According to a tipster, American Apparel's pervy madman CEO, Dov Charney, is demanding the firing of employees he deems unattractive and thus detrimental to the "AA aesthetic," as he feels they may be hurting his bottom line.
http://gawker.com/5323472/we-predict-more-lawsuits-in-dov-charneys-future
I like how they included a picture showing he's not too handsome himself.
So only beautiful people can sell his crap eh?!
Summer is supposed to be a great sales season for AA. Needless to say, with the state of the economy, sales haven't been going so well. Dov usually gets on the conference calls and talks to people, but one week, he went on a huge tirade and made stores that weren't doing well send in group photos. Why, you ask? He made store managers across the country take group photos of their employees so that he could personally judge people based on looks. He is tightening the AA 'aesthetic,' and anyone that he deems not good-looking enough to work there, is encouraged to be fired. This is blatant discrimination based on looks.Dov personally judged each person in group photos that were sent in, and if you weren't to his liking, then boy... watch out. The comments that he made were raging from childish ones to insulting ones. Managers that don't comply with these new standards are afraid of losing their jobs. Employees who aren't up to Dov's "look" and whose work ethic is "just ok" are being targeted and scrutinized and the minute they make small mistakes, they are being fired. But it's only because Dov wants to weed out the "ugly people." It's ironic that he would rather have gorgeous slackers who don't move the product [or lift a finger] working there than normal looking people who are really aren't that bad looking, but are A+ sellers and great at customer service.
Sounds like a Class A asshole.
Lookism gets much less attention than classism, sexism, and racism even though it is clearly comparable in reality.
Maybe that wasn't so 30 years ago when these academic disciplines took off.
*******
American Apparel makes the ugliest clothing imo, I just don't see how anybody shops there. Who wants to look like the box of fluorescent crayola?
Sounds like a great advertising opportunity! Does rabble.ca have any more ad space to sell to a long-time client?
Don't you mean "a one-time client"?
And also, Catchfire, have you ever, even ONCE, been denied the opportunity on babble to criticize that client? Please do point out that time, or the effect that accepting that one ad had on our editorial policy.
I suppose there's a perverse symmetry in all of this, given that I'm probably also too ugly to shop there.
So am I, Snert. :D
Sorry Michelle, it was just a jab based on a pet-peeve, and not backed with a whole lot of force. As for my objections to a past and pretty much dead issue, they were laid out in a (now inaccessible) thread.
I know, I was just looking for it.
Sigh. :(
Anyhow, no worries. We hit each other's mutual pet peeves, I guess. :D
Lookism gets much less attention than classism, sexism, and racism even though it is clearly comparable in reality.
First of all, any and all discrimination based on someone's looks is despicable and unacceptable.
However, I have seen no stories recently about "ugly" people being arrested for entering their own home.
Doesn't American Apparel cater predominately to hipsters? Not only is that demographic hardly the most attractive out there, but they would likely get off on the irony of having "unattractive" people provide fashion advice.
Basically, from a moral, legal and even business perspective this just awful.
Doesn't American Apparel cater predominately to hipsters? Not only is that demographic hardly the most attractive out there...
Obviously you don't know the same hipsters I know...
What are hipsters?
Reality is that appearances have always been an issue - as the saying goes, you have exactly one chance to create a first impression. And in apparel sales that's all that counts.
Years ago there was a stink when certain designer jeans manufacturers refused to make jeans above a 34" waist (and they argued that was too big).
To rephrase things, if, instead of saying "you're ugly" the guy had simply said "you will sell $X of goods or you're history" would anyone be happier? Especially if it could be argued that how much you sold was a function of your appearance?
Lookism gets much less attention than classism, sexism, and racism even though it is clearly comparable in reality.
First of all, any and all discrimination based on someone's looks is despicable and unacceptable.
However, I have seen no stories recently about "ugly" people being arrested for entering their own home.
Do you realize the irony of your response?
