• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Photo

By Robert Esposito

Daily Bruin Contributor

resposito@media.ucla.edu

Sweatshops are the bane of impoverished countries around the world, and despite loud opposition and a horrible rap, companies continue to exploit workers from “abroad” (a sweatshop euphemism).

This apparent lack of sweatshop-free active wear is what inspired Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream to start SweatX, the first fully domestic, fully sweatshop-free active wear company. When Cohen sold Ben & Jerry’s a few years ago, one of his stipulations was that $1 million be set aside in a fund called the Hot Fudge Venture Fund.

“Business has a responsibility to give back to the community,” said Cohen in a statement released by SweatX. “If a company was willing to make an investment in labor-saving automation and machinery, that would make the people who work in the garment industry more productive.”

“It would be possible to pay them a livable wage, give them full benefits and good working conditions,” he continued.

SweatX, which is based in Los Angeles, is the first of these socially conscious ventures, so named because the high quality active wear is all produced in America at wages 10 percent above the livable wage ordinance from Los Angeles city code. That includes health benefits and pension.

“Clothes with a conscience” is the mantra that was reiterated in many different ways at the SweatX Web site and in advertisements. With a brand-new 13,000-square-foot factory, SweatX claims that they set the standard for cleanliness and convenience through thousands of dollars of improvements.

“The inspector for the garment contract came in and was so impressed that she asked if she could bring other contractors by as a way to demonstrate model garment factories,” said Scott Reed, director of consumer organizing and community affairs at SweatX.

More importantly than the workspace, SweatX is the vehicle for an entirely unique business model based on private investment and worker-oriented decision-making.

“The major difference (between SweatX and other brands) is that we pay our workers a livable wage,” Reed said.

“I don’t know of any apparel manufacturer that can make anywhere close to that claim,” he added.

The company makes use of a cooperative structure in which each worker is given stock in the company and a vote in its decisions. In addition, all of the workers are independently unionized.

“When we put this company together, Ben Cohen looked at the dilemma of sweatshops in L.A.,” said Bob Meissner, director of sales and marketing for SweatX. “Besides paying people livable wages and benefits, they are also given voting rights.”

As to the quality of the clothes (classified as “casual active wear”), Meissner says that by using as low as 20 skilled workers to produce the clothing, SweatX actually allows for better quality of materials and designs.

“We are trying to build a better T-shirt or fleece or mesh by improving the quality of our design,” said Meissner. “We have used more unique embellishments by using 3-D images and high quality dyes, etc.”

But the average consumer is most concerned with price and styling, not the cleanliness of the factory or the conditions of the workers who sewed the clothes together. But since SweatX is less out to make a killing than to prove that a worker-oriented business model is possible, they have tried to keep prices affordable with T-shirts and hooded pull-overs ranging from $5 to $20.

“We’re not selling night club dance wear, but for things that fall into the casual active wear category, you’re going to see some pretty bitchin’ styling,” said Reed.

SweatX knows that its best bet is to target young minds, such as college students, because they usually have bigger social consciences and are willing to make a statement with what they wear.

“One piece of information that did come up is that 90 universities have activist groups against sweatshops,” said Meissner. “When there is such an interest in anti-sweatshops, it only makes sense to start attacking the problem from there.”

And to those who are politically motivated, SweatX would like to characterize itself as a kind of anti-sweatshop proposition. Thus, “voting” against sweatshops is equivalent to withholding money from the large apparel companies and giving them to socially responsible ones.

In the end, this venture is not as concerned with high fashion as substituting actions for words.

“It’s a tough road to go, but it’s time that consumers start asking some of the hard questions about where their clothes were made, especially because alternatives are now starting to become available,” Reed said.

To find out more about these “clothes with a conscience," visit the SweatX Web site at www.sweatx.net

Comments

Post a comment