A California bill would require garment workers in the Golden State to be paid the minimum wage and expand liability for underpaying apparel factory employees to brands that contract with California-based clothing manufacturers and their subcontractors.

That expanded liability, intended to help foster humane worker treatment, fair pay and accountability throughout supply chains, would likely extend to promotional products suppliers and distributors that source made-in-the-USA apparel from California garment factories.

California, and the Los Angeles area in particular, is the hub of domestic garment manufacturing. There are more than 45,000 garment workers cutting, sewing and finishing apparel in the Los Angeles area.

The California State Legislature recently voted to pass the Garment Worker Protection Act. Now, the bill awaits signature from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Senate Bill 62, as the bill is also known, would prohibit garment workers from being paid by the piece rate system – a common practice in the industry in which workers are compensated per garment sewn. Critics say the system leads to frequent exploitation and underpayment.

Instead, employers would have to pay workers the California minimum wage of $14 for companies with 26 or more employees, or $13 for companies with 25 or fewer employees. By January 2023, the minimum wage in California for all organizations will be $15.

“When workers aren’t paid what they’re owed, they can’t pay their rent or feed their families. That all comes back to the rest of us.” @SenMariaEDurazo #SB62 #garmentworkerprotectionact pic.twitter.com/zmziYciaFF

— Elizabeth L. Cline (@elizabethlcline) September 22, 2021

California State Sen. Maria Elena Durazo spearheaded and introduced SB62.

As long as a garment worker is paid minimum wage, piece rate payments can be used as additional compensation to encourage productivity, according to SB62.

“The bill would impose compensatory damages of $200 per employee against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which each employee is paid by the piece rate,” the text of the legislation reads.

If signed into law, the bill would also make entities that could include retailers and apparel suppliers/direct-sourcing distributors in promo jointly liable (along with the manufacturers) for unpaid wages that are owed to a California garment manufacturing worker.

This liability further down the supply chain would stand regardless of whether the garment producer with which the retailer/supplier/distributor contracted performs the apparel manufacturing or subcontracts it out. Beyond cutting, sewing and the like, garment manufacturing also includes dyeing, altering a garment’s design, and affixing a label to a garment, according to the act.

“The bill would also make garment manufacturers and contractors liable for the full amount of damages and penalties for any violation,” SB62 reads.

The law has proponents and critics.

.@CalChamber urges @CAGovernor to #VetoSB62 bc it will put employers in the garment industry—already suffering from the financial crisis of the #COVID19 pandemic—out of business or force them to move operations outside of California #JobKiller #SB62 https://t.co/cLJPrTA8Yw

— CalChamber (@CalChamber) September 22, 2021

Critics of the SB62 include the California Chamber of Commerce, which calls the legislation a job killer.

Some 158 fashion manufacturers and fashion brands have officially endorsed the Garment Worker Protection Act, including Saitex, a sustainable denim maker for mega brands like Ralph Lauren and Target that produces in LA. Similarly, sustainable fashion brand Reformation, a $100 million company that produces in Los Angeles, supports SB62.

Some apparel-industry experts, like journalist/advocate Elizabeth L. Cline, argue that good wages and strong labor laws are essential for kindling a healthier, larger and more productive domestic apparel manufacturing sector. As such, she supports SB62. “This is undeniably a good thing for workers, for consumers, for taxpayers, for the environment, and for society as a whole,” Cline writes.

Critics of the legislation say that, while well intended, it would make California’s garment sector less competitive, compelling operators to set up elsewhere and wiping out local jobs.

“By transitioning to an hourly wage, the proposed California law creates a disincentive to the goal of being competitive,” writes Rick Helfenbein, the retired chairman of the American Apparel and Footwear Association “It should also be noted that garment factories can reach or exceed the minimum wage under a piece rate system. … The reality is that some legislative ideas sound great on the surface, but digging below and listening to experts in the field would certainly help the political understanding that there are better ways to achieve the same result.”