I used the bold function to illustrate it.
Sounds like a Class A asshole.
Oh, he is. This is just the latest in a long series of - shall we say - less than professional actions on his part.
Lookism gets much less attention than classism, sexism, and racism even though it is clearly comparable in reality.
First of all, any and all discrimination based on someone's looks is despicable and unacceptable.
However, I have seen no stories recently about "ugly" people being arrested for entering their own home.
Do you realize the irony of your response?
I used the bold function to illustrate it.
What the hell are you talking about? All I am trying to say is that there's no real comparison to be made between the prejudice faced by (for instance) black people, and that faced by the less-than-attractive. Can you really, with any shred of seriousness, try to compare them?
My favourite thing about American Apparel is how they promote themselves as the moral choice, because they don't exploit foreign workers. Of course, it's hard to sexually harass people on the other side of the ocean. And, Dov probably finds all those non-white low-wage foreigners too ugly to hire anyways.
I also love their use of 12 year old girls to sexualize their clothes. Real classy.
Even classier when you consider that Dov not too long ago used Woody Allen's picture without permission and then tried to paint Woody Allen as a pervert. This creep Dov is far worse.
What a jackass. And the clothes at AA are horrible. Really really ugly stuff.
My favourite thing about American Apparel is how they promote themselves as the moral choice, because they don't exploit foreign workers. Of course, it's hard to sexually harass people on the other side of the ocean. And, Dov probably finds all those non-white low-wage foreigners too ugly to hire anyways.
Not in his stores, no.
American Apparel(APP), no stranger to controversial headlines, said Wednesday that the government has found that 1,800 of its employees are either illegally working in the U.S. or potentially illegal to work.
Those employees comprise about one-third of the clothier's Los Angeles manufacturing operation.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-07-01-americ...
I went into an AA the other day and will probably never enter one again. Seriously, what an assault on taste that store is. Employees should be banned from wearing his clothes if he's really concerned about attrativeness levels.
As for firing employees who are not attractive, it is just another in a long list of despicable actions by this class A A hole. Of course, this merely puts him in the company of bar owners and restaurant owners everywhere. It's a double assault as well, because most of the people in these industries are also young (as that is what we value as attractive) and may not have the wherewithal to self advocate and sue the shit out of this jerk.
My favourite thing about American Apparel is how they promote themselves as the moral choice, because they don't exploit foreign workers.
Of course, if they were worried about being the moral choice, they could have given foreign workers good jobs.
That's what turned me off of the brand right from the start, the ugly jingosim that practically yells "we only sell clothes made my good, decent, Americans, not dirty Mexicans". Of course, some people are easily fooled into thinking that denying foreigners an opportunity to work and sell you their products (be they clothes, cars or produce) is "progressive".
Ummm, I'd rather buy clothes from someone being exploited in Canada or California than someone who is worked to death in the 3rd world at a factory where they are rarely allowed off the premises and sleep in a barracks. I dont think buying a product made by someone crippled by repetitive strain injuries is doing them a favour. If this guy is paying a legal wage to people without green cards, good for him. If he's using illegals because he's paying them $1 an hour than he should have his liver devoured by ravens, as he hides behind sweatshop free.
Also, my friend has a t-shirt "Beer: Helping ugly people get laid since 1455."
I can laugh at this because I am preternaturally beautiful. When I show up at a peace demo its like I'm Justin Timberlake.
And Dav is a beast. He looks like a funhouse mirror.
