5 ms·

They already effectively have this level of power, though--they choose instead to not use it. If they want to be freed from the responsibility of ethically depl

They already effectively have this level of power, though--they choose instead to not use it. If they want to be freed from the responsibility of ethically deploying the power they have collected for themselves, they need to be made smaller.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm just not sure what it means to say that they effectively have this level of power. They could in principle use their market dominance to bully smaller companies into doing what they want, but that's generally considered to be unacceptable behavior - "monopolistic", it's called in many contexts. Should Microsoft impose strict labor requirements on everyone who uses Excel?
zepto 6y ago
How exactly do they ‘have this level of power’? Their only power in this situation is to choose who to do business with. They can’t fine the company or revoke business licenses, as a Minstry of labor could do. Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?
- eropple 6y ago
  > How exactly do they ‘have this level of power’? "Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is within Apple's power. Choosing not to exert it is choosing to endorse the alternative. > Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility? Of...course not? But Apple wants to be a world-spanning power, they get to be treated like one. If they don't? There's a line once misapplied to government, about being shrunk 'til it can be drowned in the bathtub, that we can apply to all of these somehow-too-big-to-expect-moral-behavior-of corporations.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I just fundamentally disagree with this conception of power. The fact that you could in principle force someone to do what you'd like doesn't mean that you should.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      It wouldn't be "forcing" with threat of imprisonment and Apple given the power of police, judge, jury and imprisoner such as a government has; it could be written into the terms of the contract - "we will buy from you, if your product is up to our specifications, and its manufacture is up to our specifications, and that the manufacture is done on ethical terms described in clause B, and the contract depends upon us being able to send auditors to all premises involved in our component supply chain and talk to all employees so involved at any time". If there is no company willing to agree to a contract like that, Apple would only be able to force them by offering more money until it was worth their while. It's no more /force/ than employers have over employees - do what we say or lose your income. Which is not exactly a level of force I like all the time, but if you agree with contracts and employment in general then adding "and treat your workers well and let us see it" doesn't seem like a hill to take a stand of fundamental opposition on.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I’m fairly sure Apple already has such a contract with their suppliers. This one happens to have not taken it seriously.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        That doesn't really address my comment or the parent comment at all.
        zepto 6y ago
        Yes it does. You are speculating about how they ‘could’ do this, as if they haven’t. Given that they have, that speculation is moot. Clearly this kind of contract hasn’t been ‘powerful’ enough to prevent this kind of problem from emerging.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        I'm replying to "forcing is wrong!" with "it wouldn't need to be forced, X wouldn't be force". You're replying with "well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical". We know that, that's why this thread exists on HN. You don't address whether doing so would involve force, or is impossible, you're just saying "ah but they tried and failed" - and it's not even clear if they did try as much as they could, or if they tried a bit and could try a lot harder if they wanted or were held to it.
  - zepto 6y ago
    “Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is Apple’s power” I agree with this. Presumably it’s what Apple is going to do in this case. What would you suggest they do if they can’t find a more ethical alternative to Wistron? “Apple wants to be a world-spanning power.” Does it? Or does it just want to keep making computers and software? It’s not obvious what Apple’s size has to do with Wistron breaking their contract.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Automate more of the manufacturing process or send those jobs to companies with higher labor standards.
      - zepto 6y ago
        What if such companies don’t exist in India?
