No garment licenses revoked/denied since 2005? I guess the sweatshops are gone!

Go to http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSE-Databases.htm and what you will find are garment license registration revocations, suspensions, and denials. Supposedly, the garment industry is one of the few industries in California that have no political clout, so DLSE has been free to do what they want to "garment," since their voice falls on deaf ears. This is in direct contradiction to Public Works, where you can align graphs and charts to enforcment/debarments and the DLSE political winds.

Now, let's go with this "garment" theory. Why does DLSE's own database show garment license revocations/suspensions/denials falling off a clif since August, 2005? Why is that? If there's an industry that has no political clout, and there's an agency that can enforce the crap out of it, then what's happening? Furthermore, we're talking about SWEATSHOPS. Stand up and raise your hand if you think that sweatshops should be allowed free reign in California.

You'll also notice that all the case files have an "SF" prefix (for San Francisco), and that most of the sweatshops are in the Los Angeles area. Soon after DLSE's last reported garment license revocation/suspension/denial, they suspended the lawyer who did most of this work: Miles Locker. Now that he's gone, who was directed to fill his shoes with sweatshops case files? Your guess is as good as mine, and I'm sure that the only thing you'll hear spewing from the mouthpieces at DLSE are excuses as to why the sweatshop revocations/suspensions/denials stopped.

That is what's great about the DLSE: if they think they have something good to say, then they issue a press release and/or update their website...like Robert Jones replacing Donna Dell as the Labor Commissioner. In their minds, they think that was good news. Everything else is swept under the rug until some reporter, advocacy group, or citizen starts asking questions. If they cannot duck the question, be on the lookout for lame excuses.