Oh, it does? Let's look at the article together and see if we can find that data:
>> (The US rate is) 3.5 per 100,000: we would expect, if the Foxconn factories were no more dangerous than the average American workplace, 35 workplace deaths a year among those 1 million workers. Yes, each of those deaths, each of those injuries, in those aluminium dust explosions is a tragedy. But if we were being realistic rather than spouting nonsense over such matters we would not be using evidence of three or four deaths as evidence of how Apple, Foxconn or even China are ignoring worker safety in pursuit of filthy lucre. At a very minimum we would be looking at the total workplace death rate rather than cherry picking one specific incident.
The author's saying he's heard of 3-4 people killed... so how does that map to 7 in the infographic? Where exactly are the Foxconn stats coming from? Because the "data" offered in this article is "as-seen-on-TV". Is there even a system of reporting mandated by the national govt to collect data? In the absence of actual vetted data, how can you conclude that Foxconn manufacturing is 5-10 times safer than avg US manufacturing?
>> But why would they be hiding fatality stats?
If you are Foxconn, do you want people talking about Foxconn and fatalities in the same sentence? And if the govt doesn't require it, do you feel compelled to use your own internal resources to voluntarily compile and publish stats that make you look bad?