8 ms·
There are a number of reasons why they might not be able to change suppliers sooner: 1. The contract. I assume new contracts have an escape clause if underage
by bonestamp2 6y ago
There are a number of reasons why they might not be able to change suppliers sooner:
1. The contract. I assume new contracts have an escape clause if underage workers are discovered, but maybe that contract didn't.
2. A reliable alternative. I worked in procurement for one of the major automakers and it's not always easy to find another supplier who can meet your requirements for lead times, capacity, quality and whatever other terms are in the contract.
3. Risk. Every supplier makes mistakes, so it's reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt that the problem was an honest mistake and that it may take some time to address issues. It's not ideal, but it's risky to move production to a new supplier. In this case it's also risky not to, for fear of consumer backlash, so they have to balance those risks.
4. Resistance. It's a lot of work to move to or onboard a new supplier with a new part. Even for basic plastic and metal autoparts, it can take 6-12 months. For very specialty items such as electronics and chemicals, it can take even longer. It's generally less time consuming and less disruptive to work with suppliers to solve problems, especially if the current supplier is delivering on spec, price, and timing.
5. Patents. If they're using a part that is patented by the supplier, it may take a full design cycle to reengineer the product to use a completely different part that allows them to replace the original part. With Apple's thin designs, it wouldn't be out of question that they were using ports that were designed to be especially thin on the backend or attached to the PCB in an unusual way.
- jcranmer 6y ago> 1. The contract. I assume new contracts have an escape clause if underage workers are discovered, but maybe that contract didn't. Even if the contract didn't have an explicit escape clause, Apple could probably terminate without penalty anyways. Should the supplier sue for nonperformance, Apple could raise the defense of "unclean hands," arguing that the supplier relied on illegal labor for its side of the contract.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> was an honest mistake I appreciate there probably are U16s lying about their age to get a cool job building iPhones the same way kids lied about their age so they could fight in WW1 - but when that’s discovered and the contractor doesn’t immediately fire the underaged worker but instead keeps them on the payroll, how is that an “honest” mistake? I appreciate bad things generally happen due to cascading failures or a chain of errors, but some things, like this, don’t leave much room for excuses.
- oh_sigh 6y ago"Please don't fire me - this job is the only thing stopping my family from starving to death" is a fairly strong argument - even coming from a 15 year old.
- skedaddle 6y agoThey should at the very minimum be forced to let consumers know. "This MacBook was made in a factory that uses child labor."
- oh_sigh 6y ago"This iPhone was made in part by a 15 year old girl who would have sold herself into prostitution to support her family had this job not been available"
- skedaddle 6y agoThis is a dumb argument because Apple doesn't even defend the child labor used by their suppliers, let alone on the grounds that they're actually saving children from exploitation.
- oh_sigh 6y agoApple's incentives and the incentives of the child laborers are surely different. In this instance you have children who want to work, but aren't legally allowed.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> In this instance you have children who want to work We don't know that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]