"According to an annual
survey by Harris Interactive, 73 percent of Americans are stressed at work. The
top source of stress, felt by 11 percent of survey respondents, is low wages.
For women, that rises to 14 percent. The next irritants are annoying co-workers
(10 percent); commuting (9 percent); workload (9 percent); and a job outside a
chosen career (8 percent). But workers' fear of losing
their job dropped to 4 percent, from 9 percent in 2011.
Still, "anxiety among
employees reduces productivity, lessens job satisfaction, lowers morale and has
a negative impact on health," survey spokesman John Swartz, regional
director of career services at Everest College, which commissioned the survey,
said in a statement.
"Workplace stress
costs U.S. employers billions, and it's critical that both employer and
employee take action to reduce this epidemic.
"Whether you've been
in a career for 20 years or are just starting out, stay current on new trends,
learn practical skills and consider choosing a field of study that will
translate into a job in a growth industry like health care," Swartz said.
Among Americans with high
school diplomas or less education, 14 percent of those surveyed ranked low pay
as the top stressor, followed by annoying co-workers (12 percent). College
graduates ranked workload (13 percent) and low pay (11 percent) Nos. 1 and 2,
respectively.
Harris Interactive surveyed
898 employed adults ages 18 and older by phone from June 21 to July 1. Results
were weighted for age, sex, geographic region and race where necessary to align
them with the population. And yet 26 percent of respondents said nothing
stressed them out at their job, up from 21 percent in 2011.
But 37 percent of the
stressless had a household income of more than $100,000."
Stressed for success?
Here are the top causes of
workplace stress from the recently released Harris Interactive poll.
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
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.
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 27th 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.
