A colleague sent me this email (quoted in it's entirety):
> I am interested in your take on the current controversy about Apple's China sweat shops. Thanks.
I'll post my reply here. At the bottom of the post are two URLs: one for a recent article about worker raises and increased attention of the factories; the other perhaps the best article I have read on the issue, from the New York Times. I urge you to read the Times article in its entirety - it contains some very insightful observations about globalization and America's place in the new economy.
My response to my colleague follows:
---
Well, first, other that having a tremendous appreciation for Apple products, I am no industry expert, nor an economist, nor a social philosopher.
I assume you are referring to Foxconn, and specifically its plant in Shenzen which has around a quarter million workers, many of whom live in company dormitories.
While the working conditions and expectations for a factory worker at Foxconn probably sound alien (and harsh) to an American worker, but global standards perhaps not. Six-day work weeks and 12-hour shifts for the American equivalent of $20 a day may be interpreted as a "sweat shop" here, but Foxconn's factories are modern, well-lit and ventilated, clean and safe.
It should also be pointed out, in the context of your question, that the factories are not Apple's. Foxconn and the other suppliers in Asia, South America and Eastern Europe make components for and assemble virtually all the electronics Americans consume - not just iPhones but televisions, stereos, computers, automotive electronics, home energy controls, and on and on and on.
Largely as the result of Apple's success in the smartphone market and Foxconn's central role in iPhone manufacturing, the company is getting a lot of attention. A few years ago there was a "rash" of worker suicides that many were quick to ascribe to the "inhumane" working conditions. But with a worker population of a quarter-million, the number of suicides in that period were within the background frequency.
From the point of view of the worker, Foxconn is a pretty good deal. Most of its unskilled or semiskilled laborers are fleeing an agrarian - and largely unmechanized - lifestyle. A 12-hour shift in a well-lit and clean factory with wages above the regulated minimum plus overtime and bonuses must sound pretty decent to someone who is slogging pig shit by hand into a muddy field for 14 hours a day.
It is not a fair comparison to judge Foxconn's working conditions and wages in China (or Brazil or Mexico or the Czech Republic) against American middle-class sensibilities. American workers recoil at descriptions of Foxconn's working conditions, but only because they would prefer to spend more time with family, coaching their kids' soccer teams, and watching football on TV. But those are not choices workers in most of the world get to make. Their choices are often between working and starving.
There is also the matter of whether Apple (and others) really have a choice whether to employ Americans or go overseas. According to the NY Times article linked below, they really do not. The supply chain is in Asia. The Chinese government is willing to invest in factory expansion to enable Foxconn and other suppliers to bid and win contracts. They have a vast and willing population of appropriately-trained skilled and semi-skilled workers.
Foxconn workers are not slaves, and they are not children. They stood in line to apply for their jobs. They do this because factory work is their best option for a better life. I'm not claiming that Foxconn is Willy Wonka and everybody is happy and singing all day - I know I would not much like working in those conditions. But not that many generations ago, our own ancestors stood in line to work in the coal mines, or the garment shops, or meat packing plants. I would argue that a worker assembling glass screens for an iPhone in 2012 Shenzen is better off than a meatpacker in 1906 Chicago. And I would also argue that they are both in the same position economically and morally - because those conditions are better than the ones they left, and because middle class demand for inexpensive products, whether gadgets or beef, is driving the supply chain.
Upton Sinclair exposed the brutality and profit-driven conditions of the Chicago meatpacking trade, and that eventually led to better conditions for the workers, for the cattle, and for safer products for consumers. Today, the technology bloggers serve that role - calling out the Apples and Foxconns when profits seem to trump humanity, and forcing by strength of public opinion changes when changes are warranted.
Chicago and America emerged from the industrial revolution to build the largest economy the world has ever known, and has sustained that for more than a century. China (and other emerging economies) are poised to do the same in this century.
For what it's worth... Thanks for the question. Do read the Times article.
