
Apple admits use of child labour in China - alexandros
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour-in-China.html
======
jballanc
Please, if you are in favor of child labour and worker exploitation, the best
thing you could do is express your outrage at Apple for independently
auditing, investigating, and punishing their suppliers for these practices.

I think all American companies should know that, if they take it upon
themselves to reveal what _is already happening_ in China in an attempt to
_right the wrong_ , they will be rewarded with sensationalist headlines,
public outrage, and bad press all for the sake of page views.

Oh, and you _might_ want to read the _other_ side of this story:
[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/27/apple_taken_to...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/27/apple_taken_to_task_for_reporting_partners_child_labor_violations.html)

~~~
Auzy
Actually, I'm not sure I believe the "pro-Apple" story entirely. It states
"During most of our audits, suppliers stated that Apple was the only company
that had ever audited their facility for supplier responsibility".

Seriously, who the hell asks their suppliers if they have been audited by
other clients?

I think its great Apple audited their supplier, but I'm not convinced we have
the full story (in fact, its possible they were tipped off in this case too,
and that's why the age audit was initiated). I should also add that we
shouldn't praise hardware companies for performing an audit once or twice.
Furthermore, they certainly aren't penalising their suppliers for their poor
working conditions!

All that will happen is a few underage workers will stop working. The living
conditions will still be a joke, workers mistreated, and the dodgy supplier
wont suffer in any way (other than needing to find replacements).

~~~
philwelch
"Seriously, who the hell asks their suppliers if they have been audited by
other clients?"

Who says anyone asked? If I was the only company auditing my suppliers, they
would probably say "I don't understand why you're doing this; none of our
other clients have ever audited us."

------
alexandros
I understand the general sentiment against child labour, but somehow a 15-year
old doesn't seem incapable of working at a factory. Child and teenager are
diferent words, except when they're not. People have been working the fields
from small ages throughout history. As long as the child didn't drop school or
something else to go there, maybe getting a job was the best idea. Having a
hard age limit just seems arbitrary, outsourcing the worries about worker
mistreatment (a real problem) to a magical number. Perhaps,
counterintuitively, not being able to get the amount of workers necessary for
the cost allowed by apple's contract, leads manufacturers to press workers to
work longer.

~~~
yequalsx
Similar things were said in the U.S. when we outlawed most forms of factory
work for children. Our society became better when we did outlaw this.

How about this form of outsourcing? Rather than Apple owning and managing the
factory in question they contract it out so they can assuage their guilt when
children end up working there.

~~~
derefr
> Our society became better when we did outlaw this.

Cite for this, please. As far as I know, we outlawed child factory labor
purely because children, with their small bodies that could fit into more-
easily-constructed mineshafts, dexterous hands that could assemble small
parts, and lesser demand for pay, were being _preferred_ for most jobs, and so
adult workers basically had a union action against them to make sure _their
own_ jobs were safe. This decreased efficiency, took a source of discretionary
income away from children who wanted it (these weren't forced workers; they
just took jobs to better their life), and artificially lowered the
unemployment of adults who couldn't compete with kids.

~~~
yequalsx
Is this a serious request? You want me to cite the basis for me stating that
our society became better by outlawing the employment of children in factories
and mines? This isn't obvious to you? I am grateful that people with your
point of view didn't prevail when the United States confronted this issue.

~~~
Enra2
The US and the rest of the west experienced unprecedented per capita BNP
growth since around the time western countries banned child labour. This is
the reason for increased living standards. It would not have mattered much in
the long run who prevailed because rich (by the standards of 1850 we pretty
much all are) parents don't let their children work full time in factories.

~~~
yequalsx
When I say the U.S. became a better country by outlawing child labor this had
nothing to do with economics. We became better in a moral sense. We Americans
equate, too often, the concept of better in a money sense. This is a bad trait
amongst us. (I'm not saying you have this bad trait.)

~~~
Dove
I am not completely sure we are better off. Being barred from meaningful work
is to the moral detriment of precocious kids.

Not that we should let people in general subject themselves to danger they
don't understand, and kids might lack judgement about that. And education
absolutely shouldn't be blown off. But there's something appealing to me about
kids being able to work real jobs if they're willing and capable.

Something like this . . . <http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=14>

------
imok20
I worked at a lab programming for minimum wage when I was 15; this isn't
sweatshop work. Children are allowed to work in the US, too. (Though,
certainly, not at factories.)

The title is is misleading, as well: Apple contracts these oversea factories;
they don't hire or force children to work for them. It's all a bit
inflammatory.

~~~
yequalsx
Ah...the old imperial justification. Apple doesn't directly hire the children
to work in the shops so their moral obligation ends there. I'll bet those kids
even earn more than would have made if Apple hadn't contracted out to the
factory.

I wonder if your working conditions were the same as the Chinese kids' working
conditions. Hmmm...I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same
conditions as these kids work in.

~~~
philwelch
"I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these
kids work in."

