4 ms·

Careful with your data sources and assertions. Some of this "data" needs a serious dose of fact checking. The data for: https://twitter.com/#!/nicepaul/status/

by theoj 15y ago

Careful with your data sources and assertions. Some of this "data" needs a serious dose of fact checking. The data for: https://twitter.com/#!/nicepaul/status/163797296306331648/photo/1/large https://twitter.com/#!/nicepaul/status/163797296306331648/ph... as indicated at the bottom, comes from: http://onforb.es/wj2Lt6 http://onforb.es/wj2Lt6 which maps to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/29/the-apple-boycott-people-are-spouting-nonsense-about-chinese-manufacturing/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/29/the-apple... If you look at Tim Worstall's (kinda op-ed) article on the second page, you can see that the author says that if the fatalities rate in Foxconn was the same as that in the US, we would expect to have 35 fatalities / year. Then he says that we only heard about 3-4 workers hurt at Foxconn, hence the rate is lower. That argument is flawed because what we hear on the news cannot be construed to represent all fatalities at Foxconn. I suspect that the fatalities rate at Foxconn is not publicized (because it doesn't have to be). Another issue is that to determine the relative safety of the workplaces, the author is only looking at workplace fatalities. What about looking at accidents that leave the workers unable to work or maimed? Bottom line, I don't think the incomplete data that we have supports the assertion that Foxconn is a safer workplace.

xenophanes 15y ago
OK, thanks.
lancewiggs 15y ago
The data does support the case. It may be incorrect, or incomplete. But why would they be hiding fatality stats? Why would they get away with that when they are subject to the crazy levels of scrutiny that we see today? Safety management is based on identifying and reducing hazards, which reduces accidents, near misses, lost time injuries, serious injuries and ultimately fatalities. With a large enough number of workers, as we have in this case, fatality number is a very good proxy for the other stats.
- theoj 15y ago
  >> The data does support the case. Oh, it does? Let's look at the article together and see if we can find that data: >> (The US rate is) 3.5 per 100,000: we would expect, if the Foxconn factories were no more dangerous than the average American workplace, 35 workplace deaths a year among those 1 million workers. Yes, each of those deaths, each of those injuries, in those aluminium dust explosions is a tragedy. But if we were being realistic rather than spouting nonsense over such matters we would not be using evidence of three or four deaths as evidence of how Apple, Foxconn or even China are ignoring worker safety in pursuit of filthy lucre. At a very minimum we would be looking at the total workplace death rate rather than cherry picking one specific incident. The author's saying he's heard of 3-4 people killed... so how does that map to 7 in the infographic? Where exactly are the Foxconn stats coming from? Because the "data" offered in this article is "as-seen-on-TV". Is there even a system of reporting mandated by the national govt to collect data? In the absence of actual vetted data, how can you conclude that Foxconn manufacturing is 5-10 times safer than avg US manufacturing? >> But why would they be hiding fatality stats? If you are Foxconn, do you want people talking about Foxconn and fatalities in the same sentence? And if the govt doesn't require it, do you feel compelled to use your own internal resources to voluntarily compile and publish stats that make you look bad?
  - lancewiggs 15y ago
    It's relatively easy to hide accident stats. It's very difficult to hide fatalities - especially over time. I would be unsurprised at better safety stats than the US. With DuPont as one of several exceptions, the safety culture in the USA is still one of compliance. The mining record is awful versus global large companies. Apple and other customers are able to demand and get certain requirements met. A key part of that would be safety, and the first rule is integrity in measurement. I've seen plants in Colombia and Mozambique operate at industry leading levels of safety. China can do it too - it really helps when you have a workforce that is motivated and eager for the relatively high paid work.
    - xenophanes 15y ago
      Lots of jobs are way more dangerous than assembly iPads. How would you die while assembling an iPad? So a variety of US jobs against Foxconn isn't exactly comparing like with like. I think this stat can exonerate Foxconn work as pretty safe even by US standards without condemning the US.

by theoj 15y ago

xenophanes 15y ago

OK, thanks.

lancewiggs 15y ago

The data does support the case. It may be incorrect, or incomplete. But why would they be hiding fatality stats? Why would they get away with that when they are subject to the crazy levels of scrutiny that we see today? Safety management is based on identifying and reducing hazards, which reduces accidents, near misses, lost time injuries, serious injuries and ultimately fatalities. With a large enough number of workers, as we have in this case, fatality number is a very good proxy for the other stats.

theoj 15y ago
>> The data does support the case. Oh, it does? Let's look at the article together and see if we can find that data: >> (The US rate is) 3.5 per 100,000: we would expect, if the Foxconn factories were no more dangerous than the average American workplace, 35 workplace deaths a year among those 1 million workers. Yes, each of those deaths, each of those injuries, in those aluminium dust explosions is a tragedy. But if we were being realistic rather than spouting nonsense over such matters we would not be using evidence of three or four deaths as evidence of how Apple, Foxconn or even China are ignoring worker safety in pursuit of filthy lucre. At a very minimum we would be looking at the total workplace death rate rather than cherry picking one specific incident. The author's saying he's heard of 3-4 people killed... so how does that map to 7 in the infographic? Where exactly are the Foxconn stats coming from? Because the "data" offered in this article is "as-seen-on-TV". Is there even a system of reporting mandated by the national govt to collect data? In the absence of actual vetted data, how can you conclude that Foxconn manufacturing is 5-10 times safer than avg US manufacturing? >> But why would they be hiding fatality stats? If you are Foxconn, do you want people talking about Foxconn and fatalities in the same sentence? And if the govt doesn't require it, do you feel compelled to use your own internal resources to voluntarily compile and publish stats that make you look bad?
- lancewiggs 15y ago
  It's relatively easy to hide accident stats. It's very difficult to hide fatalities - especially over time. I would be unsurprised at better safety stats than the US. With DuPont as one of several exceptions, the safety culture in the USA is still one of compliance. The mining record is awful versus global large companies. Apple and other customers are able to demand and get certain requirements met. A key part of that would be safety, and the first rule is integrity in measurement. I've seen plants in Colombia and Mozambique operate at industry leading levels of safety. China can do it too - it really helps when you have a workforce that is motivated and eager for the relatively high paid work.
  - xenophanes 15y ago
    Lots of jobs are way more dangerous than assembly iPads. How would you die while assembling an iPad? So a variety of US jobs against Foxconn isn't exactly comparing like with like. I think this stat can exonerate Foxconn work as pretty safe even by US standards without condemning the US.