The Guardian has spoken to more than a dozen workers at the fashion label's factory in Subang, Indonesia, where employees describe being paid one of the lowest minimum wages in Asia and there are claims of impossibly high production targets and sporadically compensated overtime.
The workers' complaints come only a week after labour activists investigating possible abuses at a Chinese factory that makes Ivanka Trump shoes disappeared into police custody.
The activists' group claimed they had uncovered a host of violations at the plant including salaries below China's legal minimum wage, managers verbally abusing workers and "violations of women's rights".
In the Indonesian factory some of the complaints are similar, although the wages paid to employees in Subang are much lower.
[...] PT Buma, a Korean-owned garment company started in Indonesia in 1999, is one of the suppliers of G-III Apparel Group, the wholesale manufacturer for prominent fashion brands including Trump's clothing.
[...] When Alia was told the gist of Ivanka Trump's new book on women in the workplace, she burst out laughing. Her idea of work-life balance, she said, would be if she could see her children more than once a month.
[...] Carry Somers, founder of the non-profit Fashion Revolution said: "Ivanka Trump claims to be the ultimate destination for Women Who Work, but this clearly doesn't extend to the women who work for her in factories around the world."
In March, Indonesia was called out by President Donald Trump for having an unfavourable trade balance with the US. The president took issue with Indonesia's $13bn surplus last year and vowed to penalise "cheating foreign importers".
Bad pay, unrealistic production requirements, unpaid overtime and verbal abuse are among the complaints of the workers. Ivanka has factories in China, and Indonesia where wages are even lower. Does textile production really have to be like this? Can we really not afford buying clothes made in humane conditions?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @09:45AM (5 children)
Ivanka will bring production back to the USA when that is profitable. This isn't even her; she outsourced. It's the same thing as Apple, Foxconn, and the suicide nets.
Donald's job is, in part, to make it profitable to do things in the USA. Pestering his daughter to make an unprofitable move would be cheating. Donald needs to make it profitable for all sorts of businesses to move back into the USA. This is a mighty tough job. Don't expect a full success, but he is at least making progress. It's been decades since a US president seriously tried. There won't be a special tariff exemption for Ivanka.
Clothing is a tough problem. We'll see success in electronics long before we see it in clothing. Speaking of that, Foxconn is looking to get a huge amount of space in Wisconsin. There is hope now.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:02AM (1 child)
have US wages dropped so far Foxconn can turn a profit? I thought you were after *higher* wages?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 18 2017, @01:52AM
One of the ways to make it more expensive for companies to outsource like this, so they bring work back to the US is placing duties/taxes on companies that outsource but sell or are based in the US. I think this was mentioned as one way of accomplishing this goal.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:29AM (2 children)
Or they could, you know, eliminate the tax incentives and bogus trade agreements that send jobs overseas. I suppose it's up to the voters (lots of luck!) to make sure laws are changed and tariffs imposed on American companies with factories abroad used for 'domestic' products.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @02:38PM (1 child)
Why bother selling to the US then? There are bigger markets elsewhere. Send the jobs and then the products away too... Way to cut of your nose to spite your face.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:30PM
I'm talking about US companies. They can use American labor. If they don't want to play ball, we can always revoke their corporate charter. And as individuals, we can always buy 'American Made'. Contrary to popular belief we are not powerless. We make the world we live in. Heaven or hell, it's our choice.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @09:48AM (22 children)
A whole lot of people can't, no. There's simply too much of a price difference between anything made in nations that don't enforce US-style working conditions and those that do. Besides that, this is what happens when you push so hard for globalism; you get it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @10:04AM (4 children)
Automation might help us bring this back to the USA. Of course, each heavily-automated job created in the USA will destroy numerous manual jobs in China.
Shipping isn't free and it isn't fast. Styles change. Being able to create clothing on demand, avoiding inventory, would be an advantage.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 17 2017, @10:28AM (3 children)
Exactly. We can get manufacturing back in the U.S., but be prepared for 3-person factories with those employees overseeing a horde of robots and automated assembly lines. It's arguably environmentally friendly because no container ships [wikipedia.org] are needed to move your cheap crap (within the U.S. at least).
Given the scale of economic activity and transmission of knowledge these days, there could be very fast uptake of sufficiently cheap robots that can do work requiring intricate and fast hand movements. Something like the Baxter robot [wikipedia.org] may be the most efficient approach since it is one general purpose robot that can be reprogrammed to do a number of different tasks. One type of robot that can do X tasks should be more scalable than X types of robots that can do one task each.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:42AM (2 children)
Such are the perils of globalism, yep. Calling for globalism while sitting on a high economic spot is the height of idiocy; it guarantees a financial crash of unprecedented proportions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 17 2017, @12:26PM (1 child)
If automation takes off, the effects of globalism will be nullified, but workers will then have to contend with the effects of automation instead.
