<![CDATA[Consumerist: Apparel]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Apparel]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/apparel http://consumerist.com/tag/apparel <![CDATA[ Macy's Confirms It Never Did Business With Queens Sweatshop ]]> Last week, news broke that a sweatshop in Queens, NYC was producing clothing for several large U.S. retailers, while overworking its mainly Chinese immigrant employees and cheating them out of wages. At the time, Macy's announced it was cooperating with New York's Department of Labor and investigating the matter internally. Now the company has confirmed that it never did business with the sweatshop—in fact, it investigated it twice in 2007 while evaluating potential suppliers and rejected it for shoddy record keeping. Use your crazy Macy's coupons all you want, readers.

From Macy's own press release yesterday afternoon:

An internal investigation conducted by Macy's, however, discovered that no Macy's goods were found in Jin Shun. But a factory named Zheng Da Inc. in Long Island City, which also was inspected by the Department of Labor and also cited for labor law violations, was making apparently counterfeit goods with labels from a Macy's private brand. These goods, which were neither ordered nor authorized by Macy's, were private brand prints from previous seasons and of inferior quality to those made to Macy's specifications. Macy's, Inc. is considering legal action against the owners of the Zheng Da factory for unauthorized manufacturing of counterfeit goods under a label owned by Macy's.

Moreover, independent third-party monitors retained by Macy's twice inspected the Jin Shun factory in 2007 as Macy's was evaluating potential suppliers for its private brand merchandise. In both instances, the Jin Shun facility was rejected and removed from consideration because of incomplete employment record-keeping. All Macy's vendors are required to conform to the company's stringent Vendor/Supplier Code of Conduct that sets out specific standards and requirements for any vendor doing business with Macy's.

As for the other companies involved in the story—the Gap, Banana Republic, Urban Apparel, and Victoria's Secret—we've seen no similar statements so far.

"Macy's Goods Were Not Produced in Long Island City Sweatshop" [Marketwatch]
(Photo: Eddie~S)

]]>
Consumerist-5030917 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:48:05 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5030917&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Sweatshop In Queens Produced Clothes For Macy's, the Gap, Banana Republic, Urban Apparel, and Victoria's Secret ]]> New York state labor officials are bringing one of their largest cases ever against Jin Shun, a clothing factory in Queens, New York that employed Chinese immigrants. Inspectors say the company

  • cheated its workers out of more than $5 million in pay;
  • instructed workers to lie to state inspectors;
  • required 6 and 7-day workweeks, sometimes for up to 120 days at a time;
  • didn't pay overtime or minimum wage;
  • kept two sets of timecards to fake-out inspectors.
Macy's says they're "very concerned" about the case and are investigating it, the Gap says they're cooperating with authorities, and Victoria's Secret says they have a "zero tolerance policy" for factories that are unwilling to work with them to achieve compliance—all of which makes us wonder whether any of these companies ever investigated the factory personally. (It's not like it was in some remote part of China.)

Urban Apparel, which apparently faced a large inventory issue, took more practical steps:

The Labor Department announced that on Wednesday morning it placed special tags on more than 10,000 items of Jin Shun’s apparel, stating that the garments were produced under unlawful conditions.

Within hours of that tagging, the clothing company Urban Apparel paid state officials $60,000 to have the tags removed. The money covered the amount of wage violations that the department found had occurred when employees were making the tagged garments.

The factory, which was previously named Venture 47 and has recently been renamed Garlee NY, was quite blatant about lying to inspectors:

State officials said that the instructions given to employees, written in English and Mandarin, told them that if government inspectors ever asked them how many hours they worked each week, they were to respond, “Not sure, depends on the workload.”

The instructions told the workers that if inspectors asked how much they earned, they should respond, “I don’t remember, because sometimes I work more hours and sometimes less.”

The instruction sheet told the workers that if they were asked, “What is your hourly wage?” they were to answer, “Not sure, but always over $7.75 depending on the job complexity.” Even though the workers were paid at a fixed rate per piece of work performed and partly in cash, they were told to answer that they were always paid by the hour and through direct deposit.

You may be wondering how you can enforce your own anti-sweatshop policy when shopping, but of course without strict oversight from the big apparel companies, you're not left with many choices. One thing you can do is try to shop from companies that have taken a strong anti-sweatshop stance, such as American Apparel, or from companies like Busted Tees that use American Apparel shirts. Other than that, you have to rely on "made in ___" labels—Dana Thomas from Newsweek tells NPR that in general, U.S. labeling laws are far stricter than European and can be trusted more, but the Queens factory proves that's not always the case. You can also demand stronger oversight from officials and apparel companies—although how you "demand" such a thing is a rather good question.

"Apparel Factory Workers Were Cheated, State Says " [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5028582 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:48:32 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5028582&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Spreadshirt Inc. Spares Frat From Dressing Like Girly Men ]]> Alvin's sweatshirt order for his fraternity turned out a little too shimmery and girly. Alvin was solely responsible for the decision to order the "silver flex" font, and Spreadshirt could have easily told him that all sales were final. Instead, they reprinted the order for free.

