4 ms·
Correct. Story seems to be, Wistron was screwing over employees to save costs, and used those low-costs to secure a deal with Apple. Then they got caught by the
by cowsup 3y ago
Correct. Story seems to be, Wistron was screwing over employees to save costs, and used those low-costs to secure a deal with Apple. Then they got caught by the government, and now have to play by the rules. Because of this, they asked Apple for more money, and Apple said no. So now the deal is done.
The deal really shouldn’t have happened in the first place, had Wistron played fair from day one.
- elcritch 3y agoPretty sure Apple is partly guilty as well. I really doubt they didn’t know exactly how Wistron was bidding so low.
- karamanolev 3y agoThey might have suspected, but I doubt they formally knew. I would guess it was a type of "don't tell me, I don't want to know, plausible deniability and all".
- actionfromafar 3y agoOnly suckers formally know anything.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoThere be dragons. Better a high trust society with some checks and balances than one ruled by "don't write down anything" sociopaths.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhich one do you think you currently live in?
- paulryanrogers 3y agoRegardless when it's in my power I'd rather encourage a high trust society.
- genr8 3y agotell that to the lawyers who make a living defending corporations and putting up legal firewalls of plausible deniability
- willcipriano 3y agoIf only incompetence was a crime.
- actionfromafar 3y agoTo be clear, I don't like how it is. But if corporations have a personality, they either verge on or go full hog on sociopathic. Any corporate lawyer will tell management to not write down potentially incriminating. The better among corporations actually try to do the right thing, most of the time. But of course, if there's some kind of incident, there's still a lockdown mentality.
- jbverschoor 3y agoThey probably didn’t tell bc they wouldn’t get the deal. Simple story. Just some more Apple bashing like always.
- jrockway 3y agoI would assume that Apple looked into it a little bit. US companies can get in trouble if their contractors abroad use slave labor, buy parts from the wrong country, or divert part of the contract to use as bribes. So I doubt this is a case where everyone at Apple laughed about how it was too good to be true, CC'd the lawyers, and the lawyers wrote back "yeah hahah". At the end of the day, you can't always find everything even if you try really hard.
- Dah00n 3y agoYou can make it yourself if it is important enough.
- jbverschoor 3y agoWhy would it be too good to be true? They might have simply won the deal but a small margin against a competitor. They also might have hidden this info, or even fraudes their way through.
- capableweb 3y ago> I would guess it was a type of "don't tell me, I don't want to know, plausible deniability and all". Imagine something like due diligence laws for making business contracts, so you can't really blame plausible deniability anymore.
- mschuster91 3y agoThat's the core idea behind the EU's supply chain laws. No matter what, anyone on the upper levels can get busted - it's a massive incentive for everyone to make sure their supply chain is not skirting around or openly sharting on laws. And it's also an incentive to not look the other way when you know that a vendor's bid is very very low.
- phone8675309 3y agoThis sounds like a case of Apple not doing due diligence on their subcontractors.