Apple Exposed

Apple recently released their 2010 Supplier Responsibility Progress Report, which had some interesting findings. Along with the usual talk about Apple's dedication to workers rights, improving supplier management systems, and educating/protecting foreign contract workers, a final note was made about some rather troubling findings at some of Apples manufacturers.

According to the report, Apple has separated the violations to their fair labor contract into two categories, core and frequent violations. Core violations as Apple has put it are "the most serious class of violation. It refers to any practice or situation that we consider to be contrary to the core principles underlying Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct—and to require immediate corrective." Recruitment fee overcharges, underage workers, improper disposal of hazardous waste, and falsification of records all fall under this category. Frequent violations are seen as the incorrect implementation of Apple's Supplier Code of Conduct over many of their manufacturers facilities.

Apple's Supplier Code of Conduct "sets a maximum of 60 work hours per week and requires at least one day of rest per seven days of work, while allowing exceptions in unusual or emergency circumstances." According to the findings in the progress report Apple has discovered that 60 of their manufacturers have been exceeding the 60 hours a week 50% of the time. Also, the report stated that at 65 facilities more than half had records of workers working more than six consecutive days.

The report also mentions having found several cases where wages, compensation, and benefits were all being withheld improperly according to the Apple Supplier Code of Conduct. At 48 facilities Apple found that overtime wages were being improperly calculated and recorded, resulting in the workers not being paid for their labor. In another instance, Apple discovered 24 facilities had wages below the minimum wage set by Apple's code. The report also detailed the finding of many cases where legally required benefits were being withheld; this was found at 57 facilities.

I think it is important to note two things. The first is that in many of these cases Apple is imposing their own regulations, which are often far more strict than those of the local government. In the case of workers being paid below the minimum wage, this is Apples minimum wage, not that this justifies the underpayment but simply for perspective on the situation. The second thing to take note of is that this Supplier Code of Conduct is not legally required of Apple. Many of the local governmental regulations and requirements of Apple's facilities are far below what Apple expects from them.

Finally, although Apple recognizes and offers solutions to these violations they do not give much detail as to how their solutions are implemented or the success in the past. Many of their solutions read as follows, "To address these issues, we required each facility to develop management systems—or improve existing systems—to drive compliance with Apple’s limits on work hours and required days of rest." In my opinion this is a way for Apple to cop out and put all the responsibility on the manufacturer. For example, in the solution they require the facility to develop their own management system to solve the issue. This seems problematic because, as in many cases, the manufacturers will often revert back to their local standards as soon as the audit it over.

I have only touched on a few issues brought up in Apple's 2010 Supplier Responsibility Progress Report. If you you would like read more, do so by following this link to Apple's 2010 Supplier Responsibility Progress Report.

Clink HERE for feedback tool.

Letter to the Editor

In the search for information to cover the history of sweatshops and the exploitation of indigenous peoples, I came across this New York Times opinion article written by Nicholas Kristof, titled In Praise of the Maligned Sweatshop. Although this article is the opinion of an individual, I think it is a good illustration of why sweatshops continue to be such a prominent part of our history.

In the article Kristof writes about the “good” which can come through the introduction of sweatshops stating, “Anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops.” Kristof has made some very obvious errors in his logic. First, in his article he writes of having spoken to some young men on the streets in Namibia who would love to have sweatshop jobs. The young men’s reasoning was not that the work gave them better working conditions or that they were even paid more over their construction jobs, but merely the work was consistent. As a construction worker these men would on average find work one day a week. On the other end of the spectrum if these men were working in a sweatshop they would be working 40 plus hour weeks in hazardous working condition for an extremely small amount of money.

Kristof’s example shows the male side of the sweatshop equation but as we have learned women make up the majority of the work force. Lisa Featherstone from Students Against Sweatshops wrote, “Women are vulnerable to verbal and physical abuse. They must undergo forced pregnancy testing (which the workers have to pay for themselves) and sexual harassment from managers, including demands for sex.” This is not to belittle the conditions men face in sweatshops but in most cases women are far worse off. Kristof may have used this male example of sweatshop workers to portray a less brutal and hazardous work environment.

Kristof argues that many groups are fighting to rid the world of sweatshops and thus these groups want to eliminate millions of jobs worldwide. This is simply not the case. Many groups fighting sweatshops are not arguing for the removal of these jobs but simply for the workers to gain some basic human rights. They want worker rights to be put in place and actually enforced. In many countries, like China, there is a minimum wage and a maximum number of hours a person can work set in place, but these rules are blatantly disregarded.

Another one of Kristof’s arguments pushes for companies such as Nike to move into Africa and create sweatshops. His reasoning says that in order for companies to want to bring jobs into developing countries they must lower their minimum wage. Kristof writes, “One problem… is that it already isn’t profitable to pay respectable salaries, and so any pressure to raise them becomes one more reason to avoid Africa altogether.” This type of capitalist thinking stems from the notion of free trade and social Darwinism established during colonialism. If countries continue the race to the bottom, sweatshops will be the least of their problems.

Kristof’s final argument is for the “best U.S. initiative” in Africa, referring to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This act allows duty free imports from Africa and should then stimulate manufacturing and possibly create sweatshops, a plus in Kristof’s book. This however is not the case, according to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, “AGOA would not create sweatshops in Africa because it requires protective standards for workers consistent with those set by the International Labor Organization.” This reaffirms the argument that anti-sweatshop groups are not pushing to eliminate jobs but to simply protect the workers rights.

Kristof seems to know his stuff and that is a major problem, because many of NY Times readers are uninformed on the real issue and will simply continue to believe what Kristof and others like him put on the dinner table. This post doesn't really cover the entire history of sweatshops, but it does cover the ideology of sweatshops.

Click HERE for feedback tool.