Slashdot Mirror
Judging The Apple 'Sweatshop' Charge
jurgen writes "MacWorld summarizes an article published in the U.K., stating that Apple's iPods are made in China by women who work 15 hours/day, make $50/month, and have to pay half of that right back to the company for housing and food. The article also claims the workers live in dormitories where they are housed 100 per room, and are not allowed visitors." A Wired article looks at the same story, exploring the reliability of the Mail on Sunday's claims. From that article: "The situation is too murky for a rush to judgment on Apple's ethics here, and it may well meet minimum global standards. But for a company that has staked its image on progressive politics, Apple has set itself up as a potential lightning rod on global labor standards. Sweatshops came back to bite Nike after its customers rose up in arms; and Apple can expect a similar grilling from its upscale Volvo-driving fans in the months ahead."
Don't look at what they make or how long they work. That doesn't matter one bit. If that worker over there working such long hours for so little, and then paying part of that back for lodging, didn't think the job was worth it they would quit. For a bunch of idiotic Americans to force companies to close up shop just so they can feel good about that company is just irresponsible. Believe it or not, folks, conditions suck in a lot of places in this world, and sometimes that job, and that offer of clean housing, is the only thing standing between a life of misery in a rice paddy, or starvation, or sex slavery, or you name it. Before you go poo-pooing a company like Apple or Nike for having "sweatshops" you should really google around for results of actual studies about what happens to people when the "do goody" American idiots get them kicked back out on the street. Not pretty. The only people it helps is the (usually very liberal and comparatively rich) Americans, because it makes them feel good. That's it.
What's broken is the law itself. The reason the US has lost its manufacturing sector and runs a massive trade deficit is pure and simple: because you can save a huge amount of money by evading US law - evading US minimum wage, evading OSHA, etc. etc. We rightfully hold up companies producing goods in our own country to certain standards. Then we stab them in the back by allowing the competition to bypass all the rules and get their manufacturing done almost for free by outsourcing. As a result, we have only shell corporations who advertise and keep profits but don't actually make anything.
Why should anyone care about this?
As long as the work is completely voluntary, the workers have decided that it beats the alternative. It's an improvement in their lives. Often times, a huge improvement - their families get enough to eat now. No one is doing anything wrong, and all the activity is mutually beneficial to all parties involved.
It also doesn't change the way the computers work.
Now I have to go back to drinking my coffee. It's fair trade, shade-grown coffee picked by virgin tribal girls under a full moon. Tasty.
So you are saying that it is ok to exploit people if you aren't making money on it? This type of reasoning is what is at the core of Marxism, and I do not agree with it.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
This is stupid. I look around my room, and It's probably likely at least half, if not more like 80% of the stuff here probably has some sweatshop labor in it (with 20% being made in the US if I push it). Although Apple and the related company are no small fries, they are in the overall picture of this sweatshop labor stuff. Ohhh, Apple indirectly uses sweatshop labor. Time to gang up on them, and about every other company that does it, especially directly.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
a)no, that's not what he's saying
b)you REALLY don't understand the Marxist doctrine....you might have vaguely heard of Stalin or Mao, but neither did what Karl Marx was writing about. Hell, they didn't even do what Lenin was talking about
c)thewired article is pretty hypocritical in it's 'don't rush to judgement' routine. Slave labour (essentially what these people have to do; it's either sweatshop work in one of those 'economic free zones' or starve) is abhorent to anyone with the least bit of moral understanding. Sure, many more companioes do it, blahblahblah, but it is no excuse. Apple should pay the company which makes Apple's product enough money and enforce that any company they do business with pays their employees a living wage. They might have to make their gear more expensive, but fuck it; if you can afford a Nano, you can afford a Nano at twice the price if it means that the people making them can have some freedom.
It's thing like this which demonstrate the horror of an absolutely free market. This, and dumping of chemical waste, etc etc etc.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
It is called a race toward the bottom.
I have personally witnessed outsourcing of people who make $1.25/hr in the Dominican Republic. "Their Jobs" are now over in China where the pay is $0.10/hr. 2/3 of the factories in the tax free zone of La Romana are now sitting vacant.
Now, that is F-ed up!
Global Corporatism at its finest.
Who will guard the guards?
While I agree that sweatshops suck, I have yet to hear of any practical way to bring third world countries up to first world standard that does not involve exploiting the gap in labour cost between coutries.
To put things simply, third world countries have inferior infrastructure, inferior education levels, inferior political stability and a non-existing domestic market, when compared to a first world country. The _only_ thing most third world countries have going for them is cheap labour.
