Undercover video shows alleged worker rights violations at Apple supplier

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 83
    It's headline across the entire world news output. Really? Someone is really soakng it up.
  • Reply 42 of 83
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,201member
    There is another large, internationally renowned corporation who turned a blind eye on its employee's practices which led to the physical & sexual abuse of many children over the last few decades.

    That corporation is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

    People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
  • Reply 43 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    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.



    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.

  • Reply 44 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,068member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by McDave View Post



    There is another large, internationally renowned corporation who turned a blind eye on its employee's practices which led to the physical & sexual abuse of many children over the last few decades.



    That corporation is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).



    People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.



    Alternatively, people who lived in a glass house in the past and have been cooperative with the laws about glass houses are quite well positioned to advise other glass house dwellers about how to clean their glass.

     

    I mean seriously, you expect the BBC an international news organisation to stop investigative reporting because it had a scandal of its own?  A scandal that it also investigated and exposed itself, and has been contrite and cooperative with authorities in attempting to resolve?  Don't be absurd.

  • Reply 45 of 83
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by erann View Post

     



    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!


     

    If you are young you don’t have many skills, so the only way to get paid as much as an older person is to work longer hours. Plus you have the energy for it.

     

    I actually don’t approve of Apple placing working hour limits on their contractors, it seems like it might hold back the ambitious people to me. And in a developing society like China they need the ambitious people not to be held back, but to work their guts out.

  • Reply 46 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,068member

    I don't think they do place working hour limits.  They say that they are against mandatory overtime, though from what I've read in these summations (haven't seen the show yet) it seems like there is some overtime which is being pushed onto workers as mandatory by Pegatron.

  • Reply 47 of 83
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,616member
    mazecookie wrote: »
    Although the BBC is not funded by advertisement, it is worth reminding everybody that they still have targets for their articles, shows and radio stations.

    This is yet another sad attempt at grabbing numbers by targeting Apple.

    Apple has done more than any other company to help with Chinese labour. They have gone far and beyond what they need to do.

    Reading their articles over the past 3 years on their technology section has made it clear to me the BBC is very, very biased. 

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Particularly with their lead technology correspondent,</span>
    Rory Cellan-Jones,<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> who's articles are always anti-Apple and pro Android.</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">My dislike for the BBC only grows.</span>
    Much as I dislike Cellan-Jones it is hardly a reason to dislike the BBC altogether. We all know that every news organization are click baiters and will always look for an 'angle' to make things more interesting. It doesn't just apply to technology news and rumour sites but across the board.

    But Cellan-Jones is a buffoon with his 'I have no idea about technology' schtick. So yeah, BBC's technology coverage sucks.
  • Reply 48 of 83
    Quote:


     when compared to many American news channels (Fox, for example), it is substantially more neutral and a lot more reliable.


    Not only that, but in common with all broadcast media in the UK (TV and radio, BBC and commercial) it has a statutory duty to be impartial in its news coverage. Of course to people on the extremes of left and right, this looks like bias.

  • Reply 49 of 83

    I'm not sure quite what to make of this. The reporter is painting the picture that Apple is forcing these people to work 60+ hours, but it's the factory managers, not Apple. If indeed this is true, then the factory is accountable to Apple, as well as the workers.

     

    Are these workers really being _forced_ to work this many hours or are they choosing to in order to make as much money as possible? They are employed... why are they complaining? Biting the hand that feeds them? I know there are certain standards that need to be met, but this report just stinks of an ulterior motive... possibly sponsored by certain competition? It stands to reason that if these workers are being forced to work this hard by the factories, then this is also happening for competitor products, as well, does it not? Where's the reporting on that?

  • Reply 50 of 83
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

     

    If you are young you don’t have many skills, so the only way to get paid as much as an older person is to work longer hours. Plus you have the energy for it.

     

    I actually don’t approve of Apple placing working hour limits on their contractors, it seems like it might hold back the ambitious people to me. And in a developing society like China they need the ambitious people not to be held back, but to work their guts out.




    In many Asian countries, including Philippines, there's a belief that anyone older than 30 will have a very difficult time finding jobs. Only young people get the jobs.

  • Reply 51 of 83
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

     

    It stands to reason that if these workers are being forced to work this hard by the factories, then this is also happening for competitor products, as well, does it not? Where's the reporting on that?