Instead of your job being outsourced, you get to lose your job locally.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:19PM
They've been saying "they're takin our jerbs!" for thousands of years. Hasn't happened to any real scale yet. Probably never will because humans keep coming up with new jobs to be doing every time an old one disappears. Necessity is the mother of invention, forget that only if you're looking to have egg on your face.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:22AM (7 children)
FTFY
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:47AM (6 children)
I really don't think you did. You can't have globalism and restrictive trade policies both. Why? Because you get outvoted by the poorer nations who want the means to drain money out of your economy to enrich themselves.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday June 17 2017, @03:53PM (5 children)
You can place embargos and sanctions on countries that don't have certain minimal labour laws, instead of placing embargos and on countries that don't protect capital movements, copyright, USA corporation's investments etc.
Ups, sorry. I have just waken up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:22PM (4 children)
Why? Managing another nation's economy is not the business of any government. Their first and last concern should always be for their own people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday June 17 2017, @05:26PM (1 child)
Tax havens don't help nacional income. And labor havens don't help nacional industries.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:10PM
What in anything I've ever said leads you to the idea that I support such things?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @06:24PM (1 child)
> Their first and last concern should always be for their own people.
Their first and last concern should always be for their own rich people.
FTFY
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:05PM
No, you really didn't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday June 17 2017, @03:02PM (8 children)
Total nonsense, put forward by apologists for the global sweatshop industry but in no way reflecting reality, for one simple reason: Manufacturing labor is not a significant percentage of the cost of clothing. Most clothing companies spend far more on advertising than they do on making clothing, for instance. If you multiplied the cost of manufacture 10-fold, you'd increase the price of a typical item of clothing by maybe $1.
This sounds alien to those who believe that supply and pricing perfectly reflects what it actually costs to make things, but since clothing manufacture is more of an oligopoly than a competitive market, that's the reality of it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:00PM
Of course it is not, because they pay 1$/day in third world
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:03PM (5 children)
Not sure where you're getting your facts and numbers but they smell suspiciously like someone's ass. Multiplying the labor to produce a simple t-shirt to 10x would increase the manufacturing cost roughly 5x. This would absolutely be reflected in prices because manufacturers are not charities.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)
Oh look the turd dropping birdman is back with his little pellets of wisdom. Hark ye and be dumbed down.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:06PM
I know facts offend the weak-minded. They remain the facts though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Saturday June 17 2017, @08:29PM (2 children)
So will you offer numbers that don't smell? Not sure what you think of these, but your turn to provide something better:
https://qz.com/980283/a-simple-change-could-ensure-garment-workers-a-living-wage-at-minimal-cost-to-shoppers/ [qz.com]
In summary, for a) produced in India, b) 25$ retail price, c) sold in the EU, the manufacturing labor cost is around 5% of the retail price. Which means that the GP was exaggerating, but also means that a whopping 100% wage raise could realistically mean less than 10% extra for western consumers.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 17 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
I don't dispute the current numbers there. I dispute what percentage of profit the manufacturers are willing to settle for. Right now they're making about 3-400% profit on the manufacturing process. It is my opinion that they would still want 3-400% profit after a 10x wage increase, as would the wholesalers, as would the retailers. Any labor cost increase is going to be multiplied by ~50-60 before it hits the consumers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Sunday June 18 2017, @06:56AM
Do they want to make 3-400% profit? Sure. More, if they can.
Would they still need 3-400% profit margin to keep their overall profit? Certainly not. They'd need a small extra slice of profit to cover stuff they produce but don't sell, etc. But the largest part of their expenses (esp. marketing) is not affected.
Could they keep operating at 3-400% profit margin? Depends on the market. Right now, "fair clothing" is a niche market with few players, and premium prices. And thus, "doing the right thing / voting with your money" is prohibitively expensive to most. However, if all manufacturers were forced to pay the same higher minimum wage, do you think they could keep that margin? I for one don't see the market mechanism for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @08:02PM
"Made in the USA" is like "Organic" and "SCSI" or "SAS".
The younger crowd won't remember this, but there was a time when hard drives could be SCSI or IDE. SCSI was costly. I suppose today the alternative to SATA might be SAS. SCSI drives cost far more than IDE drives. It was about a 2x difference if I remember right. The drives were otherwise identical. Nearly the same model, with all the same hardware except the connector, would be available for both SCSI and IDE. SCSI cost more because it cost more, pretty much. That seems silly, but price differentiation is pretty much that. Fancy computers would have SCSI. If you were willing to pay for a fancy computer, the drive manufacturer figured they could squeeze more money out of you, and so they did. Because SCSI was expensive, it was only available in high-end fancy systems.
