
The 2013 inaugural ball. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
President Obama has been eerily silent on the Rana Plaza disaster, the factory collapse that killed more than 1,110 garment workers last month near Dhaka, Bangladesh. Days later, another fire claimed eight people, and Obama said nothing. This week, two people died in a shoe factory collapse in Cambodia. Not a word. The problems that plague the global fashion industry deeply affect the American people, from an economic and humanitarian standpoint, and this situation calls for presidential leadership.
As of today, many of the largest US clothing retailers, including Walmart, Gap, J.C. Penney and Sears, have yet to sign on to a rigorous fire and safety agreement that would require brands to help fund necessary building improvements in Bangladesh. Walmart, the single largest buyer of clothing from Bangladesh, has in fact refused to sign, deciding instead to monitor its more than 200 Bangladeshi suppliers itself. The suggestion that Walmart is capable of monitoring its own supply chain is particularly appalling given that the retailer is linked to the Tazreen factory fire, which killed 112 Bangladeshi workers last November, and sold jeans from a supplier that operated in Rana Plaza. As I said in last week’s post, the president needs to force these companies’ hands and pressure them to sign on.
If Obama is unsure of how to act, he might start where former President Bill Clinton left off. In 1996, Clinton established a presidential task force made up of brands, government officials and labor leaders in order to regulate the global apparel industry, following a string of sweatshop scandals. That year, a human rights group revealed that Walmart’s Kathie Lee Gifford brand was being made by children in Honduras, and public outcry built until Clinton joined forces with brands and labor leaders to forge a solution. Aside from improving factories themselves, the task force’s goal was to give American consumers a way to track the conditions under which their clothing was made.
Clinton’s White House Apparel Industry Partnership spent two years establishing a baseline standard for working conditions in garment factories (it set weekly working hours at sixty, for example; and banned child labor). The Fair Labor Association, an auditing group, was set up to inspect progress in factories and make the results of its inspections public.
Since the mid-1990s, many things have changed in the apparel industry and in the world, which Obama’s twenty-first-century apparel task force will have to account for. Garment supply chains have moved from Mexico and the Caribbean basin—where one could argue it’s slightly easier to monitor conditions—to places like China and Southeast Asia, where language, distance and cultural barriers make monitoring more difficult.
The amount and dollar value of clothing imports to the United States has also skyrocketed since 1996. We now make only 2 percent of our clothing domestically. The sheer volume of imports makes monitoring conditions a much more difficult task.
The president may fear addressing the fact that unregulated imports have not only caused human misery but have rapidly cost the United States its garment and textile industries. But this is an opportunity for real change both here and abroad: Lifting wages and conditions for garment workers worldwide would be beneficial for places like Bangladesh and would also give our country’s manufacturers a chance to compete.
While the Clinton-era monitoring system was a good start, the new presidential task force should fulfill the promise to consumers to be able to trace where our clothes are from. It should require that every American brand make public all its suppliers and for all suppliers to by inspected by an independent group (and that those inspections be made public). Perhaps the results could be collated in one place, on one website, or a fair-labor labeling system could be developed to communicate which brands are responsible.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
We also need the leadership of our first lady, a fashion icon and a consumer of clothes from H&M, which produces in Bangladesh. She must help change the culture of fashion in the United States. The price of a chain-store frock has gone lower and lower in recent decades, and Americans have used this as an excuse to stockpile our closets with gobs of disposable trends. An unhealthy reliance on imports suppresses wages in the United States and costs us jobs. Even though cheap imported consumer goods contribute directly to our economic woes, Americans celebrate bargain fashion. And we love it when Michelle Obama wears H&M and shops at Target.
It be would be amazing to hear Michelle Obama say that fairly and affordably priced fashion should be our new goal, not simply scoring the cheapest bargain we can find. And that a clothing steal should never come at the price of life. Lastly, she and Barack should make us believe once again that when brands, garment workers, governments and consumers all work together, fashion can and will be made in safe and healthy conditions.
San Francisco Giants concession workers have voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike. Read Dave Zirin’s report.

A Walmart store in Richmond, Virginia. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
This week has been a waiting game for consumers, as we’ve followed news of fashion brands that source from Bangladesh to see how they respond to the late-April collapse of the Rana Plaza factory where, to date, more than 1,100 garment workers have perished. Clothing companies and labor groups have been busy etching out a rigorous fire and safety agreement, which establishes independent inspections of the country’s factories, is legally binding, and requires that improvements in building safety be partially funded by fashion brands.
As the story has unfolded, it’s highlighted an underlying problem with corporate responsibility, particularly in the United States: Whether brands participate in the Bangladeshi factory safety agreement is totally voluntary. And embarrassingly and dishearteningly, it’s been the US clothing giants that have been reluctant to sign on. European companies, including H&M, Tesco, Primark, Benetton, Mango and others rapidly signed on earlier this week. Walmart has decided to develop its own plan for inspecting its Bangladeshi suppliers. This, even after it was revealed that the retail giant sold jeans from a supplier that had placed an order in Rana Plaza. It’s response was to fire the supplier, Fame Jeans.
