Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given at a public hearing of the U.S. Department of Labor, New York, NY, on March 30, 1989

Briggs, Vernon M., Jr.

English

Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given at a public hearing of the U.S. Department of Labor, New York, NY, on March 30, 1989.TestimonyonProposedRemovalofBans8.pdf: 188 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Briggs, Vernon M. Jr.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

Testimony on the Proposed Removal of Bans on Industrial Homework in the Apparel Industry

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Briggs Public Testimonies Vernon M. Briggs Jr. Collection 
March 1989 
Testimony on the Proposed Removal of Bans on Industrial 
Homework in the Apparel Industry 
Vernon M. Briggs Jr. 
Cornell University, vmb2@cornell.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briggstestimonies 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Vernon M. Briggs Jr. Collection at 
DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Briggs Public Testimonies by an authorized 
administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Testimony on the Proposed Removal of Bans on Industrial Homework in the 
Apparel Industry 
Abstract 
Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given at a public hearing of the U.S. Department of Labor, New York, NY, 
on March 30, 1989. 
Keywords 
industrial, homework, apparel, New York, labor 
Comments 
Suggested Citation: 
Briggs, V. (1989). Testimony on the Proposed Removal of Bans on Industrial Homework in the Apparel 
Industry. U.S. Department of Labor, New York, NY. March 30, 1989. Ithaca, NY: Author. 
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briggstestimonies/12 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/briggstestimonies/12 
(?'\
Public Hearing
u.s. Department of Labor
New York City, N.Y.
March 30, 1989
Testimony of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Professor of Labor and Industrial
Relations, Cornell University pertaining to the proposed removal of bans
on industrial homework in the apparel industry
Efforts to restrict industrial homework in the apparel industry date
at least as far back as 1910. During that year, Louis D. Brandeis -- later
to become one of the nation's most distinguished Supreme Court
justices -- successfully negotiated a private agreement known as the
"Protocol of Peace." Among its key provisions was such a restriction on
homework. The immediate objective of the Protocol was to find a way to
end a protracted and violent conflict within the industry over union
recognition. But, as the noted labor historian Philip Taft has written,
"the Protocol was an important step toward 'civilizing' a low wage industry
whose problems were complicated by the continual flood of immigrants who
swelled the labor- supply". Taft adds that, with the terms of the Protocol
it was possible "to introduce many reforms and eliminate abuses that had
plagued the industry over the years."
It was in 1942 that public policy institutionalized the no homework
restriction. The u.s. Department of Labor recognized that the very nature
of the employment setting in the apparel industry made it impossible to
enforce the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act without such a
restriction. While the ban on industrial homework has not stopped the
worker exploitation in this highly competitive industry, it has served
as a symbol of public understanding and of manifest concern for the welfare
of a significant segment of the city's low wage work force. The ban has
facilitated efforts by unions and government agencies to at least monitor
2the production process.
When the Protocol was setforth, the forces that were depressing wages
and working conditions stemmed largely from worker competition due to the
availability of waves of helpless immigrants and the cut-throat competition
that existed between jobber contractors. But at that time there were high
protective tariffs that shielded American workers from having to compete
with foreign imports.
To the degree that present employment conditions in this industry
have changed from the past, they have changed for the worse. The low wage
labor market of New York city is once again beset by mass immigration.
This time, many of the workers who are trapped in the secondary labor market
are even in a more precarious situation than were their predecessors at