That rather depends upon what the possible alternatives are, doesn't it? The
average middle-class, privileged westerner wouldn't, but the average middle-
class, privileged westerner has much better options--and for that matter,
turns his nose up at the idea of living without cable TV or a microwave oven.

If there's a way up to the developed world's standard of living that doesn't
involve sweatshops, it hasn't been discovered yet. Thankfully, the sweatshop
stage is growing shorter and shorter over time.

~~~
yequalsx
I'm from the Canal Zone. I grew up there. I'm a former American colonist. The
bulk of the workforce was Panamanian. Their wages were much lower than
American wages. The justification by we Americans was that they were paid
better by the Company than they would get in Panama. It's the standard
imperial justification and it's wrong.

Panama has done quite well without America and their wages have improved. This
isn't universally true but the justification that this is just something that
every country must go through is wrong factually and morally. It is immoral
for us to profit off of forced labor, unsafe working conditions, and child
labor. That our country turns a blind eye is repugnant.

~~~
philwelch
Who said anything about forced labor?

If the choice is between paying someone in another country the same amount
you'd pay someone at home and not hiring them at all, the simple fact is,
they're not going to be hired at all. The unspoken assumption, of course, is
that we can let the whole rest of the world languish in poverty so long as
we're sure that every appliance in our electrified houses and every damned
faucet for our hot and cold running water was made by American hands in an
American factory. That's even a consistent worldview--but you have to
acknowledge what you have to give up in order to maintain that consistency. If
we have to consistently choose not to interfere with cultures less
technologically and economically advanced as our own, that means _no_
interference. That's a hard pill for most people to swallow. What's more
imperialistic--contracting with a Chinese company for manufacturing or
"rebuilding Haiti" (in our own image, of course).

~~~
yequalsx
No one said anything about forced labor. I included it in a list of things
that it is immoral to benefit from. In that list of things was child labor;
the point of the discussion. Sorry for not making this clearer. I should have
left it out.

Corporations aren't building factories in China so that China benefits. They
are building the factories so that they benefit. There are lots of reports of
forced labor in China, of unsafe working conditions, and of worker
exploitation. Our companies are fine with this arrangement because they fall
back on the, "But we don't actually hire these workers. We contract this out."
It's wrong.

The American public is OK with the arrangement because it means we can buy
cheap crap. We don't mind migrant laborers in this country being exploited
because we want cheap food.

What we lose sight of is the damage that this does to us and the world. That
pollution that the factories produce in China to make cheap shit for us, in
the long run, will do a lot of harm to China and the world. It's immoral for
us to benefit from this.

What we could do is make trade contingent on a base level of standards being
met. Make companies run the factories instead of hiding behind, "We don't
actually hire the workers." The externalities need to be addressed.

~~~
philwelch
"What we could do is make trade contingent on a base level of standards being
met."

That's exactly what Apple does, and that's exactly why you're reading this
story about Apple, instead of Asus or Lenovo or any other company--because
Apple, unlike almost every other company, does the audits and enforces the
standards on their contractors.

~~~
yequalsx
After rereading the article and reading the comments on this thread I'm
inclined to agree with you as far as it pertains to Apple. The overall point I
made applies though. Not necessarily to Apple itself but to behavior of
Western companies in general.

------
godDLL
telegraph.co.uk:

"Apple admits using child labour […] At least eleven 15-year-old children were
discovered to be working last year in three factories which supply Apple.[…]"

apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing-compliance.html:

"In 2009, our audits identified 17 core violations: eight violations involving
excessive recruitment fees; _three cases where underage workers had been
hired_ ; three cases where our supplier contracted with noncertified vendors
for hazardous waste disposal; and three cases of falsified records provided
during the audit."

"Apple discovered _three facilities_ that had previously _hired 15-year-old
workers_ in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16. Across the
three facilities, our auditors found _records of 11 workers_ who had been
hired prior to reaching the legal age, although the workers were no longer
underage or no longer in active employment at the time of our audit."

EDIT: Emphasis added to highlight relevant bits.

------
Batsu
"Apple admits using child labour"

"Apple has admitted that child labour was used at the factories that build its
computers, iPods and mobile phones."

There's a world of difference between those two statements. The first being
the headline, the second being the quick summary.

Talk about link bait.

~~~
alexandros
Which is why I've subtly modified the title here.

~~~
tvon
> "Apple admits use of child labour in China"

Still reads as if Apple is doing this directly.

------
fiaz
A relevant music video bringing awareness to child labor exploitation:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrCalO5BDs>

------
mithunk
And how are going to make Apple force the issue with companies like Foxconn
and Wintek? These conditions are the reason why Apple enjoys the margins it
does.

~~~
KC8ZKF
You make Apple force the issue with public outcry. It seems to be working; did
you read the article?

~~~
yequalsx
Yeah, and how often does this occur? How many factories are contracted out to
in China by American companies that aren't subjected to public outcry? Apple
should face very severe sanctions for allowing this to happen. They are not
innocent.

