers and assistants to create a garment with the textile, seamstresses who construct the garment, individuals who hand-sew embellishments (beads, crystals, and the like), and so on --- a full team of people. Add other departments for pushing the garment to the purchasing public: marketing, public relations, editorial, distribution, etc. The original designer absorbs ALL those expenses. Then, fast fashion picks it up. Often, it's on the floor of a Primark, Forever 21 or H&M before the original makes it to a department store or the designer's own store. That’s not right either. |