Undercover video shows alleged worker rights violations at Apple supplier

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 83
    Originally Posted by MazeCookie View Post

    Although the BBC is not funded by advertisement

     

    Ah, state-owned news. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

  • Reply 22 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,742member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Do you own a mobile phone or any other consumer electronic products? there's nothing more pathetic than all the liberal do-gooders complaining about evil corporations all the while typing on their MacBook Airs and texting on their iPhones. I wish people would put their money where their mouth is. If they think Apple is exploiting Chinese workers for profit then stop buying Apple products. Better yet, stop buying any gadgets manufactured in China. Of course if people did that these Chinese people would be even worse off as they'd have no jobs at all. But that's okay at least the liberal do-gooders would be able to sleep at night.



    I suggest that the morons go hold a die in at their nearest Apple store, and they can be lying on the ground like a bunch of ignoramuses, while checking their iPhones.

  • Reply 23 of 83
    kernapster wrote: »
    I question if most Americans would want the same for their own workers.

    Of course not. But China is not America. Poor is not rich. East is not West. To think that everyone everywhere should have the same working conditions as America -- which, btw, has worse working conditions than France or Germany -- is really quite naive, and arrogant.

    A company can only do so much. If you have a problem with it, put your money where your mouth and principles are, and go buy someone else's product. Come back and tell us how your due diligence of their supply chain panned out for you.

    Until then, let me suggest that your post is quite hypocritical too.

    (Pipped by Rogifan!)
  • Reply 24 of 83
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kernapster View Post



    It was a really interesting documentary and since Apple sets guidelines for its supply chain as part of its corporate image, it was entirely valid for the BBC to put the test. Obviously it found its suppliers and manufactures had not met them. The question is really how much are these guidelines worth and whether they have an effect or if they are a veneer for people to feel better about the products they are buying. Corporate social responsibility is a bit of a scam. There is a certain amount of irony in seeing that the most productive form of capitalism on earth has happened in a communist country where it's populace has little political and personal rights. It was sad to see people living and working like battery hens to make a telephone. I question if most Americans would want the same for their own workers.



    Then you should stop using any technology device made in China. We shouldn’t see you anymore on this forum if you live up to your liberal ideals. What did you use to post your screed? Do you feel better about buying products from China because you deplore the working conditions? Or are you a hypocrite who says “Do as I say, not as I do”? 

  • Reply 25 of 83
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    I couldn't agree more.



    Its heyday was in the 70s and 80s, before it's politicisation was complete, and when it actually made decent programmes.



    They used to make great children's TV in those days. I remember growing up, they made proper adventure and sci fi shows for kids that didn't talk down to the younger audience.

     

    These days with the Internet, there is so much information everywhere, all the time, I'm not sure state broadcasters are really required any more. 

  • Reply 26 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,742member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post



    Apple are indeed rotten.

     

    Your hypocrisy is rotten.

     

    Are you not an Apple user? That would make you a class a hypocrite.

     

    Wouldn't it be nice if all liberal hypocrites would put their money where their mouths are?

  • Reply 27 of 83
    markbriton wrote: »
    Apple is the most valuable company in the world and so is a legitimate target no matter what competitors are doing.
    Balderdash. There is nothing legitimate in a selective process that pays zero attention to Apple's competitors.
  • Reply 28 of 83
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    Your hypocrisy is rotten.

     

    Are you not an Apple user? That would make you a class a hypocrite.

     

    Wouldn't it be nice if all liberal hypocrites would put their money where their mouths are?


    It's exactly because I buy Apple products that I call them out on it. We spend large sums of money on Apple products and so need to let Apple know we find their un-willingness to invest in changing the abuse, wrong. 

  • Reply 29 of 83
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member

    I suppose it's good to keep the pressure on a company, even doing as much as it can like Apple, to ensure it's workers are treated fairly. I'd like to see a documentary about some of the suppliers used by other tech conglomerates, though. But that wouldn't be as "newsworthy", would it?

  • Reply 30 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,742member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

     

    It's exactly because I buy Apple products that I call them out on it. We spend large sums of money on Apple products and so need to let Apple know we find their un-willingness to invest in changing the abuse, wrong. 




    Well, I guess that you can keep on buying Apple products in that case, and we'll see what happens in the future. That sounds good to me. Perhaps things will have changed slightly by iPad 15.

  • Reply 31 of 83
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member

    I normally quite like what the BBC presents, although the terribly biased reporting of the Scottish Independence Referendum tarnished it's image.

  • Reply 32 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,060member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    The BBC does not need advertising revenue, as everybody is forced to subscribe. It is politically biased, and everybody must fund it, even if they don't want to.
    Nope. I don't and no one is forcing me to do anything.

    And in regards the rest of your rant, the BBC is one of the best loved institutions in the country, maybe the best, though it's a close run thing between it and the National Health Service. People trust it more than the governments which you imply it's funded and/or in the pocket of. It's neither.
  • Reply 33 of 83

    I once worked on a British Channel Island beginning with G as a student at Uni - I worked a 100+hrs  a week for minimal wage, in a massive greenhouse the size of a football field, with an average temp of 100+ degrees, basic human rights (water from a hose, etc), we shite in buckets (same buckets as flowers were delivered in), lived on bread and jam (to save money for drink), lived in tents - all while picking carnations by day for the joyful british population. Best years of my life!

