
Apple taken to task for reporting partners' child labor violations - tvon
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/27/apple_taken_to_task_for_reporting_partners_child_labor_violations.html
======
electromagnetic
Let's look at this rationally, despite child labour laws in western countries
our governments gladly allow minors to take care of their disabled or infirm
parents or siblings instead of covering the cost of care workers. This is the
most ungodly form of exploitation in western countries, no child is going to
refuse caring for their parents because they have no knowledge that they're
unlikely to graduate high school and will have employment problems their
entire life. Even if they did know, they're incapable of making that choice
and will likely always choose to care for their family, but our governments
have configured our labour laws to allow this to take place and readily admit
they have no intention of changing the laws. Most western countries even give
out awards for 'young carers'. These are children exploited 24/365, with
overtime pay this work would easily be 6-figure income on minimum wage, and
children as young as a few years old are regularly doing things they shouldn't
have to.

Beyond that, we readily allow our children to babysit, mow the lawn, rake the
leaves, and a whole host of tasks that exploit children for reduced expenses,
and we readily allow this in our own homes. Yet we complain about child labour
in third world countries, why? Because the poverty level is so high in these
countries that the children need to work to help provide for their families.

The main, and often only cause, of child labour is parental poverty. If you
solve parental poverty, you solve child labour. Once the parents can support
themselves be it by better wages, unemployment or disability insurances, then
those very parents will be free to exploit their own children like we do our
own. Once the parents can support their families, their children will be
voluntarily babysitting and doing chores.

If we don't evaluate babysitting as child exploitation in a first world
country, then we have to seriously re-evaluate what child exploitation means
in a third world economy. I'm certain the majority of these children are doing
it exclusively to provide for their family, and forcing them out of legal
employment will force them to illegal employment. This means forcing underage
children into criminal organizations that will allow them to get money. For
many children this will quite literally come down to a child working in a
factory vs working in a gang or working as a child prostitute.

I don't particularly want children working in factories, even if the
conditions are vastly better than what my great-grandfather went through.
However, in my opinion, even if it prevents only a single girl from working as
a prostitute, it's a moral fucking victory. However, it's likely to prevent
thousands of young girls from working as prostitutes, and thousands of boys
from joining gangs and dealing drugs.

------
glhaynes
Note that Apple is prominently linking to this document, one of their supplier
audit reports, from the front page of apple.com.

------
jmm
Two part terribleness of globalization - we port manufacturing jobs overseas
to cut costs. The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another
land. Meanwhile the US transitions to an icky service economy and lose core
middle class manufacturing jobs. (I'm ok paying more for transparent and/or
domestic.)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land._

Come on, this is ridiculous. The cost savings are based primarily on a
dramatically lower cost of living, differences in exchange rates, etc. If I
can hire someone in NYC for $125 / hr or hire someone in Arkansas for $50 / hr
and the Arkansas guy has a _higher_ standard of living in Arkansas, how am I
exploiting him? It's no different on an international level.

~~~
jmm
Yeah, yeah, I know my comment was too off the cuff and sentimental.

But the ethical evaluation of labor practices is not as simple evaluating an
improvement in standard of living. There is a line that can be crossed - the
line certainly isn't crossed in your NYC vs. Arkansas example, but it /can/ be
crossed (min age, min wage, max hours, safety, etc.).

------
rauljara
Apple never should have allowed this stuff in the first place, but if other
companies see Apple making a change for the better, and then only getting
pummeled for it, what incentive will they have to change?

~~~
rgrove
Apple _didn't_ allow this stuff. Their suppliers did, while trying to hide it
from Apple. Unlike most companies, Apple actually bothered to investigate
their suppliers and uncover these abuses rather than simply taking them at
their word.

~~~
kiba
It's an abuse from a Western point of view where we are comfortable enough to
ban child labor and even consider it "exploitative".

For the family of that child, it's a disaster. For the Chinese economy, it's
one less cheaper worker to drive the engine of progress. If the child find any
job at all, it may be prostitution, scrapping metals, and other much more less
savory work. He may be lucky to find a higher paying job for his family.

Now, it's perfectly in the right of Apple(Or the CEO officiating the policy)
to do this, as they have the right to dictate whatever voluntary contracts to
their suppliers. They may have even seen the temporary profit margin loss as a
win in the long run.

But where is the moral justification for banning child labor, and a voluntary
one at that?

