-
Interesting NYT Article
-
I haven’t tried to defend Apple, what I wanted to say is that IMO the article is opportunistic.
Two days after Apple released his annual results.[Chris Harlan] “Well, that is the dilemma, isn’t it. Where do you start?”
Where to start?
Personally I’m more concern about the companies that monopolize seeds patents or set the international commodities prices (google Glencore or Monsanto) than those making chips or software.
The decisions and practices of the last can affect hundred of thousands all around the world. The decisions and practices of the first affect millions; full countries economies.
We can stop buying the last mobile or tablet, but you can’t stop eating.
rafael -
But Glencore and Monsanto aren’t subject to the vagaries of the retail market – and they have most of our vaunted government officials in their pockets.
I guess it’s a matter of weighing one life lost against many lives reduced in quality. I’m not prepared to make that decision, but I do vote with my wallet. I try my best to buy local, organic produce, meats that aren’t pumped full of God knows what, and products that are made without killing or maiming people. That’s a personal decision, and I don’t want to push it on anyone else – that’s why this is a free country (somewhat).
Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com -
There are cultural differences at play here as well. It is a huge piece of the puzzle, but one of the hardest to understand and grasp, and even harder to observe from an article.
I understand Apple has a ton of influence so they certainly don’t get a pass, but unless they outright own Foxconn (and not just hire them), or start a dialogue with “The State” and try to change government policy, nothing will get done unless it comes from within the Chinese system. This is the first time I’ve heard that Apple is such a stubborn price bully (but really, what giant corporations aren’t), and as a result, that method ripples down to the hard workers on the manufacturing line. I am not sure if any Non-Chinese company can take on the political responsibility, let alone the ethics of aiding in the creation or suggestion of foreign government rules and regulations. This is not an easy solve.
Here’s another article that will link you to some responses, including Tim Cooks: https://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57367320-37/apple-foxconn-tale-goes-well-beyond-apple-and-tech/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Jeremy
-
And then they came for Apple, and I said nothing…
Because that bandwagon looks fun! And I don’t want to know what economies of scale are! Pour me another! Woo-hoo!
Posted from my blood-stained iPad.
-
[Rafael Amador] “I haven’t tried to defend Apple, what I wanted to say is that IMO the article is opportunistic.
Two days after Apple released his annual results.”I find it relevant since Apple is at the spotlight now, don’t you think so? Of course, this is not only a problem for Apple to solve but for the entire world, as it involves others industries and issues as well. And what about those articles stating that Apple is worth more than Greece? That’s pure non-sense market hype and it’s laughable that CNN pushes that “information” into place. Opportunistic at its ugliest.
-
Collective bargaining rights have been eroded in the US too.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I am not sure if any Non-Chinese company can take on the political responsibility, let alone the ethics of aiding in the creation or suggestion of foreign government rules and regulations.”
Jeremy,
This is a good question. It is precisely this sort of question that companies like Apple rely on to shirk responsibility.
When stronger labour regulations are at play, the cost of doing business goes up. When that happens in China, you will see companies like Apple looking to other, less-regulated labour markets, once again – for cheaper labour.
That sort of behaviour is the root of the problem, and that is where the ethical and moral weight of the questions lay.
Also this is one area where I really abhor the anthropomorphized corporate identity. People make these decisions – individuals – and those people should be held to account. No doubt this is an area of certain sensitivity for Tim Cook.
It’s funny that the article you link to gives Apple a pass for “being singled out”. I suppose the argument is that if a lot of people do it, it can’t be wrong? Or that since consumers buy things, the people who make decisions at corporations are absolved of morality?
There’s also this line (from your link):
Deep down do you really give a rat’s ass about the working conditions that created those relatively inexpensive devices? Of course not, you’re from a Western economy.
I’m not sure on what authority Larry Dignan deigns to speak for me but he seems to be speaking against bringing these issues out into the open. One can hope that a better informed public can make better informed decisions and that the idea of “externalities” in business practice can slowly be whittled down to expose it for the abdication of responsibility that it is.
