21–30 of 73 posts
"Apple admits using child labour" "Apple has admitted that child labour was used at the factories that build its computers, iPods and mobile phones." There's a world of difference between those two statements. The first being the headline, the second being the quick summary. Talk about link bait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you work sixty hours a week when you were fifteen? "In its report, Apple revealed the sweatshop conditions inside the factories it uses. Apple admitted that at least 55 of the 102 factories that produce its goods were ignoring Apple's rule that staff cannot work more than 60 hours a week."
So there were 7 15 year olds at a factory in China. Most of the employees were adults here, but a few weren't. Perhaps this isn't an example of forced child labour, but rather some 15 year old being the primary bread winner for their family? Social safety nets aren't the same everywhere.
I worked at a lab programming for minimum wage when I was 15; this isn't sweatshop work. Children are allowed to work in the US, too. (Though, certainly, not at factories.) The title is is misleading, as well: Apple contracts these oversea factories; they don't hire or force children to work for them. It's all a bit inflammatory.
Ah...the old imperial justification. Apple doesn't directly hire the children to work in the shops so their moral obligation ends there. I'll bet those kids even earn more than would have made if Apple hadn't contracted out to the factory. I wonder if your working conditions were the same as the Chinese kids' working conditions. Hmmm...I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids w…
Right now, it's not clear what those conditions were; my comment was meant to address the only clear-cut part of this vague article: that 15 year-olds were working in a factory.
I'm not justifying poor working conditions, nor am I justifying overwork (though I find it interesting that we don't see it as criminal when professionals spend around 130 hours a week working.) I was simply astonished at the knee-jerk reaction so many have when children... gasp... work!
Substantiated claims that the working conditions of these children were poor can be addressed separately.
But, by all means, protect these children from feeding their families.
"Apple admits using child labour" "Apple has admitted that child labour was used at the factories that build its computers, iPods and mobile phones." There's a world of difference between those two statements. The first being the headline, the second being the quick summary. Talk about link bait.
Which is why I've subtly modified the title here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make Apple force the issue with public outcry. It seems to be working; did you read the article?
Yeah, and how often does this occur? How many factories are contracted out to in China by American companies that aren't subjected to public outcry? Apple should face very severe sanctions for allowing this to happen. They are not innocent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there were 7 15 year olds at a factory in China. Most of the employees were adults here, but a few weren't. Perhaps this isn't an example of forced child labour, but rather some 15 year old being the primary bread winner for their family? Social safety nets aren't the same everywhere.
The social safety net does not have to be the same everywhere for us to make ethical decisions on the products we buy, or for a company to make ethical decisions about how their products are made. I'm sure these teenagers' wages were important to their families. I doubt they were saving up for a Xbox, but I can't exploit that fact because I want a cheaper Nano. I just can't. I'm glad Apple is taking care of this.
Either those children working is a bad thing, or it's not. If they're making money necessary to feed themselves and their families, then you should be proud of paying part of those money.
Of course, we don't really know if it was a good thing. We don't know if they were 17 or 10, whether they really needed the money or how many hours they worked. The situation is much murkier then the knee jerk "I can't exploit it". And unfortunately not trying to think more about it doesn't help those kids one bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
agreed. "Child labour" should mean either young children or sweatshop style working. How many US/EU teens work paper rounds for less than minimum wage? :D
Regardless of what the term should mean, if the law says it's illegal to employ a fifteen year old, and fifteen year olds are employed, then the law was broken. Routinely broken age labour laws, where records are purposely falsified, creates an environment where other labour laws, and laws in general, can be seen as obstacles to be subverted rather than protections and responsibilities. It's not a trivial thing. P.S…
I think it's a combination of fewer newspaper subscribers (meaning larger distances between each subscriber, so less practical for bikes/walking) and a culture where parents are afraid that their children will be harmed if allowed to bike around delivering papers (because cars or pedophiles or something else).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The social safety net does not have to be the same everywhere for us to make ethical decisions on the products we buy, or for a company to make ethical decisions about how their products are made. I'm sure these teenagers' wages were important to their families. I doubt they were saving up for a Xbox, but I can't exploit that fact because I want a cheaper Nano. I just can't. I'm glad Apple is taking care of this.
You're mixing things here. It's like you say you didn't steal the wallet, and also there wasn't anything in it. Either those children working is a bad thing, or it's not. If they're making money necessary to feed themselves and their families, then you should be proud of paying part of those money. Of course, we don't really know if it was a good thing. We don't know if they were 17 or 10, whether they really needed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
agreed. "Child labour" should mean either young children or sweatshop style working. How many US/EU teens work paper rounds for less than minimum wage? :D
Regardless of what the term should mean, if the law says it's illegal to employ a fifteen year old, and fifteen year olds are employed, then the law was broken. Routinely broken age labour laws, where records are purposely falsified, creates an environment where other labour laws, and laws in general, can be seen as obstacles to be subverted rather than protections and responsibilities. It's not a trivial thing. P.S…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing things here. It's like you say you didn't steal the wallet, and also there wasn't anything in it. Either those children working is a bad thing, or it's not. If they're making money necessary to feed themselves and their families, then you should be proud of paying part of those money. Of course, we don't really know if it was a good thing. We don't know if they were 17 or 10, whether they really needed…
That some children have to work full time in factories to feed their families is a bad thing. I cannot exploit the fact that bad conditions exist.