Slashdot Mirror


Workers Poisoned Making Touchscreen Hardware

SocResp writes "A chemical called n-hexane has been poisoning the nervous systems of Chinese workers who assemble touchscreen devices for Apple and other companies, an investigative journalist from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports. It's scary to think that people are being damaged to pursue high production rates. For companies with soaring profits and share prices, and elaborate product development and marketing, it seems they should be all the more culpable if they fail to take care of the production workers."

17 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. This is part of why offshoring is cheaper: by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Production lines in other countries don't incur the cost of US worker-safety regulations.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:This is part of why offshoring is cheaper: by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may not give a damn but I'm willing to bet the workers do. The problem is they're either not aware (very likely) or they're forced to choose between that and eating.

      The fact that you're too much of a chicken shit to post your opinion with a name suggests that you do in fact give a damn, enough at least to not associate your own handle with your own oxygen wasting stupidity.

      The root of the problem is the same blissful, ignorant indifference that is causing the USA to become a soft-tyranny style police state. The products' marketing don't mention the working conditions that made it available at that price, just like the politicians' campaigns don't mention that the removal of freedom is how many of their goals are accomplished. No one really wants to take a look beneath the surface. It's out of sight, out of mind as though there are no externalities, as though there are no secondary and tertiary effects.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:This is part of why offshoring is cheaper: by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is larger than that. In economics, there's the phenomenon of "externalities" -- basically, costs incurred by business operations that aren't paid for by the business itself.

      In the United States, for example, companies are generally expected to provide health insurance coverage for their workers. If a lot of workers get sick and file health claims, the employer's insurance rates go up -- so it's in the employer's interests to maintain a healthful work environment. But if the company doesn't provide health coverage, the costs are still caused by the business, but the expenses are picked up by someone else -- either the employees themselves or the taxpayers (because the employees end up getting many of their medical expenses waived, either intentionally or through bankruptcy). That's an externality.

      The same is true of many of the environmental factors discussed in TFA. If I run a factory that dumps chemicals into a river, and there's no law that says I have to clean up that waste, then that's an externality -- someone is eventually going to have to do something about it, just not me.

      The same with air pollution. If someone notices that the air is getting smoggier, but there's no regulation that says how much particulate matter I'm allowed to release into the atmosphere, then obviously nobody is going to be measuring my emissions and there will be no way to know how much of the smog I'm responsible for. Obviously I won't be factoring that into my balance sheet.

      I'm further willing to venture that in a tightly-controlled authoritarian economy, such as China's, government and party officials are likely to have significant stakes in the businesses that are causing the pollution and health problems, and therefore the incentive to legislate those businesses will be low. Maybe it's worth considering how American businesses can be regulated such that they will be required to pick up costs incurred by their suppliers overseas. If those costs can't be properly accounted for, maybe the American companies should be required to take their business elsewhere.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:This is part of why offshoring is cheaper: by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're a member of the human race, it's your problem. If you have a conscience, it's your problem.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:This is part of why offshoring is cheaper: by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you know something you're considering buying potentially directly hurts the workers making them, do you buy it anyway?

      Yes. I buy products made on assembly lines with nonzero accident rates, made from metals mined under dangerous conditions (ALL of them are), made from oil drilled and refined under dangerous conditions, processed using energy from coal mined under dangerous conditions, transported over dangerous roads, etc.

      Fact is, every product -- even those made entirely in 1st world Western countries -- required some danger somewhere in its manufacturing process. You can fairly claim that Chinese manufacturing is unnecessarily dangerous, but you can't set the bar at zero.

    5. Re:This is part of why offshoring is cheaper: by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am all for buying from free nations but that alone will not do much to solve the problem. Until China cares about the Chinese nothing will change. The rest is just unrelated.

