Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Sweatshop Labor in the Fashion Industry
April 27, 2015 11:47 AM - Season 2, Episode 11 - Subscribe
This week: The 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, how it's reported in the US media, and Obama's attempts to tiptoe around the word genocide in official statements. New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key is called out for repeatedly yanking a waitress' ponytail and pretending his wife did it YES THAT REALLY HAPPENED. An update on everyone's favorite media quack, Dr Oz fights allegations that his show is a biased, misleading, terrible source of medical information. And Now: Political Figures Interviewing Themselves. The main story: The fashion industry's long-standing and continued reliance on oversea sweatshop labor (YouTube 17m).
I love Oliver's rants. They're a carry over from TDS, of course. Compared to the anti-vaxxers, I don't know that Oz is worth the effort but it was a good one.
Dr. Oz: No matter our disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. And these ten doctors are trying to silence that right.
Oliver: No! You are scientifically wrong about that as you are about so many things. Let's be clear, the First Amendment protects Americans from government censorship and that's it.
It does not guarantee you the right to simultaneously hold a faculty position at a prestigious private university AND make misleading claims on a TV show. It absolutely protects your right to say whatever you like on it just as it protects my right to say what I think about you on mine, which is this:
You are the worst person in scrubs who has ever been on television and I'm including Katherine Heigl in that. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be worse than Katherine Heigl?! You are also the--admittedly handsome--ringmaster of a middling, mid-afternoon televised snake oil dispensary and it says something that even when you do a show with seven fake models of human feces, the biggest piece of shit on the stage has his name in the title.
Isn't freedom of speech great?!
posted by Ik ben afgesneden at 6:20 PM on April 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Dr. Oz: No matter our disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. And these ten doctors are trying to silence that right.
Oliver: No! You are scientifically wrong about that as you are about so many things. Let's be clear, the First Amendment protects Americans from government censorship and that's it.
It does not guarantee you the right to simultaneously hold a faculty position at a prestigious private university AND make misleading claims on a TV show. It absolutely protects your right to say whatever you like on it just as it protects my right to say what I think about you on mine, which is this:
You are the worst person in scrubs who has ever been on television and I'm including Katherine Heigl in that. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be worse than Katherine Heigl?! You are also the--admittedly handsome--ringmaster of a middling, mid-afternoon televised snake oil dispensary and it says something that even when you do a show with seven fake models of human feces, the biggest piece of shit on the stage has his name in the title.
Isn't freedom of speech great?!
posted by Ik ben afgesneden at 6:20 PM on April 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
I thought the clothes piece was a little disappointing just because clothes don't seem all that cheap - they're cheaply made but marked up beyond belief.
The NZ piece made me think the Flight of the Conchords' Prime Minister character must have been a documentary.
posted by bleep at 9:42 PM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
The NZ piece made me think the Flight of the Conchords' Prime Minister character must have been a documentary.
posted by bleep at 9:42 PM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the clothes piece fell a little flat for me. I don't think the "buying clothing executives lunch" bit is really highlighting anything solid about the situation. Sometimes this show finds the humor in being super direct and sometimes it tries to find a goofy analogy, and this analogy just really failed for me. I can't imagine that's the best or funniest way to show that these execs could do a better job caring about the supply chain management.
posted by dogwalker at 11:38 PM on April 27, 2015
posted by dogwalker at 11:38 PM on April 27, 2015
It seemed slightly odd to me that they were criticising child labour, and yet hired a child model to do so.
Obviously there is a big difference between sweatshop labour and tv fashion modelling, but it seemed odd. Especially give that the US rules on payment of child actors is not all that good. (For example in the UK ALL monies earned by the child must go in a trust for them, I believe {from a Judge John Hodgman episode, I've done no actual research myself} that in the US that is not the case)
The questions around underage employment is more complicated that was being presented here, and although a more rigorous supply chain control is very important it's a lot more nuanced than was being made out here.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:28 AM on April 28, 2015
Obviously there is a big difference between sweatshop labour and tv fashion modelling, but it seemed odd. Especially give that the US rules on payment of child actors is not all that good. (For example in the UK ALL monies earned by the child must go in a trust for them, I believe {from a Judge John Hodgman episode, I've done no actual research myself} that in the US that is not the case)
The questions around underage employment is more complicated that was being presented here, and although a more rigorous supply chain control is very important it's a lot more nuanced than was being made out here.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:28 AM on April 28, 2015
That they waste food just to score some laughs bothered me. I think it's a given that most of those places aren't going to accept the food.
posted by Ik ben afgesneden at 5:17 AM on April 28, 2015
posted by Ik ben afgesneden at 5:17 AM on April 28, 2015
That totally whiffed for me because: a pile of super cheap mystery dumplings and flautas?? yes please
posted by theodolite at 8:52 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 8:52 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
i was also disappointed by the clothes segment. when he was like, "these dumplings cost 75 cents EACH" i was like bro those are some expensive dumplings, are they stuffed with gold? i can get like, 3 dumplings for a dollar here and i will happily eat them. i mean i get that the whole point was like, but you don't KNOW where the dumplings are coming from blah blah supply chains but i have a hard time picturing the CEO of gap or whatever being like, oh cool, free cheap dumpling lunch no matter WHERE they came from, be it john oliver or another supplier.
there was no real call to action, either, which i guess is the point maybe? to make us all feel guilty about the clothes we're wearing but we're actually not going to do anything about it because we really like our clothes to be so cheap and disposable?
posted by kerning at 9:25 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
there was no real call to action, either, which i guess is the point maybe? to make us all feel guilty about the clothes we're wearing but we're actually not going to do anything about it because we really like our clothes to be so cheap and disposable?
posted by kerning at 9:25 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
when he was like, "these dumplings cost 75 cents EACH" i was like bro those are some expensive dumplings, are they stuffed with gold?
