Undercover video shows alleged worker rights violations at Apple supplier

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,740member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justbobf View Post



    I think we all need to have more sympathy for these overworked employees. 

     

    They look like a pretty happy and content bunch to me, in that picture. They're all smiles.

     

    China is a big country with a crap load of people living there. The fact that so many people want to get these sort of factory jobs, shows that it can't be all that bad. It sure beats working in a rice field somewhere.

  • Reply 62 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,740member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CGJ View Post

     

    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.  


     

    People can complain about Fox News all they like, and I can complain about MSNBC and other liberal channels all I like until I'm blue in the face, but the big difference is that these channels are not subsidized by the state and the people.

     

    I would also disagree that the BBC is less biased than Fox News. I've seen their coverage of certain events, such as those involving terrorists and it was quite pathetic. 

  • Reply 63 of 83
    rogifan wrote: »
    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'm probably what you call a "liberal do-gooder", but thats part of the reason I like apple, they may not be perfect, but at least they do far more than any (?) other similar company.

    However - as long as apple holds their current position, media WILL also follow them more closely, call out if something is wrong with a product, check if they indeed hold their promises regarding worker conditions and so on, and I think its good. It keeps apple on their toes, keeps them from getting lazy. AND - it keeps apple in peoples mind, and being "top of mind" is incredibly valuable for a clmpany: very often - instead of saying "smartphone", people say "iphone", just as they say "to google something" when they talk about searching online.
  • Reply 64 of 83
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,330member
    crowley wrote: »

    If that TV ever worked?  How do you figure?  The TV hardware has nothing to do with it, the rule is you need a TV license if you watch live broadcast television.  No other rules.  Why should I pay for something when the licensing rules says that I don't have to?

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8

    And I use the TV for AppleTV, and occasionally PlayStation.

    So it's basically a monitor. I don't think the licence inspectors accept that excuse. If you have a TV and it can get a signal then you should pay.
  • Reply 65 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    apple ][ wrote: »

    I'm sorry, but I don't fully buy your explanation. Surely, you have tuned into some sort of live tv event, such as breaking news, or a sporting event. You claim to be supporting the BBC in this thread, yet you seem to be weaseling your way out of paying what is owed.

    I looked at the link that you gave to the tv licensing site, and read through their rules. Don't worry, I wont be forwarding my suspicions about you over to the UK licensing arm.:lol:
    Surely I must have? What a bizarre stance. My TV isn't even hooked up to an aerial or cable, so there's no surely at all. I haven't.

    Why weaselling? Do you pay for things that you don't have to? Does Apple get a monthly donation from you just for being Apple? I can't words of support for an organisation without being a subscribed customer/benefit? Besides which, I have bought BBC content through iTunes.

    I suggest that it is you doing the weaselling. Trying to find fault with criticism of your shoddy facts by attacking the messenger.

    I haven't lived in a household with live TV for about five years. Not the norm, but hardly inconceivable.
  • Reply 66 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    asdasd wrote: »
    So it's basically a monitor. I don't think the licence inspectors accept that excuse. If you have a TV and it can get a signal then you should pay.
    They do accept that excuse and there's a form you can filling out declaring exactly this. I've been doing it for a while and have never been told I need to pay, or been investigated, or been bothered at all.

    The rules are very clear, so please tell me why I should pay?
  • Reply 67 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    I would also disagree that the BBC is less biased than Fox News. I've seen their coverage of certain events, such as those involving terrorists and it was quite pathetic. 
    Care to explain why?

    Given that you're coming from a position of heavy bias of your own, as evidenced by your frequent outbursts here, you're not really a reliable arbiter of bias for those that consider themselves either centrist or left wing.
  • Reply 68 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,740member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    Surely I must have? What a bizarre stance. My TV isn't even hooked up to an aerial or cable, so there's no surely at all. I haven't.

     

    You said that you have an Apple TV hooked up to it.

     

    Even I get Sky News live on my Apple TV here.

     

    I just find it highly implausible that you have never watched any content that was live, either streamed or via tv.

     

    What if a huge terrorist attack happened right now, or some other catastrophic event, and it happened near where you live?

     

    Are you saying that you wouldn't tune in to a tv broadcast, either live or streaming? I think that you would.

  • Reply 69 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    It's as clear as glass that you worry more about the possibility of worker overtime abuse in China than the reality of child sexual abuse in your own country.

    I really don't know what to say about your seemingly perverted sense of priorities.
    I never said any such thing, don't believe any such thing and that's a shameful line of argument.

    Truly horrible thing to say and I won't be having any more of that debate if that's the way you're going to act.
  • Reply 70 of 83
    It is very interesting reading forums such as this when there is an "attack" on the central theme of the forum. In this case Apple. How people start attacking the messenger and not the message.
    Apple has a public Corporate social responsibility. , you can see it on their website. Apple publicly state they take responsibility for their suppliers adherence to the standards Apple wants to impose. If those supplier's fail to meet those standards then Apple are fair game. The same as any other company that publicly has the same standards.
  • Reply 71 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    You said that you have an Apple TV hooked up to it.

    Even I get Sky News live on my Apple TV here.

    I just find it highly implausible that you have never watched any content that was live, either streamed or via tv.

    What if a huge terrorist attack happened right now, or some other catastrophic event, and it happened near where you live?

