Tag Archives: CBC

The true cost of cheap clothing

25 Apr

Canadian brand, Joe Fresh,made in the collapsed building in Bangladesh. Photo by Global News.

Remember Maya’s speech in “Sideways,” telling Miles what she thinks about each time she opens a bottle of wine? What was going on in the world during the life cycle of the grapes, what was the weather like, and the people who picked the fruit.

This is how I feel about clothing.

Consider what goes into a simple cotton shirt:

  • growing, collecting, and processing the cotton fiber
  • spinning the fibers into thread
  • weaving the threads into fabric
  • applying chemical treatments to the fiber or fabric (i.e. mercerization)
  • dyeing and/or printing the fabric
  • creating a pattern for the garment
  • cutting the fabric
  • choosing findings – thread, buttons, shaping materials (interfacing), etc.
  • physically putting the garment together

It’s amazing how much work goes into one shirt. Even more amazing is how cheap it can be to buy.

The Industrial Revolution brought machines to replace human labour and lower the costs of manufacturing, including  machines to speed the production and lower the cost of textile production in every stage: farming, spinning, weaving, and cutting, but a machine could never replace human hands for building cloth garments. This is why fires and building collapses in garment factories are so sad.

Last November, a fire broke out in a Bangladeshi garment factory, killing 112. Yesterday, a eight-story building collapsed with thousands of workers inside, killing 238 people at last count, and injuring over 2000.

Factory workers noticed a crack in the building on Tuesday and government officials sent them home. The next day when workers returned, the building manager told them not to worry and go inside. If they refused, they would not get paid or may lose their job. Less than an hour later, the building collapsed.

The Times of India reports that upon discovery of the cracks, the factories’ owners were to suspend operations. The Industrial Police asked them to do a structural inspection by engineers before resuming business, but the order was disregarded.

Mostafizur Rahman, Director of the Industrial Police said, “The owners of the Rana Plaza in Savar and the garment factories went into hiding fearing arrest, as the regulatory authorities and police filed separate cases accusing them of illegally constructing the structure and exposing the workers to the fatal accident.”

Retail responsibility

CBC’s “As It Happens” interviewed Kalpona Akter of the Bangladesh Centre for Worker Solidarity a day after the collapse. Akter said the negligence by factory owners, government, and Western retailers is ongoing, and they are aware of the working conditions and state of the buildings but choose to ignore it. Retailers hire third-party auditors to tour buildings and often there is no documentation or follow up.

Scott Nova, Executive Director of the Worker’s Rights Consortium in Washington, D.C., interviewed this morning with CBC’s Metro Morning, and spoke about irresponsible retailers and cheap labour.

Bangladeshi garment workers earn 18 cents an hour for work in substandard facilities, When tragedy strikes, Nova says, “Western retailers choose not to take direct responsibility for what happens to their workers, and prefer to blame the consumer because it lets them off the hook morally. They throw up their hands and say consumers demand cheap clothing and we’re giving consumers what they want.”

Like blaming the Devil for bad behaviour.

“The reality is that there is no consumer that wants to save a few pennies on a t-shirt or dress at the expense of the lives of the men and women who make the clothes,”  Nova says.

Last November’s fire sparked a movement to petition The Gap, one of the retailers fingered in the tragedy, to add 10 cents to their retail price to bring working conditions to standard in Bangladesh. The Gap has instead chosen to create its own “corporate-controlled monitoring system that won’t be accountable to workers, consumers, or independent safety experts,” according to Sum of Us.

Ultimately, change is up to us, we that consume these “fast fashion” garments, to urge retailers to give us a choice in paying extra – up to 15 cents per garment – to pay for the assurance that factory workers would be treated well at work and in safe conditions.

Tweet Joe Fresh @JoeFresh or email Loblaw, it’s parent company to ask for a small price increase to protect Asian workers.

Cost to you

Cheap clothing is cheap partially because it consists of low-grade material. The garment may look okay on a hanger in the store, but once you wash and wear it a few times, it will lose its shape and elastic recovery if it’s a knit, often the dyes run, and ultimately you have a new rag to clean with.

Low-grade fabrics could be made of anything but are commonly cottons and cotton blends (i.e. polyester- cotton). Often, fabric manufacturers add chemical fillers (i.e. formaldehyde). but these finishes wash out, leaving your garments limp and lifeless. I often think of the environmental impact of this “disposable” clothing. (Read this post for information on what your clothes go through before you buy them.)

This is a three-way street between us, the consumers, the retailers, and the factory owners.  Retailers and factory owners and managers are ultimately dictated to by consumers.  If we continue to demand cheap clothing, we must tell retailers that we want to adopt a dime-per-garment policy to help Western clothing giants pay for safe conditions for south Asian workers.

Fashion doesn’t have to make people suffer. No one wants human life as the cost of doing business.

Advertisements

Clothing, costume, identity, and lack thereof

16 Dec

Clothing is a wonderful thing.  Clothing is a wonderful palette with many options to play with like colour, garment cut, and fabric texture. One of my favourite things to do is get dressed and express myself through my clothing. For me, clothing and dressing is a joy.

Clothing is also heavy with significance and symbolism. Sure, we might need clothing to protect us, but as humans, we love to add meaning to things that have no meaning, and so the costume – and the identity wrapped within it, is born.