      Unfortunately the situation in China is the same as the situation everywhere. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. The problem the Chinese have is that they fear their government, and with very good reason. So long as their political elites are an "untouchable" group who can stomp on their own citizens with no fear for their own personal safety, that will remain the case. It's sad that it comes down to that. What you'd like to believe is that human beings with political power would help other human beings to prosper, that government can be your friend and your buddy who looks out for you. This is absolutely not the reality and never has been.

      Right now Chinese people fear their government and justifiably so. Until and unless this changes, the government of China cares only for the numbers such as its GDP and does not care about the human cost necessary to achieve it. It has no incentive to sacrifice economic gain in order to safeguard things like good working conditions and basic human rights. If it did that, the numbers would not look as good to it.

      The problem everywhere is that people don't understand a basic fact: government represents force and "might makes right" and seeks to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. That is the ONLY THING that makes government different from any other entity. You can dress it up in terms of polls and party affiliation and such, but ultimately government derives its existence from the point of a gun, from superior brute force or threat of force and not from superior wisdom or reason. It is therefore fundamentally untrustworthy and thuggish. More government equals more force and thus, more care that must be taken to ensure that such force is used within strict boundaries. Advocating more government to solve problems that don't require force to solve leads to more subjugation and less freedom.

      The USA's Founding Fathers understood this reality. They knew that the only difference between a tyrannical government and a "good" government was size, managebility, and accountability. These three things are one as they are all related. As size of government goes up, managebility and accountability of government goes down. Eventually it has no purpose other than to perpetuate its own existence. The Chinese are finding this out the hard way, in the form of a government that will happily let them ingest poison so long as the money keeps flowing.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  2. It's a WalMart world after all by mmcxii · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the pursuit of cheaper and cheaper goods you're going to have this kind of thing. Sadly, China lowered the price-point so much that it's hard to find many products made in an environment with a reasonable amount of safety and a livable wage for the workers.

    That's what happens when you have a population feeling that they need 54 inch TVs, enough food to kill themselves with, clothes they wear twice before they pitch them in the trash or out grow them, every Pixar film in their home library and two of the biggest three video game consoles for each child.

    People have made a choice between quantity and quality and China is taking the brunt of this along with the spoils.

    1. Re:It's a WalMart world after all by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Again, you missed his point. His point is we should consume less. Not that we shouldn't buy anything from China at all.

      I disagree with his premise, but at least I understand it. You are just being intentional obtuse.

      Nothing he posted way a hypocrisy in any way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Re:Someone mod down this jerk by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's insensitive, but it's essentially how the Chinese economy works. Chinese companies can afford to pay substandard wages and ignore safety concerns because they have a basically limitless supply of labor as a continuous stream of Chinese peasants make their way from the farmland into the cities in search of a better life. If one worker drops or quits, there are fifty more waiting to take his or her place. It's analogous to the US during the Industrial Revolution, except on a much much larger scale.

  4. Capitalism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The market will fix this. Nobody will buy iPhones when they hear about this. And all iPhone consumers in the market will hear about it.

    Right?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  5. chemistry of n-hexane by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In case anyone is interested, n-hexane is a straight-chain hydrocarbon, six (predictably) carbons long. It's similar to gasoline, which is a mixture of straight-chain and branched-chain hydrocarbons, that average about eight carbons (hence 'octane number': the reference for gasoline volatility is a specific eight-carbon molecule.) Hexane is often used as a solvent and cleaning agent, replacing the much better but much more toxic benzene, also a six-carbon molecule, and a number of other solvents that do a great job solvating but also do a great job poisoning people in both short and long term exposures.

    It's pretty common in production facilities, particularly manufacturing lines, to start out with good chemical control: a fireproof safe from which people have to check out material, and over time, as the manufacturing process evolves, people keep finding they need to wash stuff up at one step and pretty soon a jug of solvent just gets left there and people start splashing it around. Gloves get in the way, or get caught in machinery, so people stop using those, too. Then, in the US, OSHA makes more and more drastic rules about allowing solvents of any sort, to try to prevent this happening, and manufacturers have to find another solvent, which then gets used in the same way with the same results.

