Questions regarding Working Conditions at Foxconn

read provided material and answer two questions….

“Working Conditions at Foxconn”  Please respond to the following:

· Employees at Foxconn factories described in the e-Activity (below) worked more hours than allowed under Chinese labor laws. Yet the violation of these standards is widespread in manufacturing and the demanding treatment of workers is commonly accepted. Compare and contrast the ethos of Foxconn with the basic tenets of ethical relativism. Assess the degree to which companies like Apple might be affected by such ethical relativism in the countries in which their suppliers operate.

· Workers’ rights advocates and many consumers find Foxconn’s treatment of employees as noted in the e-Activity (below) to be intuitively wrong. In order to support this moral judgment, it must be informed by an argument containing a moral principle. Suggest one moral principle that could support the moral judgment that the treatment of factory workers at Foxconn is ethically permissible. Speculate on a possible challenge that one could make to this moral principle, and outline a response to that challenge.

e-activity transcript/reading material to answer above

Foxconn Technology is China’s largest exporter and one of its biggest employers. With an estimated 1.2 million workers and a client list that includes corporate giants such as Samsung, Dell, Nintendo, and Apple, Foxconn is credited with assembling roughly 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics. Foxconn’s success is apparent—but at what cost?

In May of 2011, factory workers at Foxconn’s Chengdu-based plant hurriedly polished iPad screens in an attempt to meet the overwhelming demand for Apple’s newest product, which had been released only weeks earlier. By mid-afternoon the factory was in overdrive as machines and workers rushed to keep pace. Suddenly, the building shook, followed by a series of blasts, and everything came to a halt.

The explosion was caused by aluminum dust that was not being properly ventilated, causing it to combust. Four people were killed, dozens more injured, and technology-behemoth Apple found itself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

In 2005, Apple executives met to create the companies first code of conduct for its suppliers. The code required “that working conditions in Apple’s supply chain are safe, that workers are treated with respect and dignity, and that manufacturing processes are environmentally responsible.” (Apple Supplier Code of Conduct, 2010 ) It may sound simple, but Apple contracts with hundreds of facilities that hire millions of workers. Making sure this code of conduct is adhered to is no small task. Apple audits dozens of factories each year, finding violations that run the gamut from failure to pay overtime rates to improper disposal of hazardous waste. Apple claims that when an audit turns up a violation, the supplier is required to address the issue within 90 days, making any changes necessary to prevent future violations. If the supplier fails to change, says Apple, the relationship is over. Whether or not that policy is enforced is unclear. According to former Apple executives, the violations number in the hundreds, but only about a dozen suppliers have been terminated since 2007. (Charles Duhigg and David Barboza, “In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad,” New York Times, January 26, 2012. )

Foxconn labor practices drew protests in 2010.
Photo © Moophoto | Dreamstime.com

Following the explosion at the iPad factory the Fair Labor Association (FLA) got involved. The FLA provides a set of rules guiding international labor standards that member companies can choose to implement. The FLA launched an investigation into labor practices at Foxconn facilities, spending more than 3,000 staff hours on its investigation, which surveyed over 35,000 Foxconn employees at three separate factories, including the Chengdu plant. The investigation uncovered issues ranging from illegal work hours (the Chinese government limits workers to a maximum of 40 hours per week and 36 hours of overtime per month), to unreported accidents and safety hazards and violations.

Factory workers were also said to be subjected to humiliation and verbal abuse when they did not meet the expectations of their supervisors. These conditions triggered a series of employee suicides in 2010. Foxconn responded by encouraging employees to sign anti-suicide pledges and by installing suicide nets under dormitory windows.

According to reports, factory workers were pushed hard to meet production demands. Suppliers make only a slim profit for each device produced and as a result often try to cut corners, speed production, or violate the rules in order to increase their profit margin. “The only way you make money working for Apple is figuring out how to do things more efficiently or cheaper,” said an executive at one Apple supplier. “And then they’ll come back the next year, and force a 10 percent price cut.” (Charles Duhigg and David Barboza, “In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad,” New York Times, January 26, 2012. )

After the FLA report came out, both Foxconn and Apple vowed to make changes and address the issues facing workers in supplier factories. According to the FLA, “Apple has committed to ensuring that the FLA code standards are upheld in its supply chain.” (Jessica Roy, “New Report Reveals ‘Serious’ Violations at Apple Foxconn Factories in China,” The New York Observer ) The organization plans to monitor the steps both companies take to meet their recommendations. However, many wonder if these promises can be met.

Optional Further Reading

· Charles Duhigg and David Barboza, “In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad,” New York Times, January 26, 2012. (

www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

)

· Fair Labor Association, FoxConn Investigation Report (

www.fairlabor.org/report/foxconn-investigation-report

)

· Jessica Roy, “New Report Reveals ‘Serious’ Violations at Apple Foxconn Factories in China,” The New York Observer, March 29, 2012 (

betabeat.com/2012/03/new-report-reveals-serious-violations-at-apple-foxconn-factories-in-china

)

· Apple Supplier Code of Conduct, 2010 (

images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/Supplier_Code_of_Conduct_V3_3

)

· Gethin Chamberlain, “Apple’s Chinese Workers Treated ‘Inhumanely, Like Machines’,” The Guardian, April 30, 2011 (

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-workers-treated-inhumanely

)

.