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        I meant, send those jobs to countries with higher labor standards.
        zepto 6y ago
        They tried that, but the Indian government put tarrifs on their products and prohibited them from opening stores to induce them to use local contractors.
        JetSpiegel 6y ago
        Then they can choose to take the hit and don't serve that market. But Apple sells in China despite violating their policies regarding privacy, so their principles are already soft.
        zepto 6y ago
  - teatree 6y ago
    In support of your comment, why can't apple have a few DIRECT EMPLOYEES at each major supplier factory full time to monitor the working conditions and terms adherence on a day to day basis ?
    - zepto 6y ago
      Perhaps they do. I’m not sure this would solve the problem. As a manager have you ever tried to change the behavior of even a single employee? If there is a culture problem with the management, an observer won’t solve that.
      - JetSpiegel 6y ago
        Apple could just buy Wistrom with money they would scrounge under the sofas at their HQ.
        zepto 6y ago
        Only if the Indian government allows it. In any case, how would that solve anything? Can you think of a single example where acquiring a problematic company solved its problems?
- Retric 6y ago
  Contracts can include penalties like late fees, having such penalties apply to poor worker conditions is well within their negotiating power for a new contract.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's within their negotiating power, and Apple appears to have negotiated such terms, since they say they're investigating potential violations of their supplier agreement. What the original commenter wanted, and what I don't think we should be encouraging companies to do, was intrusive audits to prevent the violations from happening in the first place.
gruez 6y ago
> They already effectively have this level of power, though--they choose instead to not use it. If they want to be freed from the responsibility of ethically deploying the power they have collected for themselves, they need to be made smaller. This comment is confusing. The first half sounds pro-corporate ("corporations should self regulate themselves!"), but the second half you want large corporations to be broken up. Which one is it? Do you want a future where corporations rule over everything or not?
- eropple 6y ago
  I emphatically do not want a future where corporations rule over everything. (If the "awww, poor widdle Apple, having expectations put upon them" was not sufficiently clear, I apologize.) I am saying that, when the rubber hits the road, Apple has the ability to impose their will on their subcontractors when it comes to human rights and worker treatment (which, I stress for the wait-wait-but-for crowd so desperate for reasons to excuse large companies from having to act like citizens of the world, is a distinctly different use of power than self-enriching commercial ones, so save the handwringing). If they don't want to be held to account for doing so ethically and proactively, they must be made--significantly--smaller until that expectation can be reasonably removed. That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations. And that we should break them with hammers until they are.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Apple has the ability to impose their will on their subcontractors when it comes to human rights and worker treatment (which, I stress for the wait-wait-but-for crowd so desperate for reasons to excuse large companies from having to act like citizens of the world, is a distinctly different use of power than self-enriching commercial ones, so save the handwringing). The problem here is that you want corporations to use their powers do The Right Thing™, but ignore what happens if they make a mistake. Sure, we want amazon to crack down on counterfeits, but then we hear of stories like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24914501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24914501. Or worse yet, when The Right Thing™ is in the eye of the beholder, see: conservatives thinking that facebook/youtube is censoring them, and liberals thinking they're not doing enough. >That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations. But is that the case here? Winston is operating a factory in india and is therefore subject to indian labor laws.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'm just not sure what it means to say that they effectively have this level of power. They could in principle use their market dominance to bully smaller companies into doing what they want, but that's generally considered to be unacceptable behavior - "monopolistic", it's called in many contexts. Should Microsoft impose strict labor requirements on everyone who uses Excel?

