The Apple Boycott: People Are Spouting Nonsense about Chinese Manufacturing
forbes.com
forbes.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop
The pro-sweatshop argument is encapsulized in this example:
In an article about a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam, Johan Norberg wrote, "But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more... Farming means 10 to 14 hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain... The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well."
The contra argument seems dominated by appeals to emotion ala Mike Daisey:
"_____ can't even afford to buy the ipad he makes",
"_____ only makes X dollars an hour/day/week/month/year."
"X workers were injured/killed in this accident"
"workers often have to work overtime"
"workers have to stand"
I think Mike Daisey should spend some time in rural China with the relatives of Foxconn employees who do backbreaking farm work. But who would go to see that show without "Steve Jobs" in the title?
Also, it's "Daisey".
I would like the conversation to shift to simple concrete things can be done that aren't about raising wages or closing factories.
Two examples: Rotating workers through different parts of the assembly line, which decreases repetitive strain injuries and doing meaningful age verification so you're not employing people who are too young (based on the local laws) to be employed in that kind of work.
http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/...
I'm also a fan of less dramatic changes here. It's too easy to get romantic about this subject and delude yourself into thinking you can change the world tomorrow. I think it's better to work on making tomorrow a little better than today.
I am personally optimistic about the future, with small changes brought about by pressure, these jobs can be better than they are without destroying prices or margins.
* On-site nurses/trained first aid providers.
* Formal training program for anyone operating anything potentially dangerous.
* MSDS (material safety data sheets) for all chemicals.
* Proper PPE (personal protective equipment)
* LOTO program (lock-out/tag-out)
* Safety testing.
* Workman's comp
Local effort will need to be involved. Some efforts to help organize workers into unions may exist, and will be of some benefit, but without good alternatives to sweatshop employment the picture is incomplete. Places with top-down command economies may also be ill-positioned to create additional opportunity...
They look atrocious to us in the rich western world, because they are far worse than our worst jobs, and with that context mismatch, we react strongly.
It's important to remember that we had sweatshops too. Working conditions during the industrial revolution were horrible compared to conditions now, but that period was a necessary step on the path from the agricultural society to todays society.
The way forward is to incrementally make sweatshops better, until the local conditions approve so much that they're the worst alternative, and then they will disappear. But that change can't happen overnight, and it won't happen if you ban sweatshops. It tooks us hundreds of years in the west, it's going to take decades in the third world.
Why does that mean that everyone going through similar economic transformation has to go through the same living and working conditions?
China knows what is possible. I don't think it will take decades for a society that can build a fully functioning, very modern, highly automated factory in 6 weeks /decades/ to get their working conditions in order.
The whole reason for globalization is that we in the western world improved our own working conditions so much that the cost of labour in our own countries increased to such levels that it became profitable for corporations to outsource. But we're still competitive because we moved up the value chain.
So you need to move everyone up the value chain, and that means you need a way to still perform that labour that needs to be performed, and to do that you need to automate more, add more industrial robots, but there's a limit to what robots can do, and there's a limit to how many robots you can produce in a year.
But we'll get there. Cheap labour will be eliminated, the living standard and working conditions of the entire world will rise, and I think it's better to cheer the fact that it's happening at all, and faster than it did in the western world, than to lament the fact that it's not going as fast as you would like.
I think this is right. People seem to like to imagine that the factory owners are kidnapping people, locking them up and forcing them to work in terrible conditions. But these people are working there because there aren't better places for them to work...
It's not that we don't care about what's happening in sweatshops. Appeals to emotion and morality are often dismissed as fallacies but they are certainly real. The problem is a lack of context and solutions.
Most of the arguments used disappear in context. The linked article makes the point about the injury rate and the wage rates; I do think he's partly off on suicides by missing that they clustered around the exorbitant benefits Foxconn had given for suicide.
"Apple should use it's margins to do something" isn't a real solution imho. How do we know they haven't already "done something"? How many "somethings" should Apple do? Until they run out of margins? What do the companies with very/low margin do? They get to do nothing because their products are shit? If a boycott closes Foxconn is that helping these workers? Will the anti-Foxconn people be thrilled when Foxconn transitions to primarily automated assembly plants?
"Also, it's "Daisey"."
Thanks, corrected.
