Wednesday, October 25, 2000

Scouting Discrimination: Article to The Denver Post

Dahaante/Shutterstock.com
Your October 18th Editorial page printed 6 letters objecting to Rabbi Steven Foster’s actions regarding Boy Scout rejection of gays.  One individual even compared this former head of the State Civil Rights Commission, relentless advocate for individual needs and interests, and recipient of numerous human rights awards, with Hitler.

When an organization rejects the membership of one particular segment of a population, it sets a precedent for the deliberate omission of other segments of that population. That is a highway to bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice.  Rabbi Foster understands this: When a significant violation of civil rights occurs, he knows that as a leader in our civic and religious communities, he has a responsibility to protect the safety of some, for the sake of freedom for all.


Being gay—having a male gender preference during sex—has nothing to do with Scouting qualifications.  Scouting is not about sexual practices, but about life skills that prepare young men for adulthood.  To forbid gays in the Scouts because of an issue that has nothing to do with Scouting, but rather cultural ostracism, is a violation of our Bill of Rights.  Rabbi Foster understands this, and he has used his visibility to file an objection to such a poor Court decision.

Friday, July 7, 2000

If Moses Were Captain of The Starship Enterprise and Harry Potter Were Jewish

It is a simple question of marketing.  Crude, un-compassionate, cold-blooded as it may seem, it is the truth.  It is not about appropriateness, need, or abundance/dearth thereof; it is about want.  It is about helping people to understand that the product at hand is really the one they want.  Whether it is appropriate or necessary—whether there is too much or not enough of it—that is immaterial: People must want it.  In order to achieve this goal, it becomes a simple question of marketing.

Synagogues today are doing their absolute best to make themselves accessible and palatable.  They provide, in addition to core religious services and activities, every possible avenue for congregants to be a part of Judaism: Dinner-dances, auctions, book clubs, gift shops, speakers, inter and intra-faith collaborations; support groups for everyone from gays to lonely widowers, divorcees to single moms; flea markets, genealogy searches, discounts, memberships to athletic clubs; youth groups, community pre-schools, career fairs; chavarot, cooking classes, business workshops, outreach luncheons with the Rabbi at the workplace, afternoon teas with Talmud.  Hospitals and homeless shelters are a-buzz with Mitzvah Days and ongoing contributions from caring individuals and committees; there are program directors, youth directors, camp directors, cantors and song-leaders, educational directors, head librarians; pastoral counselors, newsletter editors, and building administrators; security guards, custodians, maintenance crews, kitchen staff, and gardeners.  Whew!

With the possible exceptions of ATM machines, and self-service gasoline pumps, it is difficult to imagine what more today’s synagogues could possibly do or provide to entice, encourage, entreat Jews to become more involved with Judaic life and culture.  The rabbis are exhausted, the staffs are stressed, and the budgets are staggering.

Yet, without question, Jews are assimilating into non-Jewish society at a quickening pace.  For the most part, their interests do not include Jewish causes or Jewish focus.  Jewish observance is one of the least of their priorities.  In spite of the crowds which may come to the synagogue for the High Holidays or life-cycle events; despite the numerous edifices erected in recent years with rosters of members proving commitment and caring, Judaism—like most religions—is in a slump.

Transformation 2000 is a current theme for followers of Reform Judaism—an overhaul of religious self-image.  In fact, it was the key topic in the Spring Edition of the magazine, “Reform Judaism.”  Okay.  Good idea.  The only questions are: Transform What?  How?  Why?  If transformation is about more activities, more pressures on individuals, more gimmicks, more time & money commitments, forget it.  People are at the edge, now, and it isn’t working.  “More” will not help.  “Different” might.
                                                           ****
                                                    A Parable

In 1873, Mr.’s Jacob Davis (tailor) & Levi Strauss (store-keeper) were issued the first patent for sturdy industrial strength denim pants with metal rivets (“waist overalls”).  For over 125 years, “Levi’s” were the preferred or only available alternative as tough utilitarian-marketed workpants.  The company made terrific jeans, and millions of dollars.  Levi Strauss & Co. was the best—no question—and for a long time, the only.  While not everyone wore jeans all the time, there was a definite need and place for them; they were purchased in enormous quantities around the world, and Levi Strauss made a “killing.”

Then, in 1999, it became apparent that the company known as the number one privately held clothing manufacturer in the world had lost 98.4% of its profits in one year.  Sales dropped from $102 million to $5.4 million.  What happened?  Times changed; Levi’s had not.

Designer jeans; fashion fabrics; alternative colors; frou-frous, frills, and fancy labels.  Different uses—dress-, casual-, sport-, corporate-wear; appeal to various shapes and sizes, stretch and cling, new styles and lines, older populations, younger populations, women, personal taste and elimination of the industrial look:  Levi’s had competition (which had gradually been encroaching on its sales for years) that appealed to the mass marketplace in an entirely different way.  Finally, the only element that the original waist overalls and its competitors had in common was denim.  The rest was a very different presentation.

