Should we punish Apple for its Chinese Labour Law Abuse?

[me_94501]

I say wait and see how much responsibility Apple played in the whole thing before "punishing" them.

 

[bousozoku]

I am amazed by the level of apathy here. It seems that Apple will simply be able to ignore the issue, since even in a community of followers there is little interest in discussing the issue to any great extent. Outside of this community the issue appears to have died away. How sad it is that we feel no responsibility for our actions anymore.

Why don't you punish Wal-Mart or Nike or Disney or any other company buying their products from another group which handles the manufacturing in China? Why just Apple?

I didn't register a vote because there was no choice for "Punish Hon Hai for breaking the law."

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Voted "don't really care", but that's because this is mainly an issue between the Chinese manufacturer and the Chinese government. Don't really see how this affects me in any way...

 

[unfaded]

My vote is not among those in the poll, so I will answer otherwise.

Apple should be punished no more than you or I for allowing human beings to be dehumanized in such a manner. Shame on every single one of us.

 

[angelneo]

I'm voting in "I don't care" as this is not just a simple problem of Apple "abusing" the workers. The lack of human rights, employees protection so on in the Chinese government are the core of the problem. Even if we force nike, apple out of china, their own chinese companies is going to abuse their own people. The problem lies with how the society is run, making companies responsible is only going to be a temporary solution, it is not a long term cure. We cannot just "punished" the companies as it has other serious implications involved if these companies are to change their "practice" overnight. Even then, Apple just outsource the production to other companies and Apple is not directly responsible as well.

 

[jacobj]

Why don't you punish Wal-Mart or Nike or Disney or any other company buying their products from another group which handles the manufacturing in China? Why just Apple?

I didn't register a vote because there was no choice for "Punish Hon Hai for breaking the law."

I do. When I lived in the UK I did not buy from Asda (UK arm of Wal-Mart), I own nothing from Nike. As for Disney, I was unaware of the situation, but generally avoid them for other reasons.

Edit: having said that, I believe that Nike have made attempts to change and I intend to monitor their progress. We must reward those companies that make positive changes.

 

[jacobj]

I'm voting in "I don't care" as this is not just a simple problem of Apple "abusing" the workers. The lack of human rights, employees protection so on in the Chinese government are the core of the problem. Even if we force nike, apple out of china, their own chinese companies is going to abuse their own people. The problem lies with how the society is run, making companies responsible is only going to be a temporary solution, it is not a long term cure. We cannot just "punished" the companies as it has other serious implications involved if these companies are to change their "practice" overnight. Even then, Apple just outsource the production to other companies and Apple is not directly responsible as well.

I disagree. Much of China's economic growth is due to the cheap labour it offers to international companies. Therefore these companies have an impact and can force change. If all Western companies raised the bar in terms of employment standards and insisted that Chinese companies that supply them in any way did the same the dynamic would change. China's economic growth is as a result of international investment and that investment is currently being given regardless of standards. All the international companies care about is, "is China stable enough to invest in?" and the answer to that is yes.

The point is that very few international companies feel any moral obligation to the world beyond those that effect the bottom line. The bottom line is only effected by the employees or consumers rebelling. We are the consumers and therefore part of the responsibility is ours.

 

[Applespider]

The point is that very few international companies feel any moral obligation to the world beyond those the effect the bottom line. The bottom line is only effected by the employees or consumers rebelling. We are the consumers and therefore part of the responsibility is ours.

Fine and I agree but your poll responses are emotional and don't meet what several have said. I want to hear Apple's response on this issue without jumping to conclusions myself; we have no idea what their monitoring schemes are or how they intend to improve them as a result, we have no idea that Apple knew what was going on. I work for a large company that has supplier guidelines and when you only have a buyer visiting places every few months, it's pretty easy to 'hide' things unless you get tipped off.

If it turns out that Apple did know what was going on, then I'll write to them and express my disgust so they at least know we noticed. Whether or not I'd boycott their products on a large-scale is another matter since unlike the Walmart (shop elsewhere), if I want to use OS X, I'm slightly stuck - and I'd doubt whether anyone else is any better. At least Apple have a supplier guidelines document publically available to monitor standards against!