IMHO, they should require their suppliers to have a worker safety program, same as factories do in America. It's relatively easy to check whether or not a factory has on-site nurses and whether or not the employees know what to do when someone gets injured when you want to audit this.
Neither situation should happen anywhere with a reasonable safety program. The MSDS (or equivalent) would have let them know how toxic n-hexane was and what sort of PPE is required to handle it safely. And they generally provide nurses or at least train a few employees as first aid providers (I am one such employee, incidentally). They're plenty big enough to afford a few full-time nurses or the equivalent.
Regarding sweatshops, it's just a matter of perspective - I'm currently in the process of finding passive income revenues because I hate work in general. Should I boycott all companies with employees because of my preferences?
I was thinking about this. I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Daisey would do just that. He's a pretty unconventional documentarian. At this point, people probably would go see the show (or listen to the This American Life show, as I did). Seriously, you should suggest this to him, it would make for a good story.
However, the point this article makes about safety is pure and utter crap. The best they can come up with is to bury that matter on page two, then handwave some bogus calculation about how people get injured even in America. Yes, they do. I personally have had to deal with some of those industrial injuries. But they were caused by the worker screwing up, not by unsafe conditions. There's not much you can do if someone reaches into a machine that's in operation when they're not allowed to do that, ever. That's a far cry from having to deal with poisonous chemicals like n-hexane and from having no first aid providers to help you.
And from everything I've read, there are some ridiculously unsafe conditions over there. US employers are required to have MSDS sheets for their chemicals, so something like n-hexane doesn't get used to polish iPhone screens. The workers also have a right to learn about them. You also get proper PPE and training to deal with whatever you have to deal with. Finally, they do not leave you on your own if you get injured. They either hire nurses, or teach employees (like yours truly) first aid. Yes, I know what farm work is like, too. Everyone who grew up in the Midwest probably at least knows about detasseling corn. For the record, yes, it sucks. But I'd take it over a factory with no safety program any day. So, basically, the lot of you could stand to learn more about conditions here before comparing them to China. We have it bad, they have it worse, and it's not some kind of contest.
The whole Apple thing, though? I wouldn't boycott them, but I would push them into trying. They've got no direct control, no, but when the factory manager has to deal with a big customer like Apple, they will do something to appease them. It's probably a bit unfair to single out Apple, though, because I doubt it's that much different elsewhere. If they really want to do something, they should require their suppliers to have a worker safety program.
You get up early in the morning and trudge through hot, muddy fields all day. You get paid according to how much your crew is able to detassel.
This doesn't excuse Apple or any of the other companies working with Foxconn, but it suggests that there are many sides of this issue, and many voices yet to be heard on it: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-chine...
It's annoying when journalists (NY Times in this case) hang their story on the Foxconn client doing the most to keep track of working conditions, just because Apple is a name that gets readers.
More to the point, as the article recounts, it's not clear Foxconn is China's worst problem. It seems it's even safer to work there than in America.
"Read" this infographic: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lym1w8YedI1qbv2gy.png
People need to realize that Apple is no longer the upshot company trying to survive under the boot heel of Microsoft, but actually a vastly profitable company utilizing all the methods expected from a global industrial giant.
Stop treating Apple as if they are some form of 'do good' company!
Now, I will admit that Apple appears to be getting singled out here. And, especially if Apple gets Foxconn to reform their safety, they could even become one of the better places in China. But there's a lot of room to improve here.
The author of the article says, "That’s what being poor means, having to work extremely hard to make very little. Yes, that is a harsh thing to say but then reality can indeed be harsh."
No one would deny that reality can be harsh. At the same time, you can't deny that Apple - and, of course, the other electronics companies - does not truthfully convey that reality to its customers. Doing so would not be in Apple's best interest. However, if this boycott succeeds, it would demonstrate that having this tension between reality and image is also not in Apple's best interest.
The article also makes the standard corporatist argument that the behaviour of corporations is outside of their control, because they are subject to market forces.
This tact ignores the human factor. Apple is made up of humans. It is not humanly impossible to demand that a supplier adhere to higher standards than are prevalent in the rest of China.
Setting that aside, let's examine the issue purely from the standpoint of the marketplace, but rather than looking at the Chinese labour marketplace, let's look at the American consumer goods marketplace.
Humans respond to a variety of different factors when making purchasing decisions. It is not just about price and quality, but can also be about morality and emotion. In this instance, Apple's customers may be persuaded to boycott Apple because of these subjective factors.