Levi Strauss & Co. still makes a terrific product.  Those who appreciate the original content and purpose of its pants, buy its jeans.  But the rest of the public is not so interested in old-fashioned notions like tradition, quality and durability.  Rather, today’s consumers want what is expedient, cheap, sexy and trendy.  Folks want what is fashionable—with their peers, and for the times.  They want what everyone else is wearing.

In truth, does it really matter if one sports a pair of Calvin Klein’s, Wrangler’s, or Lee’s instead of a pair of Levi’s?  Does it matter if jeans today are used for social and business opportunities as well as for farming and industry?  That depends upon one’s point of view.  Most would say, probably not.  But, to the “Levi-ites,” it does matter, because they are dedicated to maintaining the original high quality of the product they have supported, worn, and purchased for over a century.  Levi’s will always be Levi’s.

The challenge, however, is to make sure the corporation stays in business, and that is where smart, innovative and courageous marketing comes into play—additional styles that maintain the excellence of the original product and its use, while attracting new customers who have different fashion priorities, but who will also benefit from those strengths that have made Levi Strauss & Co. number one for so many years.
****
So it is with the transformation of Judaism.  It is not about diluting the original “product,” or heaping enormous tasks upon the shoulders of our synagogue personnel and rabbis; albeit, every effort to reach fellow Jews helps.  What needs to be understood is that the real issues are not about what is going on in the synagogues; they are about what is occurring in the world outside the synagogues, and that is where Judaism (along with so many aspects of our society) has become outmoded.

Times have changed.  Judaism, fundamentally, has not.  That is the good news, and the bad news.  The question Jewish leaders and developers have to ask themselves is where their priorities lie.  If it is about increasing numbers, if it is about being of value in contemporary society, then Judaism must take a hard look at its core.  It needs to change.  If it is about maintaining values and traditions that have lasted for almost 6000 years then change is not so advisable.

Modifications are one thing: Today’s Orthodox are certainly more liberal than those of centuries ago.  Modern Orthodox provides a more liberal variation on the theme.  Conservative, Reform, Recontructionist, and more, provide Jews with almost as many choices as Protestants, when it comes to choosing the movement that best fits one’s lifestyle.

Change is another concept altogether.  Our world today, outside the walls of religious liturgy, rituals, traditions, and belief, has little or nothing to do with the basic mythology and structure of Judaism, as it has existed for so many thousands of years.

Today’s world takes an entirely different direction.  We are in the midst of mind-boggling revolution—technologically, economically, sociologically, and spiritually.  Institutions and belief systems that seemingly have held forever are falling by the way, as we garner new information about our status in the universe, or our interconnected dependence upon economic failure and success with our world partners.  We are dealing with sociological issues and genetic development that overwhelms the mind.  Spiritually, it is impossible for us not to grow, not to find new heights and depths within which we are able to explore and enrich ourselves.

The concept of an all-powerful deity appears to be so useless in conjunction with today’s levels of awareness.  It used to be that a god, the gods, or The God, was the explanation for the origin and power behind everything unknown: Sun & moon; drought or rain; birth & death; anger or sorrow…  We have different, scientific answers now however, rendering the need for an almighty power obsolete:  It recalls the Nietzschean cliché, “God is dead.”

If one is unnerved by our frenetic lifestyle and its overwhelming challenges, it is not prayer he/she seeks nearly so much as a prescription for Prozac or Xanax.  Who needs heaven?  Virtual cemeteries are in the works, and soon, there is little doubt that one will be able to log on to an Internet chat room with folks residing in the afterlife, should there be one.

With everything before us, the entirety of civilization resting within the reach of our fingertips upon our desktops, and proof of empirical facts and data accessible to us, why would one be attracted to the concept of an invisible, non-tangible god?  Why would a religion initially established for an ancient, wandering, agrarian society trapped in constant prejudice, slavery, self-examination, and turmoil expect to attract supporters in this century and beyond?

Judaism is about study, practice, discipline, adherence, exclusion of the non-sacred—in action and belief.  It is about the study of philosophy, law, education, and the good deed.  It is demanding and rigorous.  Why go to all this trouble searching for merit and worth when one can just as easily spend an afternoon in a tanning salon, getting a soothing massage with New Age music and aromatherapy?

Who needs religion when even baseball is out of step?  Cyberspace has become so all encompassing that sports—yes, including “the great American pastime,” baseball—have fallen from favor.  Sporting goods stores’ sales are down in team sports apparel and equipment.  Folks are not as interested in playing; they are working, they are surfing the Web.  There is little time for rest or repast, let alone the study and pursuit of religion.

Judaism is a religion of time, but who has time? There is no time, anymore.  It is all taken up with the present; there is little regard or curiosity about the past, rare concern for the consequences of the future.

Judaism is a very tough, demanding, challenging way of life.  Most people today would just as soon take an easier route, instead of all that thinking, pondering and postulating.  It is much simpler just to meditate inner truths; it is more soothing to accept the unflinching love of Christ, where the single necessary criterion for acceptance and observance is “to believe.”

