Another interesting article for discussion - Apple, slavery, death

kirasuran on 01/10/2011 - 03:16

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-dark-si…

hey guys, another one from me.

so here's my opinion and im only going to write one or two points cos its 3am…

  • slavery, suicide and abominable working conditions in china/third world countries are not "news" , but the fact is Apple as a self-marketed leader and 'cultural icon' (shudder..) mean that it is in a position to do something about this issue —> and "it is unfair to single out Apple" is not a valid rebuttal.
  • honestly, what makes a macbook work 1000$+ , what makes an iphone4 worth 800$ (a few months ago ?!?)- the company is making a MASSIVE profit on not just these but ALL of their items and thus this raises two issues, one is "why are they charging so much" and secondly "if they charge so much they should be able to address the working conditions issue relatively easily - instead of all the money going into Apple Corporation's CEO pockets"

please continue.

General Discussion

Comments

  • scotty on 01/10/2011 - 08:20

    Yeah sounds like tall puppy to me in this case…

    I have quite a few friends from Shenzhen, and

    • No point single out Apple, as this happens across the board. Yes, lots of pressure working for Foxconn, but the working condition is also better than in factories making those 'Shanzai' phones.
    • Quite often it's the Chinese oppress the Chinese, unfortunately.
    • It seems to be common practise to ask for compensation for injury or death. Actually some people choose to get injuried in order to get compensated. And they certainly know how to pick their target — someone who has money and can attract media attention.

    No fault with Western desire for cheap gadgets? No exactly. Just look at this site — the are always people looking for cheaper things! :) That certainly reduces people's bottom line, either the poor sales at Hardly Normal or poor worker in a Shenzhen factory. Still, majority of the profit goes to the executives and the share holders.

    At the same time, I see a lot of injustice within China comes from the people within. It's changing for the good, but very very slowly…

    • StewBalls on 01/10/2011 - 18:19
      +2

      I don't think anyone harbours any illusions about the harsh realities of outsourced labour or manufacturing processes to developing countries. From the consumer up, we all play some part in usurping some poor unlucky bastard at the end of the day.

      However, it's the self-righteous, smug attitude of big corporations like Apple that gives them the gall to belabour trite rhetoric like: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/beyond-complianc… that (IMHO anyway) adds the most insult to global social injury. All the while they're raking in money hand over fist knowingly on the backs of seriously overworked & underpaid workers, but of course always happy to preach "worker empowerment"!

      Yeah, we all know they're gonna do it, but can they at least have the decency to make the lies plausible when they tell us that's rain falling on our backs! :o

      Ok, I'll get off the soapbox now, it's getting high up here! ;)

    • jsc116 on 05/10/2011 - 22:40
      +1

      Well China is still in the process of developing so injustice and corruption are a lot worse and more evident than developed economies. But we all know sweat shops are everywhere, even in Australia ( some Indian guy go paid $200 for working 6 days, forgot the news headline though, it was recent).

      But like stewballs said, these corporations are taking advantage of this fact and exploiting it, while promoting how righteous their activities are, makes me sick >:( If they really are serious about better working conditions, they could've applied pressure to the employer, or share a portion of the profit with these workers. Poor sales and low profit margin? While executives are racking in millions in compensation? Doesn't really add up I'm sorry.

      • scotty on 06/10/2011 - 00:13
        +4

        Obviously large companies have the power and funds to make a difference. As you have said — they could divert some of their profit to a good cause. At the same time, large companies are usually public companies owned by, hmmm, shareholders like you and me or our superfunds or other institutional investors, who usually demand higher ROI.

        The depth of the problem is a lot more than just equating big companies and their executives with "evil". Greed is a universal problem, and capitalism pretty much just amplifies it…

  • kirasuran on 01/10/2011 - 13:28
    +1

    yep fully agree that a lot of this lies with the factory owners - Chinese oppress Chinese. But the bottom line is, PEOPLE are being treated THIS BADLY and Apple (and other corps)see this and do little about it.

  • grasstown on 01/10/2011 - 15:15
    +2

    agree with you completely kirasuran, apple should be doing something about it. and it is steve jobs legacy.

    http://www.kmart.com.au/kmartok , this ad always worries me, that we forget that these prices factor in all steps from production to purchase.

  • Mikinoz on 01/10/2011 - 18:33

    Amway Amway Amway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoODPQ4CTM

  • stumo on 05/10/2011 - 15:41
    +2

    Sure with their margins, Apple are in the best position to be able to do something about it. But this is Apple we're talking about. They will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything other than lip service. We've seen it with Environmental issues, and lack of philanthropy, this is no different.

