The little dust-up between Unionmade, the pinky finger-raising menswear store a block away from Dolores Park, and pretty much everyone has finally reached critical mass, with the AFL-CIO demanding they change their logo and name.

The fun started two weeks ago when the ever non-union union-trumpeting folks at Gawker, via a reader, discovered Unionmade isn't technically union-made:

There is a store (and website) in San Francisco that calls itself “Unionmade Goods”. As a member of a union household, I was initially excited to learn about the store, as I try to buy union-made goods as much as possible. Unfortunately, when I inquired by email whether the store called Unionmade Goods does in fact sell union-made goods, I was disappointed to learn that the name is merely an “homage to a time in our history when products were crafted with care, quality, longevity, and respect to the people that made them.” The email went on to say “we try to carry products that represent the 'Unionmade' ideals of yesteryear as it is virtually impossible to curate a store entirely of union labor made products.”

While I support the store's effort to 'curate' its inventory with products that are crafted with care, etc., the name of the store seems pretty fraudulent and insulting. “Union made” is not just an “ideal of yesteryear.” There are websites out there that sell goods that were actually made by union members, under the protection of a union contract. See, e.g., http://www.unionlabel.com/. As many workers that you've written about can attest, collective bargaining through a union representative remains an important path to a living wage and basic protections for employees. It's something that many people fight hard for, today.

It's always bummer to find out about a local company that tugs at our collective nostalgia for a time when workers were paid a tolerable salary just so they can sell $190 lumberjack shirts, but that's more-or-less the world we live in today.  However, the lawyers for the AFL-CIO were feeling a bit more concerned, sending the store a strongly-worded letter late last week:

What happens when a company that acknowledges its clothing is not union-made names itself “Unionmade” anyway? Count on union members proud of their reputation for quality work to say, “Give it up.” In a letter Thursday, the AFL-CIO demanded that the apparel company Unionmade—which also has a logo suspiciously like the historic AFL-CIO “handshake” logo—stop its trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The federation told the company to immediately stop using the logo (including not selling items showing it and removing the sign from stores and online sites) and change the store name so it “does not deceive the public into thinking that they are purchasing items that are actually made by union workers….”

It seems that the “trusted” store—as their insignia would lead us to believe—is finding themselves in a holiday pickle.  Change their brand before the union's imposed December 7th deadline, or face the likely wrath of endless lawsuits, picketing workers wearing the very clothes Unionmade yearns to sell, and lots of those giant inflatable rats.

They're on the same t-shirt at the all-new Metreon Target!

(Seriously though, how weird is Target's new line of SF tees?)

[Photo by Andy Wright]

I don't wear a helmet in San Francisco.  It's part laziness (carrying it around is annoying and locking it up will most certainly get it stolen) and part vanity (helmets make me sweaty and gross, and helmet hair is awful and my sex life is such that I cannot afford anymore handicaps), but it's in no part stupidity.

I wear helmets when it counts: mountain biking, when I'm plenty apt to crash into a tree or eat dirt due to general imbalance and ineptitude, or while heading out for a long road ride in Marin, when loose gravel, high speeds, and crazed BMW motorists have a knack for creating unsafe situations (also, I don't care how my beautifully-sculpted hair looks after any of these activities).  But in SF while getting back and forth from work?  Nope.  Between lower speeds on both mine and the drivers part, coupled with straighter roads, bike lanes, and the sheer number of bikes on the street increasing our visibility, the risk factor just isn't there.

That's not to say I don't hear about my choice.  The city's metermaids that are required to wear exceptionally dorky bike helmets while riding around in their fun lil' Cushmans are particularly vocal, smugly telling this non-revenue generating rider that “I should be wearing a helmet.”  The San Francisco Bike Coalition is similarly in rider's faces, demanding that members bring helmets to the organization's events.  I even once dated a girl who told me she wasn't sure she could date someone who “didn't value his life” because I don't strap on a lid before riding 5 blocks to Dolores Park.

But, it turns out, that San Francisco's bike advocates might be doing themselves a genuine disservice in promoting helmet usage, as helmets actually discourage people from getting on a bike.  And for a city that aims to have 20% of all commuters on a bike by 2020, despite only 3.5% do so today, we could use all the help we get.

The NY Times opines:

In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke. Cities are aggressive in helmet promotion.

But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems.

On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes. And — Catch-22 — a result is fewer ordinary cyclists on the road, which makes it harder to develop a safe bicycling network. The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule.

“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1.

As San Francisco moves to install its 50 station/500 bikes bike-sharing program, the issue of helmets could be the difference between its success or failure.  In cities where helmets are mandatory, participation in the program is low (just 150 rides a day in Melbourne, Australia), whereas it soars in cities were it is optional (5,000 rides a day in Dublin).  As a biking coordinator in Minniapolis said, “I just want it to be seen as something that a normal person can do. You don’t need special gear. You just get on a bike and you just go.”

[NY Times | Photo by Mathew Wilson]

A million years ago, the guys at Ape Do Good Printing put together a killer set of parody Michael Schwab shirts, featuring a truck full of dead pigs for Chinatown and a crusty gutter punk for The Haight.  We clamored for someone to design more of 'em, but it never happened.

Well, fortunately for us, designer Irina Blok came across our call and accepted the challenge over the weekend.  And, if I do say so myself, these make a fine addition to the originals (although maybe SOMA's cute lil' sidewalk poo should have a box over it?)

If you want to get one of these for yourself, they'll be up on Irina's CafePress in the next day or two.