SACOM Open Letter to the Guangdong Government

Readers please find below an open letter from scholars throughout the world concerned about recent cases of harassment and repression of grass roots Chinese NGO's (non-governmental organizations) supporting labor rights in China. Dr. Paul Landsbergis and I would like to add our names to the list of scholars below.

Here is the letter:

OPEN LETTER TO THE GUANGDONG GOVERNMENT

We are a diverse group of scholars who both study and support labor movements around the world. Many of us have conducted extensive research on labor issues in China, and we are united in our belief that the future of China and its working class is of incredible global significance.

Many government and union leaders in Guangdong have recently accepted the idea that strikes are normal economic manifestations of labor-capital conflict in a marketized economy, and should be addressed through mediation and collective bargaining. Currently there is a growing practice of democratic elections of trade union officers at the enterprise level in many places in Guangdong. These trends reflect the industrial labor relations principles that have guided many countries during periods of industrialization and marketization.

We are therefore very concerned to learn about the recent cases of harassment and repression against grass-roots labor NGOs in Guangdong, as reported in the Southern Metropolis Daily, the Guangzhou Daily, the South China Morning Post, and the Wall Street Journal. These events contradict the policy direction of the new regulations in Guangdong facilitating NGO registration, and create new difficulties for the NGOs to develop.

In our view, NGOs play an important role in responding to the pressing needs – including economic, social, and educational – of the large populations of migrant workers. Trade unions have not historically been able to address this wide range of problems, and thus NGOs have a critical function in addressing worker issues. This is as true in many foreign countries as in China.

Therefore, we strongly oppose recent actions that have constrained the activities of many NGOs in Guangdong, and encourage the government to preserve the space necessary for these groups to continue their valuable work.

Signatories

· Maria Ahlsten, University of Bristol, UK

· Mansueto F. de Almeida Jr., Brazilian Institute of Applied Economic Research, BR