     

    Now I leave in NY, I've worked in most major big media companies. (Time Warner, NBC, Universal and others) - All easy peasy lemon squeezy after my first real job picking silvery pink and reds.

     

    Any journalist could visit the same building they work in and discover some poor soul, underpaid, over worked and etc. Vote Sinn Féin

  • Reply 34 of 83
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    It's exactly because I buy Apple products that I call them out on it. We spend large sums of money on Apple products and so need to let Apple know we find their un-willingness to invest in changing the abuse, wrong. 

    I've never given money to company I thought was rotten before. That makes no sense to me.
  • Reply 35 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,742member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    Nope. I don't and no one is forcing me to do anything.

     

    So, you are either a tax cheat or you don't own a TV?

     

    I don't live in the UK, so correct me if I'm wrong, but every household that owns a tv must pay, is that not correct?

     

    There has recently been talk of making the subscription voluntary, but the BBC obviously opposes that, because it would lose out on most of its income.

  • Reply 36 of 83
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,330member
    I think they are going to force it from income tax whether you own a TV or not.

    I don't trust the BBC either. If factually incorrect Apple have to sue.
  • Reply 37 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    So, you are either a tax cheat or you don't own a TV?

     

    I don't live in the UK, so correct me if I'm wrong, but every household that owns a tv must pay, is that not correct?

     

    There has recently been talk of making the subscription voluntary, but the BBC obviously opposes that, because it would lose out on most of its income.


    It is not correct.  Every household that watches live TV broadcasts has to have a TV license, which mostly (but not entirely) goes towards the BBC, which produces radio, TV, and one of the most trafficked websites in the world.

     

    Even if I were a cheat, I wouldn't be a tax cheat.  Not paying the license is a crime, but it has nothing to do with tax.  The clue is in the name, it's a license.

     

    I also have a TV, I just don't use it to receive live broadcasts.  If I did, I'd be more than happy to pay for a license, it's a steal for what you get for it, and I like what it supports.

     

    Though I do actually disagree somewhat with the license fee.  It's not a progressive system, so I'd prefer it if the BBC were funded from general taxation.  The problem with that is protecting that funding from governments like the current, overzealous anti-state bozos.

  • Reply 38 of 83
    cgjcgj Posts: 276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    The BBC belongs to a category of stations that ranks among the lowest in the world.

     

    That category is tax payer funded TV stations that operate under a force pay license model. The BBC does not need advertising revenue, as everybody is forced to subscribe. It is politically biased, and everybody must fund it, even if they don't want to.

     

    Imagine if everybody in the US were all of a sudden forced to pay over $200 a year to fund a state TV station, and you couldn't opt out of it! You have to subscribe to it for life, until you drop dead! Every year, they would steal money from your pocket.

     

    The BBC license rate was about $228 last year. That is totally outrageous, and nobody should have a gun held to their head, forcing them to pay for biased content that they might not want at all.

     

    The BBC is a joke, and has been a joke for a long time now.




    Not only is your comment factually incorrect, but I think you'll find a lot of people in the UK disagree. You, in fact, a household (not each individual) only pays the licence fee if they own a television (or use a computer) for the purpose of live broadcasting. And once the homeowner hits 65, or if they're on income support, their fee is paid for by the government anyway. 

     

    As for the BBC itself, while nobody can really deny there are certain biases within the organisation (such things are inevitable, sadly), when compared to many American news channels (Fox, for example), it is substantially more neutral and a lot more reliable. The same could be said of its Canadian equivalent, CBC, whose coverage of the incident in Canada was remarkably better than what was provided in the United States.  

     

    Of course, there are more elements to the BBC beyond its functions as a news provider; the entertainment provided by the BBC is incredibly good. Shows such as Doctor Who, Top Gear, Sherlock Holmes, Casualty, Strictly, etc. are all fantastic, and I enjoy them a lot more without advertisements. 

     

    On a final note – the BBC has existed since 1922, with the licence fee being in place since 1946. So there's no need to worry about 'all of a sudden' needing to pay a licence fee. 

  • Reply 39 of 83



    Oh, this reminds me of the sweet youth of mine. I was happy to work 16 hours a day at the age of 15 (of course it was illegal, even in Scandinavia where I live, but who cares - not at least me). I wished that my children had been lucky enough to work 16 hous/day when they were kids, but no - the governmetn wouldn't allow. What a bunch of losers - I mean the government!

  • Reply 40 of 83
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,330member
    crowley wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">It is not correct.  Every household that watches live TV broadcasts has to have a TV license, which mostly (but not entirely) goes towards the BBC, which produces radio, TV, and one of the most trafficked websites in the world.</span>


    Even if I were a cheat, I wouldn't be a tax cheat.  Not paying the license is a crime, but it has nothing to do with tax.  The clue is in the name, it's a license.

    I also have a TV, I just don't use it to receive live broadcasts.  If I did, I'd be more than happy to pay for a license, it's a steal for what you get for it, and I like what it supports.

    Though I do actually disagree somewhat with the license fee.  It's not a progressive system, so I'd prefer it if the BBC were funded from general taxation.  The problem with that is protecting that funding from governments like the current, overzealous anti-state bozos.

    Hang on. You should pay if that TV ever worked ( and if it doesn't why do you have it?). Or you have accessed the BBC in other formats.
Sign In or Register to comment.