# Gildan Care Label "Do no iron"??



## PSBTee (Jun 16, 2009)

Hello everyone!

I've been reading the forums for many many months, great information here so thanks for all the help so far!!

I do have one question that I hope someone can help with - sorry if this isn't the correct forum to post into, but I couldn't find a more specific one for my Q.

I just bought a load of Gildan Ultra Cotton T-Shirts and was supprised to see that the label inside says 'Do not iron'. Is this true of all Gildan shirts? How about other makes of t-shirts? I could understand 'Do no iron design' - but these seems to be saying that the t-shirt itself shouldn't be ironed? Is that normal? I have cotton t-shirts of my own that say ironing is OK, just wondered why these would be any different? Or am I not interpreting it correctly? 


Just hope someone could clear this up for me - maybe someone who's actively selling these Gildan t-shirts - do you offer your customers any different advice? Sorry if this is a silly question 

Many thanks for your help in advanced!!

Regards


----------



## Sports4Less (Jun 15, 2009)

I has used plenty of the Gildan shirts and have not had problems. I guess I need to read labels more. I generally only use the 6.1 oz shirts and they seem to work fine. Welcome to the forum and good luck.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

That's... strange. Every Gildan label I've seen says specifically "Do not iron *decoration*." (which can still be annoying). If it just straight out says "Do not iron" it sounds like the label is defective.


----------



## lordygb (Jul 18, 2009)

i use wear and iron(occasionally) gildan tees and thus far no problems...after all when applying transfers there nailed under the heat press with no troubles


----------



## PSBTee (Jun 16, 2009)

Yeah Solmu it simply says 'Do not iron' - strange isn't it?!!

I know they can be ironed as (as has been pointed out already) - I'm heat pressing them and have ironed quite a few Gildans so I'm happy that they can actually be ironed - but it was just rather what to say when I sell them? Should I just stick to the label and if people ask say 'Nope, don't iron them' or tell them 'Well, it says not too but I have in the past and it's OK?'

Bit confused as to how to proceed - I may try to contact the sellers of these T's but just wondered what you guys would suggest?

Thanks once again, your guidance is much appreciated!!


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

If the label definitely says "Do not iron" and the shirt definitely can be ironed, then the shirts cannot legally be sold at retail with that label, as it clearly does not meet the FTC's labelling requirements.


----------



## PSBTee (Jun 16, 2009)

Odd.... someone just bought me back an 'I Love New York' T-shirt as a gift, it's a Gildan Ultra Cotton and yep, it has the same label 'Do not iron'.

I've e-mailed Gildan....... I'll see if they come back to me.

FTC guidelines won't affect me as I'm in the UK and will only be selling my shirts within the UK (At the moment anyway!!).

Thanks again

Regards

Paul


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

PSBTee said:


> FTC guidelines won't affect me as I'm in the UK and will only be selling my shirts within the UK (At the moment anyway!!).


The UK almost certainly has the same requirement; Australia certainly does.


----------



## PSBTee (Jun 16, 2009)

Thanks Solmu - I'm looking into the UK standards on labelling (hadn't really thought about it until you mentioned it!)

However if something is sold that says 'Do not iron' but someone decides to and it's OK - how would that be illegal to sell?

The other way around, I would understand - I mean, if it said 'OK to iron' but then shriveled up or caught fire/burnt when it was ironed, then I can see that being a big problem!

Just curious as there's nothing stopping people not taking notice of labels.

In any case - I've been Googling this and it seems there are tons of website selling these Gildans, quoting the exact same wording on the care label, so I guess it's normal!!!!

Thanks again.

Regards


----------



## lordygb (Jul 18, 2009)

Gilda being slightly over cautious i think....next wil be label saying do not wear


----------



## lordygb (Jul 18, 2009)

Gilda even...spelling..blame it onthe keyboard


----------



## lordygb (Jul 18, 2009)

with an N keyboard..batteries


----------



## PSBTee (Jun 16, 2009)

lordygb said:


> Gilda being slightly over cautious i think....next wil be label saying do not wear


"Do not wear" - ha ha - like it!


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

PSBTee said:


> However if something is sold that says 'Do not iron' but someone decides to and it's OK - how would that be illegal to sell?


Because most countries require that all garments have labels, and that those labels are *accurate*. Washing instructions that are more prescriptive than necessary restrict the consumer, and the entire point of labelling laws is to protect the consumer from lazy or dishonest businesses.