An overwhelming number of individuals now live outside the traditional family unit.  Judaism is only about the traditional family.  While social action committees in synagogues and community federations are vigorously trying to include and accommodate single, alternative, and/or disabled lifestyles, the bottom line is that Judaism itself—its teachings and its writings—does not support a reality that goes beyond a very narrow definition of who is acceptable within the fold.  It is not that Judaism is so exclusive; it is that Judaism’s values have not been amended since technology began to prolong life, or since individuals adopted other living arrangements than the traditional norm of “grandparents, mom, dad, and the kids.”

Truthfully, there are multiple reasons for Jews to adhere to that particular family mode.  In addition to the psychologically and sociologically obvious, the commitment to Judaism is nigh impossible if left to one individual, only.  There are so many tasks that have to be shared; it is not about sexist roles—the feminists dealt with those issues in short shrift.  It is simply too much work to be alone and be Jewish.  If a single individual or a disabled person genuinely wants to practice observant Judaism, not to mention working fulltime and/or possibly supporting a child, it is exhausting, defeating, discouraging, and depressing.

Frequently, the practice of Judaism, with its focus on family, community, and the joys of sharing with others, serves to further remind the person who lives alone, not of the presence of God but instead, of the absence of one’s friends and family.  The rigors of Jewish practice are so enormously overwhelming for a single adult Jew, that the sheer workload absorbs much of the pleasure and energy.  Even Martha Stewart (today’s maven of organization and nifty ideas for celebrating tradition) would succumb if she became a practicing Jew by herself.  It is just too hard.

All of these juxtapositions against contemporary society take its toll on one’s ability to commit to Judaism.  We live in a world that is entirely goal-oriented.  We forget about the enrichment of the process and we look forward to the completion of the task.  “Easy as can beezy” says an advertisement.  Today is seldom about quality of life—taking time off or time out.  How many people eat lunch at their desks but take time to pray?  How many carry cell phones, pagers, and laptop computers but take one day in seven for a rest?  Where does Judaism as it has been for so many thousands of years, fit in a world where the stock market—not Talmud—determines business practice?

Assimilation.  The subject has been beaten to death.  Who needs to hear more?  Why should a Jew be ostracized when he/she knows the value of acceptance, having denied ownership of this invisible minority?  Certainly, there is a greater awareness of Jewish culture today and at many levels, greater acceptance.  But make no mistake: It is still a lot easier to be non-Jewish than it is to be Jewish.

Finally, the mythology itself is just plain outmoded.  It is a heck of a stretch to figure out why Moses wandered around in the desert for forty years when he simply could have used his cell phone to call AAA for help.  People today—children especially (which is when identification with a culture starts to take effect)—are too sophisticated for story telling that has virtually nothing in common with everyday reality other than obscure allegorical lessons in morality.  What is the difference between the archaic legends of Odysseus battling the Cyclops, and Joshua blowing trumpets to down the walls of Jericho?  Jewish mythology in contemporary context does not work.  It is unbelievable to the point of being laughable.

The tragedy is, a civilization without a mythology—without representative heroes it can idealize and emulate—will not and cannot survive.  This, more than any other factor, will determine the future of Judaism.  There must be a believable mythology from which values can be learned, incorporated into the psyche of the self; this mythology must have something in common with, and be able to enhance the civilization it represents.

We enter the 21st century with a kind of nihilism towards those ideas and practices about which we felt certain—ways that we knew would never change, but have.  Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Mother Goose are ancient archetypes to many of today’s children.

Instead, it’s Pokemon, Nintendo, and Sega.  Even the Walt Disney Co.’s stock is down—their stores and clubs are closing.  Old Disney mythology is not working as well.  Sleeping Beauty has narcolepsy; Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are struggling on the fast track; Snow White is a hooker who sleeps with seven vertically challenged men.

Religion, like all the rest of the claptrap that gave charm and meaning to a simpler, more naïve and trusting way of life, is going the way of the clothesline, the washboard, rumble seats, and the dial telephone.  For those who desire to worship, but seek a religion with a god who does not demand questions or answers (which is precisely what Judaism is all about), there is always the soothingly passive commitment to Christianity.  Judaism is not for the feint of heart, mind, body or spirit.

So what is one to do?  It is easy enough to point out all the foibles and failings.  The tough part is finding workable solutions.

Judaism has survived so far because its basic core is strong.  Its foundation is based upon morally and ethically correct assumptions.  Like so many aspects of our contemporary world, however, Judaism is struggling with its outer appearance—its persona or presentation.  One might say, “It is not Judaism that is out of step, it is the rest of the world.”  From one point of view, that is absolutely true.  But true or not, times change.  Reminisce we shall—the “good old days—“but nostalgia, regret, and reminiscence do not return the past; they only cloud and impede what must be accomplished for the future.

