5 ms·

If not for basic human decency, then at least in the name of productivity these issues should have been solved. It just seems stupid to not offer a sane workin

If not for basic human decency, then at least in the name of productivity these issues should have been solved. It just seems stupid to not offer a sane working environment.

vanusa 5y ago
It just seems stupid to not offer a sane working environment. No -- Apple management sees this as a smart move, actually. Allowing these little flare-ups to happen now and then allows senior management to broadcast to the world just how cold-blooded they really are. Which helps keep the staff at home in line.
- zepto 5y ago
  Elsewhere you claimed not to hate Apple.
dvt 5y ago
> It just seems stupid to not offer a sane working environment. You need to read about the history of corporatism from the mid 19th to the early 20th century. It's absolutely not stupid: it's optimal. The problem is that these two goals (optimal productivity and human rights) will conflict. There's absolutely an economic case to be made for working someone to the bone (and 16-hour workdays and beatings used to be the norm); it is, however, also unethical and morally wrong.
- kempbellt 5y ago
  > It's absolutely not stupid: it's optimal. It's absolutely not optimal, it's inefficient. Many companies have learned this, which is why you see things like "Unlimited Vacations! Free snacks! Company provided lunches!" etc, offered as perks. For low-skill labor, there isn't much benefit in making employees lives overly comfortable, but it is worth it to invest in some basic amenities - easy access to clean restrooms, regular breaks, clean air, clean water, warmth. These are the basics. In the case of these workers: - Better dorms = good sleep/less sickness - Decent food (without worms...) = less sickness/healthier employees - Decent toilets = less sickness/reduced stress All of these => happier, more energetic, and less distracted employees => more efficient work => more work gets done. With the benefit of making your company look like a good place to work.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The problem is that Apple can require that, their sub-contractors can agree and then just pocket the additional cash for it and not do it. Apple must more closely verify the conditions of its Indian subcontractors just like they had to do in China a decade ago.
    - kempbellt 5y ago
      Definitely a problem. Bad-faith actors can screw up well intended policies making everyone look bad. Inspectors that verify the work-site conditions help, but can also potentially operate in bad faith. It's a hard problem to "solve", but still likely worth it for a company like Apple, both in regards to PR and ROI.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Apple solved the problem in China with surprise inspections done by independent organizations (e.g. the FLA); e.g. see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/20/foxconn-raise-wages-apple-contractor https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/20/foxconn-r... The title oddly enough is "Apple faces its 'Nike moment' over working conditions in Chinese factories" from 2012. One challenge here is that the host government (local, provincial, or national) is often complicit and might not agree to allowing such inspections. In that case, you simply have to be ready to walk away.
        kempbellt 5y ago
        Fascinating. TIL. Thanks for the link. Such a strange situation, where a company has to walk away from letting people work for them because they can't verify their working conditions are good enough. I suppose these are the tricky side-effects of being an international corporation though.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Ah the unlimited vacations that no one actually takes out of fear to be fired by the next opportunity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

If not for basic human decency, then at least in the name of productivity these issues should have been solved. It just seems stupid to not offer a sane working environment.

vanusa 5y ago

It just seems stupid to not offer a sane working environment. No -- Apple management sees this as a smart move, actually. Allowing these little flare-ups to happen now and then allows senior management to broadcast to the world just how cold-blooded they really are. Which helps keep the staff at home in line.

zepto 5y ago
Elsewhere you claimed not to hate Apple.

dvt 5y ago

> It just seems stupid to not offer a sane working environment. You need to read about the history of corporatism from the mid 19th to the early 20th century. It's absolutely not stupid: it's optimal. The problem is that these two goals (optimal productivity and human rights) will conflict. There's absolutely an economic case to be made for working someone to the bone (and 16-hour workdays and beatings used to be the norm); it is, however, also unethical and morally wrong.

kempbellt 5y ago
> It's absolutely not stupid: it's optimal. It's absolutely not optimal, it's inefficient. Many companies have learned this, which is why you see things like "Unlimited Vacations! Free snacks! Company provided lunches!" etc, offered as perks. For low-skill labor, there isn't much benefit in making employees lives overly comfortable, but it is worth it to invest in some basic amenities - easy access to clean restrooms, regular breaks, clean air, clean water, warmth. These are the basics. In the case of these workers: - Better dorms = good sleep/less sickness - Decent food (without worms...) = less sickness/healthier employees - Decent toilets = less sickness/reduced stress All of these => happier, more energetic, and less distracted employees => more efficient work => more work gets done. With the benefit of making your company look like a good place to work.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  The problem is that Apple can require that, their sub-contractors can agree and then just pocket the additional cash for it and not do it. Apple must more closely verify the conditions of its Indian subcontractors just like they had to do in China a decade ago.
  - kempbellt 5y ago
    Definitely a problem. Bad-faith actors can screw up well intended policies making everyone look bad. Inspectors that verify the work-site conditions help, but can also potentially operate in bad faith. It's a hard problem to "solve", but still likely worth it for a company like Apple, both in regards to PR and ROI.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Apple solved the problem in China with surprise inspections done by independent organizations (e.g. the FLA); e.g. see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/20/foxconn-raise-wages-apple-contractor https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/20/foxconn-r... The title oddly enough is "Apple faces its 'Nike moment' over working conditions in Chinese factories" from 2012. One challenge here is that the host government (local, provincial, or national) is often complicit and might not agree to allowing such inspections. In that case, you simply have to be ready to walk away.
      - kempbellt 5y ago
        Fascinating. TIL. Thanks for the link. Such a strange situation, where a company has to walk away from letting people work for them because they can't verify their working conditions are good enough. I suppose these are the tricky side-effects of being an international corporation though.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Ah the unlimited vacations that no one actually takes out of fear to be fired by the next opportunity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]