Actually, the girl in question was a long-time girlfriend of Charney’s. Check your facts.

As is usually the case, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle.

Is AA involved in union busting or did the unionization drive fizzle as a result of employee resistance? It is interesting to note that there isn’t a single sewing operation in LA that is unionized. Why is that? Most of those employed in those operations are mexican immigrants. Turns out that in the 60s Unions were behind anti-immigrant worker laws. I guess Mexican workers just don’t trust unions. But otherwise we have the union alleging union busting and we have management alleging unethical practices. The Union won an initial victory in that AA was required to post a notice stating that no one would be penalized for wanting to join the union, AA offered to hold an election and the union… they pulled up stakes and left.

Some would say because management had polluted the workers, others because the union knew it was going to lose. I would like to think that workers kinda have brains enough to know whats good for them.

And what of the sexual harassment? On the one hand we have the defendant who has always been straightforward to a fault. As far as the plaintiffs go, we don’t really know much other than what was alleged in their lawsuits. However the buzz is (and it’s all buzz at this point) is that American Apparel is not settling and that one of the plaintiffs offered to settle for no less than $2 million – and none of them has alleged stuff like unwanted advances or anything. I’m not going to comment on some of the unsavory things said about one of the plaintiffs – although I’ve noted that others have no similiar compunction when it comes to Charney.

As far as Ari Paul goes, if his reporting is as good as his fact checking, well… See one of the things he did was parrot that line about Charney, you know “women initiate most domestic violence.” Patently offensive right? But not if you go to the source of that quote – namely the McGill Daily, a student publication of McGill University:

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=3253

The really badly butchered quote is presented in the context of a discussion related to the difficulties faced by male victims of domestic violence – ie the ridicule and embarassment they face when claiming that their wife/girlfriend assaulted them.

When Charney is quoted as saying “Women initiate most domestic violence” clearly what was meant was that women initiate most domestic violence CLAIMS. Men don’t because they are too embarassed. I mean the statement is ludicrous otherwise, but given the context it’s even more ludicrous to think that Charney is saying that women are RESPONSIBLE for most domestic violence. By the way, that original interview took me all of 2 minutes to dig up on Google.

What is really embarassing is that even the reporter clearly misunderstood what Charney was saying. However, I’d like to hear an interpretation that is different from mine from an intelligent person. I’m open to it. Who knows, maybe I’m missing something here.

Anyhow, sorry to go on and on. I love AA’s stuff and I wasn’t about to give up on shopping there without at least satisfying myself that the anti-American Apparel crusade had some merit. The merit is however questionable. American Apparel thus remains on my list of places to shop!

As far as Charney’s quotes go, there is something very simple we can do. If Charney believes nasty things about women and domestic violence, let’s ask him. It’s remarkable that amongst many interviews and a great deal of scrutiny, the evidence that he is a raving lunatic (as the standard report of what he said seems to indicate) is rather scant.

Sometimes consensual really is consensual.