I am not so much speaking against you posting this as I am responding the general dismissive attitude of the public relations responses to these sorts of discussions.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I am not so much speaking against you posting this as I am responding the general dismissive attitude of the public relations responses to these sorts of discussions.”
I completely hear you. I was just posting the other side as it is relative to the conversation. Also, I am not an expert in these matters.
If you were in the PR deprtment, what can you say, and more importantly, what can you do to change these conditions? Apple certainly needs to wield their influence, I just think they need to know where to point the sword. Everyone other tech company that uses Foxconn could say something, too. But what do you say? Do you completely pull out and search elsewhere? What about the rest of your business? As much as this is a dire situation, how do you replace Foxconn overnight?
[Franz Bieberkopf] “It is precisely this sort of question that companies like Apple rely on to shirk responsibility.”
It gets messy though if an American based company goes to move in to a political/governmental/social organization role, doesn’t it? Would that happen in America? We manufacture, let’s say, Korean cars in an American owned plant, and Korea comes in to work with DC on new labor laws? Does the mean Korea now gets a say in how those rules are written? Or if things go back to dismal, does Korea come back and play the heavy?
[Franz Bieberkopf] “When stronger labour regulations are at play, the cost of doing business goes up. When that happens in China, you will see companies like Apple looking to other, less-regulated labour markets, once again – for cheaper labour.
That sort of behaviour is the root of the problem, and that is where the ethical and moral weight of the questions lay.
Also this is one area where I really abhor the anthropomorphized corporate identity. People make these decisions – individuals – and those people should be held to account. No doubt this is an area of certain sensitivity for Tim Cook.”
Perhaps they will look around for cheaper labor opportunities if the cost of doing business in China rises, but the they’d have to wait for a company to build a plant, and get it up and running which will cost them too much money in downtime, I’d imagine. Also, one of these recent articles makes the case about labor not being the most expensive part of the equation.
You are absolutely right that people make these decisions and should be held accountable. I agree. In this case, what is Tim Cook accountable for? A flawed ventilation system at Foxconn? I’m just asking, I don’t know.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “It’s funny that the article you link to gives Apple a pass for “being singled out”. I suppose the argument is that if a lot of people do it, it can’t be wrong? Or that since consumers buy things, the people who make decisions at corporations are absolved of morality?”
Another part of it that was mentioned was about consumers “demanding new products every year”. Do we or are we just conditioned to expect it?
There’s also the difference of cultures, and also, the relative economic situation of the workers there. I believe (and have heard) that working in a situation like that is a step up for some of the workers. This shouldn’t let Foxconn pass for handing out unreasonable requests of their workers, but if Foxconn goes away, that means hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people go back to destitution. Is that morally/ethcially right or wrong? And who is Tim Cook/any non-Chinese company leader to make that decision? Is it appropriate? Again, just asking.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’m not sure on what authority Larry Dignan deigns to speak for me but he seems to be speaking against bringing these issues out into the open. One can hope that a better informed public can make better informed decisions and that the idea of “externalities” in business practice can slowly be whittled down to expose it for the abdication of responsibility that it is.”
Absolutely.
-
Jeremy,
You’ve raised a lot of issues, but I’ll respond broadly.
I think this is a moral issue, not a public relations issue.
It’s an interesting question you raise when you question Tim Cook’s responsibility. I am not at all versed in corporate structures and responsibility, but I’d be interested to see what he does claim to be responsible for.
The issue of “consumers demanding new products every year” is daft – it suggests that corporations have no agency in the market and simply respond to demand. This is particularly amusing in light of Steve Jobs famous Gretzky quote.
Apple seems to aspire to innovation and leadership rather narrowly if it is content to be one of many doing the same thing, the same way.
You raise economic arguments in favour of the status quo (“working in a situation like that is a step up for some of the workers”) – but similar arguments can be made (and were) in support of slavery. I suppose you have to ask yourself by what standard you’re judging the realization of economic and social freedom (or perhaps you were just suggesting an improvement in sustenance and comfort).
