Labor Law Debate Continues Before State Assembly Committees
As part of a continuing debate, garment workers and contractors/manufacturers presented their respective cases at a recent joint meeting of the Labor Committee and the Budget Subcommittee of the California Assembly to review the lack of labor law enforcement in the garment and janitorial industries.
The July 26 meeting, held in Los Angeles, drew several garment workers who urged for tighter enforcement of state labor laws, including the law regarding collection of claims, more labor law information, complaint forms in more languages, more unannounced inspections and a streamlined complaint process.
Joanne Lo of the Garment Workers Center noted some of the workers’ chief complaints: frequently having to work over eight hours a day, working more than 40 hours per week with no overtime pay, and working without receiving health benefits.
A garment worker identified only as Mr. A said that many employers require workers to keep dual time cards—-one with actual hours worked and one with false hours on it.
The worker also spoke of the need to have the piece-rate process examined. Often the minimum hourly rate cannot be reached because the piece rates are set at unrealistic levels, he noted.
The heart of the debate between workers on one side and contractors and manufacturers on the other is Assembly Bill 633 (AB633), which passed last year and allows a company that contracts for apparel production in California to be held financially liable for labor law violations committed by the contractor. Many manufacturers and contractors say the law has curtailed business, as retailers and manufacturers shift production to other states.
Janet Wells, owner of Insta Graphic Systems, a screen printing company, said that AB633 caused a direct loss in revenue for her company. Wells explained that after the passage of AB633, her company lost an account from a major national retailer, who told Wells it was “unwilling to risk the liability associated with the bill and has decided to no longer conduct business with garment manufacturers in California.”
Wells said she sees the potential for more retailers to take business away from California companies, which could lead to business closures and the loss of thousands of jobs.
Her concern is shared by Joseph Rodriguez, executive director of the Garment Contractors Association, who said that while the workers are paid low wages, laws like AB633 would force contractors out of business, leaving thousands of workers without jobs.
“AB633 is flawed, and could have an effect of causing the demise of our industry and our employees,” he said. “We barely survive, but we provide over 100,000 jobs to Asian and Latino immigrants who would not have jobs otherwise.”
Samuel Kim of the Korean American Garment Industry Association emphasized that AB633 only hurts legitimate companies, noting, “Sweatshops move around. Sweatshops don’t even know AB633 exists.”
Ilse Metchek, executive director of the California Fashion Association, was listed on the agenda as a speaker but was not present at the meeting.
According to Metchek, she was not invited to the meeting until shortly prior to it and chose not to attend after taking a look at the agenda, which, in her estimation, was unbalanced.
In a letter to the Assembly, Metchek informed the committees that manufacturers and service providers within the garment industry would be willing to participate in private meetings, explaining that public meetings have only resulted in negativity and failure in productivity.
“In public forums, we have been besieged and ridiculed,” Metchek wrote. “This does nothing to solve the problems, or correct your perceptions. These open forums allow our antagonists to paint the entire industry with a negative brush. We ask that you give members of the [garment] industry the same courtesy and audience you have given to our detractors.”
The Assembly will hold a formal hearing on labor law budget and enforcement in October.