    Are you saying that you wouldn't tune in to a tv broadcast, either live or streaming? I think that you would.
    I'd sooner stab out my eyes that watch Sky News or Sky Anything. I don't use any live channels on the Apple TV. I don't think any of them are even visible, I hid them all.

    I didn't say I have never watched any live TV. I see live news every day in the cafeteria at my work, which has a TV licence.

    I don't currently watch live TV in my home, which is the criteria for requiring a household TV licence. I don't really watch much TV at home anyway, TV isn't a big part of my life.

    If a terrorist event happened near where I live I doubt watching the news would be my immediate priority, but if I wanted information I generally find text to be more informative than video anyway. There's plenty of websites for that.
  • Reply 72 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,740member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    I'd sooner stab out my eyes that watch Sky News or Sky Anything. I don't use any live channels on the Apple TV. I don't think any of them are even visible, I hid them all.



    I didn't say I have never watched any live TV. I see live news every day in the cafeteria at my work, which has a TV licence.



    I don't currently watch live TV in my home, which is the criteria for requiring a household TV licence. I don't really watch much TV at home anyway, TV isn't a big part of my life.



    If a terrorist event happened near where I live I doubt watching the news would be my immediate priority, but if I wanted information I generally find text to be more informative than video anyway. There's plenty of websites for that.



    It obviously makes no difference to me at all if you contribute to the BBC or not of course. I don't even live in your country, but if you insist that you never, ever watch even a single minute of TV at home, then fine, I'll believe you, and we can leave it at that.

  • Reply 73 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    I don't insist that. I never watch live TV at home. I watch some streamed or downloaded TV from time to time.

    This is fully compliant with not needing a TV licence.
  • Reply 74 of 83



    It's almost like you didn't bother reading the post.

  • Reply 75 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,059member
    Who? Me? Howso?
  • Reply 76 of 83
    I suppose that if you put your head over the parapet, people are going to shoot at you. In a way this is what Apple has always done by being different to the rest of the %u201Cjunk%u201D Company%u2019s out there. Another way of putting it would be to call it %u201Cthe Politics of Envy%u201D by others who cannot compete (except by going to the bottom of the barrel). But Apple will/should apply the same vigour to this as they do the design etc of their products.
    Apple specify a very high standard for any components from suppliers. So they can also specify (and probably do) the same very high standards for the workers conditions, making that component.
    I have know doubt that most luxury brands have the same (or far worse) issues, but do not have the checks and balances that Apple has (and publishes). So it slips under the radar.
    But of course, if Apple actually made all its own products in the US (Mac Pro) instead of outsourcing, then this would be a lot easier to deal with. But then we would have to pay a higher price.
  • Reply 77 of 83
    lukeilukei Posts: 333member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



    I don't insist that. I never watch live TV at home. I watch some streamed or downloaded TV from time to time.



    This is fully compliant with not needing a TV licence.



    You are correct. Like you I don't watch much TV (1-2 hours a week total whether live or streamed), although I do have a TV licence because I believe it is worth it for the Danny Baker show on FiveLive alone :) 

     

    Apple just need to monitor their suppliers more, they are making big commitments and they should know China well enough by now to know they need people on the ground constantly to make sure those commitments are delivered upon.

  • Reply 78 of 83
    crowley wrote: »
    I never said any such thing, don't believe any such thing and that's a shameful line of argument.

    Truly horrible thing to say and I won't be having any more of that debate if that's the way you're going to act.

    I think it's fair to say that my anger over your apologia for the BBC -- however faint -- clouded my judgment.

    Nevertheless, the company's looking the other way, and arguably, its lame attempt at an internal investigation -- remember all the hirings and firings of directors, etc.? -- were a travesty. As far as I am concerned, the BBC has no moral authority to pronounce judgment on anything. They're a shameful organization.
  • Reply 79 of 83
    It is very interesting reading forums such as this when there is an "attack" on the central theme of the forum. In this case Apple. How people start attacking the messenger and not the message.
    Apple has a public Corporate social responsibility. , you can see it on their website. Apple publicly state they take responsibility for their suppliers adherence to the standards Apple wants to impose. If those supplier's fail to meet those standards then Apple are fair game. The same as any other company that publicly has the same standards.

    Of course Apple is fair game. If they're all talk and no action. But few companies have gone father than Apple in addressing such issues. For all we know, they could have solved it 98 out of 100 times, but not caught a couple of them. If/when they find out about it, should they fix it? Yes, they should. And they will.

    To expect that the company can catch these throughout the sprawling supply chain all the time is unrealistic. Journalists whining about these issues never seem to bring up this reality.

    All that aside, the less said about a shameful organization like the BBC, the better.
  • Reply 80 of 83

    Let me put this straight for the ignorant people here. Fact: you only need a TV licence if you intend watching “live” TV. This applies even if you watch on an iPad or computer etc.

    The BBC has always been criticised by whatever the government of the day is (Left or Right) so it cannot be that far out of balance.

    I am sure that the government/s would love to control the BBC (they do try), but thank goodness so far they have been unsuccessful.

    The BBC is not perfect (some rubbish in my opinion), but you can”t please all of the people etc.

    In my opinion there is a lot more rubbish on the commercial channels (and I am not just talking about the Adverts).

Sign In or Register to comment.