Bluntly put, the packaging is wrong.  Jewish ritual is wondrous, passionate; if one takes the time and effort to study, practice, and appreciate, it is truly meaningful and enriching.  Alas, it has so little to do with what makes sense in our lives today, e.g.:  One can eat meat or milk foods interchangeably on the same glass dish because glass is deemed to be non-porous by Jewish law. Therefore, the meat or milk will not be absorbed into the “pores” of the plate, mixing with the next meal placed upon it; however, one cannot eat both of these food groups on the same plate if it is made of china, plastic, or pottery, no matter how highly glazed or fired, because of the potentially porous nature of these raw materials.

Despite all safety inspections by the FDA and the Commerce Departments, and the highly developed technology of manufacturing dinnerware, a kosher home must have 2 sets of dishes if they are to be made from any materials other than glass.  Once, this issue of porosity was of appropriate concern.  Now, it is tradition, only, and makes no sense practically or scientifically.  A kosher home, once mandated by rabbinic laws based Scriptural law—as well as hygienic necessity—is for most of today’s practicing Jews, merely a quaint resonance of the past.

It used to be that Jews were forcibly isolated from the rest of society.  While physically they may have lived amongst others, they were sociologically, psychologically, and spiritually segregated from them.  In truth, one purpose of many Judaic rituals is to heighten the separation between the sacred and the profane, the Jew and the non-Jew.

Today however, as with everything else, to be Jewish or not is a choice.  One may live with his/her people or without them, practice the rituals or not, learn from the Torah or avoid it, culturally identify with or assimilate into the sea of alternative masses.  Choice is probably the toughest part about being a human being in contemporary society.  There are so many, and the consequences are not always clear or happening soon enough to be recognized in the immediate decision making process.

Jews have choices about their heritage, too.  If they choose to leave it intact, then they must realize that their numbers will be smaller; some observances may become challenged or even abandoned.  Jews must take the responsibility for preserving a kind of other-worldliness that belongs within the privacy of the home, the parochial school, the seminary, and the synagogue, while simultaneously practicing Jewish values in the world at large.  The teachings of Judaism are timeless and life-long in their messages and worth.  But the task of extrapolating these messages from antiquated texts, teachings, and a mythology that is virtually useless in these most de-humanized, technologically zooming, and narcissistic times, is no easy challenge.

The task of Jewish preservation is not for the well intentioned but worldly, volunteer religious-school teacher; nor is it for the rabbi who is steeped in Talmud, but knows little about reality beyond the seminary.  There is a huge gap between the presentation of Judaism in today’s world, and today’s world, itself.  Thus far, there are very few bridges, and the culture is drowning in its own inability to transpose and reinvent itself.  For Judaism to survive, its instructors must be able to transpose from the religious to the mundane and back again, granting both worlds clear, inter-related, and equally significant meaning.

One can choose, of course, to avoid a Jewish attempt to relate to the outside world.  This is what the Orthodox have done.  Orthodox Judaism, with few changes, is preserved in time.  Truthfully, it is for the most part, functioning quite well.  For those who decide to make religion the primary focus of their lives, Orthodoxy is the way to go.  It is safe, it is a closed system, choices are limited, and the ancient liturgy and mythology are as fresh and vibrant in the Orthodox world as they ever were.  There is a beauty to the past that cannot be denied.  Partially, this is because the Orthodox world has allowed so many of the advantages, as well as so many of the disadvantages of time to pass it by.  It is a series of Moritz Oppenheim illustrations, with exquisite portrayals of nineteenth century traditional Judaism.

Or, if one prefers, he can choose to take a firm hold of Judaism, as it were, squeeze it tight until all the outmoded trappings fall off, then see what is left.  This is the marrow, and must be preserved.  The rest of it must renew itself: Practices, rituals, prayer, mythology, law.   Shulchan Aruch is out.  Talmud is out.  If it does not work, skim off the teachings, re-create them into a new and more presentable form, and leave the rest to the archivists and historians.  Sacrilege or renovation—it depends upon one’s point of view.

Moses gets a backpack to hold the Ten Commandments for his treks up and down Sinai; he uses railings provided for the elderly and disabled, and rest stops along the way.  He wears sunscreen, applies insect repellent, and wears outfits that look more like Indiana Jones than an old man in a dress.  The finger of God is a laser, and with it He writes the Tablets.

Midrash—the wonderful more contemporary tall tales and explanations that enlighten us about the even taller tales in the ‘Scriptures—wax more valuable than the ‘Scriptures, themselves.  It is through Midrash that we can begin to make meaningful sense out of non-sense and old-fashioned legends from too long ago.  The whole set of Judaic beliefs and teachings gets a facelift and a classy, updated makeover.  What was once a stale leftover from bygone times becomes an accessible, workable presentation for young and old in the twenty-first century.

Or not.

