7 ms·

Does the big tech company bear no responsibility for shifting as much work as it can out to subcontractors in order to cut costs? It seems to me that they're kn

Does the big tech company bear no responsibility for shifting as much work as it can out to subcontractors in order to cut costs? It seems to me that they're knowingly using the subcontracting mechanism in order to get away with offering Apex's 24 hours of paid leave per year, insufficient bathrooms, and other appalling conditions without tarnishing their sterling reputation. It says right in the article that Apple reviewed the Apex site and thought it was fine. If big tech companies want to own up to being heartless mercenary capitalists who will wring every drop of sweat out of workers and spit them out as burned-out husks with no savings at the age of 35, hey, that's the system we live in. But something seems off when they want to have their cake and eat it too– that is, they want to seem like inspiring, human-friendly forces for good, but quietly use the glow from that reputation to get away with subcontracting away a huge amount of their labor to people working in miserable conditions. There's a reason that some labels moved away from sweatshop labor: it's bad press. If Apple is going to effectively use sweatshop labor (through a contractor, whatever) they should have to eat the bad press. Don't defend it as just the contractor's fault. It's literally the exact same situation as a clothing sweatshop.

badpun 8y ago
You know, unless you're VERY careful about your shopping, you're also using sweatshop labor (to manufacture your clothes, electronics etc.). Also, I don't think that Apple is especially covert about them being a (heartless) business like everybody else. Steve Jobs even said, in response to a question about bringing manufacturing back to USA: "We're in the business of making phones, not in the business of employing people". It was clear that people were mainly just means to an end for him.
- jrumbut 8y ago
  I think it's better to advocate for improvement without practicing it than it is to not practice it and not advocate. Better to do one thing right if that's the best you can pull off!
  - pampa 8y ago
    It is not. Advocating online gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling that you did something right, without actually doing anything.
  - badpun 8y ago
    > I think it's better to advocate for improvement without practicing it than it is to not practice it and not advocate. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm as guilty as anyone of ordering everything on Amazon or at Costco and killing local businesses, or whatever. But I'm not running what must be one of the world's best-funded PR machines telling everyone how great I am. Let's just call a spade a spade, eh? For all the "made in California" / "environmentally friendly materials/packaging" / "100% renewable energy in our facilities" stuff that's supposed to make you feel good about buying their products, the reality is a lot more grim. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happened-after-the-foxconn-suicides/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happened-after-the-foxconn... And anyway the particular point I was replying to is that it's pretty silly to absolve Apple of responsibility just because they put a layer of contractor between them and the bad behavior. They know what's going on. It's no different ethically from Apple doing it.
- ataturk 8y ago
  Welcome to the 21st century. You're an information sharecropper. And don't tell me about the great wages because inflation is eating that up before your very eyes. It's a fucking illusion of prosperity with no actual prosperity.
pampa 8y ago
#karlmarxwasright
2019ideas 8y ago
>Does the big tech company bear no responsibility for shifting as much work as it can out to subcontractors in order to cut costs? > spit them out as burned-out husks with no savings at the age of 35, hey, that's the system we live in. This sounds really bad until you look at the happy contractors making over 6 figures, and are on track to retire in their 30s. Everyone likes to complain, everyone wants more money. If you are making 6 figs and can't retire by 40, that was a personal decision.
tootie 8y ago
Subcontracting is extremely normal for almost any kind of business and does not need any sort of regulation. Apex or whoever should be the ones bearing the brunt of treating their employees poorly. If the labor market works correctly, companies like Apex will only ever have lower quality workers and high rates of turnover. No different than if their clients treated employees poorly. Apex bid a low price and Apple signed the contract. Their responsibility end there. I work at tech services company that generally pays much better than the clients we work for and we are treated much better as well. We charge a lot to produce premium work. As a result, we have high-quality employees and are known to produce better work than our clients could do in-house. We have a client that is, let's say, equivalent to Apple and our relationship is great. Incidentally, my previous employer actually did a lot of work for Apple. It was similar to my current shop. Employees were paid well and treated well. Apple put a lot of secrecy requirements on us as well as security rules (all meeting rooms need opaque doors, we could never publicize our work). Work hours were tough, but overall we were paid very competitive salaries and if Apple or any other client ever pulled the plug, we had other clients to staff workers too. Obviously we sometimes bent over backwards to retain Apple since they have such deep pockets, but it wasn't crazy.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  > Apex bid a low price and Apple signed the contract. Their responsibility end there. I just don't buy this argument. It's no different from Nike accepting bids from factories that they should know are sweatshops or utilize child labor. It's no different from (before the sanctions) employing North Korean laborers whom you know are sending home most of their pay to support the Kim regime. The mere fact that an exchange of money is taking place in a business agreement doesn't somehow magically absolve a company of ethical responsibility.
spacegod 8y ago
The Apex site is an Apple site. They house FT employees in the same building.

