Quelle Surprise! Fast Fashion Exploits Poor Workers; Industry Engages in Empty Virtue-Signalling

Yves here. Labor exploitation, particularly in the garment business, is a “dog bites man” story. But the abuses in fast fashion land are so egregious that the industry is having to feign concern. This post does a good job of laying out the facts. But it would be nice to have some guidance as to what to do, aside from, say, boycotting H&M, a suggestion not made here.

There is a related issue which this post does not address: how the race to the bottom, wage-wise, hurts workers in advanced economies. In the 1980s, there were textile mills in North Carolina. In New York City, I had a casual acquaintance who ran a garment-making business in the garment district, and was proud he paid his cutters over $60,000 a year, and some even sent their kids to college. I last spoke to him in late 2016. He described long-form how NYC was determined to drive the last remaining manufacturers out for the benefit of real estate and gentrification.

By Sonali Kolhatkar, an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. Her most recent book is Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice< (City Lights Books, 2023). She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and the racial justice and civil liberties editor at Yes! Magazine. She serves as the co-director of the nonprofit solidarity organization the Afghan Women’s Mission and is a co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan. She also sits on the board of directors of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights organization. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute

’Tis the season for holiday shopping, and as American consumers ready their spending dollars, few of us are likely to link our gift buying to the high cost of low prices on the other side of the planet. This is especially true for what has come to be known as “fast fashion,” the clothing equivalent of a Big Mac: attractive, affordable, and throwaway. But the Bangladeshi women who toil as underpaid garment workers so we can wear disposable outfits, are making their voices heard loudly enough to reverberate across oceans and continents. Mass protests for higher wages have roiled the nation, at least three workers have been killed, and there is no end in sight.

Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest exporter of apparel in the world, after China. It is the South Asian nation’s largest industry, employing more than four million workers, a majority of them women. The largest share of Bangladesh-made garments is bought and sold by United States retailers, which include recognizable name brands such as H&M, Zara, Calvin Klein, American Eagle, and Tommy Hilfiger.

Garment workers had been taking home a meager pay of about $75 a month, and have demanded a nearly threefold increase to about $205 a month. When the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) initially set new wages at $90 a month, the mass protests began. When the BGMEA then responded by raising wages to $112 a month, the protests actually intensified. According to Al Jazeera, “more than 10,000 workers staged protests in factories and along highways to reject the panel’s offer.”

Headlines touted the offer as a 56 percent increase in wages, while Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, long hailed as a liberal leader, patronizingly told workers to put up or shut up. She said, “They have to work with whatever their salary is increased, they should continue their work.” She roundly condemned workers’ attacks on factories, saying she was worried that, “if these factories are closed, if production is disrupted, where will their jobs be? They have to understand that.”

Hasina’s government has unleashed security forces that have intimidated and attacked union organizers. Police recently fatally shot a 23-year-old mother and sewing machine operator named Anjuara Khatun after firing at protesters.

To understand why protests intensified after wages were dramatically increased, it’s worth examining the context of garment workers’ livelihoods. By one estimate, the cost of living for a single person in Bangladesh is about $360 a month, not including rent. Garment workers’ wages have not risen since 2019 and since that time inflation has hit Bangladesh just as it has hit most of the world.

Even the demand for $205 a month will not allow most to make ends meet. The factories’ offer of about half that number was insultingly low. Abiramy Sivalogananthan, the South Asia coordinator for the Asia Floor Wage Alliance, told Vogue, “[The] increase that unions are asking for is not even enough, technically speaking, [given] inflation and the crisis the country’s going through.”

On the surface, U.S. brands, who purchase their inventories from Bangladesh’s factories, appear to be on the right side of the fight. The American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), an industry trade group, wrote a joint letter to Hasina’s administration urging her to “raise the minimum wage to a level that corresponds with a wage level and benefits that are sufficient to cover workers’ basic needs and some discretionary income and takes into account inflationary pressures.”

The AAFA even went as far as asking the government to avoid retaliating against unions and to respect “collective bargaining rights.” The U.S. State Department issued a statement saying, “We commend the members of the private sector who have endorsed union proposals for a reasonable wage increase.”

Further, global retailers are offering to eat into their profits by increasing the price they pay factories to help them offset increased wages. Currently, the cost of the labor to produce garments is a mere 10-13 percent of a product’s total manufacturing cost. The industry would have to increase that number by about 5-6 percent.

But are companies really committed to raising garment workers’ wages? A spokesperson for the Clean Clothes Campaign, a rights group based in The Netherlands said, “The living wage commitments of brands are nothing but empty promises as long as they refuse to explicitly support the workers’ demand for a bare minimum, let alone a living wage.”

A survey of about 1,000 factories in Bangladesh, published in early 2023, revealed that companies like Zara and H&M underpaid factories for garment purchases, making it harder for them to pay their workers. When the COVID-19 pandemic led to global shutdowns, large retailers canceled orders and delayed payments. One industry expert told The Guardian, “Only when suppliers are able to plan ahead, with confidence that they will earn as expected, can they deliver good working conditions for their workers.” Rather than dip into their profits to compensate for the market slowdown in 2020, many global brands simply refused to keep their financial commitments to Bangladesh’s factories, leading to downward pressure on wages.

Given this context, fast fashion’s stated support for a living wage increase and a commitment to swallow the resulting increased labor costs sound disingenuous.