That may seem unfair to some, but isn't that just a risk of globalization? After all, a global company must deal with market forces everywhere it operates: both market forces affecting who makes its products, and market forces affecting who purchases them.
Apple will be forced to balance these market forces, and when it does so, it may result in lower profit margins but better working conditions at its suppliers' factories.
It's funny how relevant the Eloi and the Morlocks still are today, more than 100 years after being put down in ink.
1) You don't know the non-jumping suicide rate. There could be plenty of workers who take their lives privately in their dormitories.
2) Jumping off a roof of your workplace is a VERY different type of suicide then swallowing a bunch of pills. It's making a statement about who the employer is and what they have driven the employee to do. There would be a national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off the roofs of a GM plant.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I did want to point out the faulty logic at play here. It would be a national alarm because this number is very high for our nation. Any time you're dealing with foreign cultures it's easy to forget about all of the things that are only true for your culture.
Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's actually progress. I'm sure we'd all be much happier if the number was zero, but I'll take progress toward an ideal over ineffectually trying to force it to happen immediately.
note: I have no idea what the average suicide rate is in China, "as a public statement" or otherwise. The article quotes 22/100,000/year and extrapolates from that to say that Foxconn is "doing well." My point is that judging foreign cultures by your own standards is a dicey game, and sometimes you just have to be content with improvement instead of trying to mandate equality.
Eighteen was just using the number in the article. A national alarm would be sounded if 3 workers jumped to their death at a GM plant last year. GM executives would be tripping over themselves to show remorse, there would be a 60 Minutes specials on the reason GM drove the employees to their deaths, psychologists would be called in to help workers, etc., etc., etc.
The point is that people would be alarmed, as they should be. People wouldn't be making excuses that suicide happens, deal with it.
Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's actually progress.
Again, we don't know the suicide rate of employees Foxconn. We know the number of people who have jumped to their death. You can't extrapolate a subset of the suicides and compare that to the national average for all suicides.
People are more irrational about some topics than others. So what?
It's irrational to be alarmed about a company driving workers to commit suicide? Are you seriously making that argument?
Given that someone is posting an infographic here that appears to tacitly claim that the few workers who jumped represent the entire list of suicides at Foxconn, you'll forgive me if I want to examine the data sources and know exactly how the reporting mechanisms work.
Because when I see how anomalously low it is compared to the suicide rate pretty much everywhere else, exactly one thing springs to mind: under-reporting.
I won't say that the company has no blame, but fobbing off 100% of the responsibility for suicide onto the company is faulty logic at best. When you're considering committing suicide, there's definitely an issue, and more than some of it may be in the way you process stress and/or your environment.
No, but you can't meaningfully compare suicide rates between socio-economic climates either. I mean, you can look at the numbers and say "each death is sad, I wish both were lower", but that's about it. Achieving that goal is something you have to do in context. Mandating that a wildly different culture meet your culture's definition of ... anything is a very dangerous game.
For what it's worth, ~ 18/100,000 is just under the undergrad suicide rate at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/~sdavies/www/mit-suicides/). It's been the subject of several stories (CNN and the Boston Globe are the ones I remember), but there most certainly hasn't been a "national alarm."
(RIP Fes Mike)
Let me put it another way - a child of a worker employed at Foxconn now will have better opportunities in the future (with access to better schooling, more money) than the child of a poor farmer in the country side. I believe a similar sort of change happened in most industrialized countries during periods of rapid industrialization. Perhaps some of the people considering a boycott of Apple's products have a great grandparent who moved to the city and worked long hours for "low pay" about a hundred years ago!
"Being poor" means not having very much money.
Working extremely hard to make very little, when one does not care for the work and has little practical alternative is being exploited.
This is or is not to say that Apple or Foxconn is exploiting the workers.
The argument attributed to Krugman is essentially the same argument that was advanced in opposition to divestiture in apartheid South Africa in the 1980's - that economic exploitation is better than change.
The author is mistaken. One can be poor without suffering exploitation in the labor market.
Second point:
Krugman argues that wages should not be raised (which is presumably the course demanded by our conscience) because it might hurt the very people we seek to help.
"And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries."
This is the same logic which underlay the arguments against divestiture - i.e. that exploitation is preferable to some imagined alternative form of suffering.
