Apple Took Three Years to Cut Ties with Supplier That Used Underage Labor | Hacker News Reader

Apple Took Three Years to Cut Ties with Supplier That Used Underage Labor

theinformation.com

89 pointsjmsflknr48 comments

As long as these articles stay hard-walled, we have to bury them. For a while The Information was unlocking them for HN but that seems to have stopped :(

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Can’t read the full article without registering, but assuming the company’s claim that it passed audits in later years is correct, it seems to say there were two violations that lost them new orders and, eventually, the contract.

That seems almost exactly what Apple promised to do (“Apple told the manufacturer, Suyin Electronics, that it wouldn’t get any new business until it improved employee screening to ensure no more people under 16 years of age got hired”) and possibly a bit harsher (the quote above didn’t say they would lose the business)

So, what’s the main message of this article? Should Apple’s punishment be more swift? Be harsher? If so, how does this compare to how other companies behave in these cases?

There are a number of reasons why they might not be able to change suppliers sooner:

1. The contract. I assume new contracts have an escape clause if underage workers are discovered, but maybe that contract didn't.

2. A reliable alternative. I worked in procurement for one of the major automakers and it's not always easy to find another supplier who can meet your requirements for lead times, capacity, quality and whatever other terms are in the contract.

3. Risk. Every supplier makes mistakes, so it's reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt that the problem was an honest mistake and that it may take some time to address issues. It's not ideal, but it's risky to move production to a new supplier. In this case it's also risky not to, for fear of consumer backlash, so they have to balance those risks.

4. Resistance. It's a lot of work to move to or onboard a new supplier with a new part. Even for basic plastic and metal autoparts, it can take 6-12 months. For very specialty items such as electronics and chemicals, it can take even longer. It's generally less time consuming and less disruptive to work with suppliers to solve problems, especially if the current supplier is delivering on spec, price, and timing.

5. Patents. If they're using a part that is patented by the supplier, it may take a full design cycle to reengineer the product to use a completely different part that allows them to replace the original part. With Apple's thin designs, it wouldn't be out of question that they were using ports that were designed to be especially thin on the backend or attached to the PCB in an unusual way.

> 1. The contract. I assume new contracts have an escape clause if underage workers are discovered, but maybe that contract didn't.

Even if the contract didn't have an explicit escape clause, Apple could probably terminate without penalty anyways. Should the supplier sue for nonperformance, Apple could raise the defense of "unclean hands," arguing that the supplier relied on illegal labor for its side of the contract.

> was an honest mistake

I appreciate there probably are U16s lying about their age to get a cool job building iPhones the same way kids lied about their age so they could fight in WW1 - but when that’s discovered and the contractor doesn’t immediately fire the underaged worker but instead keeps them on the payroll, how is that an “honest” mistake?

I appreciate bad things generally happen due to cascading failures or a chain of errors, but some things, like this, don’t leave much room for excuses.

"Please don't fire me - this job is the only thing stopping my family from starving to death" is a fairly strong argument - even coming from a 15 year old.

They should at the very minimum be forced to let consumers know.

"This MacBook was made in a factory that uses child labor."

"This iPhone was made in part by a 15 year old girl who would have sold herself into prostitution to support her family had this job not been available"

This is a dumb argument because Apple doesn't even defend the child labor used by their suppliers, let alone on the grounds that they're actually saving children from exploitation.

Apple's incentives and the incentives of the child laborers are surely different.

In this instance you have children who want to work, but aren't legally allowed.

You can rationalize the sex trade too by saying without being able to sell sex the 14/15 year old would have to sell an organ, or starve.

What do you think a 9 year old working as a human mule for $0.75/day at a cobalt mine in the Congo?

There are labor conditions below which you cannot (humanly) talk about the "incentives" of the worker.

But look, we are 50 years into the problem with consumer electronics at this point. It is complex and will be very hard to unwind, but I think at a minimum you should be forced to label products made with exploited labor.

Apple is one of the only companies to even attempt to improve these conditions. It's a huge disservice to go back to trying to justify them instead.

> In this instance you have children who want to work

We don't know that.

> the contractor doesn’t immediately fire the underaged worker but instead keeps them on the payroll, how is that an “honest” mistake?

I couldn't read the full article, does it say they kept the same underaged workers employed?

