Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmsaksida | Hacker News Reader

A supplier using child labor shouldn't be a "ok, let's gradually work this out" kind of issue. It should be a "immediately cut all ties to them" kind of issue. If it will disrupt a supply chain and hurt profits, so be it. Seems like a small price to pay compared to using child labor.

View on HN

They will continue to behave this way until the damage to their profits is higher than the damage from a supply chain interruption. To quote fight club:

> Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

It will never happen because most people don't actually care that much about children being a part of the supply chain for their favorite products. Given the choice between a new iPhone and an alternative product that doesn't depend on child labor, most people would pick the iPhone.

Replace “iPhone” with “cheaper products”. Most Amazon products are Chinese imports that most definitely are sourced from manufacturers with little/no care for forced labor in their supply chain. The media singles Apple out because they’re big enough to force their suppliers to change, but still can’t switch on a dime.

But what would you think if you were a child in a poor country and that was your only way to eat?

I know this is probably sarcasm but the U.S. ideology is that the child should think “man I can’t wait for the United States to stage a coup in my government that brings capitalism and U.S. financial military aid to my country”.

I'm not being sarcastic at all... I have not been in those countries and I don't know what the kids' alternatives are.

You're right, it's tricky. The alternative should be school and fair wages for adults.

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2007/11/19/attitudes...

Just checking you know that the US still uses child labour in the US.

https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/video/2014/05/13/made-usa-c...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/28/tobacco-child-...

> Child labor is common on tobacco farms in the United States, where children are exposed to nicotine, toxic pesticides, and other dangers. Child tobacco workers often get sick with vomiting, nausea, headaches, and dizziness while working, all symptoms consistent with acute nicotine poisoning. Many work 50 to 60 hours a week without overtime pay, often in extreme heat. They may be exposed to pesticides that are known neurotoxins. Many also use dangerous tools and machinery, lift heavy loads, and climb to perilous heights to hang tobacco for drying. The largest tobacco companies in the world purchase tobacco grown in the US to make popular cigarette brands like Marlboro, Newport, Camel, Pall Mall and others. These companies can’t legally sell cigarettes to children, but they are profiting from child labor. US law also fails these children, by allowing them to work at much younger ages, for longer hours, and under more hazardous conditions than children working in all other sectors. Children as young as 12 can work legally on tobacco farms and at even younger ages on small farms.

I would think it's perfectly fair for you, as that child to seek out labour.

But I also think it'd be perfectly fair if some sort of social safety net resulted in an orphanage where you could eat if you were starving - but that safety net would need to be paid by taxes on income that Apple isn't paying to their employees.

That sounds good and all, but what if the local Government isn't doing it... what is the next step?

For Apple to not do business there because a bunch of entitled Americans yell at them over exploiting child labour... which, granted, isn't the best outcome for the locale in the short term but would result in the government making itself more acceptable as a overseas labour pool to US corporations.

I'm getting so tired of people defending Apple on this.

Like...No. This is a red line. Do a better job before you find a supplier.

I think it's acceptable to accidentally pick a bad supplier but when they learned of this three years ago they should've immediately cut ties. Oh, it's super expensive to change suppliers but own the mistake and pay the short term costs of being forced to rework supply lines while recognizing that inefficiency as the cost of skimping on your research on the supplier.

I would be absolutely unsurprised if someone instrumental in setting up this partnership still got a bonus after this was discovered due to the low cost of producing the part.

It’s doubtful that any large bureaucracy can execute that decision quickly, though I do agree 3 years is way too long. I’d put 3 months as hard minimum even assuming every internal decision process went as smoothly as possible, and 6 months as a more realistic amount.

Just legal validation alone would take weeks even under emergency round-the-clock conditions. It’s the same with most open and shut zero-tolerance style firings as well, for all but the most fungible roles.

This largely has nothing to do with how grievous the transgression is or how sincerely the management wants to do the right thing. It has to do with red tape that is designed from first principles to permit zero exceptions or special cases that can cut through it quickly.

It would require refactoring not just Apple’s red tape infrastructure but the entire concept across virtually all of corporate America to optimize for speed of firing vendors based on child exploitation.

It’s like choosing an O(n^2) algorithm, baking it in as a load-bearing centerpiece, then being upset something doesn’t happen in O(1).

Make it a law, or expect companies to follow the $. It's sad, but it's the state of our capitalism in the US.

I don't find it that sad honestly. Corporations don't exist to be charitable organizations - it'd be nice if they were a bit less cutthroat in chasing profits but there always have and will always be people who abuse norms to get an edge over others. Encoding a norm into law makes it more just by making the norm clearer to those who might have grown up elsewhere and cements a punishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com