Third point:
Foxconn et al may or may not be exploiting workers.
Subsistence farming matches this pattern. You have to work very hard, you make very little, and you don't like the work. It doesn't make much sense to label that exploitation since no one is there to exploit you (are you exploiting yourself?). But let's roll with it.
At least with Foxconn in the picture, these folks have one alternative. Put another way, Foxconn is at least less exploitative by your definition than what is likely the main alternative for many of its workers. But I suspect that your definition is not exactly the same as what you believe exploitation really is.
I'll make an analogy. If you are punching someone, I might punch you back. In the short run, this action harms both your face and my hand, and I might accidentally step on your victim in the process. Counterproductive, right? But in the long run, it provides you an incentive to stop punching the victim, and they wind up better off. Similarly, economic sanctions against South Africa would harm everyone in South Africa (including the victims), but might cause the ruling elite to change their behavior.
In contrast, if you are sick, punching you won't help. You are now more motivated to get beterbut so what? There is no simple action you can take to become better. Sanctions against China or Foxconn are closer to this situation - there is no simple action they can take to stop being poor.
Interestingly, I've been told by a couple of black South African that life was indeed better in many ways under apartheid. As it was described to me, "at least under apartheid, if your sister gets gang raped, the cops will beat down the N* who did it." (Very rough quote, I'm remembering a conversation from 2004.)
(Side note: isn't it surprising to read old Krugman? These days it's easy to forget that he was once an economist.)
It is the logical form of his argument which parallels the form of arguments made against divestiture in the apartheid regime. The logical form of the argument may be summed up as "the possibility of distant perverse effects outweighs the value of more immediate virtuous effects."
A analogy would be, we have a contract which requires me to pay you in cash. When you come to receive payment, I refuse to pay cash on the grounds that you might become infected by a virus on one of the bills.
Of course...maybe they will just start complaining about the D@#N Brazilians stealing our jobs. Somehow I think complaining is just part of what people in the developed world do.
If Apple ran these factories then yes, boycott them. However they don't. They hire Chinese companies to put their products together.
This is a China problem not an Apple problem. China can introduce work standards, maximum working hours, minimum pay etc. Contracts can then be renegotiated or whatever.
As things stand though the factories are supplying jobs to those who need jobs. If the jobs weren't required the people wouldn't be doing them.
Is the situation good? No. However, this is an issue for the Chinese Government. You introduce law's, factories follow laws, working conditions improve.
It would be bad business for Apple to narrow its margins in such a competitive market to provide better working conditions than the majority of other shithole factories in China.
Just like pollution, gross worker exploitation has been largely eliminated in the first world* and has just been relocated to the third world.
The question is whether Apple and the consumers who support them should morally continue on their path.
* "largely eliminated" does not mean that there is not significant abuse, just that as a percentage of the employed population, it's historically very small
A) Utilitarianism B) The economic arguments of the article
Then the morality question is addressed by this.
If Apple paid workers the prevailing wage for US skilled labor, Apple would not be paying workers in China at all, because the discount on labor is the primary reason it outsources to China.
One looks at the spread between Apple's COGS and Apple's list prices and wonders how it can be reasonable that Apple captures that whole spread. But that's why we have markets: over time, wage pressure erodes Apple's margins; Foxconn (or comparable companies) obtain better clients, or are simply forced to increase their cost because of competition from other firms.
When Apple responds to that pressure by finding another third world country to buy from, it's simply repeating the same process in that country: unless they source forced labor from Myanmar or North Korea, the only way they can get labor is by improving the wages that were already available in that country.
Part of the issue here seems to be the (unreasonable) expectation that one company can fix third-world rural poverty instantly. Improving the lives of millions of people in Asia is a process that will involve many, many countries and take many decades.
Because COGS is what Apple pays Foxconn (and other manufacturers) to produce those items. Foxconn and the others make their profit (or loss) from the contracted amount paid, which is roughly, though not always, COGS.
It is far more likely Apple would contract factories in Vietnam and Indonesia than in Burma or North Korea to product items, as forced labour is a poor source of quality manufactured goods.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's easy to hate big corporations, but even if you make the argument that they are exploiting workers, what are the alternatives?