The rise and fall of American Apparel
It wasn't having oral sex with an employee in front of a female journalist that now threatens to undo Dov Charney, founder of American Apparel. Nor was it simulating oral sex with another female member of staff whom he had ordered to pretend to masturbate in front of him. The 41-year-old's professional and personal reputation isn't even on the line because at least three female employees have filed sexual harassment lawsuits against him (all the cases were settled before reaching trial); nor because he walks through his factory in his underpants and conducts meetings wearing just a thong – or a sock. The sock is not, one should add, worn on his foot.Instead, the fashion empire of this maverick Canadian entrepreneur – who apparently relishes his reputation as a pervert and a libertine – has gone from being the coolest company on the block when it arrived in Britain in 2004 to the brink of bankruptcy because its auditor, Deloitte & Touche, resigned last month after discovering "material weaknesses" in the financial controls of the clothing company dating back to last year.
to be honest, i'm all for making the stuff in NA as opposed to a sweatshop, it's the rest of the company's actions that piss me off.
Yes, Catchfire, its normally not cool to take delight in the misfortune of others, but in this case......
To see details of Dov's downfall:
http://www.insolvencynews.com/article/show/American-Apparel-on-brink-of-collapse
Thanks for the link, ftmc--and welcome to babble! I'm not usually one for schadenfreude (ok, maybe I am) but in Dov's case, I'll make an exception. It takes a special talent to take an ethical policy of paying living wages to North American textile factory workers and utterly squander any good will earned from it simply by being the biggest, slimeiest creep the world has ever seen.
I wonder if rabble is still running AA ads... (That one's for you, Michelle 
).
The A1 person and buena presencia ("good presence") is a common requisite for an application in Latin America. It means "pretty, tall, nice curves (especially breasts), european facial features and white(r) skin". And there's no way around it, especially when they require you to send a photo with your application. It is like having a thousand rejections based on uncontrollable factors before getting a job interview.
Here's a good case and point for those that read spanish:
http://aptitus.pe/aviso/p8btu/promotoras-para-ventas
The three requisites are:
between 20 and 30 years old
good appearance
experience
Sadly, I could find a hundred more examples like this today alone.
Thanks for the link, ftmc--and welcome to babble! I'm not usually one for schadenfreude (ok, maybe I am) but in Dov's case, I'll make an exception. It takes a special talent to take an ethical policy of paying living wages to North American textile factory workers and utterly squander any good will earned from it simply by being the biggest, slimeiest creep the world has ever seen.
I wonder if rabble is still running AA ads... (That one's for you, Michelle
I'm pretty sure the slimiest creep award goes to good ol' Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame. Now that is a true slimeball. Oh and even worse? Someone is marrying this pervert.
so how is hiring or firing anyone based on a persons looks applied? who decides who is deemed attractive or unattractive? whats the difference between saying someone is ugly and cant be hired as to saying someopne cant be hired due to skin colour or religion.
This seems to be related:
Winnipeg waitress fired for shaving head
Stephanie Lozinski, 21, shaved her hair off on New Year's Eve to show support for her uncle, who was dying of cancer. Her uncle passed away last week.Despite wearing a scarf or wig when waiting tables at Sawatdee Thai Restaurant on Provencher Boulevard, Lozinski said she was fired several weeks later and told her appearance was unacceptable.
I dunno, shaved heads in the restaurant industry seem to be more hygienic than having hair, so what's the problem with her doing this?
@al-Qa'bong:
Corinthians 11.
What's that, a grade of leather?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2011/01/27/mb-shaved-head-firing...
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/EG623th.html
I can't think of a more obvious display of sexism than firing a woman for shaving hear head.
First, it's obviously totally acceptable for a man to do it. No male would be told it's not professional for them to wear a shaved head at work or would be asked to wear a wig at work.
Second, it reinforces the absurd notion that women are to be "pretty" at work, according to the male traditional hetero definition of attractiveness, and that they are under added duress to conform to that image in the service industry and are often hired specifically for that purpose (think earl's, hooters, etc.)
in other words. if you are a woman and have a job, you are at risk of losing it should you be deemed no longer attractive regardless of your abilities. what if you lose your hair? what if you get pregnant and put on a little weight, what if you don't like to wear toxic makeup, shave your armpits or legs?
and that the human rights commission doesn't see any issue here? that is SERIOUSLY fucked.