No kidding. Rotisserie Chicken for $7.99 each was the punchline? They're $4.99 at Costco.
posted by Gary at 9:58 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
No kidding. Rotisserie Chicken for $7.99 each was the punchline? They're $4.99 at Costco.
posted by Gary at 9:58 AM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess he'll have to do factory farm episode next so that we can all be appropriately revolted by cheap food.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:03 AM on April 28, 2015
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:03 AM on April 28, 2015
I really liked the clothes segment, mostly because of things like the fire evac map (and no fire extinguishers), which I thought worked well shown on TV. If you want to read more about this, you could do a lot worse than to read Elizabeth Cline's book Overdressed, which we covered (along with a lot of other related links) a while back.
Unfortunately, the main possible call to action we've got on this one (other than, hey, clothing manufacturers, give a shit about supply chain oversight) is to make our own clothes, which is even less funny than the "get a cheap party plate!" thing.
Also the cheap food thing is probably colored by the show being filmed in NYC. (We also commented on the delicious $5 rotisserie chickens from Costco during that segment. Mmm, Costco.)
posted by asperity at 10:07 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately, the main possible call to action we've got on this one (other than, hey, clothing manufacturers, give a shit about supply chain oversight) is to make our own clothes, which is even less funny than the "get a cheap party plate!" thing.
Also the cheap food thing is probably colored by the show being filmed in NYC. (We also commented on the delicious $5 rotisserie chickens from Costco during that segment. Mmm, Costco.)
posted by asperity at 10:07 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
You are also the--admittedly handsome--ringmaster of a middling, mid-afternoon televised snake oil dispensary and it says something that even when you do a show with seven fake models of human feces, the biggest piece of shit on the stage has his name in the title.
Thank you for typing that out. God, what a fantastic insult that is.
posted by gladly at 10:35 AM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
Thank you for typing that out. God, what a fantastic insult that is.
posted by gladly at 10:35 AM on April 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
Unfortunately, the main possible call to action we've got on this one (other than, hey, clothing manufacturers, give a shit about supply chain oversight) is to make our own clothes, which is even less funny than the "get a cheap party plate!" thing.
This is becoming an inescapable conclusion for me, if I want to always be able to find clothes I like that fit me without being at the whim of what they decide to stock that day. It's kind of depressing cause I don't know where I'm gonna get the time from.
posted by bleep at 10:45 AM on April 28, 2015
This is becoming an inescapable conclusion for me, if I want to always be able to find clothes I like that fit me without being at the whim of what they decide to stock that day. It's kind of depressing cause I don't know where I'm gonna get the time from.
posted by bleep at 10:45 AM on April 28, 2015
Any chance of import duties on these classes of goods? They'd have to be pretty hefty, of course, and IANA trade expert, but would it help at all to make North American clothes production competitive on a price point? Or am I dreaming in technicolour?
posted by Mogur at 10:49 AM on April 28, 2015
posted by Mogur at 10:49 AM on April 28, 2015
Yes, there are import duties on clothing to the US; it's very complicated. There were also import quotas which were lifted ten years ago and which had greatly restricted how much clothing could be imported from a certain country per year.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:22 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:22 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mogur: “Any chance of import duties on these classes of goods?”Sure. Unless they're made in a "Special Economic Zone" overseas, in which case they carry a "Made in the U.S.A." label even though they're assembled by exploited workers in sweatshop conditions.
posted by ob1quixote at 11:50 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's kind of depressing cause I don't know where I'm gonna get the time from.
Or even the fabric. It's difficult to find anything I want to wear in my local fabric shops, and the cost of fabric alone is more than the finished-in-sweatshops product would cost.
I agree with Erik Loomis that the best way to deal with this is to allow workers to sue to have labor laws enforced in American courts. Also that the reason these manufacturers can get away with this is that it's all taking place somewhere the ultimate purchasers of the products can't see. Following on that, I'm always happy to see this kind of worker abuse publicized -- it's not that having clothing priced low enough to be accessible to everyone is a bad thing, but allowing ourselves to remain oblivious to where it comes from is bullshit. It's easy to believe that clothing's all made by robots or something (at least if you don't know much about either sewing or robots.) But it's not, even though machines have made it faster. It's people, all the way down.
posted by asperity at 12:17 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or even the fabric. It's difficult to find anything I want to wear in my local fabric shops, and the cost of fabric alone is more than the finished-in-sweatshops product would cost.
I agree with Erik Loomis that the best way to deal with this is to allow workers to sue to have labor laws enforced in American courts. Also that the reason these manufacturers can get away with this is that it's all taking place somewhere the ultimate purchasers of the products can't see. Following on that, I'm always happy to see this kind of worker abuse publicized -- it's not that having clothing priced low enough to be accessible to everyone is a bad thing, but allowing ourselves to remain oblivious to where it comes from is bullshit. It's easy to believe that clothing's all made by robots or something (at least if you don't know much about either sewing or robots.) But it's not, even though machines have made it faster. It's people, all the way down.
posted by asperity at 12:17 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Also John Oliver's NZ accent is THE WORST. But I love him anyway!
posted by tracicle at 1:22 PM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]