She was following a pattern mapped out by a co-worker using tiny spots of baby powder. Another employee, a teenage boy, said he walked out after an argument over money but was forced to come begging for his job back three days later because he could find no other work. The owner, an alarmingly dishevelled Iranian called Jahangir Babajoni, tries to make out that he is not a garment maker at all. "I see many places do the same thing and have no license either," he says.

"This is not sewing, it's embellishing." This is not a distinction recognised by the law. Later, two Iranian friends of his arrive and his story changes. Now he says he does not add studs to the shirts at all ­ despite the evidence of it within clear view ­ but merely repairs the odd one or two that may have become damaged "This is a shipping operation, not manufacturing," he says Several hours of haggling ensue. Mr Babajoni has a quarterly tax report, but hardly any pay records, not even scribbles. Eventually he signs a piece of paper admitting some, but not all, of his wage-paying lapses.

The inspectors close down the stud-punching part of the shop, sending the workers home, and decide to seize three boxes of clothing as evidence. The remaining employees, clearly delighted at the prospect of collecting hundreds of dollars in back pay, willingly pack the confiscated clothes themselves. More than $11,000 in citations are issued on the spot, and a second appointment is arranged to give Mr Baba- joni more time to present his paperwork. "This is one of the most flagrant violations you'll see," says the leader of this inspection, Carlos Lopez Policing even such egregious cases is not easy, however. Shop owners will frequently hire lawyers who help them challenge the citations and get them heavily reduced ­ by 50 per cent on average. Employees will rarely testify at hearings, either because they cannot afford the time or because they are afraid of deportation.

If the fines and demands in back pay become too overwhelming, a shop might simply close down and the owner disappear. State legislation passed in 1999 makes it possible for the inspectors to hold the manufacturer as well as the shop owner liable for back pay, but the new rules are proving ambiguous and difficult to enforce. A big part of the problem is that labour officials can inspect only 900-1,000 shops a year; if a shop knows that it is likely to be raided just once every five years, there is not much incentive to stick to the rules. According to Professor Appelbaum, invisibility is a key issue for the garment industry "It's not just about cheap labour. It has a lot to do with the ability to operate without embarrassment," he says.