    Yes, presumably they could have done the same story about any tech company that subcontracts to China. They probably chose Apple to get the most attention possible.

  • Reply 52 of 83
    vaguely wrote: »
     when compared to many American news channels (Fox, for example), it is substantially more neutral and a lot more reliable.
    Not only that, but in common with all broadcast media in the UK (TV and radio, BBC and commercial) it has a statutory duty to be impartial in its news coverage. Of course to people on the extremes of left and right, this looks like bias.

    Apart that the BBC's compass is stuck on left, thereby making it look extreme to all those in the centre or on the right; ie, most right-minded citizens of the UK.
  • Reply 53 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,068member

    Poppycock.  "Most" of the British public do not think the BBC looks extreme.  Not even slightly.  You're delusional or trolling or both.

     

    The BBC is rather unique in that the right accuses it of being too lefty, and the left accuses it of being so devoted to putting all opinions across that it gives fringe right views too much airtime.  It is not massively biased one way or the other, the odd show here or there that expresses an opinion is countered by other later on that takes a different tack.  The BBC has been given Jeremy Clarkson primetime slot for years!  When compared to the majority of other media and news sources the BBC as a whole looks positively objective.

     

    This accusation of bias is just a load of nonsense.  Address what the show is saying, not some ill placed view of where you think the show's motives lie.

  • Reply 54 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,745member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

    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.




    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.<img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 55 of 83
    crowley wrote: »
    mcdave wrote: »
    There is another large, internationally renowned corporation who turned a blind eye on its employee's practices which led to the physical


    Alternatively, people who lived in a glass house in the past and have been cooperative with the laws about glass houses are quite well positioned to advise other glass house dwellers about how to clean their glass.

    I mean seriously, you expect the BBC an international news organisation to stop investigative reporting because it had a scandal of its own?  A scandal that it also investigated and exposed itself, and has been contrite and cooperative with authorities in attempting to resolve?  Don't be absurd.

    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.
  • Reply 56 of 83
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,745member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    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.



    What's worse? Somebody who works for 16 hours (what a shocker, what a scandal, what an abuse of human rights!), or a decades long cover up of rape and molestation of small children?

  • Reply 57 of 83
    Maybe you volunteered to work 16 hours. I think these guys are forced to. I worked in a sweat shop once, and let me tell you, it was no fun.

    I think we all need to have more sympathy for these overworked employees. Apple is not all golden all the time, folks. We do not have to say they are wonderful all the time. We can be, and indeed should be, objective.
  • Reply 58 of 83
    I live in the UK, watched the programme and was embarrassed by the BBC bias. Sadly it has become more of the norm for this great broadcaster to resort to unrepresentative reporting. The whole world knows that China has a shocking record on human rights with employment law just being a small part of that. I could have accepted the report if other companies like Scamsung et al were also implicated as they should have been. Panorama by the way, is not a widely watched programme despite its 8pm slot.
  • Reply 59 of 83
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member
    crowley wrote: »

    Alternatively, people who lived in a glass house in the past and have been cooperative with the laws about glass houses are quite well positioned to advise other glass house dwellers about how to clean their glass.

    I mean seriously, you expect the BBC an international news organisation to stop investigative reporting because it had a scandal of its own?  A scandal that it also investigated and exposed itself, and has been contrite and cooperative with authorities in attempting to resolve?  Don't be absurd.

    And I could just as easily tell you to be less naive.

    The BBC knew about this while it was happening, and they knew about it long after. They 'investigated' because they had no choice once a few brave individuals came forward, the police got involved, and they were facing a PR disaster the like of which they had never seen before.

    Should they investigate Apple's claims? By all means, yes. But the problem I have now is that whenever the Beeb runs one of these exposure pieces, my first thought is 'Pffft! You can talk…'

    Because the sad fact is that much of the stuff they investigate is pretty insignificant when compared to what they allowed to happen behind their walls for so many years.

    Yup, let them throw stones, but no one should be surprised when a few larger ones get lobbed back.
  • Reply 60 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CGJ View Post

     

    And once the homeowner hits 65, or if they're on income support, their fee is paid for by the government anyway. 

     

     

     

     


    Factually incorrect.  You have to be 75 before you get a free TV licence

Sign In or Register to comment.