Alvin writes:

I wanted to praise an online company that I happened to order custom printed apparel from. Spreadshirt Inc.or spreadshirt.com is one of many online services that customize shirts for a low price. I have used many of these sites because I graphic design on the side and enjoy putting some of my work on the clothes I wear. I want to let you know of the numerous sites I have used Spreadshirt has shown the greatest consideration of their customers. I made a mistake of getting one of my designs in a "silver" flex print which really ended up being a glittery reflective print. It made my fraternity letters look, lets say less manly. It was at my bad judgment but they were more than willing to redo it for me at no charge. I called them and left a message the night before and I am happy they were willing to call me back the next day. Hopefully, someone would recognize this great company too.
Nice work Spreadshirt! As for Alvin, we think his frat's pledge class would look just fab in the original sweatshirts. ]]>
Consumerist-379132 Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:30:04 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=379132&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Go Big, Go Gnome, Go Glarkware ]]> Josh tried to buy his girlfriend a "Go Big or Go Gnome" shirt from Glarkware.com, but they sold out before they could ship the shirt. Leah from Glarkware emailed Josh and offered to either issue a refund, or send a different shirt. Josh picked out a different shirt, but come on, what could replace a "Go Big or Go Gnome" shirt? Right, nothing.

Josh asked Leah to let him know if she received any more "Go Big or Go Gnome" shirts. Three months later, Josh got an email...


Leah told Josh there would be no more gnome shirts, but that tucked behind a different shirt, she found an extra gnome shirt in the right size. Rather than sell the shirt on Glarkware's website, Leah gave Josh the right of first refusal. Josh grabbed the shirt, because nothing beats a "Go Big or Go Gnome" shirt.

Josh's girlfriend emailed us with the story:

Back in February, my boyfriend Josh wanted to buy a shirt from Glarkware.com, and I asked him to get me the "Go Big or Go Gnome" shirt while he was placing an order. (The shipping from Canada adds up, so it would be much more economical to combine our orders.) He placed his order and waited for the two shirts to arrive. Soon, however, he got an email from Leah at Glarkware informing him that the Gnome shirt had apparently sold out in my size before they could ship it. Leah apologized and offered to substitute a different shirt (or the same shirt in a different size) or else she would be happy to refund the cost of the shirt to Josh's card.

He chose to get me a different shirt instead, and asked about being notified if the shirt came back into stock. Leah replied:

We will be reprinting the 'gnome' tee in the future, however it *may* be redesigned before then.We won't be doing that though, for a while. We have to sell out, or get close, before we do all that.

She apologized again and instructed Josh how to sign up for notifications via the website for when the shirt came back in stock. Fast forward to three months later, when Josh received the following email out of the blue:

Hi Joshua,

I'm not sure if you are still interested in the 'gnome' tee [in my specific size], but I just found one tucked behind another shirt on our shelf. I thought I would ask you if you wanted it before I made it available on the site again.

It turns out that we probably will not be reprinting the gnome tee after all (redesigned or not), so if you would like this one let me know and we can make arrangements together.

Yours, Leah

Now THAT's great customer service. And yes, he decided to order me the shirt, even though the original occasion for which I wanted to wear it was past.


— CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER ]]>
Consumerist-261915 Sat, 19 May 2007 19:34:44 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=261915&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Big Man Hugs For LL Bean ]]> llbeanboothugger.jpgWe spew a lot of slags and jags here but every once in a while, we like to take a moment to praise an instance of particularly good customer service.

Today's comes courtesy of comment land courtesan Homerjay. He had an awesome experience at L.L. Bean where the salespeople went out of their way to help him save $160.

His heart-warming tale, presented inside, shows how businesses can turn average customers into raving fans by putting the customers first and profits second — and make more money in the end.


    "I was in Freeport, Maine- home of any number of outlet stores and retail standout LL Bean- to do some Christmas shopping.

    Historically I have done very little shopping at LL Bean mostly because when I need something 'outdoorsy' I don't immediately think of them. Last year I bought a pair of boots there that I beat the life out of. I returned them this year without a problem. They have a lifetime satisfaction guarantee on everything they sell. Even though I beat on them they really should have lasted longer.

    So while I was there this time I decided it was time to buy new ski wear for my wife and I. I found a jacket for $250 that was perfect. While I was trying them on a lovely saleslady, probably in her 60's, came up to us and asked me if I needed any help. I talked to her about some of the features of the jacket (at that price apparently they start to have features) and she told me that this was their most expensive jacket and that I might want to look at one that is $100 less because it was designed more for the casual skier. (WHAAA?)

    She showed me a couple other less expensive ones, explained the differences in great detail and then brought me over to the computer to show me more details on the materials and care instructions. A this point I still ended up wanting the $250 one.

    Then another salesperson came by and the two talked. He commented on the expensive jacket and jokingly I said to him "Can I get your employee discount?" He chuckled and said "Ya know what? I think I can do better."