 

[FleurDuMal]

I do. When I lived in the UK I did not buy from Asda (UK arm of Wal-Mart), I own nothing from Nike. As for Disney, I was unaware of the situation, but generally avoid them for other reasons.

Actually, some people would cite Nike as a success story for the "No Logo" generation (Nike was a major target of that book, along with Disney). Since then, Nike has, to their credit (I don't often give multinationals credit) made a lot of moves to improve the standards in the factories that manufacture their products. Fifteen years ago, no multinationals would have employed a "Community-Relations Director" or whatever to look over how people percieve the ethics of their company. Of course, the flip side of this is that they're only concerned with how the consumer percieves their manufacturing standards - not with what those manufacturing standards actually are. So Nike and co could just be conning us into believing that they've improved the conditions in their factories, much like political parties spin their way into making anything positive.

I personally think the way forward is to put pressure on international and national governmental institutions (UN, EU, NAFTA (if its still called that), etc), those with actually legislative power, to pass directives prohibiting the sale of goods in which have not been manufactured in conditions which can be guaranteed to be humane. A universal living wage, I suppose would be part of that. Even though the biggest multinationals are now more powerful than some nation-states, I think that targeting individual corporations misses the point for three reasons:
1) It isn't just the big multinationals that are employing (either directly or indirectly) slave-labour - its also the unbranded, cheap clothing that you'll buy in street markets. If we concentrate on Nike, GAP, Disney, we're missing a huge player in the perpetuity of slave-labour.
2) Whilst we focus all our efforts on one corporation, another may get away scot-free. Look at all the bad press that has surrounded McDonalds in recent years. Now McDonalds has made credible efforts to make its menu healthier, Burger King, KFC and co have escaped with very little blemishes on their name.
3) There isn't enough information imparted to the consumer to allow us to actually direct our efforts in the right direction anyway. When I buy clothing from H&M or whereever, it says "Made in Sri Lanka" on the label. I have no idea how that was made. I don't want to stop buying clothes made in Sri Lanka based on a prejudice that all manufacturing in the third world is done under terrible conditions. If we all did that, then there'd just be greater destitution in those areas as everyone stops buying products made in that area.

I guess my ideas stem from the belief that the state is still the bastion of political power - the way through which the people should exercise power. It is the state (whether national or internation) which should protect human rights and dignity, not the CEO of Nike. Consumer democracy is BS and unjust; anyone who's not a consumer loses out (those Chinese workers, for example). Whereas we're not all consumers, we're citizens under different governments. Once we recognise that we're all citizens first, consumers second, then we'll recognise reform only lies through the exercies of state power.

 

[Glen Quagmire]

Such self-righteous indignation! (In the first post.)

Why should Apple be punished? They aren't employing the workers or denying them their rights. It's Apple's supplier that is doing so: if anyone deserves to get punished, it's the supplier.

Did Apple know that the workers were being exploited? Perhaps it thought that they were being treated fairly and that no checks were necessary. If that's the case, then the worst thing they are guilty of is being naive.

 

[jacobj]

Such self-righteous indignation! (In the first post.)

Why should Apple be punished? They aren't employing the workers or denying them their rights. It's Apple's supplier that is doing so: if anyone deserves to get punished, it's the supplier.

Did Apple know that the workers were being exploited? Perhaps it thought that they were being treated fairly and that no checks were necessary. If that's the case, then the worst thing they are guilty of is being naive.

What was self-righteous about it? Do you feel that you have no responsibility for the actions of those to whom you give money? If Nike had not made attempts to change would you have felt that it was Nike's issue and not yours and therefore continued to buy from them. Ultimately it is your money that funds these actions and it is therefore your choice as to whether you think you are responsible for taking what measures you can to prevent abuse occuring as a result.

Self-righteous is the supercilious individual that believes he or she is unassailably correct that they can make such judgements about the motives of other posters.

 

[kretzy]

I don't really care, to be honest. Certainly labour laws should be upheld but it's hardly Apple's fault that one of it's manufacturers breached such laws.

 

[iGary]

I'm probably evil, but I don't really give a crap about this.