Can't read the whole thing. But I started my first job when I was 13. When school was not in I worked 40 hours a week or longer and when school was in I still got 20+ hours. I was paid 4.15 a hour, and have had a w2 every except two. I am now nearly 39.

I assume thr problem is the wage? As long as it is on par with local wages I can't find a issue with 14 year olds working.

Being able to work at age 13 was one of the single best things that allowed me to succeed, and move from what was surely doomed to be a poverty ridden life to making 6 figures by 30.

Much if my daily work life still uses skills and work ethic built from those days working long hours in thr hot sun picking up other people's trash.

The wage is not the only problem. The problem is, do the workers know what they are supposed to expect in terms of safety? Are their parents able to guide them in various ways? I don't have a problem with 13-yo school students working paid internships on software for example, assuming that their parents and schools are in on it on the student's side. What conditions are these child laborers working in and how much of a role do their parents take in tracking what the workplace is like? Financially stressed families seem to sometimes get overburdened with the hustle and in such cases start to miss this stuff. In "Leave it to Beaver" land the boy goes to work for the grocer after a lot of conversation in the home and there's triangular conversation between the grocer, the parents, and the boy as the scenario plays out. This is affluence taking a hand.

My immediate brothers and I did not have to work until they were adults. My half brothers, at the behest of their mother, worked as soon as they could, while staying in high school and going on to college, and I think it worked well for them. So, @mbrumlow, I think see how your situation benefited you.

There are certain jobs that are fine to do as kids. Working in service industries is very common in the US. Manufacturing and electronics however are not safe and have long lasting consequences that may be exacerbated by the fact that the kids working are young. It's not just about their age or wage but the type of work they're doing.

Why is it safe for adults?

Honestly in many cases, it isn't. But at least adults can consent and make independent decisions instead of following what their parents say.

> Being able to work at age 13 was one of the single best things that allowed me to succeed, and move from what was surely doomed to be a poverty ridden life to making 6 figures by 30.

That's utterly depressing. I'm sorry that you had to choose between having a childhood and living in poverty. That's a decision no child should have to make. I am firmly against working while underage, a child should be allowed to be a child.

This seems to ignore how many people don’t have the resources to have a good ‘childhood’. Being able to work doesn’t necessarily mean something bad is happening.

I don't know if OP is from the USA but let's assume -- for argument's sake -- that he is. I'd argue that his country has the resources to provide every child with a good childhood. In fact, I believe that the failure to do so is a disgrace.

Is there even a single country that provides every child with a good childhood?

I am not aware of one, or anyone who even claims to understand how to do it.

Countries where you do not have to disregard your childhood in order to avoid a life in poverty are plentiful.

Child welfare is a top priority in every Scandinavian country, for example.

“Countries where you do not have to disregard your childhood in order to avoid a life in poverty are plentiful.“

That’s a totally different goalpost from a country which gives everyone a good childhood.

I’m sure Scandinavian counties are better at it, but it’s not at all obvious how the US “should” be able to do better than they do.

How exactly would they achieve this?

> That’s a totally different goalpost from a country which gives everyone a good childhood.

And coincidentally precisely what I was talking about before you created your "good childhood" straw man. I have carelessly used your straw man term afterwards because I thought a) it was just poorly phrased on your part (and not a straw man) and b) the correct interpretation was contextually evident, but alas…

This is interesting, I was doing some labor intensive jobs when I was ~13 and then later at ~15. I wonder if I was a major victim? Unfortunately I was victimized by the local farmer and the local supermarket chain, so no easy punching bag.

It’s honestly really tiresome to see people shitting on Apple for not being perfect when it seems they’re just about the only company even making an attempt.

It just doesn’t make sense to demand perfect at all times when the goalpost for perfect is constantly moving and the imperfect players are really trying and making visible improvement.

It reminds me of the protestors demanding the entire city council resign for not defunding the police, ending homelessness, and solving the housing crisis, despite actually making faster-than-could-reasonably-be-expected progress on all.

Can people just grow up please? There are actual bad actors you could be going after.

It's about respecting the rules. The age limit that they've set is 16. If they are so nonchalant about hiring 14 or 15 year olds, what prevents then from hiring 12 year olds?

Also, such lax regulation can also mean that they may have them work for extended periods of time.