the turn of the century. The vast majority are members of minority groups.
Moreover, many of the new immigrant workers are illegal immigrants who
are far more vulnerable to exploitation (especially since the enactment
of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). Illegal immigrants
in particular and all immigrants in general are less likely to know about
the existence of worker protection legislation and, even if they do know,
are less likely to file individual complaints of violations.
With regard to New York City, a recent study of the labor
market -- of which I am a co-author -- documents the fact that immigrant
workers are highly concentrated in only a handful of industries (i.e.,
47 percent of immigrant workers are employed in only 13 of over 200
industries in the City). Of these 13 industries, apparel manufacturing
had the second highest proportion (36.1 percent) of immigrant workers (see
Appendix). In percentage terms, it was only slightly behind the private
3household industry (37.6 percent). In absolute terms, apparel manufacturing
had the highest number of immigrant workers employed in any industry in
the city. It should also be noted that the available data probably
underestimates the actual magnitudes since many illegal immigrants are
known to be employed off the books in this industry. It is also the case
that local data on the foreign born are only available from the census
counts -- last conducted in 1980. Major inflows of immigrants have come
since the last census but what their actual employment distribution cannot
be specified for 1989.
It is also the case that at least 40 percent of women employed in
the apparel industry in 1980 were immigrants (16 percent of the total are
Hispanic females and 13 percent are Asian females). Undoubtedly, these
percentages are even higher in 1989. Thus, it is clear that the work force
in the apparel industry is disproportionately made up of immigrants who
are both females and minorities. It is also likely that there are many
youths employed in the industry but only persons over the age of 16 are
counted in official labor force data. By every known standard, apparel
workers are the most economically "at risk" workers in the New York City
labor force.
Furthermore, the competitive situation in the apparel industry has
become decidedly worse in the 1980s than ever before. This is due to the
current pursuit of the federal government of free trade as a new instrument
of international economic policy. It is apparently not widely understood
that this nation's economy was built behind the protection of high
protective tariffs. The rapid abandonment of this protection without
serious thought about labor displacement issues has had serious and unfair
4consequences to workers in the apparel industry. Most employers now must
compete directly with foreign apparel producers -- many of whom have no
obligation to provide even minimally humane employment standards.
In the prevailing climate of resumed availability of exploitable
workers and the unprecedented adverse effects on workers of foreign product
competition, New York City (and several other metropolitan areas where
the apparel industry is located) have already witnessed the widespread
revival of one of the sorriest institutions ever to characterize the
industrial development of our nation: "the sweatshop." Having once been
virtually eliminated, sweatshops have -- since the 1970s -- again become
a growing manifestation of the seamier side of our contemporary affluent
society.
Earlier in this decade (April, 1981), the Secretary of Labor Ray
Donovan staged a media visit to the garment district of New York City.
The Secretary promised "to put more teeth into the law" to stop abuses
of child labor, minimum wage, overtime pay requirements, and inadequate
record keeping that characterize these exploitive enterprises. In fact,
nothing has been subsequently done to make meaningful his public outrage
about the existence and persistance of sweatshops. Indeed, the presence
of sweatshops is now so cornmon that these abominations to a supposedly
advanced industrial society are now seemingly being taken for granted.
Given the proposed changes that are the subject of this hearing, it
seems that the u.s. Department of Labor has decided not only to abandon
the enforcement fight against "sweatshop" conditions but, it also now seeks