Organic food is similar. The store wants to offer different prices to maximize their profit. Organic really means "premium". It gets plenty of pesticide BTW, including horridly toxic brain-damaging stuff like the juice of young pawpaw tree twigs. You find organic produce in carefully padded trays. It is hand-picked. You pay for all sorts of unrelated stuff, but mostly you pay just because the store can get away with it. A second price point means more profit.
Something that is "Made in the USA" is probably high quality, but not enough to justify the increased price. You're paying for a premium product. Price differentiation means more profit. Something "Made in the USA" might go for $20 and sell really well, but the existence of a foreign product for $18 means that the "Made in the USA" stuff is more profitable to sell in smaller numbers for a much higher price, such as $100.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:05AM (6 children)
"The Reality of Life Working in an Ivanka Trump Clothing Factory"
vs.
"The Reality of Life Working in a Clothing Factory"
Why is this an Ivanka Trump story?
It is a reality, the article itself says this: "the wholesale manufacturer for prominent fashion brands"
It's a clothing thing, not just a Trump thing.
I'm against Trump as much as the next guy (SHOULDA BEEN SANDERS!), but this is a bit much.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:14AM (3 children)
Because she's the Royal Family, and because more people will read a "name-and-shame" story about a famous person.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 17 2017, @03:31PM (2 children)
Yeah, I think you nailed it. The author has little interest in improving the working conditions of near-slave labor in third world countries. His interest is in embarrassing Trump.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)
We don't have to follow the authors intention, we can see this and perhaps consider the source of our clothing more carefully in the future.
We didn't run this story casually, it was discussed at length if it was valid or appropriate. Due to the official capacity Ivanka has in the current government, and their position on local manufacturing and other nations 'cheating', the difference between public ideology and private business practices was worth highlighting.
This has been an equal opportunity topic, at least in the UK... It was front page news in many places last year, and I would have had no hesitation in running this story. [thesun.co.uk] ... But then of course, the media is now portraying Corbyn's Labour party as 'just the same as trump' because he's not from the standard school of politics.
The problem would normally be, career politicians are just that and don't have notable business interests or experience that so obviously contradict their grand political ideals... but when you have people with the explicit background in business to run the country, you do have a history to work from... They were in part voted in for their business acumen to be transferred to running a country, but then we actually have a track record to look on to see how that leadership works in practice, for everyone involved, not just the business owners and C level managers. Has the Trumps (organization) ever run a publicly listed company with thousands/millions of shareholders, and public financial statements with the addition of diverse long and short term interests across multiple industries?
As someone who has run their own business... I don't do things just because 'everyone does it' (pay below living wages, outsource manufacturing, unrealistic productivity targets)... I have my own moral and ethical standards, try to treat people who work for me as i'd like to be treated myself, but maybe that's why i'm not so successful compared to the Trumps.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:29PM
I'm gladdened when i hear about people with ethics and morals: proper up-bringing and 'mindfulness': if more people acted ethically and treated their workers like family, the world would be a faaaaaar better place.
We need more people with ethics in politics.... or maybe that is 'we need SOME people in politics with ethics. Not sure if there are any right now (or ever?).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Saturday June 17 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)
most fashion designers do not have a job in the executive branch of the government, or involved in politics directly.
most fashion designers are not running campaigns promoting local manufacturing whilst outsourcing that labour in their own businesses.
most fashion designers are in it for the money and maybe style and stay clear of politics because this hypocrisy would be highlighted.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday June 17 2017, @07:31PM
I know... i get it all. Just seems like we pick on those poor Trumps a lot, lol.
(ducks and runs)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:30AM (8 children)
Another day, another thinly-veiled anti-Trump political post outside the Politics ghetto on SoylentNews. The fact that SN editors never gave a shit about third-world clothing sweatshops until it could be used as a wedge issue against the party in power shows what kind of partisan political hacks they are. Just rebrand as a political news site and sell out to Buzzfeed, the contents of the news feed here are rapidly trending away from 'tech'.
BTW, this kind of disingenuity is precisely the reason I refuse to register and remain a part of the AC shitposting chorus. If the editors could be honest with their bias I might reconsider my stance.
(Score: 3, Informative) by linkdude64 on Saturday June 17 2017, @12:25PM (2 children)
This site posts as many "Anti-" articles as "Pro-" articles on Trump. I am a Trump supporter but I see this as an opportunity for critical thinking. Obviously clothing is too expensive to be manufactured in the US (I once bought a hoodie made entirely from US labor and materials; it cost $100) and this raises the sort of question, "Why?" There are many answers to be found.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @06:03PM
Error in code block, linguistic paradox detected: "trump supporter" directly contravenes "critical thinking". Please retake the course on basic logic and analysis (code 5B101).
