Why the issue with Apple period is what I can't understand. If I hire someone to paint my home, and that person abuses his employees and doesn't pay them well, then this is my problem because why?!?
If Apple was giving Foxconn a tiny bit of business that was equivalent to the business that other companies were giving it, I might agree with you. But in this case, where certainly tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Foxconn employees are there because of Apple, Apple has to bare some responsibility.
I don't think Apple and companies like it should be able to hide behind "outsourcing". Taken to an extreme conclusion, if Apple bares no responsibility for these employees because this is a contract with a third party, that third party could hire slave labor, child labor, etc. I don't find that acceptable. I don't think we should be judging Foxconn by American labor standards, but Apple (and the other companies who use them) is not going to look very good if there's ever a big tragedy.
The U.S. labor movement really took off after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire that killed 146 workers in 1911 on the site of what is now New York University. Triangle was famous for the sign that read, "If you don't come in on Sunday, don't come in on Monday". Workers died because the doors were locked from the outside so they couldn't leave during their shift. This FLA audit found such things as locked exits. That's a major tragedy waiting to happen. How is Apple going to look if there's ever a big fire and 200 Foxconn employees die? And what this looks like to the world, regardless of Foxconn's involvement is "large American company that produces luxury products exploits workers." Every worker is entitled to a living wage, pay for overtime, safe work conditions and to not work an unreasonable amount of hours. It's not reasonable for Apple's workers not to have this, regardless of whether Apple "hides" by outsourcing.
This is no different than Wal-Mart getting into trouble for the conditions faced by their cleaning crews, even though those were contracted to another company and when some celeb's clothing line (Kathy Lee Gifford, maybe?) was found to be manufactured in part by child labor. Outsourcing doesn't absolve one of moral responsibility.
If Apple was giving Foxconn a tiny bit of business that was equivalent to the business that other companies were giving it, I might agree with you. But in this case, where certainly tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Foxconn employees are there because of Apple, Apple has to bare some responsibility.
I don't think Apple and companies like it should be able to hide behind "outsourcing". Taken to an extreme conclusion, if Apple bares no responsibility for these employees because this is a contract with a third party, that third party could hire slave labor, child labor, etc. I don't find that acceptable. I don't think we should be judging Foxconn by American labor standards, but Apple (and the other companies who use them) is not going to look very good if there's ever a big tragedy.
The U.S. labor movement really took off after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire that killed 146 workers in 1911 on the site of what is now New York University. Triangle was famous for the sign that read, "If you don't come in on Sunday, don't come in on Monday". Workers died because the doors were locked from the outside so they couldn't leave during their shift. This FLA audit found such things as locked exits. That's a major tragedy waiting to happen. How is Apple going to look if there's ever a big fire and 200 Foxconn employees die? And what this looks like to the world, regardless of Foxconn's involvement is "large American company that produces luxury products exploits workers." Every worker is entitled to a living wage, pay for overtime, safe work conditions and to not work an unreasonable amount of hours. It's not reasonable for Apple's workers not to have this, regardless of whether Apple "hides" by outsourcing.
This is no different than Wal-Mart getting into trouble for the conditions faced by their cleaning crews, even though those were contracted to another company and when some celeb's clothing line (Kathy Lee Gifford, maybe?) was found to be manufactured in part by child labor. Outsourcing doesn't absolve one of moral responsibility.
Comments
Why the issue with Apple period is what I can't understand. If I hire someone to paint my home, and that person abuses his employees and doesn't pay them well, then this is my problem because why?!?
If Apple was giving Foxconn a tiny bit of business that was equivalent to the business that other companies were giving it, I might agree with you. But in this case, where certainly tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Foxconn employees are there because of Apple, Apple has to bare some responsibility.
I don't think Apple and companies like it should be able to hide behind "outsourcing". Taken to an extreme conclusion, if Apple bares no responsibility for these employees because this is a contract with a third party, that third party could hire slave labor, child labor, etc. I don't find that acceptable. I don't think we should be judging Foxconn by American labor standards, but Apple (and the other companies who use them) is not going to look very good if there's ever a big tragedy.
The U.S. labor movement really took off after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire that killed 146 workers in 1911 on the site of what is now New York University. Triangle was famous for the sign that read, "If you don't come in on Sunday, don't come in on Monday". Workers died because the doors were locked from the outside so they couldn't leave during their shift. This FLA audit found such things as locked exits. That's a major tragedy waiting to happen. How is Apple going to look if there's ever a big fire and 200 Foxconn employees die? And what this looks like to the world, regardless of Foxconn's involvement is "large American company that produces luxury products exploits workers." Every worker is entitled to a living wage, pay for overtime, safe work conditions and to not work an unreasonable amount of hours. It's not reasonable for Apple's workers not to have this, regardless of whether Apple "hides" by outsourcing.
This is no different than Wal-Mart getting into trouble for the conditions faced by their cleaning crews, even though those were contracted to another company and when some celeb's clothing line (Kathy Lee Gifford, maybe?) was found to be manufactured in part by child labor. Outsourcing doesn't absolve one of moral responsibility.
If Apple was giving Foxconn a tiny bit of business that was equivalent to the business that other companies were giving it, I might agree with you. But in this case, where certainly tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Foxconn employees are there because of Apple, Apple has to bare some responsibility.
I don't think Apple and companies like it should be able to hide behind "outsourcing". Taken to an extreme conclusion, if Apple bares no responsibility for these employees because this is a contract with a third party, that third party could hire slave labor, child labor, etc. I don't find that acceptable. I don't think we should be judging Foxconn by American labor standards, but Apple (and the other companies who use them) is not going to look very good if there's ever a big tragedy.
The U.S. labor movement really took off after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire that killed 146 workers in 1911 on the site of what is now New York University. Triangle was famous for the sign that read, "If you don't come in on Sunday, don't come in on Monday". Workers died because the doors were locked from the outside so they couldn't leave during their shift. This FLA audit found such things as locked exits. That's a major tragedy waiting to happen. How is Apple going to look if there's ever a big fire and 200 Foxconn employees die? And what this looks like to the world, regardless of Foxconn's involvement is "large American company that produces luxury products exploits workers." Every worker is entitled to a living wage, pay for overtime, safe work conditions and to not work an unreasonable amount of hours. It's not reasonable for Apple's workers not to have this, regardless of whether Apple "hides" by outsourcing.
This is no different than Wal-Mart getting into trouble for the conditions faced by their cleaning crews, even though those were contracted to another company and when some celeb's clothing line (Kathy Lee Gifford, maybe?) was found to be manufactured in part by child labor. Outsourcing doesn't absolve one of moral responsibility.
Thanks for the history info. Interesting.