A more accurate title is: suppliers break chinese labor law and apple's internal standards in order to meet deadlines.
Apple does occasional audits, but what more can you do when the people you audit lie to you because they _want_ to work?
> While overtime is allegedly often required, most workers want to work overtime to make more money, according to an anonymous diary written by a CLW investigator in the factory.
Apple can do math. Apple can look at what they're getting and what they're paying for it and run the figures and see what that comes to in terms of pay for hours worked. At a certain point, asking for X and putting down rules that make X impossible or highly improbable isn't getting conned, it's trying to get to plausible deniability.
The complaints here don't seem to be that the workers were underpaid for hours worked. It's hard to imagine what kind of math could let Apple look at "what they're getting and what they're paying for it" and deduce the amount of overtime or percentage of temps.
There's no question, they're definitely accountable for violations like this. I think they know that, which is why they have the monitoring and interview processes in place.
The question for me is, what's the mechanism for enforcing accountability down the chain.
Foxconn operates the plants, so what is the mechanism for incentivising them to comply? What penalties or sanctions do they face for violations? That's really the only way to get to the root of this, but it can't be financial penalties to Apple. That would create perverse incentives and moral hazard.
It isn't clear to me that they're "definitely accountable". The monitoring could be in place for reputation reasons. Apple probably doesn't want negative headlines across the western press about how their phones are made with slave labour, or what ever.
> That's really the only way to get to the root of this, but it can't be financial penalties to Apple. That would create perverse incentives and moral hazard.
I don't follow. What perverse incentives and moral hazard?
His whole job was to lean on suppliers and get them to do the most work for the least amount of pay. He basically trimmed all the fat from their Chinese suppliers, streamlined their production and essentially blackmailed suppliers to meet their insane production quotas and deadlines.
I'm never surprised when I hear this stuff now considering it was Cook who started all of this and now he's the guy running the company.
"It all centers on Zhengzhou, a city of six million people in an impoverished region of China. Running at full tilt, the factory here, owned and operated by Apple’s manufacturing partner Foxconn, can produce 500,000 iPhones a day. Locals now refer to Zhengzhou as “iPhone City.” ... Foxconn is Apple’s largest supplier. Apple is Foxconn’s largest customer." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/technology/apple-iphone-c...
> While overtime is allegedly often required, most workers want to work overtime to make more money, according to an anonymous diary written by a CLW investigator in the factory.
So it is ok to force me to do overtime if my colleagues want to stay? Does not matter if I am overstressed, have children or any other circumstance?
They want the overtime because they have families. These are often itinerant workers who want to come to a factory, work hard for a while, send their wages back to their home town, and then return. There are many who resent efforts to “save” them.
You're attributing a singular desire to everyone to justify a crime. Given 10 people, if 9 want to work overtime that doesn't make it ok to force the 10th person to work overtime.
The same argument works in the other direction, except then it’s 9 to 1.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m a friend of the working person. I’m just aware that people are projecting their own values onto this situation in ways that are unfortunately not helpful to many workers who want long shifts. Whether or not they should be allowed to work as long as they want is a big, thorny question.
> The same argument works in the other direction, except then it’s 9 to 1.
Will not be better to let them choose? (For real without pressures).
> I’m just aware that people are projecting their own values onto this situation in ways that are unfortunately not helpful to many workers who want long shifts.
Long shifts are profitable only if everybody else is not doing them. Otherwise, everybody has more money and prices go up causing inflation. "Extra shifts" should - by definition - be the exception, not the rule.
> Whether or not they should be allowed to work as long as they want is a big, thorny question.
Higher accident rate, worse health, more stress, etc. are not good. If money really will solve their problems, it will be better to reduce Apple/Foxconn profits in exchange for better lives for their employees.
> Long shifts are profitable only if everybody else is not doing them. Otherwise, everybody has more money and prices go up causing inflation. "Extra shifts" should - by definition - be the exception, not the rule.
That’s assuming the money stays in that region and doesn’t get sent to other places. People might come to this area to work but send money back to their families in other places.
I was surprised by the figure of 500K iPhone per day... then I checked total sales per year. In 2018 [1], Apple sold 217M iPhone. So even 500K is a low estimate, as that would not be enough production (0.5M * 365 < 217M...) So the figure is closer to 600K iPhones per day, or almopst 7 phones per second, all year round.
Rule of law is not a binary absolute. It is a spectrum. So, yes, it exists in China, to a greater extent than some countries, to a lesser extent than others.
I understand it makes for a nice meme to claim that it is completely absent, though.
Apple does a lot more than occasional audits. If they didn't the next iPhone would be posted all over blogs and twitter. Yet they are able to keep quite a tight grip and leaks. This only works if you have control of the entire chain.
> A more accurate title is: suppliers break chinese labor law and apple's internal standards in order to meet deadlines.
Ah yes, of course Apple is not to blame here...
Apple going in bed with Foxconn is their choice. Apple can opt for a more fair supplier who pays their employees fair wage, and give them more fair rights (not up to Western standards but nonetheless a substantional improvement). If a small company like Fairphone can do it [1], so can Apple.
And many things are easier, not harder, for large companies than for small.
This is a non sequitur.
It has taken Fairphone considerable effort to arrange these working conditions. It effectively makes their device more expensive, and gives them far less choice on suppliers.
Apple is such a powerful company with deep pockets that they could easily arrange better working conditions for employees of Foxconn if they wanted.
Apple doesn't compete on price point; they make luxury products. I would argue this means they would be more in a position to improve the conditions for their employees than other companies.
Government intervention would help, but I assume not before labour organises to put pressure on the government in the first place.
Exactly - they're even in the position to force this change, and then use it in their marketing since they're one of only a few companies with the economies of scale to support this (outside of those tailored to it like Fairphone).
Apple is already charging a premium for their stuff. Selling a more-expensive-than-the-competition product by pushing hard on style and branding is what they do.
Apple does occasional audits, but what more can you do when the people you audit lie to you because they _want_ to work?
> While overtime is allegedly often required, most workers want to work overtime to make more money, according to an anonymous diary written by a CLW investigator in the factory.