The theory is that by allowing companies to exploit cheap labour, the state is given enough money to invest in infrastructure, publich schooling, police and other things that are needed to bring in more companies to the country, which will in turn create higher demand for labour, which will drive up the cost of labour. This is a slow and painful process, where the future of a country is built on the broken backs of people living today, but we have seen countries like South Korea and Taiwan raise themselves from poverty to prosperity over the course of a few decades using this method. All the foreign aid and all the U2 concerts against poverty in the world have yet to raise a single country out of poverty.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries? (Yes, yes, we can all say that "consumers" have the power to force companies to take up the banner. After all, you can't make China change, so why not go after Apple?)
Legally, you know the answer is none. Morally, no more responsibility falls on Apple than any other company. Yet you and I both know that Apple has the power to affect not just their own manufacturing process, but competing companies who want to save face as well. Can they do this and remain profitable? That is why there is a gray area here.
- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living? (Yes, I'm aware that the article makes reference to food and rent consuming "half" their salary.) If the pay is "dismal" even by China's standards, as one of the articles asserts, then why is anyone even working there?
Reports about money earned should be considered relative. Reports about hours worked should not.
- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative. (Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me. And if it's Chinese police or governmental entities that don't let workers leave and/or don't let them have visitors, well...)
From what I gather about China you have a large portion of society who are considered second class citizens. Most, if not all, opportunities for work include long hours, low pay, and no benefits. They are not publicly educated as they are in the U.S., and they simply do not have good choices for jobs. Just because working for X employer is the best choice doesn't mean you aren't being overworked and underpaid. And that's probably a gross understatement.
And wouldn't more effective change come from the US being able to have a global position such that it can exert pressure on the Chinese government and other human rights abusers, rather than trying to mobilize consumers to target US companies?
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But why should that stop us from expressing our distaste for certain corporate practices. If we don't like the way someone does business, we don't just stop using their products, we tell everyone else on the block about our gripes. That is capitalism.
There is actually enough context for us to determine this isn't a good situation. Half my income buys me a comfortable, spacious, apartment or home, and for the most part, virtually everyone I know can at the very least get a room in a shared house working 40 hours a week minimum wage in America. The same is true throughout the UK.
Half your income at this factory, spent working rather more than 40 hours a week, gets you a bed in a massive dormatory. The money left over is arguably only acceptable because you're not exactly going to spend it on amassing belongings. Where the fuck would you put them? Be clear about this: we're talking about thousands of workers who have no privacy. Not "Their supervisor occasionally peeks at their emails", but seriously no privacy.
Leaving aside immediate moral issues, it's also a vicious cycle. Chronically low wages means low-to-non-existant spending, which prevents growth, which prevents the surrounding economy actually benefiting materially from the work being done. As a result, the factory remains a principle employer in the area with little or no competition springing up. There's nowhere to escape to. There will not be, unless something is done.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That's great, because not buying the products they make, is better than buying them because everyone knows no income is better than some income, however small. Right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the side of sweatshop operators or the people who are making money out of essentially slave labour. However, at the same time, i'm sure if opposite the sweatshop there were places giving decent wages, with vacancies, the sweatshops would be paralysed. However, sweatshops are still around and people are still desperate in these countries to make whatever they can. Why shouldn't your dollars (or pounds, or euros, or yen) go to helping out people further below the poverty-line than your countrymen?
And for my conclusion, forgive me for paraphrasing this, however it stuck in my mind as a good illustration of the point.
"It is good that workers should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by sweatshops. Yet a sweatshop is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good."
The original was by a gentleman called Thomas Babbington Macaulay addressing UK Parliament.
Baka Drew
Coming from the nearly the same hypothesis, I reach nearly the opposite conclusion.
First, a minor difference, plenty of activists have protested and complained about the US making China a most favored nation trade partner. They would love to get that position reversed completely. Our congress has even made noise about reevaluating the current position regarding China and the WTO.
However, I'd agree that the government basically doesn't care. And I don't think there is any practical way for an activist to make either government care. An individual corporation, such as apple, particularly one that makes a high price, high profit, non-necessity item like the ipod, however, makes an excellent target for a boycott threat.
It's a very smart, reasonable, way to improve conditions in a gradual way.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
This gives China a large pool of low wage workers and we benefit by getting cheap stuff at WalMart (and cheap iPods).
I do think that we (and US companies) do have some moral responsibility here.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
No really. Exploitation and dehumanization are at the very core of what Marxism is about, and /ASCII seems to understand it well enough. As to your argument -- if being offered the choice between work and starvation is "slavery", do you solve the problem by removing the choice of work?
