5 ms·

You'd think they call that supplier and the supplier would (within a few hours) stop using child labour...

jibcage 6y ago
They have leverage if they’re the only gig in town, though.
keehun 6y ago
While still meeting delivery targets? Even if budget weren't a concern, how do you scale up new employees that quickly? I'm NOT condoning the behavior. This is disgusting. Still, "the supplier would (within a few hours) stop using child labour" is completely unrealistic. Apple should have cut ties immediately even if it meant a breach of contract or shortage of inventory.
- TLightful 6y ago
  With the utmost respect. F@ck delivery targets.
- xupybd 6y ago
  They should have but they made the bet they could slowly transition to another supplier with no impact to profits by getting out without anyone finding out. I'm also betting their hit to profits will be less even after this revelation, than if they cut ties with the supplier and run short on inventory. I wouldn't be surprised if that cold calculation came into play as well.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    As expected: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/apple-aapl-earnings-q1-2021.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/apple-aapl-earnings-q1-2021....
herodoturtle 6y ago
You'd think within a few hours and not right away?
stunt 6y ago
Maybe not hours, but days or months. I don't understand why they haven't done anything in 3 years to not lose Apple. I'm worried if Apple didn't push hard enough during all that 3 years, and later they moved to a different supplier for other reasons.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  If you read the article linked from this one at The Information, the child labor case boils down to this: The minimum age was 16. An audit revealed 2 15-year-olds were working at Suyin. 3 months later (the time companies are given to remedy things like this), 3 more underage workers were found (ages 15 and 14) in a follow-on audit. At that point, Apple stopped giving new contracts to Suyin due to the repeated violations, but permitted existing contracts to run their course. Apple did do something, just probably not what most people would want them to do.
hinkley 6y ago
You'd think they call that supplier and the supplier tries to convince them they've stopped using child labour. For some reason I was looking at pictures of textile equipment recently. Some of that equipment is built so that it's only accessible to growing children or adults with growth disorders. That's structural bias to such a degree that it is in fact literal. The requirement of child labor is literally built into the factory. I have no way of knowing if that's true for this factory, but if they're capitalistic at all then accessibility for (local) above-average humans is an opportunity cost that would have been eliminated in the name of efficiency. And if that worked so well why not try it again on the next assembly line, only goosed a little harder? In any case, there is no "overnight" because you have to train new people for a high throughput task. But would you even believe them once they did? For the west that's such a basic boundary at this point that if someone goes past it, it's because their ethical model is so different from yours that you can't reason about whether they've actually done what you've asked, or they've employed a new coping mechanism to seem 'normal'. Like just rearranging the factory so that your section has all the people over 16, which means the other building is now almost entirely children (making the situation more dangerous, not less). Or the children work second shift when you won't be around to audit, which is both dangerous and more unhealthy. They didn't get your objection to begin with. Their response is likely to resemble the sort of thing a sociopath would do: identify your discomfort and arrange for it never to be triggered, rather than truth and reconciliation.

They have leverage if they’re the only gig in town, though.

While still meeting delivery targets? Even if budget weren't a concern, how do you scale up new employees that quickly? I'm NOT condoning the behavior. This is disgusting. Still, "the supplier would (within a few hours) stop using child labour" is completely unrealistic. Apple should have cut ties immediately even if it meant a breach of contract or shortage of inventory.

TLightful 6y ago
With the utmost respect. F@ck delivery targets.
xupybd 6y ago
They should have but they made the bet they could slowly transition to another supplier with no impact to profits by getting out without anyone finding out. I'm also betting their hit to profits will be less even after this revelation, than if they cut ties with the supplier and run short on inventory. I wouldn't be surprised if that cold calculation came into play as well.
- judge2020 6y ago
  As expected: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/apple-aapl-earnings-q1-2021.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/apple-aapl-earnings-q1-2021....

herodoturtle 6y ago

You'd think within a few hours and not right away?

stunt 6y ago

Maybe not hours, but days or months. I don't understand why they haven't done anything in 3 years to not lose Apple. I'm worried if Apple didn't push hard enough during all that 3 years, and later they moved to a different supplier for other reasons.

Jtsummers 6y ago
If you read the article linked from this one at The Information, the child labor case boils down to this: The minimum age was 16. An audit revealed 2 15-year-olds were working at Suyin. 3 months later (the time companies are given to remedy things like this), 3 more underage workers were found (ages 15 and 14) in a follow-on audit. At that point, Apple stopped giving new contracts to Suyin due to the repeated violations, but permitted existing contracts to run their course. Apple did do something, just probably not what most people would want them to do.

hinkley 6y ago

You'd think they call that supplier and the supplier tries to convince them they've stopped using child labour. For some reason I was looking at pictures of textile equipment recently. Some of that equipment is built so that it's only accessible to growing children or adults with growth disorders. That's structural bias to such a degree that it is in fact literal. The requirement of child labor is literally built into the factory. I have no way of knowing if that's true for this factory, but if they're capitalistic at all then accessibility for (local) above-average humans is an opportunity cost that would have been eliminated in the name of efficiency. And if that worked so well why not try it again on the next assembly line, only goosed a little harder? In any case, there is no "overnight" because you have to train new people for a high throughput task. But would you even believe them once they did? For the west that's such a basic boundary at this point that if someone goes past it, it's because their ethical model is so different from yours that you can't reason about whether they've actually done what you've asked, or they've employed a new coping mechanism to seem 'normal'. Like just rearranging the factory so that your section has all the people over 16, which means the other building is now almost entirely children (making the situation more dangerous, not less). Or the children work second shift when you won't be around to audit, which is both dangerous and more unhealthy. They didn't get your objection to begin with. Their response is likely to resemble the sort of thing a sociopath would do: identify your discomfort and arrange for it never to be triggered, rather than truth and reconciliation.