

Now Can We Start Talking About the Real Foxconn? - dailo10
http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-03-20-now-can-we-start-talking-about-the-real-foxconn/

======
nkoren
For the record, I'm a fairly bleeding-heart liberal and former globalisation
sceptic. What turned me around was moving to India in 2001-2002. I was working
for an architecture & planning firm, and was fairly shocked by the working
conditions at the construction sites. Temporary slum-like shantytowns --
totally informal mud-and-corrugated metal shacks -- were set up to house the
workers, who worked for 7 days per week, from dawn to dusk. They had one day
off per month, at new moon. They had no safety gear whatsoever. Children as
young as 5 were at work carrying construction materials around. Food and
housing -- such as it was -- were provided for free, but the average take-home
pay amounted to three dollars _per month_.

This wasn't evil Westerners coming in and mercilessly exploiting the natives;
this was simply the bog-standard working conditions in every construction site
across the country. When I saw that, I realised that the entire Western
dialectic about sweatshops ("Michael Jordan earns $40M for endorsing shoes
that are made by 12-year-olds earning $1 per day!") was completely irrelevant
and corrupt. What I realised is that a classically "awful" sweatshop would be
entail a _spectacular_ improvement in both salaries and working conditions,
compared to the alternatives. Yes, a sweatshop would still be bad if compared
to working conditions in the West, but people in developing countries --
particularly at the time -- didn't have _access_ to working conditions in the
West, so that was a meaningless comparison to make. The only legitimate
comparison was to the alternatives actually available to them, and seen in
that light, a typical Nike sweatshop looked like Nirvana.

Fortunately, India continued to go down the path of globalisation, and I still
work there frequently. Western businesses set up shops which "exploited" the
native workers by giving them vastly better salaries and working conditions
than anything they'd ever had before. Successive waves of these businesses
created a climate of tremendous economic mobility, with workers constantly
jockeying to jump to each emerging income tier. In just over a decade, I've
seen several hundred million people come out of absolutely grinding poverty
into a lifestyle which is still poor but not truly deprived; I've seen several
hundred million more acquire a standard of living that -- considering the
difference in purchasing parity power -- is perfectly in line with first-world
norms. This has had a knock-on effect in every sector of the economy,
including those where the Western presence isn't particularly felt. When I go
to construction sites now, for example, the workers still tend to live in
(better) temporary shanty-towns next to the construction sites, but now they
have safety gear, their pay has increased about 40-fold, and their children go
to school rather than work.

It has been an absolute pleasure to watch this happen. From everything I've
seen, the rise of China -- which Foxconn epitomises -- has roughly paralleled
this course of development, only more so.

Frankly, the question of "how bad is Foxconn, really?" should have been
answerable with a single data point: their suicide rate is lower than that of
China's as a whole. That should tell you something. Foxconn is undoubtedly
imperfect, but that one fact demonstrates that it must be better than the
alternatives. Much of the negative perception of Foxconn has been driven by
cultural misunderstanding rather than reality. When sensationalist journalists
tried to turn the (statistically lower) rate of suicide into a news story, the
instincts of Foxconn managers were to save face, act humble, and vow to do
better. That's how you gain respect in Confucian culture, but to Americans it
looked like an admission of guilt. It would have been better if their PR
department had foregone the absurd suicide nets and such, and simply said
"Look, our suicide rate is lower than the rest of China's, so take that,
biatches!"

That would have gotten the truth across more succinctly than anything else.

~~~
ttt_
>> _This wasn't evil Westerners coming in and mercilessly exploiting the
natives; this was simply the bog-standard working conditions in every
construction site across the country._

I think while your perception of the native working conditions and the
improvement that westerners brought to that is probably true, it also misses
the point completely.

The criticism is not about the working conditions per se, but rather that the
western companies knowingly hand-pick nations with the worst-off working
conditions because it cheapens their productive chain. It's not about the
company exploiting the local workers more so than usual, but that they choose
to manufacture in countries that regularly allow local workers to be exploited
and so they can too without "worrying".

What makes it worst is that the western companies do not share the cultural
traits and history that makes the country what it is, but rather they come
from a place where stricter rules are valued, and are valued for a reason
(quality of life, safety, health, rights), that they then choose to ignore in
favor of their own bottom line.

That is what the real issue is. It IS inhumane from their part and they SHOULD
be questioned on their decisions and practices.

I know that there are plenty others factors that drive companies there, but
it's still a decision and they should be accountable, if not legally than
morally.

[Edit: is there something wrong with the comment that its being downvoted?]

