[lbo-talk] Solidarity for Sale: UNITE'S Garment Gulag

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Mar 10 07:44:24 PST 2006


Guest lbodownload at yahoo.com wrote:


> as bad as they are, unions are all us workers have right now.

I have not finished reading Robert Fitch's Solidarity for Sale yet (I have one more chapter to read), but one thing that the book makes clear to me is that it is NOT true that even bad unions are always better than no unions. Really bad union shops, especially ones that are controlled by the mobs, are demonstrably worse than non-union shops. Why? Mob-controlled locals take bribes from employers to not enforce "contracts," and yet workers get dues taken out of their already meager paychecks just the same in return for no service or even DISSERVICE from the union. This point becomes clear in the chapter entitled "UNITE's Garment Gulag," where Fitch compares union sweatshops in New York (where workers' wages rarely rose to the federal minimum wage) and non-union shops in California (e.g., American Apparel Co.) that pay much higher wages ($13.00 an hour plus benefits on average in the case of American Apparel Co.) than them. In 1997, UNITE Local 23-25 members held protests against the union's complicity in sweatshop conditions (pp. 193, 202-3).

UNITE organized a highly publicized anti-sweatshop campaign that focused solely on sweatshops abroad. What is seldom mentioned is that workers in sweatshops in Honduras, one of whom UNITE put on a US speaking tour, earned wages "that were a much higher percentage of the median wage in Honduras than the 446 Broadway workers' wages as a percentage of the median U.S. factory wage" (p. 198). Indeed, union sweatshop workers in New York today work longer hours to earn about the same wages as those in 1911 (p. 195).

Worse yet, workers who are trapped in union sweatshops have few legal recourses:

<blockquote>In a ruling issued May 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a previous court decision rejecting a lawsuit brought by a number of Brooklyn, New York garment workers, who charged they were not fairly represented by their union.

The lawsuit was initiated by a group of employees at Mademoiselle Knitwear Inc., which in 1989 had about 780 mostly immigrant workers, but is now out of business. One of the main reasons for Mademoiselle's bankruptcy was the loss of its contract with Liz Claiborne, the wholesale and retail apparel company. Liz Claiborne decided to obtain its supplies from manufacturing companies utilizing cheaper labor in Britain, Australia and the Far East.

The displaced workers are members of Local 155 of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE). The lawsuit names as defendants Local 155, the parent union UNITE and the union for the Claiborne workers, Local 23-25.

The lawsuit involves a procedure in place in the garment industry since the 1950s by which unions and affiliated locals collect “liquidated damages” from unionized employers who contract out to nonunion suppliers. Corporations often pay these fines when they conclude they can make more by exploiting foreign labor, even after paying off the union.

UNITE, representing 300,000 workers, collects such money on a regular basis. Union spokesmen have admitted that UNITE makes as much as $10 million per year in liquidated damages, about 20 percent of its annual budget. However, in a separate lawsuit against the union brought by the Mademoiselle Company, it was calculated that the actual figure is $16 million, more than the union collects in annual dues payments from all of its individual members.

In the Brooklyn garment workers' case, the displaced union members were offered a total severance package of $750,000, which amounts to less than $2,900 for each worker. In order to obtain this money, the workers had to sign a document pledging not to take any legal action against UNITE or Liz Claiborne. Approximately 50 workers refused to do this and were denied their share of the severance money.

The union, on the other hand, received $13 million up front from Claiborne, with another $7.5 million to be paid over the next three years. Three immigrant workers, Chun Hua Mui, Josefa Gantes and Fong Tse Tsui, initiated the lawsuit on September 30, 1997 against both UNITE and Claiborne. The goal of their class action suit was to utilize the $20.5 million payoff to the union as a fund for all the displaced Mademoiselle workers. The workers charged union officials and Claiborne with bribery.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The courts have long given unions wide latitude when ruling on whether or not union officers breached their legal obligation to “fairly represent” their members. Workers rarely win cases against corrupt union officials who collaborate with management, sign sweetheart contracts, take payoffs and suppress the rank and file.

(Alan Whyte, "US Appeals Court Rejects Brooklyn Garment Workers' Lawsuit against Union," 2 June 2000, <http://www.wsws.org/articles/ 2000/jun2000/garm-j02.shtml>)</blockquote>

Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list