badpun 8y ago

You know, unless you're VERY careful about your shopping, you're also using sweatshop labor (to manufacture your clothes, electronics etc.). Also, I don't think that Apple is especially covert about them being a (heartless) business like everybody else. Steve Jobs even said, in response to a question about bringing manufacturing back to USA: "We're in the business of making phones, not in the business of employing people". It was clear that people were mainly just means to an end for him.

jrumbut 8y ago
I think it's better to advocate for improvement without practicing it than it is to not practice it and not advocate. Better to do one thing right if that's the best you can pull off!
- pampa 8y ago
  It is not. Advocating online gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling that you did something right, without actually doing anything.
- badpun 8y ago
  > I think it's better to advocate for improvement without practicing it than it is to not practice it and not advocate. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
brianpgordon 8y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm as guilty as anyone of ordering everything on Amazon or at Costco and killing local businesses, or whatever. But I'm not running what must be one of the world's best-funded PR machines telling everyone how great I am. Let's just call a spade a spade, eh? For all the "made in California" / "environmentally friendly materials/packaging" / "100% renewable energy in our facilities" stuff that's supposed to make you feel good about buying their products, the reality is a lot more grim. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happened-after-the-foxconn-suicides/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happened-after-the-foxconn... And anyway the particular point I was replying to is that it's pretty silly to absolve Apple of responsibility just because they put a layer of contractor between them and the bad behavior. They know what's going on. It's no different ethically from Apple doing it.
ataturk 8y ago
Welcome to the 21st century. You're an information sharecropper. And don't tell me about the great wages because inflation is eating that up before your very eyes. It's a fucking illusion of prosperity with no actual prosperity.

pampa 8y ago

#karlmarxwasright

2019ideas 8y ago

>Does the big tech company bear no responsibility for shifting as much work as it can out to subcontractors in order to cut costs? > spit them out as burned-out husks with no savings at the age of 35, hey, that's the system we live in. This sounds really bad until you look at the happy contractors making over 6 figures, and are on track to retire in their 30s. Everyone likes to complain, everyone wants more money. If you are making 6 figs and can't retire by 40, that was a personal decision.

tootie 8y ago

Subcontracting is extremely normal for almost any kind of business and does not need any sort of regulation. Apex or whoever should be the ones bearing the brunt of treating their employees poorly. If the labor market works correctly, companies like Apex will only ever have lower quality workers and high rates of turnover. No different than if their clients treated employees poorly. Apex bid a low price and Apple signed the contract. Their responsibility end there. I work at tech services company that generally pays much better than the clients we work for and we are treated much better as well. We charge a lot to produce premium work. As a result, we have high-quality employees and are known to produce better work than our clients could do in-house. We have a client that is, let's say, equivalent to Apple and our relationship is great. Incidentally, my previous employer actually did a lot of work for Apple. It was similar to my current shop. Employees were paid well and treated well. Apple put a lot of secrecy requirements on us as well as security rules (all meeting rooms need opaque doors, we could never publicize our work). Work hours were tough, but overall we were paid very competitive salaries and if Apple or any other client ever pulled the plug, we had other clients to staff workers too. Obviously we sometimes bent over backwards to retain Apple since they have such deep pockets, but it wasn't crazy.

brianpgordon 8y ago
> Apex bid a low price and Apple signed the contract. Their responsibility end there. I just don't buy this argument. It's no different from Nike accepting bids from factories that they should know are sweatshops or utilize child labor. It's no different from (before the sanctions) employing North Korean laborers whom you know are sending home most of their pay to support the Kim regime. The mere fact that an exchange of money is taking place in a business agreement doesn't somehow magically absolve a company of ethical responsibility.

spacegod 8y ago

The Apex site is an Apple site. They house FT employees in the same building.