If Americans truly have a moral responsibility to improve Chinese lives, then actually what is necessary is a foreign policy that directly aims to level the playing field between the countries. It might be something effectively akin to an international progressive tax, I don't know what form it would take, but the point is that Americans would never stand for this. People are already complaining daily about losing their jobs to overseas workers, and the entire culture—both cultures I believe—are based on competition. Corporations are just a handy scapegoat to assuage our liberal guilt.
The very threat of a boycott will put yet more pressure on Apple to at least appear to improve the conditions while still employing factory workers.
Also, the article that was everywhere last week showed how the advantage of Chinese factories was not just low wages, but a capacity to get a new production line in no time. This pust those factories at an advantage, and gives them a large bargaining power. I would not be surprised that this kind of advantages will actually be used as a bargaining chip by some chinese local gvt to force Apple to contribute to working conditions improvements. Because Apple cannot produce ipods tomorrow in Vietnam.
If I later learned that the alien's race on average makes $50,000,000 a year, and that $40,000 was something they give their children in allowance... Would I feel exploited? No. Would I think, "wow I'd love some of that", probably. But because the salary I make earns me a living relative to those around me, I really wouldn't see the issue.
I think you are ignoring the economic context. And no, Foxconn employees are not, for all intents and purposes, Apple employees. That's kind of absurd to say. If Foxconn employees are essentially Apple employees, then hell, so was I. In a previous job, I worked for a company that supplied services to Apple... I guess I should have demanded a higher salary, and that would probably look nice on my resume. Maybe I'll add it.
Conversely most of us in the US have never volunteered at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. Most people ignore the man at the street corner or maybe throw a couple dollars his or her way. Most people do not think about the Salvation Army (who served 59.9 million meals to the needy in 2010) unless they are trying off load some old junk or hear the bells near Christmas time.
Point being that there are people in our own cities far more needy than these Foxconn employees. Yet, I have witnessed first hand people who make an anti-Apple "morality" complaint with out ever lifting a finger for those in need. That is what I call immoral.
-Sorry for the soapbox, not directed at any poster.
As if Apple is the root of all problems. As if Foxconn only manufacture products from Apple. As if people are FORCED to work in those conditions. As if they DONT have a choice of not working there.
And i am sorry peeps, what happen if Apple suddenly decide to double pay Foxconn? What happens if EVERYONE double pay them? Would those people get double their salary?
And it is great that Foxconn are now considering using Advance robotics instead, more people Jobless, more people suffer.
Oh, and i forgot, American has once been through this stage as well, and looking from the web it is obvious they dont teach history there.
Considering how many workers who choose to work there are underage, you can't exactly say that they are giving meaningful consent to work there.
The whole equation is different for developing countries.
Also, as per the article, 'low income' is relative. Low to you, higher than average in China.
An Apple only making 4% profit is going to negotiate hard to lower the production costs or look for lower-cost suppliers. An Apple making 70% profit is not going to put up as much fight when Foxconn raises their prices a little bit so they can pay the workers more.
So really it's the Dell or Microsoft making 4% profit (completely made up number) that is far worse for the workers. If we cared about the workers as opposed to some PR / ego thing then we'd go out of our way to buy Apple products and boycott Dell/MS/etc.
But it's a bit of a false dichotomy if someone's demanding (or rebutting) an increase of the wage to that of your own nation. If you're expecting that magically Apple would make it so that everyone at Foxconn producing ipads and iphones would get a salary of an average US worker, then you're clearly out of your mind. But then, pundits assuming that this is the only option also are quite a bit on the hyperbolic side with their argument.
The reason why Apple is getting some backlash on that – apart from basic envy – is that they're considered a premium brand. You know that you pay more just for the design – maybe even eco-friendliness. So couldn't a bit of that premium margin also be redirected towards Chinese workers? (Or maybe even a slight increase in prices to make that possible) Some kind of "fair trade" deal.
Never mind that Apple might actually be doing that, as I really don't know whether "their" workers earn more than (or are actually different from) workers assembling Dell laptops and Nokia phones.
If not, I wonder whether this could work out. If at all, it's company like Apple that could pull it off. Considering that you're already paying a pretty good price, a few dollars more going towards that end is simply a lower percentage than with bargain products.
remember, everything is connected. one worker will hear about the pay in one factory, and go back to work in the country close to his family instead of being paid way less in another.