If labels could be "overly cautious" (again, to be clear: "overly cautious" is synonymous with "illegal") then there would be no incentive for manufacturers to do the requisite research (which costs money) to find out exactly what the care instructions should be. They would just put "Hand wash only, do not bleach, do not iron, do not tumble dry, do not dry clean" on everything.

*If* Gildan are selling shirts that say "Do not iron." and *if* those specific shirts are perfectly safe to iron (I do not know if either of these things is true, I'm only going by statements in this thread) _then_ this would be a *serious* problem for our industry, since Gildan are the largest manufacturer in the world.

I find it hard to believe that this is the case since it would mean they've changed their labels, and changed them to something clearly stupid and illegal. It seems unlikely. But *if* that's what's happening... it's not good.


----------



## lordygb (Jul 18, 2009)

i have had a random check of various colours sizes etc of our gildan stock and the ones checked do state..'do not iron' amongst many other do nots


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

Out of curiosity, I checked a couple of Gildan's I had nearby. One is from an older stock (couple year's old Gildan 2000) and it says "do not iron decoration"









Then I found a newer Gildan (Soft Style 64000) and the tag on that one clearly says "do not iron"











Solmu said:


> *If* Gildan are selling shirts that say "Do not iron." and *if* those specific shirts are perfectly safe to iron (I do not know if either of these things is true, I'm only going by statements in this thread) _then_ this would be a *serious* problem for our industry, since Gildan are the largest manufacturer in the world.


Would it really be "illegal" to say "do not iron", or just "not advised"? 

It does seem like they either forgot to put "decoration" in the newer tag specs or intentionally left it off to possible be extra safe.

Does the FTC say that the labels have to be exactly correct, or can they be seen as "advisory" of the best possible way to be safe?


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Rodney said:


> Would it really be "illegal" to say "do not iron", or just "not advised"?


As a non-lawyer I don't feel like I have the authority to say "Yes, it would really be illegal", but my layman's interpretation is that it would really be illegal, not merely ill advised.



Rodney said:


> Does the FTC say that the labels have to be exactly correct, or can they be seen as "advisory" of the best possible way to be safe?


The clearest thing I could find is this:



FTC said:


> *Reasonable Basis*
> 
> You must have a reasonable basis for all care instructions, including warnings. That means you must have reliable evidence to support the care instructions. For example, you cannot say "Dryclean Only" unless you have proof that washing is harmful to the garment.


To me that's pretty clear - I think it sets up a clear intent that you can't just err on the side of caution, you need actual evidence that there would be an actual problem.

There is certainly no "reasonable basis" for saying a t-shirt can't be ironed, which means it fails the test of "must have a reasonable basis for all care instructions".

There's a little bit of interpreting required, but I really don't see how it could be reasonably interpreted any other way. There's no "reliable evidence" that "[ironing] is harmful to the garment."

But since I'm not a lawyer, I can't say with *absolute certainty* that I am right.


----------



## PSBTee (Jun 16, 2009)

Hi again,

OK, official reponse from Gildan is as follows:

"Further to the below query please note that the DO NOT IRON symbol is not related to our shirts, it is for the printing or the embellishment that the customer apply on the shirt. 

Previously, the label stated "Do not iron decoration" but this definition did not comply with the Federal legislation so it was changed to DO NOT IRON.

I hope this answers your query."

Now, quite why stating "Do not iron decoration" would not comply with the Federal legislation is beyond me - maybe because they were sold without decorations? I'm not sure but that's the official line from them. 

I can't really see if being illegal to say 'Do not iron' when it's OK to iron - but I'm extremely new to all this so you guys are probably more qualified to make that judgement! It's just really confused me as to what I'm supposed to tell people because I'm sure someone at some point is going to say 'What? Do not iron?" and then I'll be a bit stumped as to what to say!! Just thinking ahead........
​


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

PSBTee said:


> OK, official reponse from Gildan is as follows:
> 
> "Further to the below query please note that the DO NOT IRON symbol is not related to our shirts, it is for the printing or the embellishment that the customer apply on the shirt.
> 
> ...




Yeah, doesn't make any sense to me either. The old line may not have been compliant, but the new one certainly isn't in my opinion.

My theory is that a graphic designer screwed up - they needed to squeeze a lot of information into a smaller space (new smaller labels), and someone who didn't really understand what they were doing dropped a word to make it fit. Now the entire company has to scramble to come up with excuses.

I've noticed this with large corporations before - they always assume that someone somewhere down the line must have checked it, so they couldn't *possibly* be doing anything illegal. I mean, someone would have noticed before it went into production, right? But everyone makes the same assumption, and unless someone who actually knows what they're doing has total oversight, these things can slip through.