In terms of solutions, I don’t see that it needs to be a case of foreign interests meddling in sovereign laws at all – any company could mandate that they only do business with suppliers that follow an enforced labour standard. (I’m sure they have well-enforced standards for the production line in terms of product.) I’m sure there are precedents for this (the “blood diamond” issue comes to mind, but there may be better examples), and I’m sure there’s probably wide ranging resources discussing just such a problem as this.
I believe Apple used to make their products in the U.S. – at some point a decision was made to shift to labour forces in China. This isn’t a sudden issue – it is a business strategy.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I think this is a moral issue, not a public relations issue.”
I agree. I used the word public relations as you said it in your previous post.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “The issue of “consumers demanding new products every year” is daft – it suggests that corporations have no agency in the market and simply respond to demand. This is particularly amusing in light of Steve Jobs famous Gretzky quote.”
Demand should be in quotes. I agree.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “You raise economic arguments in favour of the status quo (“working in a situation like that is a step up for some of the workers”) – but similar arguments can be made (and were) in support of slavery. I suppose you have to ask yourself by what standard you’re judging the realization of economic and social freedom (or perhaps you were just suggesting an improvement in sustenance and comfort).”
The notion of freedom is completely different in a state controlled society.
It is one thing to willingly go sign up and apply for a job at Foxconn, it is another to be ripped from your home country, sailed half way across the world to points unknown, and forced to work with zero pay. There is a difference.
What I am saying, after seeing the poverty in rural China, is that some people need these jobs. Desperately. That is the hardest part to understand. It does not justify the abuse or the deaths, it does not excuse or absolve anyone of responsibility, and it by no means suggests that this situation should continue. I am not lying when I say there’s a major cultural difference here, and the role of Non-Chinese tech companies in changing this culture is unclear. My bet is that Foxconn probably has some of the better facilities. That’s the truly sad part, it most likely gets worse.
I’m sure you’ve read about the villages that melt down the precious metals out of ewaste in Asia and Africa, right?
https://www.salon.com/2006/04/10/ewaste/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mj4Wd_rmvM
The news will constantly remind you about China’s booming economy, but they don’t report much on this.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “In terms of solutions, I don’t see that it needs to be a case of foreign interests meddling in sovereign laws at all – any company could mandate that they only do business with suppliers that follow an enforced labour standard. (I’m sure they have well-enforced standards for the production line in terms of product.) I’m sure there are precedents for this (the “blood diamond” issue comes to mind, but there may be better examples), and I’m sure there’s probably wide ranging resources discussing just such a problem as this.”
Yep, you are right. But what if those labor standards aren’t enforced? What if companies doing business in china think that Foxconn is actually playing by the rules because when clients are touring the plant, they are playing by the rules? While there aren’t labor unions, there are rules that have been reported (60 hour work weeks, etc). Are they enforced? Perhaps foxconn puts their best foot forward until the executives are gone.
I was in Shanghai during the Special Olympics and we actually scored some tickets to the opening ceremony. The government had issued a mandate to Chinese vehicle owners to only drive on certain days a week before the games were to start. It was divided by license plate, certain letters could only drive on certain days. This was to reduce the pollution for foreign visitors. Certain factories were told to shut down as well. Certain sections of the Internet are permanently blocked and other sections can be shut down without any notice. We couldn’t bring wireless audio gear in to the country for fear of spying. Who are they trying to fool?
From a tech companies perspective, you can’t simply pull up stakes and move. You would have to shut down and retool for a number of years. Apple could probably afford it, but could any other company and does it make business sense?
Other people have said it, but this is a huge problem that does not involve only Apple. They are the tip of the iceberg, and their record profits make it blatantly obvious. Calling them out is a good thing as hopefully they can use their tremendous wad of money to make things better, and until then, we as consumers can choose to not buy any electronics…….
One way I think that might be able to make a huge difference is to make these companies responsible for the product after its useful life. If your cell phone dies, your computer is too old, your screen cracks, you send the appliance back to the company so they can recycle/recover it. It will make them rethink the design, it will force them to use different materials to be more easily reused if they have to deal with the fallout of all of this.
Jeremy
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up