The practice of exploiting someone else's weaknesses for one's own advantage is widely spread and even sanctioned by some societies in general (implicitly and sometimes less so), the bottom of the problem is not tech companies abusing poor workforce, it is the general lack of consensus as to what is fair and what is not. Singling out a single actor from the flock is also unfair (such as is the case today with Apple - and just because they are so successful-). Not is it only unfair, it is counter productive because it will hurt apple and in no way do any good to the chinese workers.
Now, we want to fix the problem? Then we need to first figure out what the fuss is all about, and i say that is easy!
This entire argument, it looks to me, boils down to fairness. The question of What is Fair, and what is not (or evil if you will). It is not a new argument, for ages people have tried to settle on a general agreement on what it is to be leading the good life. Religions were built around this and constitutions were designed for that as well; the social contract that defines who we are as Americans, Chinese, Arabs, French, Christians, Muslims etc.... It has however been very difficult to bring all these people to agree together to one single approach to life, and so over eons people have "siloed" each with their own "moral code".
And i say companies (including apple) have all abided by these contracts and are not abusing any of their compatriots. So in essence they are not in violation of anything. Why? simply because the "abused" -by western standards- people you are concerned about are not being abused in America, but in China, and what's more? Their treatment is not considered to be abuse in China, it is legal THERE.
This is horrifying, because it is cool to indirectly abuse someone overseas as long as you treat your compatriots fairly? I say not, but in order to make it un-cool we need to agree to a new universal bill of ethics where things are more defined and definitive like What is a minimum fair working condition universally.
What now?
I think it is time for tech companies that have made billions (including apple) to take a step back and ponder their moto "we do stuff that changes the world", add to it " ... to be a better place for all" and apply it on all the aspects of their business. This new bill of ethics once finalsed can be "ratified" by these monster companies and others will follow. The reason i am specifically speaking of tech companies it because i know tech and the hacker spirit and i can assert that there is a general good will and faith to make the world a better place, and since the world has given us, and still is, great things and lots of appreciation, the industry and community is mature enough ,now, to start giving back and leading by example.
I'm tired of this apologist bullshit. It's been showing up in HN articles for weeks now.
Yes, I understand the concept that the standard and cost of living are lower in China. I understand that it may be better to have children working than starving on the streets. I understand that rural farm life in China is terrible.
That is absolutely no excuse for keeping people in near-slave conditions. That is no excuse for allowing people to be maimed (by machinery and by non-stop repetitive, back-to-back 12 - 16 hour shifts) with no compensation. That is no excuse for allowing people to be blacklisted if they make any complaint about working conditions.
Apple is now sitting on $100 billion and still telling us that their products could never be manufactured in the US. Hilariously, one reason they cite is that you can't find a fab plant right next to a glass plant. Guess what? Build them both in the US, pay reasonable US wages, and provide reasonable US working conditions.
If Apple's success requires that 8,000 people be put instantly onto production lines for insanely long shifts, day after day until their bodies fall apart, then their products should not exist.
There's a not so subtle undercurrent of privilege that runs through a lot of the apologist postings and it drives me mad.
Sure, just few clicks in Foxconn payroll system and problem solved. But Chinese don't want to do that because they are evil.
Sorry for this harsh comment. I'm from post communist country and I'm also tired of that kind of thinking.
IMHO the real reason why people support the idea of Apple boycott is that 8000 high wages engineering jobs has been moved to China. But it more political correct to talk about poop labor standards, etc.
No idea what you're talking about with that line.
This isn't simply about pay. It's about terrible working conditions. It's about the fact that Steve Jobs told Obama that his products could never be produced in the US because, apparently, his products require horrible working conditions in order to be produced.
Frankly, I could care less what they get paid, so long as it's a livable wage in their region. What I care about is that employees are not stuck doing the exact same thing, day in and day out, until they're maimed by machinery or repetitive stress injuries. I care that people have a way to air their grievances without fear of blacklisting.
8000 high wages engineering jobs has been moved to China
They have? The 8,000 I read about were assembly line workers, not engineers.
As for moving jobs overseas, I take issue with Apple claiming that they have to due to a lack of manufacturing facilities when they have $100 billion in the bank.
Except if you read the bio, that's apparently not the reason he gave. It's because there are far more mid-level engineers over there. Not quite degree standard, but good enough to oversee production processes.
"Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers"
"Mr. Saragoza, an engineer, quickly moved up the plant’s ranks and joined an elite diagnostic team. His salary climbed to $50,000. He and his wife had three children. They bought a home with a pool."
"The worker, Lina Lin, is a project manager in Shenzhen, China"
"Mrs. Lin earns a bit less than what Mr. Saragoza was paid by Apple ... She and her husband put a quarter of their salaries in the bank every month."
> The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States. In China, it took 15 days.
Nine months vs 15 days.
Also many didn't get the point from the article, that the benefit in producing in China isn't any longer low cost labor, but because it is so big and the whole world produces there it developed enormous long-term advantages in flexibility and infrastructure. Like the silicon valley attracted and fueled programming jobs/companies, just because other computer firms are nearby. The hundreds of factories/suppliers in China, the short distance to high-tech firms in Taiwan, South korea, Japan etc, make it a hub to which manufacturing gravitates.
From the same article:
People will carry this phone in their pocket, he said. People also carry their keys in their pocket. “I won’t sell a product that gets scratched,” he said tensely. The only solution was using unscratchable glass instead. “I want a glass screen, and I want it perfect in six weeks.”
(later)
In mid-2007, after a month of experimentation, Apple’s engineers finally perfected a method for cutting strengthened glass so it could be used in the iPhone’s screen. The first truckloads of cut glass arrived at Foxconn City in the dead of night, according to the former Apple executive. That’s when managers woke thousands of workers, who crawled into their uniforms — white and black shirts for men, red for women — and quickly lined up to assemble, by hand, the phones. Within three months, Apple had sold one million iPhones. Since then, Foxconn has assembled over 200 million more.
So, because Apple engineers did a shoddy job designing their screen (which scratched in Jobs' pocket), a relentless pace was set over six weeks to put in new glass.
How does HN feel when their boss says, "oh, hey, you know that six month project we've been working on? Yeah, we're going to have to change this, this, this, and this, oh, and we still have to meet next week's deadline. See you over the weekend."
Why is it acceptable that Apple's shortsightedness "required" these insane working conditions?
Both my parents were working in worse conditions as these Foxconn workers (I know that these are some of the better jobs in China) through 50's and 60's.
When you're poor only hard work, smarts and luck can help you out. The harder you work, the smarter and luckier you are - better the odds.
Look how much these (Foxconn) wages have risen in last 5 years - 100% if I'm right. On the other hand Foxconn is already working on increasing the automation of their pants.
Be careful. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Look how much these (Foxconn) wages have risen in last 5 year
Everyone is obsessing on wages. Let me state yet again: I don't care about wages, so long as their livable in the region. I care about working conditions.
Hell, you are free to go and build a company that will do better.
What you lack is the perspective of these workers. Foxconn assembly job is an opportunity equivalent to a Ivy League diploma for most of these workers.
They have no intention to work this job 10-20 years. This is Chinese rural equivalent of doing a startup. Work for 2-3 years, build a nest egg, go to school/start your own business.
And working/living conditions are actually pretty good for Asian standards. No chemicals, clean environment. Yes hours are long, labor is hard, but the pay is phenomenal.
Let me finish with an anecdote. My neighbors grandfather was a emigrant miner for twenty years. He always told his wife, that when he made enough money, they would return to home country and she would never have to work. They did and bought a property with some land. One day they were working in the field and the wife complained that he promised she wouldn't have to work. He paused, looked her in the eye and said: "Honey, this is not work."
If you rage harder maybe our Chinese people's life would magically become better.
Or in fact you do not care as long as your shinny new toys are isolated from the poverty and suffering of the rest of the world and manufactured in your sunshine and rainbow and god's chosen America.
Apple's success enabled Foxconn and other suppliers to employ literally millions of Chinese people, millions of otherwise poorer people to each send home $3000+ dollers per year.
It's ugly, it could be better, some aspects of the factory life need immediate improvement even by Chinese standard, on humanitarian reasons alone.
It has nothing to do with Apple's 100B reserve. It's not that Apple can not afford it. It's my country, China, with its vast under educated labor surplus can not afford the US dream, can not abandon low value add manufacturing industry.
Instead of being a dick, why don't you read what I've written more closely?
Manufacturing in the US is just one option, which I suggest because they insist that they can't possibly do anything to improve labor conditions at the Chinese factories.