~~~
peteretep
> The criticism is not about the working conditions per se, but rather that
> the western companies knowingly hand-pick nations with the worst-off working
> conditions because it cheapens their productive chain

You could also flip this 'fact' around, and present it as: Western companies
knowingly hand-pick nations with the biggest need for the investment they're
providing.

But in both cases, you'd be missing the point that the money is just going
where it gets the biggest return, and that that trumps most other concerns.

~~~
ttt_
>> _you'd be missing the point that the money is just going where it gets the
biggest return_

I'm not arguing with that, just pointing out that the reason why people feel
at odds with that practice is not because they don't understand why it's like
it is, but that they don't agree with it morally.

------
hessenwolf
About ten years ago I met a Maylaysian girl in Australia who had worked for 2
dollars a day at a sweat shop when she was younger. I asked her how it was,
and she said it was fine, accomodation and food were paid for and 2 dollars
was pretty okay in Malaysia. Just saying.

~~~
mtts
That's a very good point, but let's also not forget that at the time she
didn't know any better and expected working for 2 dollars a day at a sweat
shop to be normal (viz the slaves in Mauretania mentioned here on HN yesterday
who couldn't conceive of there being anything wrong or unusual about their
being enslaved).

~~~
hessenwolf
She works as a management consultant in IT in Singapore, last time I
checked...

------
sargun
Perhaps our factories in the US need to take a hint from Foxconn. "Foxconn-run
health centers right on campus" - sounds like a great way to reduce health-
insurance costs by requiring your employees to take preventative care.
Especially, with the high healthcare costs that manufacturing companies have
to pay.

~~~
jbarham
> requiring your employees to take preventative care

Sounds unconstitutional to me.

~~~
silvestrov
Would you care to explain your logic behind that judgement? For a non-US
citizen, that line of thought can be hard to follow.

~~~
nodata
I don't think the statement "stop eating badly or you lose your healthcare"
would go down well.

~~~
DanBC
How about the statement "Eat what you like. Eat healthy and we pay your
healthcare"?

------
yabatopia
The discussion about questionable labor practices and sweatshops distracts us
from the biggest problem Western countries should have with China: China is a
totalitarian state, a one party dictatorship.

The comparison between India and China is flawed: India is a democracy (albeit
far from perfect), China is not. China is a dictatorship that has been
violating human rights on a massive scale for decades and decades.

Call me old-fashioned, but I try to avoid doing business with totalitarian
regimes. It just isn't right. My heart bleeds every time I buy a gadget or any
other product made in China. Most of the time I don't even have a choice. Oh,
Made In Taiwan, where are you?

And perhaps it's time to ask ourselves: is it really a good idea to transfer
and outsource more and more technological research and production - one of the
cornerstones of our modern and future society - to a totalitarian state like
China?

~~~
guard-of-terra
"My heart bleeds every time I buy a gadget or any other product made in China"
You realise there's a link between purchasing power and democracy? If so, how
do you think would you help Chinese by not buying their goods?

(Skipping goods that you know are produced by bad people is still fine)

~~~
yabatopia
To be honest: I really don't know. Are economic sanctions in the interest of
the Iranian people? Or the people in Syria?

Hopefully it can prevent that the situation gets even worse. Or that those in
power become even more powerful.

Note that it takes more than prosperity to become a democracy. It certainly
helps, but there are more factors at play.

~~~
guard-of-terra
No they aren't. No they won't. Look at North Korea: so much for sanctions.

The only weapon against oppressive regime is economic and cultural freedom and
influence. Exchange wares, exchange ideas, and eventually there would be a
market for democracy, so to speak.