    Point being, it's not particularly OSHA that's the problem: they're trying to stop people poisoning themselves. The issue is manufacturing processes with unanticipated problems, and production workers who find ways to overcome the problems without realizing that they're endangering themselves. In China there's less concern over workers endangering themselves than in the US, although the difference is primarily in degree, but the same general problem is seen in most manufacturing environments.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  6. Re:Give me a break. by KhabaLox · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've yet to meet anyone with a Zune or a creative player who is as large a twat waffle as Apple fanboys.

    I've yet to meet anyone with a Zune or a creative player, period. Which I think disproves the GPs point more immediately.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  7. Re:Apple.... and those others. by Nocuous · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know...when ever there's a news story about a portable music device they automatically refer to the Apple iPod, which is irritating as hell.

    The same thing happens with tablets now.

    It's nice that they still drag Apple into a conversation like this...but it's still bullshit.

    Quit saying Apple, ipod, ipad, etc unless it is a story actually about just them.

    Whenever I mention something about Apple being subject to the laws of business like any other company, people often come out of the woodwork to say something like, "Oh no you dint! Apple is the largest purchaser of in the WORLD, and they can do it faster, cheaper, prettier... etc. etc."

    So, since Apple be the largest X of Y in the WORLD, and first in market share and mind share, I find it entirely appropriate to drag Apple's name into the negative aspects of consumer electronics, including suicides among poorly treated workers, and outright poisoning of them. After all, with the Zune's laughable market share, how many workers could be dying assembling them?

    --
    Don't take it personally, but I'm not going to read your pithy response to my post.
  8. Re:Someone mod down this jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you trying to tell us that Han shot first?!

  9. He didn't say it should be that way by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just that it is that way. And I agree, I've been there.

    When you have a lot of labor to throw at a problem, the relative value of that labor becomes less. If you can get more workers for cheap, you'll use more of them and less expensive equipment and you'll use less expensive safety equipment too.

    And I've seen this in China myself. Even if the process is supposed to be safe, the line managers are rewarded for running the lines fast and at low cost, so shortcuts that don't seem to hurt anyone lead to bonuses at the end of the quarter.

    And yes, some of these shortcuts do hurt people long term, but its not obvious. That's why we have safety rules in the US. It's why China has them too, but never enforces them.

    Let me give you just one example. In China I saw a guy welding stuff using an arc welder and no mask. He had a piece of cardboard to shield his eyes and he'd move it aside and squint when he needed to see what was going on. Yes, he was destroying his eyes. And complaining about what people post on slashdot isn't fixing the problem.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  10. It's scary to think you're so misinformed. by masmullin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why the fuck do you think things are made in China?

    Actually, it has a lot to do with convergence, and quality/adaptability of the workforce. You can get cheaper labour elsewhere.

    What do I mean about convergence? Well, because all the other tech shit is made in Shenzen, you make your tech shit in Shenzen to reduce shipping cost and time. It's easier to go from prototype to assembly in a city that has all it's factories ready to easily adapt to various different hardware requirements.

    The average Chinese high-tech factory worker is a female wanting to save up some money to start a family, she is highly motivated to do a good job. She is very adaptable to the ever changing needs of high tech manufacturing (you can get robots to do the same shit she does... but you have to program the robots a lot due to the constant changing of high-tech).

    It's not simply cheap to manufacture high-tech in Shenzen simply because the workers sell themselves cheap, it's cheap in Shenzen because the city is incredibly good at using all of it's varied economies of scale (not just human).

  11. Re:Well it's is many American foods by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Be careful with hexane nomenclature. n-hexane is one of the isomers of hexane (there are 5), and by far the most toxic. Claims that hexane is a neurotoxin are misleading - the only hexane isomer that is a neurotoxin is n-hexane as the other hexanes don't produce the nerve damaging metabolite of n-hexane.