    With the flop that is the iPhone4s, there has never been a better time to send Apple a message. It has to come from their bottom line, and that means you!

    • kirasuran on 05/10/2011 - 20:57

      what, are you dreaming ? i already ordered my iphone 4s 2 months ago online and im waiting for it to arrive. i expect it to be the best 900$ i ever spent, every single year. yeah.

      hahahha

      i wonder how many people have actually bought it ?

  • tonyjzx on 05/10/2011 - 16:21

    apple is very top heavy with folks in cupertino getting very rich on the backs of people in china

    not saying that people at kmart are any better but hey… i don't see people camping overnight at a kmart store opening…

    • kirasuran on 05/10/2011 - 20:56

      yeah thats true, but then again kmart doesn't charge exorbitant prices for its products does it ?

      • [Deactivated] on 15/10/2011 - 08:12
        +2

        Ah the real truth. Ok to exploit workers in China as long as they dont exploit me… (and my Nikes…LOL)

  • timmy_tam on 06/10/2011 - 09:32
    +2

    the real question to ask yourself after reading this article is, what are YOU going to do about it?

    will you make a difference? will you stop spending? will you arc up today, and let it 'blow over' this time tommorrow? or do you just not care?

    it always comes back to the individual….

    • tonyjzx on 06/10/2011 - 16:58
      +2

      easy

      i dont buy apple products

      i have in the past… i've had people ask me why i don't buy apple… i don't care for it on a technical side so on a philosophical side its an added bonus

      however i will buy from nokia, SE, huawei etc. who are perhaps better or worse but at least they don't have any moral high ground… (although the impression i get is that Nokia at least do care)

      • [Deactivated] on 15/10/2011 - 08:09

        You know Foxconn the great exploiter makes products for
        * Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
        * Amazon.com (United States)
        * Apple Inc. (United States)
        * Asus (Taiwan)
        * ASRock (Taiwan)
        * Intel (United States)
        * Cisco (United States)
        * Hewlett-Packard (United States)
        * Dell (United States)
        * Nintendo (Japan)
        * Nokia (Finland)
        * Microsoft (United States)
        * MSI (Taiwan)
        * Motorola (Now part of Google) (United States)
        * Sony Ericsson (Japan/Sweden)
        * Vizio (United States)

        NOKIA PLAYSTATION SONY/ERIKSON and MICROSOFT - you gonna dump them products as well??
        Huawei - also owned by the Chinese government - who allows Foxconn to operate.

  • llama on 15/10/2011 - 10:23
    +1

    If we didn't buy the stuff, then those workers wouldn't even HAVE a job to get exploited in. That sounds like a plan.

    • grasstown on 15/10/2011 - 12:54

      yes but why not pay more and pay them properly? why should we expect to pay less than what labour, transport, materials, shop leases, and all incidentals should cost? people arent going to forgo their iphones, and why should i pay 50 cents for a plate at kmart that factoring all in should cost $1.

      • illusionarybreeze on 15/10/2011 - 14:36

        Don't understand the iphones part, but everyone knows that the companies are simply going to eat up whatever profit they can get. There doesn't seem to be many benevolent CEOs out there, judging by their end-of-year bonuses.

        You can't have both cheap products and good working conditions for labourers. When it comes down to it, it seems to be a case of 'out of sight, out of mind' for most consumers.

  • kubo on 15/10/2011 - 11:38

    Another typical media-hyped point of view.

    Business are there for doing one thing…. business. Apple Corporation has its own shareholders. Therefore, as a business they are accountable to their shareholders only. Misappropriation of funds for the improvement of working conditions is akin to stealing from shareholders pockets, taking their property. So unless it is within Apple's business interests to improve working conditions to somehow increase profits in the long term, there is no incentive for Apple to practice corporate responsibility to that extent. Apple uses China to manufacture its products for a reason: China's labour is cheap and the products they make are of a relatively good quality.

    Therefore, get off your high horse with pointless topics about why Apple or any other companies are using cheap labour to produce their products. It's the nature of the competitive market that companies will always seek the cheapest means of production. If Apple does not do so, then competitors will use the same tactics to lower their costs and in turn Apple and its shareholders will suffer.