I know a very few countries that are both prosperous and non-democratic. And
you won't mind all of those: they don't have to do bad things since they've
got money.

~~~
philwelch
Sanctions on NK are a noop anyway since NK themselves are isolationist.

~~~
guard-of-terra
They are, but perhaps they would be less so if not for sanctions. Who knows.

------
wisty
> Then in 2010

The stable door is always shut after the horse has bolted.

Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, and a household name in China. Insanely high
profile, lots to lose, and relatively little protection. The owner is
presumably well connected (he's been running factories in Shenzhen since
1988); but while he'll have some friends who'll bend a few rules, I doubt he
has anyone in the right place who will risk their life for him (i.e. a close
family member at the top). There were bound to be investigations, and his
government connections could have risked execution if they help cover anything
up.

After the suicides, Foxconn came under heavy attack from the Chinese media.
They simply couldn't afford to break any rules after that. I don't know if
they did before the deaths (and I doubt they were any worse than many other
factories in China), but of course they were squeaky-clean afterwards.

------
Zarathust
We have to remember that 300 persons threatened to jump from the rooftop if
their conditions didn't improve a few months ago. It cannot be that much of a
rose garden either right?

A common logical fallacy is occurring here: An argument is made toward a
larger picture, the argument is false therefore the larger picture doesn't
exist. It only proves that the American Life author was wrong and that further
investigation is needed, not at all that Foxconn is a nice place.

~~~
brown9-2
I think you are assuming that the mass suicide threat was legitimate. It may
have just been a smart negotiating ploy:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3448378>

------
brudgers
If someone really believes that they are talking with random workers in a
communist country prior to an interview with a powerful CEO of a major
manufacturer, their journalistic instincts may be somewhat lacking.

The focus of the story is not on Apple and the consequences of consumerism.
Instead, it is on Foxconn and the human difficulties inherent in the
industrialization of an economy. The shifting of the ground is deliberate.

Daisey's story and Schmitz reporting agree on the fact that Apple's business
processes entail problematic operational practices [references below].

That the Bloomberg article ignores them is a not unexpected response to the
sort of muckraking Daisey engaged in. The current media campaign is far more
sophisticated, but at its heart its motivations are no different from the
response to _The Jungle_ a century ago.

<http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/apple-economy/app...>.

<http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/apple-economy/china-c...>.

------
alan_cx
Bloomberg, a pro business publication, writes an article defending the
cheapest place business can get its products made. Is that any sort of
surprise? Lets face it, it must be annoying for businesses who want to make
competitive products at the cheapest place to get that done, that Foxconn is
derided as some sort of slave labour camp. So is it any surprise that we now
get a "campaign" to reposition Foxconn to make it more acceptable to use?

Now, fair enough that Bloomberg champions the needs of big business, and fair
enough that big business wants and need to use these places to build their
products. But that does not mean that there is no agenda here. There might not
be, but there is certainly a sniff of re-branding going on here.

All Im saying is there is good grounds to be sceptical at the motivation here.

~~~
stevenpworrel
There's more than enough ground to be skeptical. Most of it reads like a job
interviewer's contrived response to "What are your 3 biggest weaknesses?"

"The biggest gripe, which surprised us somewhat, is that they don’t get enough
overtime. They wanted to work more, to get more money." This, the biggest
gripe, at a place that had to deploy suicide nets around the building
perimeters. I can't think of a more patronizing way to write this article.

I, personally, don't know what goes on at Foxconn. But the chance at holding
accountable those who enable injustice was lost the day the US bank
representative stood proudly in front of Congress and announced "We're too big
to fail."; knowing that any backlash would be brief and easily defeated. At
that moment it became clear to me that propaganda, which many thought the
internet would disable, is more powerful than ever.

Disinformation has far greater utility than information.

~~~
DanBC
Suicide rates at Foxconn are about what you'd expect for a place with that
population; the rate is less than the US. (Although that's not saying much.)

There's some caution needed though. Most workers are female which is
traditionally higher for attempted but lower for completed suicide, and they
don't have as many readily accessible means. (EG, American young men have
access to guns.)

The reporters say they spoke to people, freely, and Foxconn didn't know who
they spoke to. The reporters seem remarkably ignorant about the fears people
have about speaking out when living in an oppressive regime. (China probably
executes more people than any other country; there are over 50 crimes that
carry the death penalty; some criminals are interviewed for tv programmes
before they are executed).

There are a lot of problems at Chinese factories. The fact that poor peasants
consider factory work to be better than their regular life just shows how bad
life in China is for poor people.