· Judy Ancel, University of Missouri-Kansas City, US

· Joel Andreas, Johns Hopkins University, US

· Mark Anner, Pennsylvania State University, US

· Richard Appelbaum, University of California-Santa Barbara, US

· Bae Kiu Sik, Korean Labor Institute, SK

· Frauka Banse, Kassel University, DE

· Thomas Barnes, University of Sydney, AU

· John Barry, Queen’s University Belfast, IE

· Tim Bartley, Ohio State University, US

· Joe Berry, Labor Educator, US

· Monica Bielski Boris, University of Illinois, US

· Joshua Bloom, University of California-Los Angeles, US

· Edna Bonacich, University of California-Riverside, US

· Eileen Boris, University of California-Santa Barbara, US

· Michael Burawoy, University of California-Berkeley, US

· Mick Carpenter, University of Warwick, UK

· Anita Chan, University of Technology-Sydney, AU

· Chris Chan, City University of Hong Kong, HK

· Dan Clawson, University of Massachusetts, US

· Chang Dae-oup, School of African and Oriental Studies, UK

· Joseph Cheng, City University of Hong Kong, HK

· Ian Cook, University of Exeter, UK

· Kin-man Chan, Chinese University of Hong Kong, HK

· Chan Shun Hing, Lingnan University, HK

· Chan Sze Chi, Hong Kong Baptist University, HK

· Thomas Chan, Poly U Hong Kong Community College, HK

· Jennifer Jihye Chun, University of Toronto, CA

· Chiu Yu Bin, National Pingtung University of Education, TW

· Chong Yiu Kwong,  The Hong Kong Institute of Education, HK

· Yin-wah Chu, Hong Kong Baptist University, HK

· Paul Clark, Pennsylvania State University, US

· Simon Clarke, Warwick University, UK

· Ellen Dannin, Pennsylvania State University, US

· Surya Deva, City University of Hong Kong, HK

· Manfred Elfstrom, Cornell University, US

· Tony Elger, University of Warwick, UK

· Regina M. Enjuto, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

· Cynthia Estlund, New York University, US

· Peter Evans, University of California-Berkeley, US

· Ruth Felder, University of Buenos Aires, AR

· Eli Friedman, Cornell University, US

· Rolf Geffken, Labour Institute ICOLAIR, Labour Law Office, Hamburg, DE

· Sebastian Guzman, New School for Social Research, US

· Iam-Chong Ip, Lingnan University, HK

· Paul Jobin, University of Paris-Diderot, FR

· Brigitte Hamm, University of Duisburg-Essen, DE

· Gillian Hewitson, University of Sydney, AU

· Ho Chi Kan, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HK

· Jude Howell, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

· Elaine Hui, Kassel University, DE

· Jenny Jungehülsing, Kassel University, DE

· Michelle Kaminski, Michigan State University, US

· Louise Lamphere, University of New Mexico, US

· Ching Kwan Lee, University of California-Los Angeles, US

· Lee Chun Wing, Poly U Hong Kong Community College, HK

· Chun-Yi Lee, University of Nottingham, UK

· Parry Leung, Community College of City University of Hong Kong, HK

· Kevin Lin, University of Technology Sydney, AU

· Stephanie Luce, City University of New York

· Luk Tak Chuen, Chinese University of Hong Kong, HK

· Sebastian Matthes, Kassel University, DE

· Jamie McCallum, Middlebury College, US

· Ruth Milkman, City University of New York, US

· Phil Mizen, Warwick University, UK

· Adam Mrozowicki, University of Wroclaw PL

· Carolina Bank Munoz, Brooklyn College, US

· Theo Nichols, Cardiff University, UK

· Bruce Nissen, Florida International University, US

· Stephen Philion, St. Cloud State University, US

· Nancy Plankey-Videla, Texas A&M University, US

· Tim Pringle, School of Oriental and African Studies, UK

· Gretchen Purser, Syracuse University, US

· Nora Räthzel, Umeå University, SE

· Chris Rhomberg, Fordham University, US

· Manuel Rosaldo, University of California-Berkeley, US

· Robert Ross, Clark University, US

· Jean Philippe Sapinski, University of Victoria, CN

· Vishwas Satgar, University of Witwatersrand, SA

· Christian Scheper, Kassel University, DE

· Christoph Scherrer, Kassel University, Germany

· Maike Schoelmerich,  University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, SZ

· Andrew Schrank, University of New Mexico, US

· Denisse Roca Servat, Arizona State University, US

· Patricia Simpson, Loyola University of Chicago, US

· Kaxton Siu, Australian National University, AU

· Alvin So,  Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, HK

· Mirana May Szeto, University of Hong Kong, HK

· Tang Lynn, University of Warwick, UK

· Chris Tilly, University of California-Los Angeles, US

· Todd Vachon, University of Connecticut, US

· Kim Voss, University of California-Berkeley, US

· Daniel Vukovich, University of Hong Kong, HK

· Wang Ting, City University of Hong Kong, HK

· Nina Ulbrich, Kassel University, DE

· Edward Webster, University of Witwatersrand, SA

· Frido Wenten, School of Oriental and African Studies, UK

· Michelle Williams, University of Witwatersrand, SA

· Nobuyuki Yamada, Komazawa University, JP

· Ken Yau, City University of Hong Kong, HK

· Alex Zukas, National University, US

· Yun-chung Chen, Baptist University of Hong Kong, HK

· Lu Zhang, Temple University, US

· Phil Taylor, University of Strathclyde, UK

· Mark Selden, Cornell University, US

· Frank Moulaert, Catholic University of Leuven, BE

· Anthony Friend, Lancaster University, UK

· Liam Campling, University of London, UK

· Jeffrey Henderson, University of Bristol, UK

· Zillah Eisenstein, Ithaca College, US

· Jenny Chan, University of London, UK

· David Primrose, University of Sydney, AU

· Harriet Bradley, University of Bristol, UK

· Andy Danford, University of the West of England, UK

· Andrew Smith, Bradford University School of Management, UK

· Dorothy J. Solinger, University of Califonia, Irvine, US

· Connie Ulasewicz, San Francisco State University, US

· Karen Brodkin, University of California-Los Angeles, US

· Sanford M. Jacoby, University of California-Los Angeles, US

· Jeff Hyman, University of Aberdeen, UK

· Purnima Bose, Indiana University, US

· Gregory Schwartz, University of Bath, UK

· Richard A. Walker, University of California-Berkeley, US

· Immanuel Ness, City University of New York, US

· Miguel Martinez Lucio, University of Manchester, UK

· Richard McIntyre, University of Rhode Island, US

· Shae Garwood, University of Western Australia, AU

· Peter L. Schnall, University of California, US

· Paul A. Landsbergis, State University of New York-Downstate, US

The Role of Dispatched Labor in the Exploitation of Chinese Workers

By Erin Wigger and Peter Schnall

Our recent blogs have highlighted the many difficulties that must be faced by Foxconn as well as other Chinese manufacturers to assure healthy working conditions for their labor force. One often-overlooked issue in the way work is organized in China is the problem of dispatched workers.

The past several years have seen a sharp rise in the use of dispatched labor in China. Under the dispatch system, a worker is officially contracted by a dispatch agency and then sent to companies recruiting new workers for what is, under the Labor Contract Law, supposed to be “temporary, auxiliary or substitute job positions” (1). This stipulation, meant to protect the jobs of direct hire workers which are contracted and permanent, has clearly failed to hold back the tide of new dispatched labor hires as shown by the swelling numbers of unregulated dispatch companies and recorded dispatched hires. These numbers, already high, are also very likely to be underestimated given that many of these hires are off the books. In fact, since the law came into affect in 2008, several large state and privately owned companies have fired many of their own direct hire workers in order to replace them with less-costly dispatched workers (2).

Why is dispatched labor so appealing? The rights of dispatched workers are harder to uphold since the regulation of dispatch agencies is so poor, and thus companies are able to exploit them with ease under China’s current system. For instance, though a dispatched worker might be performing the exact same job responsibilities as his direct-hire peer, the company in which they work is not required to make social security payments on their behalf, is not held responsible for workplace injuries and may fire them without severance. This makes it difficult for these workers to organize and also puts them at risk for mistreatment at the hands of management. Several independent audits of dispatched labor workers found that dispatched workers received greater bullying, harder working conditions as well as less pay than direct hire workers (2, 3).

According to the China Labor Watch’s recent investigation, labor dispatching is rampant in Apple’s supply chain with dispatched labor representing 70% of the entire labor force in China (3). However, a recent report from The All-China Federation of Trade Unions paints a somewhat more conservative picture with the total number of dispatch workers nationally only at 20%, or 60 million (2).

This is all very discouraging for those keeping an eye on progress in China. As Li Qiang, director of China Labor Watch recently pointed out in his recent July 31 testimony for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. His 135-page analysis of working conditions at Foxconn and nine other Apple suppliers revealed that, “Foxconn is hardly an exception, as deplorable working conditions characterize all the factories examined, with conditions often even worse than those uncovered at Foxconn” (4).

One might then ask in what way Foxconn is better than other factories in China? It has made one positive change since the plant’s working conditions received worldwide exposure; the plant has shifted from using dispatched workers to contracted, direct-hire workers.

With Foxconn now hiring workers directly, rather than through a third party intermediary, it assumes more responsibility for their health and is subject directly to Chinese labor laws. This constitutes a genuine win for the Foxconn labor force. In a country where the rights of dispatched workers have clearly slipped through the cracks and most companies have, in the last decade, taken up dispatched labor hiring practices with gusto, this is unusual indeed.

Though this blog is meant to conclude, for now, our series on Foxconn as we move to address problems in the United States, we feel we must remark that there has also been a recent boom of contingent labor in America. The Chicago Tribune reported on August 12 that the contingent labor force now accounts for 10 percent of the nation's workforce and is growing (5). While China’s working conditions are, arguably, worse than those experienced in the U.S., the United States Department of Labor succinctly points out, “current tax, labor and employment law gives employers and employees incentives to create contingent relationships not for the sake of flexibility or efficiency but in order to evade their legal obligations” (6).

Similar to what we see in China, American companies use contingent labor to save money by not having to make contributions to Social Security, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, health insurance, withholding, and are relieved of responsibility to the worker under labor and employment laws (6). Though this type of employment is less desirable to American workers and offers little to no job security, it has become increasingly acceptable in the face of unemployment.

1. http://www.usmra.com/china/Labour Law.htm

2. http://www.clntranslations.org/article/64/dispatch-labor-questioned

3. http://chinalaborwatch.org/pdf/2012627-5.pdf

4. http://www.cecc.gov/pages/hearings/general/hearing7/

5. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-12/business/

6. http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/dunlop/section5.htm

Has Anything really Changed at Foxconn since the Fair Labor Association (FLA) released their findings?

Peter Schnall and Erin Wigger

Under pressure from the media and labor rights organizations after a spate of suicides at the Foxconn’s Shenzhen plant, Apple hired the U.S.-based Fair Labor Association (FLA) to conduct an independent audit of working conditions at the plant.

The FLA report (released this past March and based on 35,500 worker interviews) identified numerous major problems including very long work hours (up to 80 hours per week), excessive and often unpaid overtime, as well as safety violations. In response to the report Apple and Foxconn both pledged their commitment to improving conditions by cutting workloads, improving safety protocols and bettering worker dormitories (1).  But have they?

There is some evidence of change at Foxconn. In response to the FLA report they raised the wages of some workers in Shenzhen by 16 to 25 percent (2, 3). They have also reportedly dropped the number of overtime hours worked though the exact total now being worked is unclear. Chinese labor laws permit a maximum of 49 hours per week.

Despite the higher hourly wages, Foxconn’s compliance with Chinese weekly work limits has resulted in an average overall decrease in salaries for many. Though hourly cuts may better the physical health of workers who said they experienced pain and fatigue after long shifts, many reported to the FLA that, because their wages “were not sufficient to pay for health care or education, ….they wanted to work more to earn more money” (4, 5). Additionally workers now complain that they are forced to work unpaid overtime and are even less able to support themselves and their extended families without the extra income earned through overtime. (6, 7). There is also some debate as to whether work hours have actually been cut, and if so by how much. The China Labor Watch (CLW) reports in their June 27^th publication on Apple suppliers in China that work hours at the plant still far exceed 49 (8).

So far, changes at the plant seem more geared at appeasing the press than actually improving the health and safety of their workers. It’s hard to imagine that the Chinese government is unaware of working conditions at Foxconn plants and that they have not given tacit approval to Foxconn policies. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the FLA found 43 instances of Foxconn violations of Chinese labor laws and regulations, only one of which seems to have been partially remedied (work hours) (5, 9).

According to Foxconn workers interviewed by CLW, nothing appears to have been done about existing physical environmental hazards and they are quoted as saying that “there are occupational hazard issues in some workshops, mainly radiation, chemicals and dust. Even though the factory provided occupational safety and health training to workers, there is little content, making the training largely symbolic.” Joint, musculoskeletal, and other types of injuries due to jobs with repetitive motions have also not been addressed.

In their investigation the FLA found that many workers did not realize that there was union representation and if they did they doubted that the unions available to them provided “true worker representation” due to the fact these groups are dominated by management-selected nominees, (4, 5). Following the FLA study, workers interviewed by both CLW and Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM ) were still unaware of their overall rights as workers and whether or not they themselves were represented by any sort of union (7, 8). Of course, functional unions representing worker’s interests have proven themselves critical to the process of improving working conditions.

Additionally, there is also a conspicuous lack of news on changes addressing non-work conditions – such as quality of food (which many Foxconn workers complain is unhygienic and tasteless) and poor living accommodations (see CLW report),  – even though both Apple and Foxconn promised improvements to the over-crowded worker dormitories.

One important issue continues to be ignored and this is the poor psychosocial work environment at the plants and the role work stressors play in the negative health outcomes of workers. Work stressors include, work intensity and speed-up, long work hours (this appears to have been partially addressed), organizational justice, effort-reward imbalance, low social support, job strain and threat-avoidant vigilance, to name a few. The FLA as well as CLW either ignore psychosocial factors or aren’t aware of their importance. Nor has anyone examined the impact of these psychosocial stressors on the negative psychological health outcomes plaguing this population of workers - observable by the significant number of suicides the plant has experienced over the last few years. Until these issues are addressed work life at Foxconn will not significantly improve and we can expect continued and perhaps increasing negative health outcomes.

1.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/us-foxconn-idUSBRE84U0H920120531

2.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/20/foxconn-apple-china-wages/print

3.http://9to5mac.com/2012/05/31/foxconn-workers-activists-claim-no-change-at-apple-plants-following-fla-audits/

4.http://www.fairlabor.org/report/foxconn-investigation-report

5.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/business/apple-supplier-in-china-pledges-changes-in-working-conditions.html?pagewanted=all

6.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-apple-china-suppliers-idUSBRE85R0EA20120628

7.http://www.scribd.com/doc/95395223/Sweatshops-Are-Good-for-Apple-and-Foxconn-But-Not-for-Workers

8.http://chinalaborwatch.org/pdf/2012627-5.pdf

9.http://www.usmra.com/china/Labour%20Law.htm

Fair Labor Association Report leads to Apple and Foxconn promises to change working conditions in China

Apple, Foxconn vow wide revamp of worker conditions

Reuters – Thursday March 29th at noon Los Angeles time

Readers,

The following story and my blog are preliminary. I have not yet read the FLA report and I am sure I will have some criticisms of the report given the approach taken by the FLA. However, without reservations, it has to be a good thing for Chinese working people that Apple and Foxconn are acknowledging issues and promising to take action. So read the news story below, and realize that the attention of American news and you the reader motivated much of what is reported below. Congratulations. 

Peter Schnall

Highlights below are mine. One goal mentioned in the article below of maintaing wages for individual workers seems unlikely, especially if hours go from 80 hours to 49 hr/week. Also, remember that workers wanted overtime. 

By Poornima Gupta and Edwin Chan

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In a landmark development for the way Western companies do business in China, Apple Inc said Thursday it had agreed to work with partner Foxconn to substantially improve wages and working conditions at the factories that produce its wildly popular products.

Foxconn - which makes Apple devices from the iPhone to the iPad - will hire tens of thousands of new workers, clamp down on illegal overtime, improve safety protocols and upgrade worker housing and other amenities.

The moves came in response to one of the largest investigations ever conducted of a U.S. company's operations abroad. Apple had agreed to the probe by the independent Fair Labor Association in response to a crescendo of criticism that its products were built on the backs of mistreated Chinese workers.

The Association, in disclosing its findings from a survey of three Foxconn plants and over 35,000 workers, said it had unearthed multiple violations of labor law, including extreme hours and unpaid overtime.

Apple, the world's most valuable corporation, and Foxconn, China's biggest private-sector employer and Apple' main contract manufacturer, are so dominant in the global technology industry that their newly forged accord will likely have a substantial ripple effect across the sector.

Working conditions at many Chinese manufacturers that supply Western companies are considerably inferior to those at Foxconn.

"Apple and Foxconn are obviously the two biggest players in this sector and since they're teaming up to drive this change, I really do think they set the bar for the rest of the sector," FLA President Auret van Heerden told Reuters in an interview.

More immediately, the Apple-Foxconn agreement will raise costs for other manufacturers who contract with the Taiwanese company, including Dell Inc, Hewlett-Packard, Amazon.com Inc, Motorola Mobility Holdings, Nokia Oyj and Sony Corp.

The agreement will likely result in higher prices for consumers, though the impact will be limited because labor costs are only a small fraction of the total cost for most high-tech devices.

Foxconn said it would reduce working hours to 49 hours per week, including overtime, while keeping total compensation for workers at its current level. The FLA audit had found that during peak production times, workers in the three factories put in more than 60 hours per week on average.

To compensate for the reduced hours, Foxconn will hire tens of thousands of additional workers. It also said it would build more housing and canteens to accommodate that influx.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, who company critics hoped would usher in a more open, transparent era at Apple after he took over from the late Steve Jobs last fall, has shown a willingness to tackle the global criticism head-on.

The much-anticipated report marks the first phase of a probe into Apple's contract manufacturers across the world's most populous nation. With 1.2 million workers, Foxconn - an affiliate of Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry - is by far Apple's largest and most influential partner.

(Reporting By Edwin Chan; Editing by Gary Hill)

Why Is the GOP Suddenly Turning Against College? (or why the U.S. no longer needs a highly trained and skilled blue collar workforce)

Most of the article below comes from James Kwak in this week’s issue of the Atlantic. Tx James.

By contributors@theatlantic.com (James Kwak) | The Atlantic – Mon, Mar 12, 2012 10:51 AM EDT, Reuters

…..  Paul Krugman argues that Republicans prefer tax cuts to education for political reasons: Their goal to preserve upper-class prosperity comes at the expense of heightened middle-class insecurity. While this is probably true, I think there is more to it. Today, Republicans are turning their backs on higher education because of two historical trends. One is globalization. The other is the anti-tax revolution.

Imagine for a moment that the American political system is controlled by rich people. (That shouldn't be too hard.) In the mid-twentieth century, the United States had by far the largest economy in the world. American companies located most of their operations domestically; foreign direct investment was relatively difficult; and global securities markets were relatively undeveloped, making it hard to invest in foreign countries.

For these reasons, if American elites wanted to make more money, they needed American companies to become more profitable. Since American companies relied on American workers, they needed those workers to become more productive. In that situation, it made sense for the upper class to invest in education for the masses (via taxes and government spending on public education) so they could have a more productive workforce. If, instead, they took all their money and built huge houses in the Hamptons with it, the companies they owned (directly or indirectly) would grow slowly and become uncompetitive.

Today, however, we live in a much more globalized world. Large American companies locate much of their operations overseas and can draw on talented labor all around the world, essentially free-riding off of other countries' educational systems--many of which are at least the equal of our own. We like to think manufacturing has shifted to China because of cheap labor, but it's also because only in China can you hire 8,700 engineers in 15 days . This means that American companies are far less dependent on the American workforce than they were half a century ago.

To which I would add you can also hire a blue collar workforce for 50 cents an hour in China willing to work 12 hours a day 7 days a week reducing the need for a well-trained U.S. workforce reinforcing the migration of manufacturing overseas. 

Apple has joined the Fair Labor Association: What does it mean?

By Ellen Rosskam  and  Peter L. Schnall

We thought that the interested reader might want to know a bit more about the Fair Labor Association (FLA) which has been retained by Apple Corporation to evaluate whether Apple’s suppliers are adhering to Apple’s standards for the proper treatment of their workforce. This standard is outlined in the Apple Supplier Responsibility Progress Report (Apple_SR_2012_Progress_Report)  We quote from the report … “We require that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made”. Unfortunately, as many readers are certainly aware questions have been raised about several companies that supply Apple as to whether or not they are in violation of these policies. Among the issues raised are excessive overtime (more than 60 hours of work per week), crowded dormitories, military like working conditions, lack of breaks, mental harassment, etc. (the list goes on and the reader should refer to earlier blogs posted here). Foxconn itself acknowledges turnover rates in excess of 75% per year (Walmart which is considered a terrible U.S. company to work for has a turnover rate of 50 to 60%). High turnover rates are considered a good indicator of the stressfulness of a company to work for.

Apple has responded to the barrage of news and criticisms about Foxconn ( a major Chinese supplier of Ipads and Iphones) by releasing for the first time a list of its official suppliers. More importantly, on January 13, 2012, Apple joined The Fair Labor Association (FLA) as a Participating Company (PC) - the first technology company to join the FLA. The FLA works to end sweatshop working conditions around the world. As a PC, Apple commits to bringing their entire supply chain into the FLA program. This means FLA will visit, inspect and evaluate companies like Foxconn as to their adhearance to Apple and FLA standards.

FLA’s Goals

The FLA promotes core international labor standards. Details of the FLA’s Code of Conduct based on core international labor standards are provided below.[1] 

The Fair Labor Association is a non profit organization that combines the efforts of socially responsible companies, civil society organizations and colleges and universities to protect workers’ rights and improve working conditions worldwide by promoting adherence to international labor standards. The FLA conducts independent monitoring and verification to ensure that the FLA’s Workplace Standards are upheld where FLA company products are produced. Through public reporting, the FLA provides consumers with credible information to make responsible buying decisions. FLA Participating Companies agree to uphold the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct throughout their supply chains and commit to the FLA’s Principles of Fair Labor and Responsible Sourcing...Like all new affiliates, Apple will align its compliance program with FLA obligations within the next two years.[2]

Well yes, but as they say the devil is in the details. It seems fair to ask if FLA is truly an independent organization able to carry out the mandate outlined above. The problem is that the monies for the extensive audits, salaries of staff, etc. required by FLA to conduct their evaluations all come from the companies that are members of the FLA. This means Apple is paying for its own audit. Obviously, this is a less than optimal situation.

The FLA Workplace Code of Conduct

The FLA Workplace Code of Conduct defines labor standards that aim to achieve decent and humane working conditions. The Code’s standards are based on International Labor Organization standards and internationally accepted good labor practices. These include practices generally considered for corporations that want to be recognized as “socially responsible.” PCs are expected to comply with the relevant laws and regulations of the country in which workers are employed and to implement the FLA Workplace Code in their applicable facilities. The FLA accredits independent third-party monitors and engages them to conduct un-announced audits annually of a group of randomly selected factories that supply products to FLA-affiliated brands and universities.

What is wrong with FLA’s Code of Conduct

These standards are good as far as they go but they are 25 years out of date.  A great of research has been undertaken examining not just the role of the physical environment in causing ill health but also the psychosocial work environment (e.g., job strain, ERI, social isolation, injustice, lack of mobility, etc.). Psycho-social work hazards are not even mentioned in any international labor standards related to occupational health and safety nor are they part of the FLA’s evaluation of the workplace.[3]  This is not surprising. Science evolves faster than the international standard setting process, which is long and arduous - even updating international labor standards can takes years. Needless to say, the FLA’s Code of Conduct also does not address psycho-social work hazards. This is why the director of the FLA – Auret Van Heerden could visit Foxconn, look at the well lit and clean factory floors and declare that “facilities are first-class” and “Foxconn is really not a sweatshop”. Yes it is first class and not a sweat shop compared to other Chinese companies but this does not make it a healthy place to work.

Given the FLA’s flexibility it would be good if its Code were revised to address psycho-social stressors. Implementing the FLA’s Code is no easy undertaking in countries where labor laws are weak and not enforced, such as in China, or where there are no protective labor laws at all.

---

[1] http://www.fairlabor.org/fla/go.asp?u=/pub/mp&Page=FLACodeConduct

[2]https://www.fairlabor.org/fla/Public/pub/Images_XFile/R516/FoxconnInvestigation_2.13.12.pdf

[3]http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/subjects-covered-by-international-labour-standards/occupational-safety-and-health/lang--en/index.htm

Foxconn workers sickened by N-Hexane - a letter from 2 workers

The letter below was written by Gou Rui-Qiang and Jia Jing-Chuan, and translated from Chinese for SumOfUs members. They worked in an Apple factory in Suzhou, China cleaning iPhone touch screens until their nerves were permanently damaged by chemicals used during cleaning.

Share their message

Dear SumOfUs Members and Friends –

You don't know us but you have seen our work. Until recently, we worked long hours assembling Apple’s iPhone touch screens in Suzhou, China. In early 2010, it was independently confirmed that 137 workers, including us, were poisoned by a chemical called n-hexane which was used to clean iPhone screens. N-hexane is known to cause eye, skin and respiratory tract irritation, and leads to persistant nerve damage. Apple admitted to gross labour rights violations more than a year later.

If more people know about what we went through, Apple will feel pressured to change so other workers don’t have to suffer like we did.

Can you share this letter with your friends, and ask them to join you in signing our petition calling for a reform of working conditions at their factories?

We have been pressuring Apple, and its new CEO Tim Cook, for years to compensate those of us who were injured working for them, and demanding reform of working conditions at their Chinese factories so that their workers don’t suffer like we do. Now we need your help as customers or potential customers of Apple.

We need your help to send a message to Apple before their shareholder meeting on Thursday, Feb. 23rd. We want to see a strict corporate social responsibility and reform of the audit system to prevent similar tragedies in the future. He will listen to you as current or potential consumers.

You’ve already signed the petition, and 82,000 others have too -- for that, we thank you. We believe it’d be symbolicly powerful if 100,000 people signed the petition before SumOfUs delivers it to Tim Cook on Thursday at their shareholder meeting. We’re really close to that goal, but we need you to share our request with your friends to get over the edge.

Can you share our letter with your friends, and ask them to sign the petition too? 

It has been over two years since many of us were hospitalized and treated but our debilitating symptoms continue. Rui-Qiang still can't find work because he can no longer stand for the long hours most jobs require. Jing-Chuan has to spend nearly $100 a month on health supplements.

But with all of us working together to pressure Apple to change, we can make sure what happened to us doesn’t happen to others too.

- Gou Rui-qiang and Jia Jing-chuan