    So until there becomes a great public outcry amongst the public and a general consensus that all businesses should practice a high degree of corporate responsibility, there will be no need for Apple to improve working conditions as its shareholders are interested in profits only at the moment and not improved working conditions for their Chinese product assemblers.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/10/2011 - 12:42
      +1

      Yep Android can save us from Apple, Chinese workers from exploitation, Whales from extinction and the Internet from Google - oops delete the latter point…. LOL

      • kubo on 15/10/2011 - 12:52

        think i may have been too harsh. good topic of debate. not a pointless topic at all :D

        • kirasuran on 15/10/2011 - 13:57

          Well yes and no:

          i fully agree that as a business the main (or one and only) goal is for profit. OF COURSE. but what you have missed out is that we are HUMANS and with all our actions there are consequences and/or costs associated. In the area of business and manufacturing, the human costs are the workers in China. I know we're thus shifting from 'business' into 'morality' but do you get what i mean ? Just because i'm a business doesn't mean i should totally ignore any other responsibilities as a human.

          I'm not 100% sure this is a good analogy, but have a look at this article:

          http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/girls-fought-like-savages-but-city…

          In this case, Apple are the cityrail guards, the workers are the girls being bashed and we are the onlookers.

          By the way when i capital a word, i'm not shouting, i just don't know how to bold.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/10/2011 - 16:04

          Kirasuran

          You constantly go on about responsibility with Apple.

          But you always forget all the other companies that are also using Foxconn.

          It would be easier to accept your morality if you were consistent and no so anti only one of the companies that use Foxconn.

        • kirasuran on 16/10/2011 - 01:12

          sorry haha i'll just admit it up front that i haven't gone and dug up the list of companies that use foxconn. not being anti-apple (on this issue) on PURPOSE (for the sake of it) but…this is the case that brought my attention to this issue, which is why i use apple as the example

        • kubo on 16/10/2011 - 02:40

          kirasuran i think argument-wise, you have dug your own grave here by acknowledging that you are moving from "business into morality". Like I said, Apple is a business and its sole objective is to maximise profits, not to practice social philanthrophy.

          Indeed, if you look at corporations which do practice corporate responsibility, such as trying to be green etc, what's the bottom line? The reason why corporations do take part in these practices nowadays is that climate change is a hot topic at the moment and that corporations want to be in the "in" crowd and be seen in a good light. However, the only reason why they do these things in the first place is that if they spend a little in the short term to make the public happy, in the long term they will maximise even MORE profits.

          So like I said, businesses are only interested in money. And until there is a public outcry that is big enough regarding Chinese working conditions, like with climate change, there is no incentive at Apple at all to address the issue.

          Whilst I agree that it would probably be a good thing for mankind if all people could live free and happy etc etc, the reality is that that is an idealistic world which will never come to fruition. The world is inherently an unequal place and that's the way it is always going to be. Hence, one should never mistake business reality with moralistic idealism. Or else you'll have about as much intelligence as a current affairs show.

          EDIT: 2:30am so excuse my grammar etc…

        • StewBalls on 16/10/2011 - 06:39

          Like I said, Apple is a business and its sole objective is to maximise profits, not to practice social philanthrophy.

          Sorry kubo, what part of the drivel on these pages did you not equate with "social philanthropy":
          http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing-complia…
          http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/beyond-complianc…
          ???

          Maybe it's because Apple calls it "social responsibility" instead!

          This debate has never been about business or morality, just hypocrisy!!!

        • kubo on 16/10/2011 - 13:32
          +1

          Sorry, StewBalls, I must admit I did not spend the greater part of half an hour pouring over all the comments/links on this page.

          Nevertheless, such existing programs by Apple to try and make the company seem more conscious of workers' conditions is just a mere grab towards protection of brand image. I do not agree that such a program, if it does indeed exist, is aimed towards social philanthrophy/corporate responsibility at all. Rather, as I have stated, it is merely used as a method of spending a little money in the short term to protect brand image, so that in the long term Apple can continue to be seen as a "socially responsible" business that cares about workers' conditions in order to maximise profits in the long term.

          As ozpete has pointed out, Foxconn produces products for a number of large electronics corporations, including Apple, but how often do we see the media target Microsoft and Intel, etc, for workers' conditions abuses? Surely, Microsoft etc do not conduct "regular" audits of Foxconn's working conditions out of the goodness of their heart? In fact, it is the lack of this negative media publicity on these corporations that Microsoft, etc, do not undertake such audits (I am assuming that they do not do these, but if I am wrong then shoot me). This goes back to my main point, of course, that due to the huge amount of bad media publicity of Apple's commitment to workers' conditions, Apple has no choice but to introduce some sort of damage control in the way of regular audits of Foxconn's operations, so that it can maintain some sort of positive brand image.