~~~
Sumaso
My history might be a bit shaky, but people moving into cities to work in
factories sounds quite similar to Britain during their industrial revolution.
Though they had a whole other set of problems (mainly dealing with sanitation
AFAIK).

China still has growing pains that it needs to work through.

~~~
DanBC
Yes. Poor people migrate to where they think the work is. They're often
exploited. Sometimes they're exploited by criminal gangs. Sometimes, if
they're lucky, they'll get a low-paid job with excessive hours and poor
conditions.

([http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/the-ieconomy-
ho...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/the-ieconomy-how-much-do-
foxconn-workers-make/))

Note that Apple is demanding that Foxconn complies with Apple's policy for
overtime - that workers earning about $18 per day must not work more than 60
hours a week. Unless it's an emergency. Or an unusual situation.

It's unfortunate that the concentration is almost entirely on Foxconn, because
there are worse factories in China.

------
mseebach
I enjoyed this Economist article, and it seems to make some of the same
points, but in a different context: <http://www.economist.com/node/21549956>

------
pasbesoin
For me, one of the elephants in the room that is the larger discussion about
"third world" outsourcing and manufacture, is the other side of the dynamic:
What is happening in portions of the "first world". That is, the fear in the
first world. (Note: I'm in the U.S.)

The first world build up, both deliberately and circumstantially (e.g. World
War II), a fairly strong system of profit-sharing and workforce representation
and safety.

Then, increasing geographic mobility (physical, and communication) provided
means of operating portions or the entirety of a business outside of that
scope, while maintaining the first world market/destination for finished
product.

Given that much of the first world was in one form or another "democratic", at
that point, those populations faced a choice. Erect barriers to insure the
propagation of those protections within their societies, but at perhaps the
expense of less individual, immediate wealth -- at least, as measured in
objects possessed. Or allow this "outsourcing", undermining domestic
production and attendant protections in favor of individual gains -- short
term gains, for those not in a position of major equity or enabling and so
profiting off of the inter-societal transfers.

In my perspective, barring a regression, at this point we are headed towards a
world society as well as economy. However, the timeframes are still such that
individuals can end up "losers" with regard to opportunities available or lost
during their productive lifespans.

In the U.S., for example, many people are "losing", right now.

The question arises: Has what has happened been the best way forward that was
possible? Or could the U.S. et al. have maintained greater barriers while
still enabling progress? The ideo of "lifting up" the third world, instead of
"racing to the lowest common denominator"?

I, for one, don't know the answer to that. Personally, though, I would have
liked to try harder for it.

Many people in the U.S. are scared, and outraged, and fearful, and many other
things, of what they see -- or what is reported -- in China and other places,
because behind and beyond the immediate situation, they see or perhaps intuit
at some level their own future.

Maybe in the 80's and even 90's, many people here just felt it was wrong that
another person be treated like that. And they compared those circumstances to
their own and wished the latter whole-heartedly for these other people.

Now, many people are just plain scared. If they're not already living in this
future of decreasing expectations.

I think _that_ is the, or at least one of, the elephants in the room, in this
entire discussion.

We were supposed to be improving the lives of these folk. But now it looks to
(rhetorical) me that it was, is at my and our own expense.

I'm not arguing for one interpretation or the other, here. But I would like to
see this perspective -- this view from "the other side", if I've seen and
understood it at least partially correctly -- added to the conversation.

And, to loop back to what I mentioned earlier, this happened in the context of
"democratic" first world societies. (However imperfect that democracy might
be.) So... in casting about for blame, if such is to be sought and found at
all, I don't think those populations can simply point to business executives
and "corrupt" politicians for the answer. Whether citizens voted, or didn't
bother, they were and are part of the choice.