zepto 6y ago

How exactly do they ‘have this level of power’? Their only power in this situation is to choose who to do business with. They can’t fine the company or revoke business licenses, as a Minstry of labor could do. Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?

eropple 6y ago
> How exactly do they ‘have this level of power’? "Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is within Apple's power. Choosing not to exert it is choosing to endorse the alternative. > Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility? Of...course not? But Apple wants to be a world-spanning power, they get to be treated like one. If they don't? There's a line once misapplied to government, about being shrunk 'til it can be drowned in the bathtub, that we can apply to all of these somehow-too-big-to-expect-moral-behavior-of corporations.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I just fundamentally disagree with this conception of power. The fact that you could in principle force someone to do what you'd like doesn't mean that you should.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    It wouldn't be "forcing" with threat of imprisonment and Apple given the power of police, judge, jury and imprisoner such as a government has; it could be written into the terms of the contract - "we will buy from you, if your product is up to our specifications, and its manufacture is up to our specifications, and that the manufacture is done on ethical terms described in clause B, and the contract depends upon us being able to send auditors to all premises involved in our component supply chain and talk to all employees so involved at any time". If there is no company willing to agree to a contract like that, Apple would only be able to force them by offering more money until it was worth their while. It's no more /force/ than employers have over employees - do what we say or lose your income. Which is not exactly a level of force I like all the time, but if you agree with contracts and employment in general then adding "and treat your workers well and let us see it" doesn't seem like a hill to take a stand of fundamental opposition on.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I’m fairly sure Apple already has such a contract with their suppliers. This one happens to have not taken it seriously.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        That doesn't really address my comment or the parent comment at all.
        zepto 6y ago
        Yes it does. You are speculating about how they ‘could’ do this, as if they haven’t. Given that they have, that speculation is moot. Clearly this kind of contract hasn’t been ‘powerful’ enough to prevent this kind of problem from emerging.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        I'm replying to "forcing is wrong!" with "it wouldn't need to be forced, X wouldn't be force". You're replying with "well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical". We know that, that's why this thread exists on HN. You don't address whether doing so would involve force, or is impossible, you're just saying "ah but they tried and failed" - and it's not even clear if they did try as much as they could, or if they tried a bit and could try a lot harder if they wanted or were held to it.
- zepto 6y ago
  “Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is Apple’s power” I agree with this. Presumably it’s what Apple is going to do in this case. What would you suggest they do if they can’t find a more ethical alternative to Wistron? “Apple wants to be a world-spanning power.” Does it? Or does it just want to keep making computers and software? It’s not obvious what Apple’s size has to do with Wistron breaking their contract.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Automate more of the manufacturing process or send those jobs to companies with higher labor standards.
    - zepto 6y ago
      What if such companies don’t exist in India?
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        I meant, send those jobs to countries with higher labor standards.
        zepto 6y ago
        They tried that, but the Indian government put tarrifs on their products and prohibited them from opening stores to induce them to use local contractors.
        JetSpiegel 6y ago
        Then they can choose to take the hit and don't serve that market. But Apple sells in China despite violating their policies regarding privacy, so their principles are already soft.
        zepto 6y ago
- teatree 6y ago
  In support of your comment, why can't apple have a few DIRECT EMPLOYEES at each major supplier factory full time to monitor the working conditions and terms adherence on a day to day basis ?
  - zepto 6y ago
    Perhaps they do. I’m not sure this would solve the problem. As a manager have you ever tried to change the behavior of even a single employee? If there is a culture problem with the management, an observer won’t solve that.
    - JetSpiegel 6y ago
      Apple could just buy Wistrom with money they would scrounge under the sofas at their HQ.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Only if the Indian government allows it. In any case, how would that solve anything? Can you think of a single example where acquiring a problematic company solved its problems?
Retric 6y ago
Contracts can include penalties like late fees, having such penalties apply to poor worker conditions is well within their negotiating power for a new contract.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's within their negotiating power, and Apple appears to have negotiated such terms, since they say they're investigating potential violations of their supplier agreement. What the original commenter wanted, and what I don't think we should be encouraging companies to do, was intrusive audits to prevent the violations from happening in the first place.

gruez 6y ago

> They already effectively have this level of power, though--they choose instead to not use it. If they want to be freed from the responsibility of ethically deploying the power they have collected for themselves, they need to be made smaller. This comment is confusing. The first half sounds pro-corporate ("corporations should self regulate themselves!"), but the second half you want large corporations to be broken up. Which one is it? Do you want a future where corporations rule over everything or not?

eropple 6y ago
I emphatically do not want a future where corporations rule over everything. (If the "awww, poor widdle Apple, having expectations put upon them" was not sufficiently clear, I apologize.) I am saying that, when the rubber hits the road, Apple has the ability to impose their will on their subcontractors when it comes to human rights and worker treatment (which, I stress for the wait-wait-but-for crowd so desperate for reasons to excuse large companies from having to act like citizens of the world, is a distinctly different use of power than self-enriching commercial ones, so save the handwringing). If they don't want to be held to account for doing so ethically and proactively, they must be made--significantly--smaller until that expectation can be reasonably removed. That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations. And that we should break them with hammers until they are.
- gruez 6y ago
  >Apple has the ability to impose their will on their subcontractors when it comes to human rights and worker treatment (which, I stress for the wait-wait-but-for crowd so desperate for reasons to excuse large companies from having to act like citizens of the world, is a distinctly different use of power than self-enriching commercial ones, so save the handwringing). The problem here is that you want corporations to use their powers do The Right Thing™, but ignore what happens if they make a mistake. Sure, we want amazon to crack down on counterfeits, but then we hear of stories like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24914501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24914501. Or worse yet, when The Right Thing™ is in the eye of the beholder, see: conservatives thinking that facebook/youtube is censoring them, and liberals thinking they're not doing enough. >That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations. But is that the case here? Winston is operating a factory in india and is therefore subject to indian labor laws.