Workers' Study Says AB633 Has Long Way To Go
California’s Assembly Bill 633, a bill crafted to assist in the enforcement of labor laws, has yet to achieve its promised results, according to a study written by several garment workers’ advocate groups.
The study, titled “Reinforcing the Seams,” said lax enforcement by the state’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) made the law easy to ignore by the majority of the garment industry, according to the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), the primary authors of the report, which was released on Sept. 28.
DLSE spokesman Dean Fryer declined comment on the study, noting that the department is currently reviewing the report.
AB633 has been a hot-button issue since its introduction. Many say AB633 has hurt California’s economy and presented a bureaucratic nightmare for businesses. Joe Rodriguez, the executive director of the Garment Contractors Association of Southern California, said AB633 has contributed, along with overseas competition and the North American Free Trade Agreement, to a loss of business. “There’s a perception that the state is over regulating the garment industry, and because of that, many companies have aggressively started sourcing overseas,” he said.
Rodriguez pointed out that before the passage of AB633 in 1999, there were 6,900 registered contractors and manufacturers in California.
This year, there are 5,300. Before 1999, there were 160,000 garment workers; five years later, there are 60,000.
According to the “Reinforcing the Seams” study, AB633 emboldened many workers to file labor-law violation claims.
The law was passed in 1999, but did not go into effect until 2002.
Since its passage, there has been a fourfold increase in wage claims filed by garment workers. From 1995 to 1998, there were 565 wage claims filed. From 2001 to 2004, 2,282 wage claims were filed.
The APALC conducted their report by researching a random sample of 208 AB633 case files maintained by the DLSE. They also conducted interviews with 10 DLSE staff from that organization’s enforcement, legal and licensing units.
Among the study’s charges:
bull; A majority of contractors and clothing companies found to be in violation of labor laws did not respond to demands for payment by the DLSE.
bull; Many companies failed to keep the wage records needed for the DLSE to investigate claims or provided incomplete records to the DLSE.
bull; The DLSE’s investigations were superficial and did not result in follow-up sanctions.
The report included a list of recommendations to strengthen labor law enforcement, including suggesting that the DLSE use its authority to revoke a manufacturer’s garment registration if the business fails to comply with a subpoena. The report recommended that the state agency revoke garment registration if a company fails to maintain written contracts with workers and produce them during a DLSE investigation.
The report also demanded that DLSE make collections a priority on behalf of workers. Collections could be performed at the department or through the state Franchise Tax Board.
The study’s authors hoped to bring their message to Sacramento by meeting with state officials. Christina Chung, director of the Workers’ Rights Project of the APALC, said she gave copies to Jose Millan, the deputy secretary of the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Donna M. Dell, chief of the DLSE.
Speaking at a press conference, Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D, 42nd Assembly District) said he would use his clout as chair of the assembly labor and employment committee to hold a hearing on how effective the recently formed Economic and Employment Enforcement Coalition has been. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced July 29 that the state would use this coalition to root out garment contractors not complying with state labor and tax laws. The hearings are tentatively scheduled for November.
Ilse Metchek, executive director of the California Fashion Association, noted that her organization is a supporter of the DLSE’s efforts to target apparel companies that are not in compliance with labor laws.
“We are wholeheartedly behind the enforcement of the underground economy,” she said.
But she dismissed the study as hindering efforts to bring all manufacturers into compliance.
“All they are doing is grandstanding and not helping us educate the uninformed manufacturers and contractors,” she said.
—Andrew Asch