You're right about marketing. They're marketing geniuses. Compared to most retail, an Apple Store is a magical place like Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory. You can almost imagine the Oopma Loompas or the elves in Santa's workshop. Well, this story pulls the curtain back on the wizard. Apple is just like everyone else.
People are so far removed from the nuts and bolts of what actually delivers our modern conveniences. I like affordable electronics and delicious steaks. I'll probably keep buying them, but at least I'm aware of the suffering that goes into making them, although I'm not sure if I ever saw the inside of a slaughterhouse.
I had this argument with a polisci friend of mine, and she won.
First, to be brief, who owns the governments?
Corporations are actually the bigger targets since they are less accountable than governments when it comes to international affairs. How do you regulate something that doesn't exist within anyone's borders? Yes, I'm sure Nike (or Ford) now has a nice PO Box in the states, and maybe a couple hundred office workers, but their full entity exists in various other places, and they could easily move.
Sure, put pressure on Congress, but guess who pays for them to be in office? People have proven that they will vote for whoever has more money (=ad time), so money becomes the issue. And no one here has enough to compare to corporate sponsors in any meaningful way. Perhaps when America has educated and freethinking voters the problem will solve itself.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I would say the problem is a slightly different one: communism doesn't scale past the group where everyone knows everyone else. In order to work, communism requires trust based on first-hand observation. Shaker communities, kibbutzim, families are common examples of successful communal groups (some families more than others). All have worked because people observe that others are actually contributing as much as they can and taking out no more than they need.
The upper limit on "everyone knowing everyone" appears to be in the range of 100 to 150 people.
Are you sure? I think modern media is pretty much able to whip the population into a frenzy when needed by "The Powers That Be(tm)" to get something voted in. I think a pure democracy stinks because if you can whip up a mob, you can get just about anything you want. Ultimately, pure democracies stink because there are no protections for the minority.
Remember, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Constitutionally limited republics get much less done (a very good thing), but are still subject to creeping expansion of powers and eventual subversion of the critical checks and balances once enough power is in the hands of the executive (police & military). Nothing is perfect forever.
Regards,
Ross
I just bought a pair of New Balance shoes, and I only buy NB athletic shoes because they still make some in the USA (check the inside label, because they also make some models abroad).
I do too, but mostly because they're not total ripoffs and they come in size 15. However, I don't think I'd pay a premium for them relative to other shoes with equivalent satisfaction ratings and build quality.
I'm also a bit of a woodworker/tool junkie, and I refuse to buy tools made in China. I'll settle for Japan, Europe or Mexico if USA isn't available. But nothing from Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, etc.
Congratulations, there's a young girl in Thailand that's being sold into sex slavery because she or her parents can't get a job at the local tool plant. BTW, that computer you just typed your post on? Lots of it came from China, Malaysia, etc. Hypocrisy? You're soaking in it!!
The only people to blame are consumers. Demand something else and you'll get it. Settle, and you get sweatshop labor. "Free Tibet" isn't just a bumper sticker slogan. If you really cared about it, you would change your ways.
Sweatshops are better than fuckshops. Or starvation. Frankly, I consider it a moral imperative to buy products made in developing countries. The fact that it fucks over unionized labor is just sweet, sweet icing on that cake.
BTW, you think that SUV of yours is American-made? HARDLY.. More like Hecho en Mexico... Try a Toyota if you want American made (and to thumb your nose at greedy unions)...
As for labor conditions overseas- feh...
Nearly all large companies (including Apple) practice a policy of using middlemen to control their workers. For example:
If I live in China and have heart trouble, I might need a pacemaker. I would like to buy the pacemaker directly from Guidant/whoever but their business in China is very limited because of the goverenment. Instead, Guidant goes to a broker company based in China and the patient pays $5000 to the broker. The broker divides the money up, the doctor gets $1000, Guidant gets $3500, and the broker gets $500
Everything in China is revolved around a certain mentality. To most Chinese, taking a cut off the profits this has been going on for thousands of years and there seems to be no reason to change their culture. I'm not saying it's a good system, but it works for them.
Apple is almost certainly using another company as a proxy in China. This proxy handles all the money, employment, and products. A US consumer says, "I want an iPod," and the following things happen:
The third party distributor is directly responsible for paying the employees, Apple has no part in it. The distributor pays off the appropriate officials, takes some money for themselves, and that does not leave much for workers. If you want to complain to Apple about labor practices complain to the officials in Beijing first.
This is reality. China does not work like a western country. They've been doing this for thousands of years (think about the silk road). The government will ask Apple for money if they have operations in China. Apple can cut its losses by going with a third party, so they do. All this comparing to western civilization is completely meaningless, and the parent obviously has no idea that our cultures are much different. In China, you play by Chinese rules or you don't play at all.