~~~
KC8ZKF
Apple audits their suppliers, finds violations and fixes them, so you want
them punished? Not a very good way to encourage other companies to clean up
their act.

~~~
yequalsx
If you are right about Apple then I retract my statement as it applies to
Apple. However, this is not a legal requirement for companies who do business
in the United States and it is not a standard practice. Even when it is
standard for a company to do this it is done with a wink, so to speak.
Companies and consumers in the United States (and Europe) are content to leave
the issue of exploited labor out of the public debate. The general
justification being that the companies don't actually hire the workers and so
their hands are clean. It's convenient and immoral.

My overall point stands and it is sad that it has been down voted so much. It
reflects poorly on the social awareness of the rich.

~~~
starkfist
_If you are right about Apple then I retract my statement as it applies to
Apple._

It says as much in the linked article.

------
jrockway
At least they don't let iPhone apps show boobs. They wouldn't want to "sully"
their image.

~~~
yequalsx
I don't know why you are getting down voted. It's says much about society that
you are. People on this site get outraged about App Store policies but not
about child labor and Apple's ability to wash it's hands because the labor was
contracted through a third party and they periodically do audits. God forbid
Apple actually own the factory that makes their products and ensures that no
children ever work there.

~~~
philwelch
Apple may not own the factories (why the fuck would they, they're not a
manufacturing company) but they do what they can to ensure children don't work
in the factories that build their products. They've stopped doing business
with the contractors that were using child labor.

This story is the moral equivalent of turning "Apple fires employee for
kicking co-worker in crotch" to "Apple caught kicking employees in crotch".

~~~
yequalsx
Indeed, they shouldn't own the factory. If they owned the factory their bottom
line might be affected. People might start asking uncomfortable questions
about the pay of those employees. The current arrangement allows they to say,
"We didn't hire these kids, it's not our fault. Why the fuck would we own the
factory? "

~~~
philwelch
You seem to be implying that Apple deliberately contracts out their
manufacturing specifically to exploit child labor. I find that absolutely
contrary to the evidence--in particular, if Apple were doing that, wouldn't
they try to cover this up instead of auditing the manufacturers themselves and
making these abuses public? As it stands, Apple goes out of their way to ask
the uncomfortable questions.

There are lots of perfectly non-cynical reasons to outsource manufacturing--or
for that matter, anything your business itself isn't exceptionally good at.

~~~
yequalsx
American companies contract out factory work so they can wash their hands when
improprieties show up. They know this shit goes on and their quest for greater
profits is more powerful than their social conscience.

Apple could easily run the factory itself. If this meant a loss in profit then
we must ask ourselves why it would mean a loss in profit. It would mean a loss
in profit because Apple itself would never run a factory that was unsafe or
exploited the workers. And this is the reason Apple and other Western
companies share in the blame.

~~~
philwelch
"Apple could easily run the factory itself. If this meant a loss in profit
then we must ask ourselves why it would mean a loss in profit. It would mean a
loss in profit because Apple itself would never run a factory that was unsafe
or exploited the workers. And this is the reason Apple and other Western
companies share in the blame."

This is a fallacious and ignorant argument. To understand why, stop and
consider why things like AWS and Google Apps exist, just for starters. Then
think about why Apple doesn't own their own cargo ships for international
distribution, and why Apple uses FedEx rather than driving their own delivery
trucks. There's no essential reason that manufacturing is any different.
Apple's a design, development, and marketing company, not a manufacturing
company. They don't know shit about manufacturing and they wouldn't be able to
accomplish much by hiring the people who do.

If you'd really rather buy a laptop from a company that runs their own
manufacturing, buy a Lenovo. Of course, they're manufactured in China, and
Lenovo doesn't do anything to audit the labor practices of their own
factories, so we'll never know what goes on in there. But at least they're not
evading responsibility for things they'll never tell us about.

~~~
yequalsx
It's not an ignorant argument. Of course Apple isn't going to own or control
every piece of the puzzle for getting its products here. But there is a reason
their factories are in China and not in a country that has, you know, actual
labor standards. Steve Jobs needs more money and people like you need cheaper
products. I'm sorry. They don't own the factory so they are absolved of guilt
and people like you can shop without thinking about the bad externalities with
the current arrangement.

~~~
starkfist
The reason Apple uses Chinese suppliers is because the Chinese are the only
ones who can do the supplying. There is no other place to get a computer made.
Apple could start a factory in the USA, but it would take 10 years to spin it
up. Chinese labor would need to be imported because nobody in the USA has the
right expertise.

The factories in the article are not Apple's. They are Chinese factories owned
by Chinese companies run by Chinese people. This isn't old school imperialism.
This is new school global trade. Apple already leans on the Chinese to clean
up their labor practices, which is arguably more imperialistic behavior than
doing business with them.

