4 Do you think the need to move jeans production offshore was inevitable? Could Levi's have done anything to avert the problem of increasing labor costs? In an industry notorious for low wages and lousy working conditions, Levi's has prided itself on being a grand excep- tion. It offered generous pay plus plenty of charity support in factory towns all financed by the phenomenal profitability of its brilliantly marketed brand name. It clung to a large U.S. manufacturing base long after other apparel fimms began moving offshore, and it often was ranked among the best companies to work for. But to many of Levi's workers, the company's image has not fit for some time. In 1992 the company directed its U.S. plants to abandon the old piecework system, under which a worker repeat- edly performed a single, specialized task (like sewing zippers or attaching belt loops) and was paid according to the amount of work he or she completed. In the new system, groups of 10 to 35 workers would share the tasks and be paid according to the total number of trousers the group completed. Levi's figured that this would cut down on the monotony of the old system and enable stitchers to do different tasks, thus reducing repetitive-stress injuries. At the time, the team concept was a much-touted movement designed to empower factory workers in many industries, and Levi's unions agreed to the effort. But there was more to it than that for Levi's. Faced with low-cost competitors manufacturing over- seas, the San Francisco-based company did not feel it could keep many of its U.S. plants open unless it could raise productivity and reduce costs, particularly those incurred by injured workers pushing to make piecework goals. Teamwork, Levi's felt, would be more humane, safe, and profitable.