This is ultimately what Transformation 2000 needs to be about.  It is not about having a swimming pool next to the synagogue sanctuary, or congregationally written services and prayers.  It is not about the rabbi being a shrewd businessman as well as a Judaic scholar.  It is not about glitzy Torah covers or the import of hand-painted talit for women as well as men.  Before individuals and families take advantage of all the perks available as a part of synagogue life, there has to be a desire to be practicing Jews, in the first place.

What Transformation 2000 is about is making a deliberate choice:  One, withdraw from this century and live in the cloistered, protected, eternally preserved old-world Jewish culture; another, accept the separation of Judaism, its practices, traditions, and beliefs from non-Judaic society (This is with the understanding that this very separation limits the population who will either seek it, and/or who will want to continue to identify with Judaism in accordance with his/her birthright.   It no longer becomes a matter of re-packaging, re-inventing, and marketing, but of accepting the basic strengths and weaknesses of Judaism as they are.); or third, take the core of Jewish beliefs and re-present them in an updated fashion, so that Jews will no longer look for an easier path outside of Judaism, but will find contemporary meaning within their own cultural teachings, instead.  They will thrive upon a way of life that was the old but has become the new.

These are the choices for Transformation 2000: Judaism may isolate from the world; separately co-exist with the world; or, embrace the world.  There can be blending, modifications, combinations of all three.  But these are essentially the three distinct paths from which Jews must choose to travel if we intend to preserve our heritage.  One is about spirituality, ritual, and tradition.  Another is about a kind of dual world belief where two views of reality coexist side-by-side, complementing, but not necessarily infringing upon one other.  (This path is the toughest, because it demands highly disciplined, educated minds which, for the sake of preserving tradition, may alienate those who are less than determined to handle such responsibility.)  The third choice is about success—the continued success of a religion and culture that has made it across the chasm of antiquity and time by meeting the needs of its people.  All are right, none is wrong.  It will be interesting to see which way the pendulum will swing.

Postscript

Levi Strauss & Co., by the way, had profits that were up $45 million, second quarter this year.  There are still difficulties to overcome, but it is hopefully on its way again.  What did it do?  It restructured.  It still makes the same fine product it always did, but in smaller numbers.  Instead, there are fashionable new lines and high-tech marketing—the company’s focus is now on the future instead of the past.

Thursday, January 20, 2000

School Uniforms = A+ or C-: Interview with Made to Measure Magazine

MTM looks at the booming industry of school uniforms—its pros & cons. We interviewed several manufacturers, among them: Barbara Black—AA Uniforms; Lester Reif—Rifle; Steve Royal—Royal Park; Beth Silver—French Toast. This is what we discovered:

Purposes of School Uniforms
In recent years, the market has mushroomed.  Once a small specialty area, school uniforms have become a national trend, encompassing every child of school age.  Why—a movement in our country believes that sameness among our children will: Decrease peer pressure; control appearance by establishing dress-codes, which would eliminate inappropriate styles (some potentially cult-like); encourage monetary savings; put education before socialization.

Market Diversity
For decades, the market has been catering to more affluent private and parochial schools.  Now, middle class charter schools and public schools have gotten involved.  These are 2 economically diverse philosophies, which split the industry down the middle.   Those who, for years, have been involved in the tightly supervised, quality-controlled, contracted arena, are wary of mass marketing—a less expensive more diversified direct sales approach.  Similarly, those who manufacture more cost effective, less specialized items, have turned away from customized pricey-ness of the past.

Marketing to the Masses
Beth Silver, brand manager of French Toast Uniforms, supports her company’s integrity and focus: “We sell to the big chains—Target, Sears, K-Mart—and to uniform specialty stores, wherever people buy clothing.  We’re accessible, we’re visible.  We’re involved with a $30 million inventory in a micro-market.  We manufacture over 150 items, with 5000 SKU’s (Stock Keeping Units).  We offer high quality garments at affordable prices.

“We mass merchandise direct to parents and to retailers.  We have our website, we are visible to the people we serve, but we do not sell direct.  We learn our market areas, we stock local stores accordingly.  We give the people what they want, just like any other clothing manufacturer.  We started out with only 4 items 10 years ago, and we’ve grown as people have asked for greater diversity.  We speak directly with educators—we poll them—we find out what they want.

“People in the private sector are amazed that we can make reasonably priced garments for less money.  The public school clientele is relieved that there are no custom measurements, no special arrangements to be made 5-7 months before the next school year.  We sell all year round, and our uniforms are continually available.  We’re no longer a seasonal item.

“We have a Partners in Education program where we go into the schools and educate our customers.  Now, they’re saying, ‘Wow!  Purchasing uniforms is exciting and fun,’ instead of the hassle it used to be.  When you empower people to handle their own programs, it becomes easy for them.”

Mass Customization/Selective Merchandising
Steve Royal, head of Royal Park Uniforms, is equally as involved as Beth, but in a different market.  “We cater primarily to the private and parochial schools,” he says.  “The public schools don’t have a uniform code; they have a dress code.  There’s no real continuity there, and for our business, no money to be made.  The difference between the 2 is that a dress code is about colors, items.