I was getting on a bus at 5 am to pick strawberries all day when I was 13, what’s the harm?

Apple did enforce the rules.

Apple gets more focus because they are the richest and most dominant company in the world. They are one of the few who actually could make a difference if they wanted to. They also deserve more scrutiny because they spare no opportunity to claim the moral high ground through over the top virtue signalling.

Except that they do make more of a difference than anyone else, and people continue to vilify them.

It takes about 1 second to find other companies being accused of using child labour (Dell, Microsoft, Tesla, Google, Samsung, Sony), in major newspapers and elsewhere. They all have statements on their websites saying they're trying to stop it.

A comparison of the effectiveness of each company's approach would be useful. Without it, you are just defending a company you're personally invested in.

How many articles mention those companies actually doing anything about it?

My concern here is that when literally everything is an outrage (including doing the right thing, but methodically and not instantaneously), there’s no actual incentive to do the right thing.

What articles like this do is remove the incentive to actually try to be better by saying that nothing anyone does will ever be good enough. At least recognize when a group is putting the work in; otherwise why do it?

This is ultimately a marketing expense for them and their shareholders. If you destroy the benefits of that marketing to generate link clicks, you also risk destroying the benefits that arise from that marketing.

It’s kind of like all the hit pieces about nuclear that completely ignore the thousands of people killed by fossil fuels each year. Perfect is the enemy of good.

And no, I’m not personally invested in it. I own no Apple stock. I do have an iPhone but I also have lots of gadgets and other consumer goods made with actual slave labor, conflict minerals, sweat shops, and much more serious labor violations; I’m sure you do, too.

How long should Apple have taken to fire a supplier that's violating, like, the most important labor law?

That's a fantastic question! Let's investigate:

  * How egregious was the violation?
  * How did the company respond to resolving the violation?
  * What does the contract say about appropriate investigation levels before the violation is considered a sufficient breach of contract?
  * What steps does the contract describe for how to handle the breach of contract? Is there a probationary period? Are they allowed multiple actions before the contract is terminated?
  * How long does that investigation usually take?
  * What was the supplier currently doing for Apple?
  * Can someone else supply that load? (even at a higher price)
  * How long does it take to find an alternative supplier?
  * How long does it take to sign the contract with the alternative supplier?
  * How long does it take to get the alternative supplier up to speed on Apple's specifications?
  * How much will that delay impact projected release dates?
  * How much will the future-delayed release dates impact stock prices?

Each iPhone is probably in the design process for over a year and spinning up the production pipelines may take several. How long does Intel spend on a processor? Companies need to have a considerable stock before they release a product and that all takes time.

Also consider harm reduction. Investment in a supplier is investment in a community. Canceling the contract vs trying to remedy the situation is a complex decisions.

See bonestamp2’s top-level comment for why I think 3 years is pretty reasonable. It’s not like firing one shitty worker at McDonald’s, supply chains are complex.

They're not the only company making an attempt. Companies with a lot less power are doing a lot more, like https://fairphone.com. (Though Apple might be least-worst out of the BIG manufacturers – but abusing their power slightly less than other power-abusers isn't really a thing to congratulate; just condemn less.)

I’d like to see some evidence that a fairphone will outlast an iPhone either in terms of hardware, or in terms of software. I find it highly unlikely.

What does the lifetime have to do with child labor?

The only claims Fairphone makes that are different from Apple’s are about ecological impact.

This is not the first time theinforation has had a "timely" article with respect to Apple.

I would not be surprised if this is another submarine article [1].

The usage of PR with Tim Cook's Apple is so calculated that I am getting a little uneasy with it. Especially true during the Qualcomm / Intel Modem era. You could literally tell they were intentionally leaked. And after that they somehow felt it was good the media help them sell their narrative ( quite successfully ) they have dialled it up even more.

I am guessing that is partly because their head of PR left last year ( 2019 ). And VP of Marketing Phil Schiller took the PR responsibility as well which later passed the whole Marketing alone with PR to Greg Joswiak. This left a management gap in PR, and what normally happens is the department continue to do what they were doing at a rate without realising the side effect. When all you have was a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And this situation looks remarkably similar to Apple Retail head transition from John Browett ( Dixon CEO )to Angela Ahrendts ( Burberry ).

Just some observation from someone who has been watching Apple very closely for 20+ years.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com