If you live in winnipeg or know someone who does, please pass this info along, post it to your facebook and get people to stop eating at SAWATDEE THAI.
The media (cable tv broadvasters) apply obnoxious standards to both genders. If you're female, you have to be hot. If you're male, don't dare to be anything less than 6 feet, slim, and a full head of hair.
I would say the two most discriminated groups are: overweight women and short men. Reliable studies show thta for males, subtract something like 10,000 per year in salary for every inch beneath 6 feet tall. CBC had some series called 'S and M', short and male.
But what is the starting point in the height/salary equation. Poverty and less than ideal living conditions leads to stunted growth compared to the well off. So is that height/salary thing merely another indicator of privilege at work?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2011/01/27/mb-shaved-head-firing...
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/EG623th.html
I can't think of a more obvious display of sexism than firing a woman for shaving hear head.
First, it's obviously totally acceptable for a man to do it. No male would be told it's not professional for them to wear a shaved head at work or would be asked to wear a wig at work.
Second, it reinforces the absurd notion that women are to be "pretty" at work, according to the male traditional hetero definition of attractiveness, and that they are under added duress to conform to that image in the service industry and are often hired specifically for that purpose (think earl's, hooters, etc.)
in other words. if you are a woman and have a job, you are at risk of losing it should you be deemed no longer attractive regardless of your abilities. what if you lose your hair? what if you get pregnant and put on a little weight, what if you don't like to wear toxic makeup, shave your armpits or legs?
and that the human rights commission doesn't see any issue here? that is SERIOUSLY fucked.
If you live in winnipeg or know someone who does, please pass this info along, post it to your facebook and get people to stop eating at SAWATDEE THAI.
Actually since people in restraurants have to be very careful about hair touching the food, it almost makes sense from a health standpoint to require anyone in the food service industry to shave his/her head.
You're going to burn in hell for that one AQ... failure to recognize the inerrant word even when chapter and verse is given to you. Better invest in asbestos undergarments.What's that, a grade of leather?
What, no wave?
awwwwwwwww
*pity wave for Maysie*
bwahahaha
bagkitty, you are a cruel kitty.
But I'll take it.
.............
Okay, back to the thread topic.
I've been watching some cooking competitions on the Food Network - and almost always there's a critique from someone who found a hair in their food, and sent the whole dish back. (probably re-served the same dish after the cook removed the offending hair and then spit in the food!)
Um, Boom Boom, I said get back ON the thread topic, not, "Please, gross babblers out". Isn't there a thread for that here?
But what is the starting point in the height/salary equation. Poverty and less than ideal living conditions leads to stunted growth compared to the well off. So is that height/salary thing merely another indicator of privilege at work?
Could be, but I think in North America even the poor consume enough food to grow tall. Donno if any studies have been done to prove that lower income Canadians are shorter than higher income ...BUT
Compared to whites some ethnic groups are shorter on average (though this seems to diminish over generations). Thinking of Chinese specifically, thought I read somewhere that 2nd generation Chinese achieve similar height averages as white Canadians, but first generation are shorter.
SO if short males are discriminated in the workplace, first generation Chinese, as an example, may be adversely affected. Also, it seems to especially affect management positions .. ie glass ceiling etc ... Western cultures are pre-disposed to equate power and authority with height. So I think perhaps Chinese male first generational shortness may not prevent them from employment as doctors, engineers etc, but when they attempot to climb the ladder into senior management, maybe that's where the height disadvantage would be more pronounced??
OR we could suggest that not everything has to be in racial or gender terms olr even socio-economic/income terms, we could simply agree that discrimination based on physical factors such as height are atrocious in any instance, whether the victim is Chinese male or white male or Martian male. (BTW I use male especially here because studies indicate that in employment, shortness impacts males more than females).
Because so many Martians are discriminated against?
Please base your sociological speculations on people that actually exist.
As you were.