You buy Chinese products...you get what you pay for, bad labor practices and all.

 

[Les Kern]

What do you mean? my Quicksilver I was only $1600. It was perfect, I wouldnt mind paying a little more for a American made Mac. Looking at what they made then vs now then was better

Define a "little" more....
We are past the tipping point I'm afraid. The global economy and any comp-anies who seek pure profit are almost forced to do this. Imagine every component in a Mac made in America. Then imagine that 1600 buck box going for, say, 3,000. That okay? Do that across the board and you get the domino effect of HEAVY inflation, the dollar tanking earlier than it would inevitably done, and more.
This issue is TOO big for us right now, and a boycott is silly. Like a poster above said, it's IMPOSSIBLE not to be untouched by cheap labor now.
It took decades to do this, it will take considerably longer to fix... and we may never do so.

 

[DavidLeblond]

"Punishing Apple" is such a naive thing to do. #1 Apple is just one company, and even if they did assemble their computers in America they would be getting their parts overseas. To be truthful, the idea that if they didn't work in that factory getting $50 a month they would be on the street bothers me. What kind of choice is that? $50 a month or nothing? But punishing one company... or even all the American companies... would do nothing. The change needs to be made over there.

 

[topgunn]

Where's the "I don't think that any abuse exists on Apple's part" option?

 

[jacobj]

I don't really care, to be honest. Certainly labour laws should be upheld but it's hardly Apple's fault that one of it's manufacturers breached such laws.

It depends on the scale surely. If you buy a loaf of bread from a small shop you can hardly be expected to ask the shop keeper for a record of their employee rights. It is simply not logistically possible.

If, on the other hand, you employ a company to such an extent that thousands of their employees will be working on your product, then you can insist that that supplier meet your employee standards. Quite simply, you have the influence and to turn a blind eye on any abuses because they are not directly yours is no a justification.

One need only look at the terrorism laws that have been passed in regard to laundering the money necessary to fund terrorists. If I were to give money to a company knowing that the proceeds of that money was going to be used to fund an act of terrorism, then I am legally responsible for my actions and will be sentenced accordingly. I could not say, yeah but I only bought from them, I didn't send the money to the terrorists. I believe that very few of us here would disagree with that law.

Yet we feel that, because the nature of the abuse is more palpable than terrorism then we can let it slide under our moral radar. That, to me indicates that we only have a moral radar for things that we fear will directly, negatively impact us.

That is what upsets me. It is just an affirmation that on mass we are creatures of our evolution and we have failed to overcome our natural tendency to only care about those things that effect us. It goes along the lines of, I care for my family most, I then care for my friends behind my family, I then care for my town behind my friends, I then care for my state behind my town, and my country behind my state and my continent behind my country. Now there are obviously exceptions to that, but it generally means that if an issue is relegated to another country it is so far beyond our immediate circle of concern that we just let it go. I think we are proving that here.

Nike was considered culpable because of the extent of the atrocities. Whether Nike employed the child labour directly or by proxy was not an issue because even one step removed from those atrocities was too much for us. So that indicates that when the atrocities are of a certain level we will overcome our selfish tendencies and lash out. All Apple and others have to therefore do is keep their atrocities under that level and we will happily let them slide. We seem to be incapable of lowering that level on mass for the greater good. Or maybe we can, it is just that the level of this particular issue is too low for the current level.

 

[LtRammstein]

I don't understand what this "labor law" thing is all about. The Chinese government has done worse things to it's people than Apple is in the factories. If you ask me, both are in the wrong, but China is still communist, so it really doesn't matter. Everyone is still paid the same.

Steve

 

[Mr Skills]

What a bunch of greedy bastards those Apple corporate types. Building Communist China paid for by you and me.

China is still communist, so it really doesn't matter. Everyone is still paid the same.

China's economy is many things, but it is certainly not communist any more. In some ways it is almost hyper-capitalist; in others it retains massive government control. I've heard it called 'state-sponsored capitalism' althougn i can't remember where...

China is still communist, so it really doesn't matter. Everyone is still paid the same.

Absolutely not true any more. There is huge disparity in pay in China.