“Public schools cannot demand standardized garments because of Constitutional law.  All they can say is, ‘Go buy a white shirt and a pair of tan pants.’  Do you know how many styles and fabrics and colors there are of tan pants?  Then, there’s the label.  A designer-labeled pair of tan pants still out-sparkles a discount-labeled pair of tan pants.  The main point of uniforms is to make everybody equal.  In a private school, everything is the same, everything is specified.  Everything is equal.  There are no labels.”

Lester Reif of Rifle Uniforms agrees. “There’s a tremendous difference between the public and private sectors.  In private, the market is our trading partner.  We plan our business based upon school compliance and standardized garments.  We know what to expect, and how many styles and fabrics to anticipate for the coming year.  In the public sector, there is no compliance, no specific market.  Everything is generic and last minute.”

Steve Royal continues, “We sell to 14,000 –15,000 private institutions a year.  We are able to do this by going through uniform specialty dealers.  Every school has a different color scheme, plaid, and/or style.  We frequently cut just 3 garments per size per color per style at a time.  Rather than issuing mass uniform styles and colors in stock sizes, we only supply a store with particular school items for that designated target area.  We respect the individuality of our customers.

“10-11 years ago, we solely made plaids, but we found people weren’t using our merchandise because we couldn’t provide a complete package to the schools.  So, we added everything, from barrettes and headbands to sweats, shorts, and sox.  We do yarn-dyed vs. less expensive printed plaids; our fabrics are more costly but they wash and wear longer.  People have to decide what’s cheaper in the long run: Our uniforms last for at least 3 years; the lower end garments begin to fade after 10-12 washings.

“Ironically, we owe our increase of business to the public school sector.  When it got involved, dress codes relaxed, and the private sector wanted that for its children, too.  Now, instead of uniforms just a few months a year, sold in the fall, we’re doing business all year round, transitioning and continually providing different accessories to our dealers.”

Room for Both
Barbara Black, president of AA Uniforms, acknowledges both points of view.
“The school uniform business is going Kaboom!  Private schools are quality driven; public schools are price driven. What’s unfortunate is that most consumers don’t recognize that higher price means higher quality.    

“The question is which market different uniform manufacturers want to target, because that’s how they will stay in business.  If a company wants to mass market, it needs to work with the principals of the schools, it needs to find out what it is people want, it needs to figure out how to keep manufacturing garments all year round that are primarily shopped for during August and September.  It needs to figure out what to do with inventory that is only saleable during back-to-school time.

“Department stores and big-box stores will have to figure this out, too.  Once school is in session, very few families go shopping for uniforms the rest of the year, unless it’s for a special situation.  Once the uniforms are purchased, they’re often handed down from sibling to sibling.  School uniforms are very different from seasonal items and fashion trends.

“Customized manufacturers, on the other hand, have to continue to sell in small stores but mass market so that they reach their clientele.  They have to be able to provide all those uniform items the mass marketed manufacturers do, and be able to convince their dealers that the extra cost is worth it.  Manufacturers for the private sector must continue to have contracts with the schools, guaranteeing production and purchasing of garments.  They have to go the extra distance in service through their partnerships with dealers and schools.”

Bottom Line 
Beth, Steve, Lester, Barbara, are all successful school uniform manufacturers.  They’ve done their homework regarding the marketplace and what it takes to stay in business.  What is true is that the lure of the lucrative school uniform business is also involving a lot of folks who don’t understand the pitfalls of the industry: The result is that many businesses, which either specialize in school uniforms or add them as a major part of their lines, fail.

Many of the companies, in order to succeed, are forced to buy goods and manufacture some if not all of their merchandise offshore.  Even Steve Royal, who prides himself in labor compliance outside of the U.S., says that there is no way labor compliance within the ‘States can be competitive.  The cost of living is simply too high.

If dealers and manufacturers aren’t prepared for enormous inventory outlays, (replenished by consumer purchases only a few months during the year), their businesses are lost.  If dealers don’t understand the challenges of properly measuring, fitting, planning for potential growth spurts, expectations for store inventory will be incorrect, customers will be ultimately unhappy, overheads will soar. 

Planning begins in December of the previous school year.  Projections are made on previous years’ sales.  Contracts with the schools need to be in place.  Orders begin in early February.  Measuring takes place in April and May.  June-July is high anxiety delivery; August is purchasing. 

During August, a manufacturer has to have at least half again as much inventory in stock for unexpected orders and/or, mis-calculated sizing.  For the most part, once September has passed, the industry is dormant.  So is income.
Few dealers are experienced with today’s “soccer moms.”  These are the tough, independent, demanding, educated, consumer-savvy women who are strong advocates for their kids, have answers for everything.  Once they’re alienated, a shop can go out of business; without the art, know-how, and finesse of handling this particular group, an entire school contract can be lost.