It has been more than 10 years since the deadly collapse of Bangladesh’s Rana Plaza, the world’s worst garment industry disaster. The eight-story compound of factories in Dhaka was filled with thousands of workers when it crumbled under the weight of government neglect and worker exploitation in April 2013. More than 1,100 workers, most of them women, were killed.

The Rana Plaza disaster was a turning point for Bangladesh’s garment industry as workers were seen as dispensable pawns by governments and industries alike. In the wake of the disaster, North American brands refused to join other global companies in signing on to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. Citing high costs, they chose instead to form their own alliance for inspecting factories, one that applied lower safety standards. It was a stark indicator of where these companies’ priorities lay, one that frames their current lip service to higher wages for garment workers.

Fast fashion’s outlook is rosy. The industry has been steadily growing and, thanks to the cooperation of government heads such as Sheikh Hasina—who has been fixated on “growth” at all costs—it is expected to more than double its market size over six years, growing from $91 billion in 2021 to a projected $185 billion by 2027. Meanwhile, the workers who fuel the profits behind that expansion are facing starvation. This holiday season, perhaps the best gift we can give is a commitment to force the industry to pay up.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. PlutoniumKun

    There seems to be a lot of focus on H&M and Zara and so on, but if anything, the new fast and cheap online fashion companies such as Shein seem to be even worse. I’ve noticed a few younger friends seem very enamored with some of the super cheap clothes and other products they get from Alibaba, etc. These companies don’t even bother with greenwashing and virtue signalling. Price and being on-trend – and whatever is ‘on-trend’ seems to be a cycle of increasing speed thanks to TikTok – is all that matters.

  2. flora

    an aside: I read somewhere that virtue-signalling is the West’s modern equivalent of cargo cult behavior: substituting a symbol for the thing itself the person wants to have as their own. I signal, therefore I am, or something.

  3. Felix_47

    How about negotiating free trade agreements that enable organizations like the ILGWU to unionize the clothing factories in places like Bangladesh. Many of our grandmothers are iiving on social security and an ILGWU pension. I stands for international. Doing this might not only improve conditions for the workers in Bangladesh but it would supercharge the Bangladesh economy.

    1. steppenwolf fetchit

      How about National Protectionist policies by countries which defect from the Free Trade Global Order, and which can then forbid the import of any clothes made by non-ILGWU-unionised labor? The Corporate Globalonial Plantation Lords will never permit a “Free Trade” Agreement which permits unionization. The whole point of “Free Trade” Agreements was to destroy unions where they currently exist or existed.

      I suppose we could call Shein the fentanyl of Fast Fashion.

  4. SocalJimObjects

    Is there a good player left in the market? I generally buy very few clothes if any in any given year, I buy good ones and then wear them for years.

  5. KLG

    Good player left in the market? I buy dress pants for work from a friend with perhaps the last independent men’s store in the entire state of Georgia south of Atlanta. Made by Ballin; Fabriqué au Canada. I hope that is a good thing. All the shirts are Made in China, however.

    My one last 40-year-old dress shirt with an Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers of America label on the shirttail finally disintegrated recently. I had not worn it for probably 35 years but it had a place of honor in the closet all that time. This article and comment thread reminded me of the ILGWU “Look for the Union Label” commercials of the same vintage. Funny thing as these jobs disappeared…none of the clothes got cheaper as labor moved from place to place down the labor cost line, as was promised. Imagine that! Well, they did get cheaper, but the price remained the same or increased.

    From old memories of my “card-carrying” days, the ILGWU merged with the Amalgamated and to become UNITE and after a merger with the Hotel Workers disappeared into the mist. UNITE HERE is still a thing, without textile workers IIRC. I met one of the last ILGWU presidents (I think) at a meeting in NYC in the late-1970s. A friend who was a labor organizer introduced me. And Vic Gotbaum of AFSCME (the meeting was at their headquarters near the World Trade Center). Doug Fraser of the UAW and William Winpisinger of the IAM. Irving Howe and Deborah Meier. Michael Harrington. I was as wide-eyed as if I had met John Lewis and Walter Reuther and David Dubinsky and Eugene V. Debs. Good times for a very young 20-something, but the world would soon learn from the Iron Lady that “There is no alternative,” and with that followed no good outcome for any working people anywhere.

  6. CanCyn

    Since I retired I find myself rarely in need of new clothes and if I were honest, I probably didn’t need all the clothes I had for work. I have a friend who still works and is trying a thing where you make 30 pieces of clothing (pants, shirts, sweaters, tees, skirts, dresses, footwear) do. Things that match and various combinations are the key. She is liking it and feeling much less need to shop. I used to try not to buy the super cheap stuff but often found it difficult to find decent quality mid-priced clothing. And I have noted the fast turn around of periods for trends. Clothing is no longer seasonal, things change in the stores way more than 4 times per year. I recently did need some new tees so bought one to ´test’ for washing and drying. Seemed ok so I went back to get more and they were gone. Another style and different colours were on offer. Two visits over a month in the summer, big change in inventory.

  7. David in Friday Harbor

    Sonali Kohlhatkar wakes up, reads DW and WSWS, then pens a “dog bites man” book report. Original reporting on the Bangladesh garment worker strikes was in Links last week. Spare me…

  8. Piotr Berman

    A difference between coal mining and garment making is that the consumers have SOME consideration for human and environmental cost, especially at higher price range. Why there are decals “dolphin-free tuna”? After reading about labor practices on ships catching trash fish in the Gulf of Thailand that is sold to shrimp farms, I thought that a decal, with meaningful rules, “slave free shrimp” should be introduced too.

    Same idea could work for garments, cocoa etc.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *