Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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…
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 th…
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.