Sears has also decided to go its own way. As of this morning, Target has declined to comment on the agreement and J.C. Penney is still reviewing the plan. One potential bright spot: Gap, which owns Old Navy and Banana Republic, is expected to sign on in the coming days.
One justification provided for the split between European and American retailers is that, according to a Gap spokesperson, America is overly “litigious.” In other words, this agreement might actually provide the necessary threat to brands for an agreement like this to work. In 2009, the Ninth US Circuit of Appeals ruled that workers in foreign factories that supply Walmart can’t hold the company responsible for their workplace conditions, despite the retailer’s code of conduct that’s supposed to hold its contractors to decent labor standards. This lack of liability is enjoyed by every retailer that uses contracted factories, which they do not own. It’s this loophole, the one that legally distances clothing companies from the very people who actually make the clothing, that has consistently and historically wrought disaster and human tragedy.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Given the labor-intensive and highly competitive nature of the fashion industry, it has long needed tighter regulations and now is the time to push them through. The workers in sub-contracted garment factories need crucial protections. Currently, the United States government and our courts are doing nothing to police fashion companies’ behavior in factories overseas. The Rana Plaza disaster is a matter of international concern, and the time is ripe for government leaders to step in, evaluate the situation and force the hand of business. Otherwise, clothing brands will continue to distance themselves from tragedies, tragedies will continue to happen and consumers will feel confused and hopeless about their role in all of this.
In a new survey, 84 percent of New York's fast food workers report having their wages stolen. Read Josh Eidelson's report.

A Bangladeshi woman looks at portraits of missing persons near the site of the recent disaster in Savar. (AP Photo/Ashraful Alam Tito)
In the wake of the Rana Plaza disaster—the garment factory in Bangladesh that collapsed in late April, leaving 1,000 dead, as of today—consumers are left with some troubling questions: Can we trust any item of clothing that’s made in Bangladesh… or anywhere else, for that matter? Are all garment factories “bad”? Is there any real way to tell if something we buy in a chain store was made under safe, ethical conditions?
Last week, a reader of The Nation wrote in asking these very questions. She recently purchased a large number of caps from a clothing brand called Port Authority and, after noticing the caps’ made-in labels read “Bangladesh,” went searching for information about the factory they came from and the conditions under which the hats were made. She came up largely empty-handed.
I did my own investigation into the reader’s hats. Port Authority is owned by a larger entity, called SanMar. A SanMar customer server representative told me that SanMar has been working with the same factories in Bangladesh “for years” and that those factories are accredited by the Fair Labor Association. You can read more about SanMar’s social responsibility efforts here.
The FLA is an auditing group hired by a number of major brands (H&M, American Eagle, Hanes, and Adidas are among them) to conduct unannounced inspections of factories and then work with the factories and the brands to improve conditions. On the FLA website, there is a factory inspection report for one of SanMar’s hat factories in Bangladesh. You can read it here.
It’s actually quite rare to be able to get even this amount of information about a clothing factory used by a major brand and even rarer to be able trace a specific item (a hat) back to a specific factory, one that might have actually created that hat. But, even then, the report does little to inspire consumer confidence. It does not disclose the name of the factory or the address nor does it give any real sense of what the factory is like. It also reveals a string of noncompliance issues, among them wage violations, a lack of accurate payroll records, a handful of faulty smoke detectors and fire extinguishers that were partially blocked by embroidery machines. And there is no public record of when and if these issues were resolved.
I don’t want to single out SanMar. A minimal level of transparency is typical across the entire fashion industry. And to answer the reader’s question: Is there any way to know with confidence that our clothes purchased from large fashion brands are being made in safe factories? The answer, currently, is not really.
Even before the Rana Plaza tragedy, the auditing system used by major clothing companies was under fire. Last year, labor leaders criticized the FLA for having too cozy a relationhip with Apple after it claimed to observe improvements in the notorious Foxconn factory. The baseline, minimum-effort logic of the clothing industry is no longer enough. Consumers no longer accept it when companies take so little responsibility for what happens in their factories. Nor do they accept slow, incremental improvements in working conditions.
More than that, consumers shouldn’t have to call a customer service line or dig up a factory auditing report to know where their cap was made and if it was fairly made or not. Consumers are really looking for total transparency and easy-to-trace supply chains for their clothing, similar to what we’ve seen with food. Or, as a New York Times story on fair-trade clothing put it this week, “origins matter” now.
Reading this for free? Chip in—fight the right with our reader-supported journalism.
As I mentioned in a video for The New York Times, there needs to be a simple and honest labeling system for clothes similar to what we’ve seen with organic and fair-trade foods. In the meantime, brands can also use their websites to give detailed and clear information about what their factories are like. As was mentioned in the Times article, online retailer Everlane includes a photo gallery of its Los Angeles-based T-shirt supplier and anecdotes about the people who work there.
Sweatfree clothing was the mentality of the ’90s. The bar is much higher now. Consumers want a good and honest story about how something is made. And it’s up to brands not only to create healthy working conditions but to meet consumer’s heightened expectations.
Today, the fast food strike wave hit Detroit. Read Josh Eidelson’s report.