Your global profile has been updated, "potential terrorist"threat value has increased to 8, complete the recommended rehabilitation within 4 weeks to remove this action.
CITIZEN: your threat level has increased, if cumulative levels reach level 30 your freedoms will be limited until threat returns to acceptable levels.
CITIZEN: your threat level is almost at level 10, if you receive 2 more threat increases your social profile will receive a public bulletin warning.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @11:32PM
Obviously clothing is too expensive to be manufactured in the US
Not obvious and not true.
Clothing cooperatives in USA [google.com]
The problem (as usual) is Capitalism.
That's where people who do none of the labor take a cut of the profits.
That part is obviously not necessary.
The article linked above by tfried
A simple change could ensure garment workers a living wage at minimal cost to shoppers [qz.com]
shows how Capitalists require a 4x markup on a tiny increase in total costs (doubling non-livable wages).
Again, the problem is Capitalism (maximizing profits for those who do none of the labor).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday June 17 2017, @01:23PM
Third, what exactly is supposed to be bad about sweatshops in developing world countries? The entire developed world went through that phase and became the developed world. It's a necessary transition from primitive society to far better modern one. Further, people wouldn't work at sweatshops, if better work was available. Sweat shops are among the best work available for low skilled workers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Saturday June 17 2017, @03:39PM
When you have a president who campaigned on bringing jobs back to America, and who elevates his daughter to be staff level, then that daughter had better reflect what her father preaches.
But expecting the Trumps to be morally honest that way would be too much.
And expecting miscellaneous anonymous cowards to even see the lack of morals would be too much as well.
But keep on with your anonymity. It makes sure that you can't be held accountable for your disgusting hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 17 2017, @03:43PM
Look again at the submission, as published. Reference to Foxconn, right there in the published article. Many of us here at Soylent have condemned Apple for it's shitty labor relations. Oh, but you said "third-world clothing sweatshops". That changes things, just slightly. Try this one: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/11/30/128245 [soylentnews.org] References to shitty and unsafe working conditions in garment factories, one of them by yours truly. Do your own site search, if you like. You'll find more, if you try.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:16PM
But see, it's fun!
You don't like what you see and you complain incessantly about it, don't register, don't support.
and we post:
"But see, it's fun!
You don't like what you see and you complain incessantly about it, don't register, don't support."
And you post about not liking what you see and you complain incessantly about it again, don't register, don't support...... AND....
....and we post:
"But see, it's fun!
You don't like what you see and you complain incessantly about it, don't register, don't support."
And you post about not liking what you see and you complain incessantly about it again, don't register, don't support...... AND....
and we post:
"But see, it's fun!
You don't like what you see and you complain incessantly about it, don't register, don't support."
And you post about not liking what you see and you complain incessantly about it again, don't register, don't support...... AND....
AND IN THE END..... YOU ARE STILL HERE! STILL COMPLAINING! STILL NOT REGISTERING! STILL NOT SUPPORTING! BUT YOU ARE STILL HERE! STILL COMPLAINING! STILL NOT REGISTERING! STILL NOT SUPPORTING! BUT YOU ARE STILL HERE! STILL COMPLAINING! STILL NOT REGISTERING! STILL NOT SUPPORTING!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Saturday June 17 2017, @08:20PM
Do you realize this piece of shit of a president single handedly made this politically charged climate last far longer than it should have by turning everything into a rally so he can take a picture and cum all over it later when he's taking his 0300 commute. I don't like it, but SN is certainly not going to be damaged by a bunch of whores to the state acting like fair criticism of the guy and his family is "anti-Trump". Why the fuck should anyone be "pro-President" of any kind? You guys really like Trump's platform of hatred and piss-dripping terror so much that you're willing to be just as much a little submissive bitch as he is? Have some political independence for fucks sake.
Also: If there is any agenda whatsoever to speak of with the editors - they still post the highest commented summaries when they post these. The AC trump squad only further improves the count by getting people like me to participate that wouldn't otherwise comment at all. Is it the editors not being honest with their bias? Is it? If they even care about that, I sure as hell wouldn't tell them to stop if it's so easy to spin up activity. Not that I'll ever understand why this is bias of any sort when sweatshop abuse has been covered both on slashdot and soylent repeatedly.
Oh and for what it's worth even though I cringe heavily when I see these summaries, it's mostly because I know what the comments will look like. That's all.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @01:22PM (2 children)
What the FUCK does this have to do with TECHNOLOGY???
That is all
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @03:05PM (1 child)
"SoylentNews is
peopletechnology"?(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:20PM
"SoylentNews is whatever the feck we want it to be, mofo..... i paid my monies, i wants my hookers and blow!
NOW!!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---