PSBTee said:


> I can't really see if being illegal to say 'Do not iron' when it's OK to iron




You can read what I quoted to Rodney from the FTC above and draw your own conclusion. Although as you said you're in the UK, so you'd have to find the equivalent English labelling law to find out if it affects you.

I know the UK has labelling laws, and I know they're similar. I'm familiar with the Australian laws, and they're much the same as the US. I find it likely that the English laws would have much the same thing to say, but I haven't read them so I don't know.

It might not seem like a big deal when you're talking something so small, but if you don't draw the line at being factually accurate, where are you going to draw it? How much is it okay to lie on the label? How full of **** can it be and not be illegal? How about just none full of ****. Seems easier.

So sure it's a small thing, but I doubt they'd let it slide - they have no reason to, and plenty of reason not to. The integrity of the entire labelling law is at stake if you allow inaccurate labelling to still be legal.

​Incidentally, sorry for doubting you earlier re: the label contents. It just seemed more likely that one or two people would be making a mistake than such a massive multi-national corporation. I should know better than that though... *never* trust the corp.

As a side point... even aside from this new issue, very few blank companies sell shirts with legal labels anyway. There's always *something* wrong with them if you look hard enough. The Gildan labels don't "last the useful life of the garment" - they're illegible long before the shirt has worn out. A printed care label just isn't high enough quality to meet the FTC requirements. It needs to be woven, or *maybe* printed direct to the garment. But everyone, including the FTC, turns a blind eye (at least they're legal for the first few washes ).

If we want to start being picky, I have zero doubt that Gildan's labels don't meet the letter of the law. If I tested, I'm sure I could add most other blanks companies to that list.

The FTC is a total farce. Their regulations are out of date, and (as far as I can tell) they don't enforce them. Their site talks of sixteen cases being brought since 1990. Oooh, sixteen? The textile industry must be quaking in its boots. That's an old report (they might have been active since then), but still...

These are on the books laws that could kill a small business if the government decides to do some revenue raising. So maybe it pays to be compliant. But if we're being realistic and talking about current practice, it doesn't look like they really care.

Certainly I'd encourage you to follow the law. But it's frustrating when no-one else is.


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

psbtee said:


> maybe because they were sold without decorations?


This seems like it makes sense.

Unlike Hanes (with their undergarment and retail lines), I think Gildan usually sells their blanks mostly only to garment decorators. 

It _sounds like_ "do not iron decoration" might not have been compliant because 1) when they sell it, there is no decoration 2) I don't know if the FTC rules for labeling cover the "decoration" or if they are supposed to only cover the "garment"

This is of course only speculation on my part, but it kind of makes sense that a large manufacturer like them may have heard from the FTC (or someone may have complained) and they worked with the FTC for the right wording for the label.

It's also possible that they went with a label that covered them the most.

I wonder if there's a way to get an official word from the FTC on the "current state" of relabeling since some of their site seems out of date.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Rodney said:


> It's also possible that they went with a label that covered them the most.


This is the really hard thing for blanks manufacturers - they have to try and anticipate what their end users are going to do with the garment before selling it at retail.

For example, the care label above says "Do not dry clean." I'm not a dry cleaning expert, but as far as I know, 1) An embroidered t-shirt is perfectly safe to dry clean, 2) A plastisol screenprint will be more or less destroyed by the dry cleaning process.

If that is so, it would mean that a label saying "Do not dry clean" would be illegal on the first shirt, and the *lack* of one would be illegal on the second shirt.

That particular conundrum puts Gildan in an impossible situation.

In this case, I don't think they've found a reasonable way out of it ("Do not iron decoration" used to bother me enough as it was).

Maybe they have permission from the FTC to be doing what they're doing (if I bet, I'd say otherwise). If so, that only undermines the FTC's authority and relevance. If they choose not to enforce this violation, what moral authority do they have to enforce any violation?

Regardless of the legality, it's a problem for their users. I would not sell a shirt with "Do not iron." on the care instructions - it would justifiably make consumers worry what was wrong with the shirt.

(sure only the minority would even notice - but it's still a potential problem I just don't need)


----------



## Uncle John (Mar 11, 2007)

People who iron T-shirts have way to much time on there hands. LOL


----------



## lordygb (Jul 18, 2009)

*LOL uncle John LOL.....thread has been getting a bit heavy nice break......as it goes i dont iron mine either ..i just whack em in the dryer for a few minutes..LOL*


----------

