At first I considered using digital transfers (like cafepress) on cheap shirts and selling them inexpensively. The only reason I thought of doing that was because I looked at some of the shirts I had bought commercially and found that they were really only lasting less than a year before looking like crap. I thought that would be an acceptable standard. Fortunately I quickly realized that I didn't want to make crap. Just because the world is filled with such things doesn't mean that I have to add to them.
The ideal is to make quality apparel that will last a very long time and not perpetuate 'disposable' clothing. So that's what I do.
One of the most important lessons I've learned from running mushycat is that every small decision matters when it's scaled up. The sort of waste that a weekend crafter can get away with is not the kind of waste I can get away with and still respect myself. And I don't want to get away with it. I used to print out every order on paper to help me fill it, and in the beginning that didn't seem like alot of paper, but it quickly ended up being a few trees. So I stopped doing that and came up with a solution that didn't create waste. I apply that to everything I do now.
There's a clear socioeconomic and environmental responsibility in producing and selling (and buying!) things. I think alot of people don't realize that, or just don't care, but it became obvious to me that I had to do everything I could to live up to that responsibility. That involves asking myself why I'm doing something as much as it involves how.
- The shirts had to be high-quality and made to last a loooooong time. I didn't want to make 'throw-away' shirts. There's a huge amount of labor and resources that go into just making the blank shirts, and I have to respect that. Therefore my printing methods had to be first-rate.
- I would not use sweat-shop made products. This is extremely important to me and it's very much a feminist issue. Who do you think works in sweatshops? It's very sad, but most shirt makers uses sweatshop labor. The shirt you are wearing right now was probably made in a sweatshop. Doesn't that bother you? You can read more about sweatshop labor below.
- I had to make sure that the printing process I would use would not harm the environment or me. This took the most time to research. Fortunately, I managed to address all my issues by only using certain materials and by creating processes that would minimize or do away altogether with the need for solvents or harmful chemicals while also minimizing waste. I use a biodegradable detergent to prep my screens and literally just a drop of low-odor, biodegradable solvent to clean my squeegee. That's it.
- What I put on the shirts is important as well. To me, this was already covered because I don't make any designs that I don't think are worthwhile. Still, it's important to keep in mind that a shirt represents the end product of a large manufacturing cycle, and making dumb shirts is just not respectful of that. I also have no interest in creating a 'brand'. Brands = marketing gimmicks = shallowness. There's nothing radical about creating a brand.
- I wanted to try to use local suppliers as much as possible. Having things flown over from the other side of the country or from across the world just for me is just incredibly wasteful. Creating relationships with my local suppliers has been kinda fun actually.
I'm basically still just screen printing, but with lots of twists. I also built my own equipment so that I could use resources that I already had on hand and so that I could have exactly what I needed.
It took a long time (more than a year) but I think it's been worth it. And of course, I apply the same standards to everything else I make.
sweatshops
What are sweatshops?
Sweatshops of old - When you think of sweatshops
you may think of old factories from the turn of the century,
workers toiling away, mostly women, mostly child laborers,
perhaps chained to their machines, being paid a pittance.
Maybe you remember reading about the 1911
fire in a sweatshop in NYC, where the workers were locked
into the building by their bosses and had no way to excape
the flames.
Maybe you think things like that don't happen anymore. They do, they just don't happen in the US very often anymore. Perhaps that's related to the fact that most apparel is now made overseas. US labor laws also have something to do with it, but they don't help anyone outside the US.
Sweatshops still exist. You may come across the definition of a sweatshop as a workplace that does not meet minimum labor standards. That's the nice way of saying it. Too nice, in my opinion. Minimum labor standards can mean anything and vary from country to country. Then there's the questionable enforcement of these standards.
Big companies go to poor, developing countries because they can get away with things they couldn't elsewhere, cheap labor, relaxed or functionally non-existent labor standards, and a lack of scrutiny, all in the pursuit of profit. It's called exploitation. Or again, the 'nice' way of saying it, economic globalization.
Laborers in sweatshops endure:
- low wages
- unsafe working conditions
- indentured servitude
- filthy living quarters
- physical and mental abuse
- violations of sexual and reproducive rights including forced abortions
- inadequate diets
- timed and infrequent bathroom breaks
- no healthcare
- no way out
Sometimes when you see "Made in the USA" it really means, "made in a US territory situated in a third-world country". Sneaky.
Sweatshops exploit women, people of color, and the poor. Sexism, racism, and classism. 90% of sweatshop laborers are women, making sweatshops a distinctly feminist issue.
Workers in the US are also being exploited. Undocumented immigrants make up the bulk of them but you don't have to look any farther than Walmart to see that no US workers are safe. We do have a legal system in place, there is recourse for the most part, and generally US labor conditions do not approach the horrid conditions in developing countries. But that's not an assurance and for the poor it means almost nothing at all.
Contract labor is still being used, being paid per piece instead of hourly, with no benefits, no nothing. All legal, very unethical. But people still 'choose' to work that way, because what other choice do they have?
The value of clothes - Clothing is undervalued. It's seen as disposable because of the nature of its materials, the fickle cycles of fashion, and pervasiveness of a consumer culture intent on having the 'latest thing'. And yet the manufacture of clothing requires highly skilled manual labor, which *should* be highly valued, but isn't. That's why there's always a push for cheaper and cheaper labor overseas, to 'maximize profits' in an industry that is built on undervalued products. It's a vicious cycle.
Clothing can last and last, it just takes well made garments, quality embellishment methods (not ones designed to be convenient for printers and sellers at the expense of quality), the proper care and respect for all that goes into making the clothing on your back. The people, the materials, the planet.
Who uses sweatshops?
The usual suspects:
- Sara Lee - Champion and Hanes
- Gildan
- Fruit of the Loom
- Anvil
- many, many more.
Don't forget that many other brands are just 'private label' versions of clothing from these mills. And those are just shirt brands. The list goes on and on for things like sneakers (nike) and retailers (walmart). It's everywhere. Why? Money. And I'm enough of a radical left-winger to also see it as a systematic means of global oppression.
It's better to ask, "Who doesn't use sweatshop labor?". Unfortunately there aren't many. I spend a lot of time looking into potential suppliers. As of right now, there are only two that I will use. For the reasons stated above, I won't use shirts that are made outside of the US, even if they claim to be sweatshop free. Using third-world labor to such ends is still exploitation to my eyes, and there aren't enough guarantees that the workers are being treated fairly. Occasional inspections aren't enough in that case. The companies I consider have to have a certain level of verified transparency and accountability. Otherwise, I won't trust them.
For many years I used American Apparel as my main supplier. They are great on labor, but very problematic when it comes to advertising (overtly sexual if not sexist) and the owner of the company has been accused of sexual harassment. While I that AA as a company is still great and produces top-quality shirts in a fair labor environment, I'm not comfortable with the company otherwise. As an industry, the apparel business is rife with sexism, so it's no surprise (and no excuse). One 'alternative' company actually had a "cop a feel" ad campaign.
Is it fair to the workers to not use their products because of marketing and the owner's behavior? No, I don't really think it is fair.
I tried union-made shirts - the quality sucked, sorry. You'd expect the opposite, but... no.
I'm using Royal Apparel now, they seem to have good labor practices, are US-made, and offer organics, which is something I've been wanting to do for a while now, and as a result are the only shirts I'm using (though I might offer other non-organic stuff). We'll see how it goes.
Why should I care?
If you read all that how could you possibly not?
-ken
