3 ms·

Ah...the old imperial justification. Apple doesn't directly hire the children to work in the shops so their moral obligation ends there. I'll bet those kids e

Ah...the old imperial justification. Apple doesn't directly hire the children to work in the shops so their moral obligation ends there. I'll bet those kids even earn more than would have made if Apple hadn't contracted out to the factory. I wonder if your working conditions were the same as the Chinese kids' working conditions. Hmmm...I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in.

viraptor 17y ago
I don't think that OP was ok with the working condition. Just that the article throws blame in the wrong direction. You can work as a 15-yo in many countries, but you have special law protection and lower maximum working hours. I don't see anything wrong with children working. Meanwhile there's a much bigger problem: "The technology company's own guidelines are already in breach of China's widely-ignored labour law, which sets out a maximum 49-hour week for workers." If there were no children, would it be ok? Would the article even be written? This rule affects all the workers. And since the rule is "widely-ignored" I expect many more factories with even worse conditions. Unfortunately "Apple fails" + "Won't somebody please think of the children?" seems to be more important than specific law being broken on a nation scale.
imok20 17y ago
I, too, do wonder. Right now, it's not clear what those conditions were; my comment was meant to address the only clear-cut part of this vague article: that 15 year-olds were working in a factory. I'm not justifying poor working conditions, nor am I justifying overwork (though I find it interesting that we don't see it as criminal when professionals spend around 130 hours a week working.) I was simply astonished at the knee-jerk reaction so many have when children... gasp... work! Substantiated claims that the working conditions of these children were poor can be addressed separately. But, by all means, protect these children from feeding their families.
- angstrom 17y ago
  I find it awkward as well. I grew up on a dairy farm and helped out with chores starting at the age of 10. Technically that's child labor and it's fairly common place. The utility of my labor had the same effect of helping my family. Though one key point would be it was usually never more than 2 hours on school days and 8-10 hours during summer vacation -- the reason kids originally had summer vacation.
philwelch 17y ago
"I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in." That rather depends upon what the possible alternatives are, doesn't it? The average middle-class, privileged westerner wouldn't, but the average middle-class, privileged westerner has much better options--and for that matter, turns his nose up at the idea of living without cable TV or a microwave oven. If there's a way up to the developed world's standard of living that doesn't involve sweatshops, it hasn't been discovered yet. Thankfully, the sweatshop stage is growing shorter and shorter over time.
- yequalsx 17y ago
  I'm from the Canal Zone. I grew up there. I'm a former American colonist. The bulk of the workforce was Panamanian. Their wages were much lower than American wages. The justification by we Americans was that they were paid better by the Company than they would get in Panama. It's the standard imperial justification and it's wrong. Panama has done quite well without America and their wages have improved. This isn't universally true but the justification that this is just something that every country must go through is wrong factually and morally. It is immoral for us to profit off of forced labor, unsafe working conditions, and child labor. That our country turns a blind eye is repugnant.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Who said anything about forced labor? If the choice is between paying someone in another country the same amount you'd pay someone at home and not hiring them at all, the simple fact is, they're not going to be hired at all. The unspoken assumption, of course, is that we can let the whole rest of the world languish in poverty so long as we're sure that every appliance in our electrified houses and every damned faucet for our hot and cold running water was made by American hands in an American factory. That's even a consistent worldview--but you have to acknowledge what you have to give up in order to maintain that consistency. If we have to consistently choose not to interfere with cultures less technologically and economically advanced as our own, that means no interference. That's a hard pill for most people to swallow. What's more imperialistic--contracting with a Chinese company for manufacturing or "rebuilding Haiti" (in our own image, of course).
xenophanes 17y ago
Why do you think the kids work there? Is it voluntary or involuntary? Suppose it's voluntary. If so, then if you stop them from having that job, they will believe you've hurt them, by taking away their preferred life option. Correct?
- yequalsx 17y ago
  The same arguments were made when we decided that children shouldn't mine coal. The argument is wrong.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    Why is it wrong?

viraptor 17y ago

I don't think that OP was ok with the working condition. Just that the article throws blame in the wrong direction. You can work as a 15-yo in many countries, but you have special law protection and lower maximum working hours. I don't see anything wrong with children working. Meanwhile there's a much bigger problem: "The technology company's own guidelines are already in breach of China's widely-ignored labour law, which sets out a maximum 49-hour week for workers." If there were no children, would it be ok? Would the article even be written? This rule affects all the workers. And since the rule is "widely-ignored" I expect many more factories with even worse conditions. Unfortunately "Apple fails" + "Won't somebody please think of the children?" seems to be more important than specific law being broken on a nation scale.

imok20 17y ago

I, too, do wonder. Right now, it's not clear what those conditions were; my comment was meant to address the only clear-cut part of this vague article: that 15 year-olds were working in a factory. I'm not justifying poor working conditions, nor am I justifying overwork (though I find it interesting that we don't see it as criminal when professionals spend around 130 hours a week working.) I was simply astonished at the knee-jerk reaction so many have when children... gasp... work! Substantiated claims that the working conditions of these children were poor can be addressed separately. But, by all means, protect these children from feeding their families.

angstrom 17y ago
I find it awkward as well. I grew up on a dairy farm and helped out with chores starting at the age of 10. Technically that's child labor and it's fairly common place. The utility of my labor had the same effect of helping my family. Though one key point would be it was usually never more than 2 hours on school days and 8-10 hours during summer vacation -- the reason kids originally had summer vacation.

philwelch 17y ago

"I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in." That rather depends upon what the possible alternatives are, doesn't it? The average middle-class, privileged westerner wouldn't, but the average middle-class, privileged westerner has much better options--and for that matter, turns his nose up at the idea of living without cable TV or a microwave oven. If there's a way up to the developed world's standard of living that doesn't involve sweatshops, it hasn't been discovered yet. Thankfully, the sweatshop stage is growing shorter and shorter over time.

yequalsx 17y ago
I'm from the Canal Zone. I grew up there. I'm a former American colonist. The bulk of the workforce was Panamanian. Their wages were much lower than American wages. The justification by we Americans was that they were paid better by the Company than they would get in Panama. It's the standard imperial justification and it's wrong. Panama has done quite well without America and their wages have improved. This isn't universally true but the justification that this is just something that every country must go through is wrong factually and morally. It is immoral for us to profit off of forced labor, unsafe working conditions, and child labor. That our country turns a blind eye is repugnant.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Who said anything about forced labor? If the choice is between paying someone in another country the same amount you'd pay someone at home and not hiring them at all, the simple fact is, they're not going to be hired at all. The unspoken assumption, of course, is that we can let the whole rest of the world languish in poverty so long as we're sure that every appliance in our electrified houses and every damned faucet for our hot and cold running water was made by American hands in an American factory. That's even a consistent worldview--but you have to acknowledge what you have to give up in order to maintain that consistency. If we have to consistently choose not to interfere with cultures less technologically and economically advanced as our own, that means no interference. That's a hard pill for most people to swallow. What's more imperialistic--contracting with a Chinese company for manufacturing or "rebuilding Haiti" (in our own image, of course).

xenophanes 17y ago

Why do you think the kids work there? Is it voluntary or involuntary? Suppose it's voluntary. If so, then if you stop them from having that job, they will believe you've hurt them, by taking away their preferred life option. Correct?

yequalsx 17y ago
The same arguments were made when we decided that children shouldn't mine coal. The argument is wrong.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  Why is it wrong?