There is only so much business to go around.  Even with an ever-expanding marketplace, the more savvy manufacturers and dealers will survive, the majority of them won’t.  It will be interesting to observe how the bigger department stores handle uniforms as they become increasingly aware of all of the above.  It will be equally as interesting to observe how the private and public school markets will benefit and learn from one another.  At present, each is giving the other a run for the money. 


  

Tuesday, October 5, 1999

Excalibur Hotel Casino: Interview for Made to Measure

Jason Patrick Ross/Shutterstock.com
Excalibur Hotel Casino is a family-oriented resort located in Las Vegas. Part of Mandalay properties, this 4,032-room hotel has been operating since 1990.  Its focus combines the Middle Ages, King Arthur, and Robin Hood.  In addition to over 124,000 square feet of gambling casinos, there are 6 restaurants, swimming pools and sports facilities, shops, family entertainment areas, a wedding chapel, and an arena for jousting tournaments.  Marge Duquette-Castellanos, veteran of the uniform business, is Wardrobe manager.

H&A: This resort is huge!  As head of Wardrobe, what are your responsibilities?

Marge:  I hire and manage the personnel who work in Wardrobe.  This includes laundry, alterations, linens, employee lockers and showers, and the uniforms.  We can have 20 projects going on at once: Vendor notebooks; uniform samples; purchase-order ledgers, the inventory system; tracking each garment; flagging low stock…  I also search out new uniforms for the hotel.

H&A: How does that work?

Marge: A director of a department will tell me what he/she is looking for.  We come up with a basic idea and I’ll either sketch it or find something similar to show.  We submit the concept to several vendors (we have no favorites and encourage competition); they return live samples or their own sketches to us.  We build from there—the best ideas, best prices.  I take these back to the director, we eliminate certain ones, and go with a final sample.

We test the garments, putting them on employees.  Random members of our staff wear them, launder them 25 times, and dry-clean them 20 times more for aging.  Employees give us input in terms of comfort, function, and aesthetics.  (It’s very important employees feel good about what they’re wearing.  If they are pleased and comfortable, these same employees will have pride in themselves, enjoying their relationships with our clientele). 

Once we’re all settled on what we want, the department head and the general manager of the hotel OK it, and we go into final production.

H&A: Are all of your uniforms custom?

Marge: No.  Actually, the original uniforms were much more costumed.  They were uncomfortable, hot, perishable, very difficult to clean or alter, and the employees were miserable.  They cost a fortune to maintain. 

H&A: You abandoned them and went with ready-to-wear.

Marge: So much so that a lot of the hotel’s charm was abandoned.

H&A: Is that what you’re wearing now?

Marge: Nope.  We’ve reverted to uniforms that are once again reflective of the hotel’s theme.  However, we’ve compromised by using ready-to-wear garments that are easily customized.

H&A: How’s that?

Marge:  Take shirts: If I order custom, they will take 8-12 weeks to produce.  By the time they arrive, several people have quit, and we probably need different sizes.  Or, if I order similar shirts in stock-items, they arrive in a few days.  Then, we send them to our alteration department: We change a collar, add a stripe, re-make a cuff, or whatever it takes to give the proper look.  It’s faster and cheaper to go with a stock item, and it allows us to maintain our theme without the cost, maintenance, and lag-time of a custom garment.

H&A: What’s the percentage of your ready-to-wear merchandise?

Marge: We still have mostly custom but gradually, we hope to change over.

H&A: You mentioned your alteration department.

Marge: Yes.  I have 3 fulltime girls who do everything.  They even make some of our simpler uniforms in-house, and I’m hoping we do more of this.  My girls alter employees’ uniforms, stitch up tears, do terrific stock-item customizations, and re-design for employee special needs.  (One aspect of ready-to-wear that’s challenging is its limitation in style and color.  Our alteration department solves that problem.)

H&A: What is the procedure for an employee acquiring a uniform?

Marge: He or she goes to Human Resources, submitting a resume and references.  Everything okayed, there is an interview with the particular department where he’ll be working.  Once completed, it’s off to Wardrobe.  

H&A: Does he get issued a uniform at that point?

Marge:  Sort of.  We have a staff of 35 people—12 in laundry, 3 in alterations, and 23 managing the carousels, turnstiles, conveyors, scanners, lockers, and clothing slots.  The employee comes to our counter where our processor (who’s been doing this for years and has developed an eye for accurate sizing) hands the new employee a uniform for his area.  It’s off to the fitting room, and then over to alterations.

H&A: Then he takes his finished uniform and goes home?

Marge: After the uniform is suited to him, he is given a locker bag—a garment bag with a lock.  Every morning, that employee comes to the counter, announces his bag and slot numbers.  Our 7 conveyors house individual slots for each employee.  From there, his bag is taken with a freshly cleaned uniform, is scanned and given to the employee.  He puts his own clothes in the bag and puts on the uniform.  When his shift is over, he returns to Wardrobe and once again is issued his locker bag from the conveyor slot.  He replaces the uniform in the bag, takes his own clothing, and the dirty uniform goes to the laundry.

H&A: You mention scanning.

