September 9, 1999
	Mr. Louis D. Boccardi President and CEO The Associated Press

Re: AP coverage, "4 U.S. Retailers Settle Saipan Labor Suit," August 10,1999

Dear Mr. Boccardi:

This particular AP dispatch out of Los Angeles provided the substance of a CBS radio hourly piece, essentially covering only the allegations of the plaintiffs. It was printed in dozens of U. S. mainland newspapers and was also the inspiration for editorials such as, "Sweatshop Loophole" and "Ending Saipan Sweatshops," appearing in the Boston Globe and the San Francisco Chronicle respectively. We are far from the U.S. mainland and seldom visited by your staffers, yet your reporting is incredibly influential in Washington, D.C., where decisions affecting our industry are being made. Therefore, we would like to address some concerns about coverage of our industry and labor issues in general.

Our most important complaint is that you have effectively made plaintiff attorney William Lerach and his colleagues, who drafted the various class action suits, your reporters on prevailing conditions in our factories on Saipan:

Three lawsuits filed Jan. 13 described approximately 32 contractors in Saipan as 'America's worst sweatshop' where there were beatings, forced abortions, vermin infested quarters, barbed wire and armed guards. Employees worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, the suits claim.

As you correctly report, these are allegations, and are the best spin on the story to date. However, the allegations by these anonymous plaintiffs and their attorneys are utterly untested in any setting except the media, where it is devastating from our point of view.

The substance and interpretation of these allegations are disputed by members of the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association. We would have provided such a comment, had we been asked. Instead, throughout the story Mr. Lerach is quoted, suggesting high up that our industry is based on "indentured servitude." His inaccurate description of a ruling by a judge on Saipan should have been verified before publication, something easily accomplished with a phone call.

The 'boiler plate' background basically reflects the perspective of stateside labor unions, as well as being self-serving for the attorneys driving the class action lawsuits:

The 32 Saipan factories mostly owned by Chinese, Japanese and Korean subcontractors stamp their clothing with "Made in the USA" tags, misleading consumers to think the clothing was made in compliance with U.S. Labor laws, the suits alleged.

We view that the phrase "suits alleged" simply puts the Associated Press's blessing on propaganda disguised as information. All U.S. labor laws except the minimum wage apply to our factories. Every federal agency with the responsibility to ferret out sweatshops and labor abuse in New York City and Los Angeles, starting with the US Department of Labor, is present on Saipan. In point of fact, we are part of the United States, though we now generally state on labels, "Made in the Northern Mariana Islands." As regards the ownership of factories, we sometimes have a sense of racism at work. Would it be OK if the ownership happened to be British, Dutch and German?

Much of what has become the conventional media view of circumstances and conditions in the CNMI has come officially from agencies of the U. S. government, such as the Departments of Interior and Labor, so it is understandable when the AP quotes their reports and public statements as gospel truth. However, an investigation by the U.S. House Resources Committee (thus far reported primarily by the Washington Post and Washington Times) suggests high ranking officials at Interior have been carrying on a covert campaign to attack both the CNMI and members of Congress supportive of its desire to retain control of immigration and labor matters. This investigation, as well as our own observation, suggests that Interior's Office of Insular Affairs used all the conventional media tools to pursue the administration's political goals regarding the CNMI and enlisted other agencies in support of its effort. For this reason, we think that material from these sources should be taken in with a larger measure of skepticism than in the past.

I would like to emphasize that we are not asking for anything other than professional and fair coverage of our industry. We stand available to provide information and comment as needed by all of our personnel.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Pierce