In The Language of Clothes, Alison Lurie states that through time, humans have silently communicated with one another through the language of their garb: “Long before I am near enough to talk to you on the street, in a meeting, or at a party, you announce your sex, age, and class to me through what you are wearing [including how you style your hair, decorate your body, and accessorize] – and very possibly give me important information (or misinformation) as to your occupation, origin, personality, opinions, tastes, sexual desires, and current mood.” (AKA the unspoken messages of our visual image.)

If clothing is the thing, costume is the meaning of the thing.

According to Francois Boucher in 20,000 Years of Fashion, “clothing has to do with covering one’s body, and costume with the choice of a particular form of garment for a particular use.” Clothing is more of a survival tactic and relies on textile manufacture and the technology of the time period; it is utilitarian, protective, and worn out of necessity.

Clothing protects us from the elements and from injury, and without it, humanity would not have flourished – nude humans could not survive cold climates we would probably all live close to the equator. Without clothing, playing sports would be suicide sans protective cups and shin guards. There is a good chance that we all may live in grass huts for want of steel-toed boots that protect our construction workers during the building process.

Costume, on the other hand, “reflects social factors such as religious beliefs, magic, aesthetics, personal status, the wish to be distinguished from or to emulate one’s fellows,” Boucher says, adding that “costume helps inspire fear or impose authority” – think warrior’s face paint and horned helmets to scare the opposing side in battle.

“In later times,” he continues, “professional or administrative costume has been devised to distinguish the wearer and to express personal or delegated authority” – think lawyer’s robes, a police uniform, a  business suit, or a surgeon’s scrubs.

We rely on visual cues to tell us who (we think) people are and illustrate who we are as individuals, but if those cues are taken away, what are we left with?

Uniforms: the removal of individuality

People looking uniform in their uniforms may be pleasing to the eye, but Lurie says that no matter what sort of uniform is worn, “military, civil or religious; the outfit of a general, a postman, a nun, a butler, a football player or a waitress – to put on such livery is to give up one’s right to act as an individual.”

Let’s take the military as our example. The military strips people of their identity by removing the visual cues that make them up, shaving their heads, and dressing them in identical costumes, to turn them into unquestioning, order-following soldiers. In the military, there are no individuals, only teams of soldiers in crew cuts.

The first thing to go when one enters the military is the hair. Hair, Sampson’s strength and our crowning glory, has a lot of ego and identity wrapped up into it, and it is the first sacrifice of obedience and submission to the armed forces. We are very attached to our hair, and I expect that having one’s head shaved must reduce the sense of self to some degree, though a soldier must feel solace being in the company of others who look just like he does.

Have a look at Elvis Presley preparing for the army – he seems to take it in stride, but then again, no one can deny his identity – he’s Elvis.

Next, your clothing is taken away and replaced with a uniform, identical to the rest in your company. No more cues as to who you are or what you stand for as an individual – you are now in a system that wants you to focus your whole being on your job. Military people do everything together, they live together, eat together, and train together. It seems that the military turns individuals into multi-person machines set on particular orders. Indeed, Lurie writes that the “uniform acts as a sign that we need not and should not treat someone as a human being, and that they need not and should not treat us as one.”

Ooh! I don’t like that much. I know that wearing a uniform is right for some people, but that doesn’t mean that I understand it. I’m very supportive of exploring one’s own identity and individuality – we are all different from each other and anyone who has or will be, so I’m not sure what drives people to sign away their individuality and look like everyone else.

Strip search

Our clothing gives us a sense of modest security and shields our vulnerability; there is confidence in clothing. But what happens when our clothing is forcibly removed? CBC’s The Current reported about strip searches this week, stating the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2001 decision prohibiting strip searches as a routine police practise, and allowing these searches only out of clear necessity or in emergency situations, with the permission of a supervisor, and performed by same-sex officers.

David Tanovich, the lawyer representing Ian Golden, a black man who was striped searched in a downtown Toronto restaurant in 2001, states that strip search practises by Toronto police are a “highly intrusive method of police intimidation.” The African-Canadian legal clinic got involved in the case, identifying Golden’s treatment as a “public lynching”.

Earlier that year, 69 year old Rosie Schwartz attended a peaceful protest in Toronto and was arrested and strip searched by Toronto police after she was told she was trespassing. She describes the strip search experience as a traumatic and demeaning assault, and says “I felt like nothing.” She sued the police in small claims court for unlawful arrest and illegal search and won.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, strip searches are still performed and have come into the spotlight again with the recent trial of the 2008 strip search of Stacy Bonds by Ottawa police. Ms Bonds, arrested without reason, was not only roughed up by four Ottawa police, but her shirt and bra were cut off with scissors by the officers. Bonds described her treatment by police as “verbal and mental rape”. The Ottawa Citizen reports that the case against Bonds was halted by the judge who found the Ottawa police’s arrest of Bonds unlawful and called her subsequent treatment in the cells and the strip search a “travesty” and an “indignity.”

*                              *                                *                              *                                  *

What we wear protects us, keeps our modesty in check, enhances or diminishes body features, operates as our billboard, and is a part of who we are. When it is removed and replaced with a uniform, we become a different person, and when it is removed by force, it can be horribly traumatic and humiliating.

Without clothing, we are physically and emotionally unprotected. Without the identity cues of costume, we have little opportunity to visually express ourselves and show who we are. Without clothing and the meanings we associate with clothing, who would you be?