Marge: Yes.  We have 53,130 uniforms in this hotel.  There are over 350 different types, as well as different kinds of uniforms—housekeeping, engineering, the kitchen staff, waitstaff, front-desk.  There are court jesters, knights, courtiers.  We even have genuine suits of armor on display that have to be polished and buffed! 

Our scanners are just like the grocery stores’.  Every single item is given a bar code, and before the item goes anywhere—even in here within the walls of Wardrobe--it is scanned.

H&A: What does that do?

Marge: It eliminates any question of inventory because we always know exactly how many garments and of which size, we have.  Also, because everything is always scanned, we never have to worry where an item is.  If it goes to the laundry, the dry-cleaner, alterations, it’s scanned.  If it leaves Wardrobe with an employee, it’s scanned.

H&A: There are no problems with loss, theft, or low stock?

Marge: Very little.  No one is allowed within Wardrobe unless a Wardrobe person accompanies her.  The area is totally enclosed; only cashier-windows and counters are open to non-Wardrobe personnel.  There’s really no way to get anything in or out of the department.  As for low stock, since we always know exactly what we have, we know if there’s a shortage.

H&A: Computers.

Marge:  Exactly.  Everything is kept on computer.  Everyone in wardrobe is computer literate.

H&A: Do you have a customized inventory program for Excalibur?

Marge: Not really.  The program is used by many of the Mandalay properties.  It’s wonderful and lets us know exactly what’s going on at all times.

H&A: Are there any changes you would make?

Marge: Only that the software be user-friendlier.  My wish list is a program for pattern-assisted designs.  Imagine doing patterns for our own designs right here, in-house.  There would never be a question of copyright, or the enormous cost of making patterns, adjusting them, and so forth.

H&A: Everything is right here, on property.

Marge: I wish it were.  We still have our dry-cleaning done off-site.  Some of the garments can’t be laundered, and we don’t have a dry-cleaning facility at this time.  Also, our contractors for embroidery, silk-screening, and rental uniforms are located elsewhere.

H&A: I thought you owned all of your uniforms. 

Marge:  At this point, sadly, no.  We rent our kitchen and engineering uniforms, and the supplies that come with them—bar-mops, towels, you know.  It’s easier to get everything from one supplier; they have the industrial Laundromats that can get the heavy grease out of those garments. 

H&A: Considering Las Vegas is a one-industry town, I imagine there is a well-established cleaning and uniform-rental business to support it.

Marge: That’s right.  However, we bar-code and scan these uniforms, too.

H&A: I am totally impressed with all that you do.  What kinds of skills do you need for this job?

Marge:  There are no schools for wardrobe mistresses.  There are several of us in town, and we try to get together—we support and learn from one another.  (We’re all women, coincidentally, and we call ourselves “The Rag-mates.”)  I think skills for being a wife and mother of 2 children have helped a lot!  Certainly, my background in uniforms, sales and marketing has been invaluable. 

I also think it’s important to know about people.  Our staff represents a huge diversity in population, and folks in Wardrobe are employees helping other employees.  Wardrobe employees need to treat house-employees like guests—customers--at all times.  

H&A: I bet you love what you do.


Marge: I’ll tell you, there are days when I feel I’m buried under a mountain of paper and clothes…  It’s an exciting job, though, and no 2 days are alike.  For me, being in charge of Wardrobe is like a dream come true.

Wednesday, September 8, 1999

Legal Mandate for School Uniforms: Made to Measure Magazine

Passing a federal law to enforce a national wearing of school uniforms is a violation of the First Amendment.  While it would be an economic landslide for the uniform business, it would also deny all students freedom of choice and practical learning experience in matters of clothing.  Parents who are ineffective in earning respect from their children, seek to command them by law.

George Orwell, in his classic satire 1984; Sinclair Lewis in his novel Babbitt; Ayn  Rand in her opus, Atlas Shrugged; addressed such conformity (in those days, it was called Communism), and during the Cold War, our uniquely free American society repulsed at such symbolic acts of eliminating one’s individual identity.  Mandating, rather than choosing to be in uniform is a hideous repugnance to anyone who values his/her individuality; who values pride in his/her own presence and sense of personal taste.

Our clothing helps us to define who we are, for better or worse.  To legally deny usour physical and visual presence, is to deny us part of our unique selves.  To think that such a law might be conceived, might pass, is a commentary on how low our >once intellectually spirited framework of education has sunk; how fearful we as a society have become.  Imagine the mediocre minds, which would think that a Band-Aid for our ailing set of cultural priorities and ethics--school uniforms--would actually eliminate our society’s ills.  Rather, it would merely further hide and deny them.

Our country has survived and upheld its freedoms for over 200 years without such constraints and meltdowns of the masses.  We as a nation have always prided ourselves, albeit sometimes hypocritically, in our diversities and our courage in the face of challenge.  What a pity, as we end this century, that we have become so fearful of controlling our own free-spirited images that we seek to hide ourselves away, instead.