to make it virtually impossible for any caring society to even corne to
grips with the issue. It is hard enough to enforce worker protection
5statutes in garment factories which are already often found in garages,
basements of tenements, and in seemingly abandoned warehouses. But it
will be virtually senseless to even try to protect workers if the point
of production is the worker's home. The exploitation problem for employees
will not go away; only the threat of punitive consequences to employers
will be diminished. At least under the present ban, there is the
possibility of fair play and minimal protection. Under the pending
proposal, any pretense of concern by government for the maintenance of
fair standards for some of the most helpless workers in our economy will
be abrogated. To be sure, the worker protection laws will still exist
on the statute books. They will, however, stand only as even more cynical
monuments of societal hypocrisy and indifference than they do now. Form
will have triumphed completely over substance.
I urge the Department of Labor not to revoke the ban on industrial
homework. Instead, it should focus its resources on the need for stricter
enforcement of employment standards and labor laws as well as on the issue
of unfair competition from abroad. The Department should be the advocate
for worker welfare; not the agent for employer convenience. The apparel
industry is a special case and its workers need the Department's
shield -- not its sword.
Post-I965
Immigrants Employed
Percent
Total of Total
Industry Employed Number Employed
Total for all industries 2,897,880 492,7(fJ 17.0
> Apparel manufacturing 118,540 42,7(fJ 36.1Hospitals 185,820 41,660 22.4
Eating/drinking establishments 110,640 36,820 33.3
Banking 125,320 21,540 17.2
Construction 77,9fIJ 15,120 19.4
Real estate/building management 71,660 11,540 16.1
Private households 30,620 11,520 37.6
Nursing facilities 3O,9fIJ 9,820 31.7
Miscellaneous manufacturing 32,080 9,520 29.7
Grocery stores 47,040 8,920 19.0
Insurance 76,980 8,720 11.3
Motels/botels 25,420 7,860 30.9
Printing/publishing 74,280 7,7(fJ 10.4
Total 1,007,320 233,5fIJ 23.2
All other industries 1,890,5(fJ 259,200 13.7
'~'-~-'~"'~-~""'--'-
Appendix: Table 1
NEW YORK CITY INDUSTRIES WIm CONCENTRATIONS
OF NEW IMMIGRANTS, 1980
(in rank order by number of post-1965 immigrants employed)
Source: Table cited in Leon Bouvier and Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.
The Population and Labor Force of New York: 1990-2050,
(Washington, D.C., The Population Reference Bureau, 1988),
p. 62.
Appe,ndix: Tabh 2
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK CITY OF FOREIGN-BORN PERSONS,
AGE 16 AND OVER WHO IMMIGRATED SINCE 1965 BY SEX, RACE, HISPANIC ORIGIN,
AND DATE OF ARRIVAL,19801
Total of 13
Total All Selcctcd 060
Industrics Industrics Construction
All Males (Native and Foreign) 100.0
Foreign Born2 17.2
White, Non-Hispanic 4.9
1965-1974 3.4
1975-1980 1.6
Black, Non-Hispanic 3.9
1965-1974 2.9
1975-1980 1.0
Hispanic 5.1
1965-1974 3.6
1975-1980 1.5
Asian, Non-Hispanic 3.2
1965-1974 1.8
1975-1980 1.4
All FemaJes (Native and Foreign) 100.0
Foreign Born2 16.7
White, Non-Hispanic 3.3
1965-1974 2.3
1975-1980 1.0
Black, Non-Hispanic 5.5
1965-1974 4.2
1975-1980 1.2
Hispanic 4.8
1965-1974 3.5
1975-1980 1.3
Asian, Non-Hispanic 3.0
1965-1974 1.8
1975-1980 1.2
Source:
100.0
23.1
6.1
4.5
1.6
4.2
3.2
1.0
6.5
4.6
1.9
4.7
2.7
2.0
100.0
23.2
3.2
2.4
0.8
8.0
6.4
1.7
5.6
4.2
1.6
4.7
2.9
1.8
100.0
20.3
10.5
7.7
2.8
4.8
3.5
1.2
3.6
2.7
1.0
1.3
0.8
0.6
]00.0
10.9
151
Apparel
100.0
26.6
5.1 ,
3.8 i
1.3 '
3.6 j
2.2 "
1.4 ,
10.7 t5.8 .
4.9 ~
\
7.1
3.7
3.4 ~.
t100.0 \1
40.1 \
7.3 ;
5.9
~1.4 I
2.9 \
2.0 I
0.9 \16.4 -
11.1 \5.3
13.4
7.2
6.2
172
PrintinglPublish
100.0
11.8
3.1
2.0
1.1
3.3
2.5
0.8
3.8
2.9
0.9
1.4
1.1
0.3
100.0
8.5
391 601
Misc. Manufactur. Grocery Store
100.0 100.0
28.9 20.7
8.3 6.2
5.9 4.5
2.3 1.7
5.8 2.6
3.7 2.0
2.1 0.6
12.9 8.4
8.8 6.4
4.1 2.0
1.7 3.3
0.6 1.8
1.1 1.6
100.0 100.0
30.8 15.7
5.2
3.0
2.1
4.7
2.7
2.0
18.5
12.3
6.2
2.3
1.2
1.1
Table cited in Leon Bouvier and Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., The Population and Labor Force
of New York: 1990-2050, (Washington, D.C., The Population Reference Bureau, 1988), p. 88.


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&amp;context=briggstestimonies

Testimony on the Proposed Removal of Bans on Industrial Homework in the Apparel Industry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR