Just When You Thought American Apparel Couldn’t Fail Any Harder…

Photobucket
They manage to. To work at American Apparel you must email a full body shot to some mysterious email address after which you are approved or rejected. Failure.
Via Gawker.

Clearly, that standard leaves a lot of wiggle room. Now, a source tells us that American Apparel has a new hiring policy. For the past several months, they say, job applicants at AA have had their photos taken–photos which are then sent to the email address work@americanapparel.net, where they are “approved” by a nameless person for hiring. The applicant’s resumé is a distant second when it comes to hiring decisions, our source says.
Our source also tells us that a new policy now says that in order for current AA employees to be approved for a promotion or raise, they must also have their photos approved. As they put it, “Your looks determine your position and pay rate, not how effective you are at your job.”

Douchey D Charney even had the audacity to say last time he was questioned on judging employees by looks that his employees must, “have good fashion sense…But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive.” What do you have to say for yourself this time? And I have been to American Apparel. If what their employees are wearing is a “good sense of style,” then I color me anti-fashion.

and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

19 Comments

  1. michelle!
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    So, employees at AA are basically models. Models that get paid minimum wage and have to fold clothes and get reprimanded when their registers come up short. That sucks.

  2. DeafBrownTrash
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Douchey D Charny isn’t that much of a looker himself.

  3. Surfin3rdWave
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    omfg… At first, I was thinking, “That’s not so bad. It makes sense that they would want a full-body shot before hiring a model.”
    Then I realized that they weren’t talking about models.
    FAIL.

  4. cattrack2
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Class action lawsuit anyone??? I’m sure there’s a lawyer out there who wants to make an EZ buck…

  5. winniemcgovens
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Wows, move over Hooters, there’s a new hiring discriminator in town.
    And yeah, this isn’t exactly great dialogue, but god their clothes are insanely ugly. I walk past one of their stores every now and then and I literally hate everything in it, totally don’t understand why they think they’re such hot shit.

  6. teacherwoman
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Damn, that’s a lot of scrutiny to undergo to be employed at a minimum-wage job. I am no fan of Hollywood standards, and I certainly don’t fit them, but at least the payoff for all that humiliation is a bit higher.

  7. Radically-Yours
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Doesn’t that break labour codes?!
    If not, it should.

  8. Livia_Augusta
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    I think I’ll send a middle finger mug shot to American Apparel.

  9. BackOfBusEleven
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Applicants always had the option of sending in a picture of themselves with their application (This goes for any job, by the way. I’ve been seeing “photo optional” in a lot of listings for jobs where the employee would be interacting with people). So this is old. Still messed up, but pretty much every clothing store at the mall hires depending on the appearance of the potential employee.

  10. kristen
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    american apparel has been “scouting” employees based on their looks for years. my college roommate was approached at a bar and told she should submit an application. when the new store opened in atlanta, you couldn’t just walk in and fill out the application. someone had to find you or discover you before you were even allowed to apply.

  11. noalarms
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    “And I have been to American Apparel. If what their employees are wearing is a “good sense of style,” then I color me anti-fashion.”
    come on, that’s unnecessarily harsh. no need to rag any more on workers that are clearly being treated like shit.
    shame, shame, shame, AA. i don’t understand how this is not some sort of labor violation.

  12. 73666673
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    And this is a surprise how? Of course a company obsessed with looks (not just “fashion sense”) is going to hire attractive employees.
    The job is so simple that the only real qualification is looks. Just as a research firm will hire the smartest and most qualified candidates, clothing companies will hire people who fulfill their vision of beauty. It’s necessary for the company to project the proper image.

  13. CTD
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Why? All sort of industries hire based at least in part on looks.

  14. CTD
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    If it sucks so much, I’d expect they have great difficulty finding people to hire.

  15. CTD
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Lawsuit on what grounds? It is not illegal, either under federal or any state statute that I know of to discriminate based on physical attractiveness. I can think of a number of industries that would fail if it were.

  16. Honeybee
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    While I don’t condone the practice I will point out there is nothing illegal about this. In fact many industries, from modelling to acting to service jobs hire based (at least in part) on looks and this is perfectly legal.
    As much as I may not like the practice in this case, I don’t think it should be illegal, since there are so many examples of cases where clearly looks should be used to judge candidates (e.g., specific acting roles).

  17. karasone
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    actually i think their might eb a narrow legal hook to going after american apparel. Santa Cruz, San Francisco and i think DC have city ordinances that ban discrimination based on weight/body type so it might be possible-it would be interesting to see if any plus size person works at AA period… That said I fucking hate that company and their supposed pro-worker but anti-union stance too.

  18. Starbelly
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Not to deflect from the obvious flawed employment system here(Okay, that person looks like a hipster child of Salma Hayek and Benicio Del Toro. That surely must mean they can pressure someone into buying a $30 top, right?), but has anyone else noticed that Dov Charney looks like a hybrid of David Cross and a spider monkey?

  19. Kathleen6674
    Posted June 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Why is someone who has clearly been wearing the same eyeglass frames since 1972 judging potential employees on their ‘fashion sense’?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

197 queries. 0.707 seconds