~~~
martey
From the actual report:

"Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old
workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16."

Hiring 15 year olds was illegal in these countries. The "Western point of
view" had nothing to do with it.

~~~
palish
Okay, _that's_ silly. A fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, so
if a company wants to hire him, it's stupid that they have no way of doing so.

Also, that issue isn't really related to the core child labor morality debate.

~~~
telemachos
But the minute you say that, I will respond, "Okay, _that's_ silly. A fourteen
year old is basically a fifteen year old."

So since you've argued that a fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year
old, then by parity of reasoning...

And the next thing you know, we have nine year old kids in factories and
William Blake rolling over in his grave.

~~~
palish
Cute, but it dodges the issue that it's hard to define what a "child" is. I
think having a minimum accepted age, and a way to hire special children under
that age (but with greater working restrictions) is a good compromise.

~~~
Frazzydee
So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be
comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1
hour/day?

China sets an absolute minimum age of 16, and mandated special working
conditions for workers between 16 and 18. This allows for a sort of "sliding
scale" for that transition period between childhood and adulthood. And I think
that saying, "we don't want any workers younger than X years old" is
legitimate policy.

It's also a lot easier to enforce an absolute minimum age as opposed to
special working conditions.

~~~
palish
What? I didn't say that.

I said, I think a minimum age is a good solution, _as long as_ there are ways
for businesses to hire underage gifted children. This would prevent bullshit
like "Even though you're an amazing programmer and we want to hire you and
this job could be the best thing to ever happen to you, we can't hire you
because you're fifteen, not sixteen. Also once you reach sixteen, this
opportunity won't be here anymore."

I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost
out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just
because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Thankfully it worked out, but it was a
really unpleasant thing to see this awesome opportunity slipping away for
reasons completely beyond my control. Don't you think that's a valid concern?

Also, it sounds like an awesome thing to offer a gifted six year old a cool
internship (one hour per day) at a factory with a safe working environment.
This would give the six year old a sweet story to tell, and could easily net
him a job later.

~~~
starkfist
_Also, it sounds like an awesome thing to offer a gifted six year old a cool
internship (one hour per day) at a factory with a safe working environment.
This would give the six year old a sweet story to tell, and could easily net
him a job later._

That is utterly bizarre. I am assuming you don't know any six year olds. The
part about " _...could easily net him a job later_ " made me burst out
laughing. Imagine what kind of person would put "1 hour per week factory
internship at age 6" on a resume. I am still laughing. Good one, if this was a
joke. However, from the context of your other posts, I fear you are serious.

~~~
palish
Hehe. I know it's a bit of a stretch. But imagine if you were a potential
employer and some young person wanted to get a job there, citing his
internship at some other business as previous experience. You don't think that
might help him land the job? _Really?_ :)

But yeah, six is more than a bit of a stretch. I just think the minimum age
should be decided on a case by case basis by the company and the parents,
based entirely on the context of the situation.

You see my point, I hope?

------
ahi
This article is incredibly poorly written. Apple did a good thing by
investigating their suppliers' practices. Why are they being "taken to task"?

~~~
tvon
I believe that's the point of the article.

------
hpvic03
Why is a service economy "icky"?

~~~
jmm
I myself am from a former steel/rail/textile boom area and have seen the
effects of the exodus of big manufacturing in the states on a local level. I
suppose a service economy isn't "icky" in and of itself - it's that people
often operate with a simplistic evaluation that an improving economy (GDP or
whatever) is a healthy economy. Meanwhile certain manufacturing sectors have
atrophied to the point of nonexistence with disastrous effects on many
communities. And what has picked up the slack over the last 50 (?) years to
keep us all peachy with the economic shift? The service sector.

There's lots to talk about in regards to why the shift occurred, but one
contributing factor is the unsavory (unethical?) labor systems abroad that we
so conveniently continue to overlook.

p.s. Some might argue these days that a service economy is "icky" when a fair
amount of the services are financial services.