China, with its vast under educated labor surplus can not afford the US dream, can not abandon low value add manufacturing industry.
Nobody is saying China should abandon its manufacturing industry. People are saying that labor conditions should be better. This can be done without destroying China's manufacturing sector.
Apple can and is trying to improve the labor conditions at its supply chain. That's the whole point of its annul report. Foxconn is trying too. Those companies' primary goal is money, suicide workers cost a lot of money. Bad PR cost a lot of money.
What's impossible is suddenly western standard living, what's impossible is immediate strict labor law enforcement, what's impossible is working condition the same level as in the US.
Why do you, and others, keep bringing this up as if anyone asked for that?
But to a lot of Chinese people, living in the complex certainly is not nice, but not unimaginably horrid either. I spent half of my college years with 7 other dudes in a room about 130 sqft, for example.
In college, you weren't doing mind-numbing 12 - 16 hour shifts, the same actions day after day after day until your body failed. You weren't blacklisted for complaining to whoever ran the facility. You weren't maimed by machinery and subsequently completely ignored.
There is a lot to be done that has absolutely nothing to do with a "western standard of living".
Hippie: "Hey Apple, why don't you require that suppliers improve labor conditions in their factories?"
Apple response 1) "We can't pay Chinese workers what American workers make!"
Hippe: "Okay, fine, but I wasn't talking about wages. I was talking about labor conditions. Stop working people on ridiculously long shifts, doing the same thing day in, and day out, until they're maimed. Stop blacklisting people with valid complaints."
Apple response 2) "We can't raise wages, that would create a local aristocracy!"
Hippie: "Again, I'm not talking about wages, so long as they're livable in the region. I'm talking about labor conditions. Also, what exactly would be wrong with a local aristocracy? Management always says that a rising tide lifts all boats as it pays itself a healthy bonus, after all."
Hippie: "Okay, Apple, since you refuse to pursue reasonable working conditions in China, why don't you manufacture in the US, according to US standards of pay and treatment?"
Apple: "Oh, no, no, we couldn't do that! The US doesn't have the manufacturing ability. We need a fabrication facility next door to a glass facility!"
Hippie: "You have $100 billion. You can build both in, say, North Carolina."
Apple: "No, no, American workers don't have the work ethic that is necessary to produce Apple products. Besides, China educates the mid-level engineers that we need to manage factory floors."
Hippie: "By work ethic, you mean the ability to rouse 8,000 people from corporate housing and immediately put them to work on back-to-back 16 hour shifts, all because you couldn't get your engineering spec done in a reasonable time? And wasn't I just reading about how there are a large number of unemployed, middle-aged Americans who have experience managing factories floors, who can't find work because such factories no longer exist?"
> Boycotting Apple for better Foxconn wages and conditions is like having sex for virginity. Entirely counter-productive and exactly the wrong thing to be doing.
Those so called hard working conditions where poor Chinese people work 16 hour days 7 days a week in unsafe conditions until they're literally crippled... they should be grateful they even have a job.
What are these workers expecting? Compassion? Sorry. They were born in the wrong country. God bless America!
The sooner we can rationalize this issue away, the better. I don't need the guilt trip, and I sure as hell don't need the inconvenience.
1st he quotes: "First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries’ populations. "
tl;dr: even if you raise those workers pay, it will do nothing for the other workers in the country
2nd he concludes: "Wages paid to manufacturing workers in China are not determined by the productivity of those specific workers. They are not determined by US wages, by the profits that Apple makes nor even by the good intentions of the creative types that purchase Apple products. They are determined by the wages paid by other jobs in China and that is itself determined by the average level of productivity across the Chinese economy."
tl;dl: the workers are paid poorly because everyone in the coutry is badly paid.
see what he did there?
he just used the cause of the problem as a consequence and dismissed it!
boycott apple (and others!) so that those specific workers wage will rise to please public opinion, and with that, the wage of everyone else will also rise!
Are you suggesting that if a billion Chinese were to be transplanted to the USA tomorrow they would all find good paying jobs? Where would the infrastructure to support all this come from? Now add to this the fact China doesn't even have the economic infrastructure that the USA does.
I don't see any exploitation here only gradual growth and development.
By your logic I assume you believe Africa needs to be exploited for the benefit of the Chinese?
They will just profit a bit less