          Nevertheless, of course, I would have to agree with you StewBalls on the point that Appple's regimes of corporate/social responsibility - whatever the heck you want to call it - do exhibit an element of hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is, of course, Apple's characterisation of its auditing strategies as coming out of the goodness of its "heart" and with Apple wanting to be socially responsible. However, if you want to take this argument, then is fighting a greater and more general battle against the giants in the corporate world as a whole, as I'm sure that most corporations these days attempt to put up an image of corporate responsibility to appeal to the general public, eg. being green, etc. It's just the nature of the business world that corporations have to resort to marketing tactics such as Apple's to protect its own brand image.

          Of course, I'm not one to say that workers should be oppressed or whatever. I'm simply being a realist observing the norms that function behind the corporate world.

  • morpheu on 15/10/2011 - 14:50
    +1

    hasn't this been bought up before?
    you guys can argue semantics all day long, but i still don't get what you're on about, is it about the 'slavery' working conditions? guess what? there have been low paid workers/kids in underground sweatshops before Apple Inc and there will be after Apple Inc!

    is it about the suicides? no exclusives here either, maybe it's higher than average? there are thousands of factory workers who live in large on site accommodations if you work out the per capita rate it seems about average, also keep in mind the publicity factor, normal suicide=no media coverage, suicide with any link to famous company=maximum international coverage!

    "honestly, what makes a macbook work 1000$+ , what makes an iphone4 worth 800$" short answer, consumers(us)! longer answer, supply and demand mixed with clever marketing, high demand and/or short supply means higher $, plus thanks to the late Steve Jobs he made (some of) us really want Apple stuff for the 'cool' factor, very clever huh? you have to admit part of the sales/marketing of any company is to create the desire for a new product, and re ipods/iphones/ipads Apple marketing has gone flat out which explains why Apple is the most valued company right now, personally i just have an ipod which came free with that Canon promo a while back, i value my money so when i spend it on tech i buy based on performance, versatility and bang per buck , and not based on the name or superficial things like colour or styling or how thin it is, no freakin way am i paying $500 more just because the laptop comes in 5 colours or is 6mm thinner than the next one!

    • illusionarybreeze on 15/10/2011 - 15:24
      +1

      This is about social responsibility and the standards businesses should be held to. It continues to be brought up because the situation obviously has not improved. The attention Apple commands simply allows the issue to be raised again. Or are you suggesting that we forget it and move on with our lives? =)

      As far as the pricing of Apple products is concerned, I agree. Apple has been very successful with its marketing. I never understand when people say that they buy based on performance as if it is evidence that they "value their money". While so-called performance might be the most important factor in your decision, aesthetics might be more important for someone else. It may literally be on the surface, but what might be superficial to you might not be for another. Would you buy a phone that was way ahead of the competition if it smelt like dung? As long as we have senses, these "superficial" things will be a consideration. Besides, a laptop that is 6mm thinner may well be lighter or more convenient to carry around. It is all subjective. To each their own!

      • StewBalls on 16/10/2011 - 06:56

        This is about social responsibility and the standards businesses should be held to.

        Particularly if those individual businesses happen to pay lip service to "social responsibility" and knowingly use it as a marketing tool on the well intentioned; if somewhat gullible; smug, skivvy-wearing people who then believe that they are being 'socially responsible' by buying that specific brand! No names mentioned! ;)

        • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2011 - 09:28
          +1

          If you agree with that why not check this link out.

          http://www.kilusangmayouno.org/solidarity/support-samsung-wo…

          I'll look forward to seeing some used Samsung products on sale in ebay, from a large regional NSW town….

        • tonyjzx on 20/03/2012 - 13:42

          Samsumg makes stuff in regional NSW?

        • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2012 - 14:24

          No some morality resides in a NSW regional town.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2012 - 11:28

    Looks like we were lead up the garden path in the name of Entertainment

    Good for a laugh?

    From News corp quoting "This American Life"

    "We've learned that Mike Daisey's story about Apple in China — which we broadcast in January — contained significant fabrications," explained Ira Glass, host and executive producer of the show, in a statement online. "We're retracting the story because we can't vouch for its truth."

    Daisey defended his work, which takes manufacturer Foxconn to task for dangerous working conditions, stating that the performance was intended not as news or journalism but as entertainment.

    The article was the basis for many of the criticisms against Foxconn and the lead article that the OP used to start this thread. (By none other than Asher Moses - Samsungs guest to CES)

    • kirasuran on 26/03/2012 - 12:22

      what ?!!? who does that !? massive troll. neg !

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join