Don't worry? All they are doing is sending some money back to the workers. They still have to work in the sweatshops, if they leave they won't get the money. It's a misguided idea.

Fair? This is a clear case of marketing scheme. Excuse me but wages depending on the amount of clothing sold by someone else then you has a serious accountability issue, hence fair is out. Commission jobs are a lose-lose situation: bad for the worker, no proportionality between their wage and the work done and bad for the customer with intense push sales on them specially when the marketing comes to the "fairness" of the job done.



Put yourself in the shoes of those workers, it doesn't matter how hard you work but your final paycheck will be determined by a complicated multileveled system of buy and sell, distribution and contracts - on which you have very little control over and, let's hope, limited transparency.



For a viable fair system, the profit risk has to be taken by the entrepreneur with accountability control and full transparency while workers are decently respected trough communications and good wages. That's what the American dream is all about.



Try this or this instead.

But giving workers a fair wage is better for the environment - theirs. They can afford to better educate their children and themselves on environmental and political matters, and workers that can more easily make ends meet with their pay, will be less likely to poach animals and exploit resources from local wilderness. They can step out of 'survival mode'. The environment always loses when people have to take desperate actions to survive.

You are most definitely right Carl and I agree with you - Alain Lipietz made a solid argumentation on worker's condition and the protection of local ecosystems.


The only issue I raised is the accountability of a redistribution based on commissions of which I seriously doubt. Better than nothing? Probably, but in my view, it's a low "fair-trade" proposal.

As a consumer, I will spend my money on a higher accountability program. And as Bangladesh is concerned, I’d rather help them through NoSweatApparel.

Neither NoSweat nor American Apparel is without their problems (AA is opposing unionization), but otherwise the observation that this may be a marketing scheme is true. Most such schemes fail when the rubber meets the road (NoSweat's SweatX being one of them), and other schemes (i.e. living wage campaigns) may have perverse outcomes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p09s02-coop.html
http://www.kqed.org/truly/what-happened-105.jsp

AA's Dov Charney sez: "It's not enough to pay your workers well; you also have to offer a good product, and at the end of the day, that's what sells." He's right: it's more important to buy quality than to buy PC. Quality goods are made by quality companies who know how to treat their workers. Crap is made by badly managed companies, who never do their workers any good. Even if they're PC, they tend to fail, and where does that leave the workers?

Hi, this is Stephanie from Fair Wear. My life-partner Swapan (who's from Bangladesh) and I don't have huge capital to start our own factory. We have jobs and borrowed a bit of money for our first t-shirt order. We wanted to figure out a way to make a difference in an existing factory, something that might help change the sweatshop system if it caught on, and this is a way we think we can do that. Granted, it's a small effort by a couple of not-powerful individuals, but it IS better than nothing. The workers in that factory will work there whether or not we try to do this, and if we succeed, their conditions will improve.

No Sweat Apparel and American Apparel are fine choices. We have ties to Bangladesh so that's where we want to help. Our dream is that we will be able to open a worker-controlled factory there one day, and organize an organic farm collective. Swapan is homesick, misses his family, and is also depressed about conditions in his country and wants to be able to live there part-time doing something constructive.

Certainly it would be better if some big investor would build a new factory there and pay the workers fairly at the outset, but they're not doing that. Is it better if we just give up?

EricF, put yourself in the shoes of a woman unable to feed her family on crummy wages -- would you rather have someone try to make your job pay better, or not?

I agree accountability is a big issue. That's why we have volunteers in Bangladesh who will observe the whole process, and be available to workers in case of complaints. This, in my opinion, is a first step in the workers becoming independently organized. The observers include progressive journalist and editor Anu Muhammad (www.Meghbarta.com), and other cultural figures. Swapan is also talking with several Bangladeshi labor organizers (who have expressed positive reactions to our plan) to see if they will also be volunteer observers.

I appreciate your concerns and I want to assure you that this is not a "marketing ploy." If we want to become rich this is a silly way to try. We both come from a background of activism and want to do some lasting good in this world.

Best wishes,
Stephanie

A note on quality. We haven't sold many shirts yet but among our first few customers we received these comments (and we've never met these people so it's not, like, my mom, though she does like them too, and she's picky):

"I just wanted to let you know that I finally received the shirt I ordered from you and I love it! It is so cute! I am wearing it to work today!!"

"I got my shirt last week and I LOVE it!"

"...it fits and feels great. I
love the tag at the bottom too."