    He then showed the saleslady that in the computer the $250 jacket is actually $170 if you order it in a discontinued color through the catalog. I was shocked. I was about to plop down $250 and they both knew it. He helped me place the order and that was that. These people get NO financial incentives or commissions. They're totally there to help.

    Then! We went upstairs to find one for my incredibly indecisive wife. We spent the better part of an hour with a very nice salesgirl who was more than happy to show her every jacket they offer over and over and over. We told her up front that we had no intention of buying the jacket there because we wanted my wife's father to buy it for her for Christmas. It made no difference to her. I was the one getting annoyed with my wife while the salesgirl just kept on going, smiling the whole time. In the end, she picked the same jacket I did. I mentioned the deal I got downstairs and she looked it up and it was also going on for discontinued womens colors. We ended up ordering it in the store anyway just to ensure we got the special price.

    I went out of there giddy at saving about $170 but mostly because the salespeople were SOOO helpful.

    I was willing to buy their most expensive jacket (which didn't even come close to the most expensive North Face jacket) because of their lifetime satisfaction guarantee and the incredible helpfulness of the sales staff.

    If LL Bean can make a healthy profit within a model that allows for a well trained, friendly, helpful staff (even at the phone order center) and a lifetime guarantee, why can't other retailers???

    Thanks for listening.

    -Homerjay"

]]>
Consumerist-209706 Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:40:40 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=209706&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The Week in Product Recalls: Poisonings, Burns, Strangulations, Deadly Chickens ]]> chintz.jpg
Metal Charms Recalled for Lead Poisoning Hazard to Children

Hazard:
"The recalled charms contain high levels of lead, posing a serious risk of lead poisoning and adverse health effects to young children."

Lead, a soft and malleable metal, makes a great material for crafting jewelry and trinkets, oh, about 200 years ago.

Sucking on lead charms is neat 'diet hack' to cut the calories and feed the sweet tooth over Halloween.

But what about the adverse effects of festive holiday projects and bangles lacking sufficient flair?

No one ever thinks about that, how it feels to not be chintzy.


Deadly chicken video and more, after the jump.

limbo.jpgChicken Limbo Party Games Recalled After 23 Reports of Injuries

Hazard: "The game s two side poles do not fit into their bases properly making the game unstable. This [absurdly] can cause the game to completely fall apart if touched, hitting children playing the game as well as bystanders. :

Here's a video of the death-dealer in action, manned by a mysterious cloaked figure. Sorry, it's only for Windows Media player. Couldn't figure out how to capture the stream in time, so here's a transcript as well:

(View of Chicken Limbo Party Game outside. Close-up on supports at the bottom of the game, and a close-up of the chicken on the limbo bar).

(View of person pushing on the chicken, causing it to spin and play music. When it stops spinning, the chicken laughs).

(At one point the chicken becomes stuck mid-spin, in an upside-down position. The person presses on it again to allow it to continue spinning).

Incidents/Injuries: In a case of inanity raising its loathsome head, "Milton Bradley has received 46 reports of the Chicken Limbo party game collapsing unexpectedly. This includes 23 reports of injuries including bumps, bruises, welts and red marks, four reports of cuts, one chipped tooth and one fractured foot. "

This is what you get for over-technologizing what should be two people and a stick.

Why is there a fucking chicken in the middle of it anyway?

gas.jpg
Barbeques Galore Inc. Recalls Gas Grills Posing Risk of Gas Leaks, Fires

Hazard: "The grills have faulty regulators that can release too much gas to the burner causing an excessive burner flame. This also poses a risk of gas leaks, fires and explosions if an ignition source is present."

Fear before the march of flames whilst cooking up those hot pink hard-bodied slivers of succulent hot beef chunks. Hot.

hoodie.jpgYouth Hooded Fleece with Drawstring Recalled for Strangulation Hazard

Another week, another hoodie strangulation hazard.

Remedy: "Consumers should remove or cut the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to the store where purchased for help in removing the drawstring."

Manufactured in: China

The sweatshirts were originally designed to be freely distributed to subversive elements using decadent American Google.com but then Google.cn came along. The shipments were redirected to members of Falun Gong.

[via U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]

]]>
Consumerist-156787 Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:16:28 EST popkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=156787&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Converse Lets You Design Your Chuck Taylors, Just Like Big-Time Rap Stars! ]]> chucks.jpgIf you're possessed by an attraction towards nostalgic ankle-breakers, you may enjoy designing your own "Chuck Talyor" aka "Chucks" aka "Converse All-Star" shoes here.

3-4 weeks and $45-$65 + $7 shipping later, your personalized pair arrives.

You can even add your own ID, as long as it doesn't say any trademarked/offensive words, phrases or color combinations or ruthlessly guarded celebrity names, like "Heidi Klum" (whose father recently tried to sue a blogger for using the name, trademarked, in a blog post title (German)).

Pictured is our special "Consumerist" version Chuck Taylor, full view here. Notice the seamless flow of butt-ugly design from website to footwear.

]]>
Consumerist-156284 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:33:12 EST popkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=156284&view=rss&microfeed=true