Apple and fraud

[Cybrweez]

Apple did a report about its suppliers. I don't know if this would be shocking to anyone, except that its Apple. Apple fans are like a religion, even w/some sense of righteousness, so this stuck out to me.

Fraudulent suppliers, therefore, have compelling incentives to locate in nations and regions in which they can commit fraud with impunity. The best way to evaluate the fraudulent CEOs’ view as to the risk of prosecution for their frauds is to observe whether they take cheap means of hiding their frauds. When the CEOs do not even bother to avoid creating a paper trail documenting their frauds one knows that they view the risk of prosecution as trivial. Nations that are corrupt, have weak rule of law, weak or non-existent unions, poor protections for workers, a reserve army of the impoverished, and have few resources devoted to prosecuting elite white-collar crime provide an ideal criminogenic environment for firms engaged in anti-employee control fraud. The ubiquitous nature of anti-employee control fraud (and tax fraud) in many nations explains why U.S. industries have been so eager to “outsource” U.S. jobs to fraud-friendly nations. Companies like Apple also discovered long ago that Americans often made poor senior managers in these nations because they objected to defrauding workers. Not a problem – there are plenty of managers from other nations that have no such ethical restraints. Foreign suppliers run by Asian managers are increasingly dominant.

A couple things tie in to ongoing discussions, for instance:

The article does not make this point explicitly, but these firms conduct these tests in order to unlawfully coerce their pregnant employees to have undesired abortions in order to obtain and keep their jobs.

But I wonder how cheap our electronics would be if they weren't built by such suppliers? I'm sure people would be pissed about rising prices moreso than better working conditions for others.

Bad ethics increasingly drive good ethics out of the markets and manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. and into more fraud-friendly nations.

[wayfriend]

I'm sure people would be pissed about rising prices moreso than better working conditions for others.

And that's the wonder and the beauty of "letting the market decide".

[Avatar]

Gotta agree, because the market is concerned only with cost and profit. (From respective sides.)

--A

[Cybrweez]

Here's a follow up. Foxconn is the focus in this one, which was the focus of another thread here.

I address one the article’s weaknesses, its discussion of Foxconn. The article is over 4,500 words, so its failure to discuss Foxconn’s anti-employee actions was not compelled by space constraints. Indeed, Foxconn’s anti-employee practices are of central importance to the issue that the article purports to discuss – why Apple rarely employs U.S. suppliers based in the U.S. Instead, the article alludes to an illegal act by Foxconn, in tones of amazed praise, with no discussion of the illegality.

“Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.


“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.””

Ah yes, what “speed” and “flexibility.” Indeed, it could not be matched in the U.S. – or any other nation that enforced its laws. What the authors are describing was unlawful under Chinese law.

[wayfriend]

Yep -- the more you take away people's rights, the cheaper is their labor.

Slavery is, of course, the cheapest of all.

See Scott Walker's anti-union legislation in Wisconson. Take away workers rights, because it'll save money! Essentially Wisconson on it's way to being China.

[Avatar]

Dunno if I'd go that far.

At the risk of starting another union debate though, that was sorta the whole point of unions originally. I will however grant that from what I've seen here, not everybody has perhaps maintained that original intent.

--A

[Cail]

If only such a bill existed....

What governor Walker signed (remember, he's a governor, so he can't vote anything into law, only sign or veto items passed by his state legislature) was a law ending collective bargaining for public unions (and public unions only).

The truth is much less exciting than fiction.

[Cybrweez]

And again, I find it particularly interesting that this is Apple, and its pretty out in the open, due to Apple fans' righteous tendencies. But I don't doubt most wouldn't care enough about such an issue by actually not buying Apple stuff.

Of course, an alternative view is every company does it, so you may be left having to make everything yourself.

[Cail]

And again, I find it particularly interesting that this is Apple, and its pretty out in the open, due to Apple fans' righteous tendencies. But I don't doubt most wouldn't care enough about such an issue by actually not buying Apple stuff.

Of course, an alternative view is every company does it, so you may be left having to make everything yourself.

It is utterly bizarre how Apple gets a pass on stuff like this.

[Rigel]

It is utterly bizarre how Apple gets a pass on selling the body of a Porsche with the engine of a Kia.

But back to the topic at hand... I read an article recently about manufacturing coming back to the States soon, based on robot labor. In the words of one factory owner, "I pay the same as the Chinese do for robots, and I don't have to ship across the Pacific when I'm done."

Unfortunately I don't remember where I saw this article... still, it's a good point, that could allow the US to be cost competitive again.

[Avatar]

At the cost of reduced employment?

--A

[Cybrweez]

Robots are going to reduce the need for people to work, and we have to deal with it.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

I take it you disagree with, that paragon of libertarian values, FDR when he said government workers should not be able to bargin collectively:

www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/20 ... union.html

From the link:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

FDR that Union hater would have supported Walker's position.

[wayfriend]

FDR that Union hater would have supported Walker's position.

Looks like. Still don't agree. You shouldn't have to voluntarilly give up your pursuit of a lucrative career by taking a tax-payer-paid-for job. Nor should we discourage people from choosing a career in public service.

[Cail]

FDR that Union hater would have supported Walker's position.

Looks like. Still don't agree. You shouldn't have to voluntarilly give up your pursuit of a lucrative career by taking a tax-payer-paid-for job. Nor should we discourage people from choosing a career in public service.

Neither is the case, and a union isn't required to insure a lucrative career.


Article here about public sector versus private sector compensation and retention.

[Zarathustra]

Robots are going to reduce the need for people to work, and we have to deal with it.

They reduce the need for people to work at tedious, repetitive, alienating jobs. That's a good thing. Like cars reducing the need for people to work within walking distance. It frees people to more fully realize their potential. We weren't built to do the things that robots or cars do. We can do better.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

Like cars reducing the need for people to work within walking distance.

That's not necessarily a good thing. I wish I lived within walking distance of my office. I'd get more exercise.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

Like cars reducing the need for people to work within walking distance.

That's not necessarily a good thing. I wish I lived within walking distance of my office. I'd get more exercise.

So park a mile or two away from your office, and walk the rest of the way.

[wayfriend]

FDR that Union hater would have supported Walker's position.

Looks like. Still don't agree. You shouldn't have to voluntarilly give up your pursuit of a lucrative career by taking a tax-payer-paid-for job. Nor should we discourage people from choosing a career in public service.

Neither is the case, and a union isn't required to insure a lucrative career.

Article here about public sector versus private sector compensation and retention.

Others might interpret that as a demonstration of why unions have succeeded at their core mission. All you're doing here is pulling out the age-old chestnut of: there are no problems, that means we don't need protections any more.

[Cail]

Looks like. Still don't agree. You shouldn't have to voluntarilly give up your pursuit of a lucrative career by taking a tax-payer-paid-for job. Nor should we discourage people from choosing a career in public service.

Neither is the case, and a union isn't required to insure a lucrative career.

Article here about public sector versus private sector compensation and retention.

Others might interpret that as a demonstration of why unions have succeeded at their core mission. All you're doing here is pulling out the age-old chestnut of: there are no problems, that means we don't need protections any more.

Indeed they might, but that would fall apart when I pointed out that not all public sector employees are unionized, and that many private sector employees are unionized. So it's probably a good thing that no one's interpreting it that way....

And I'll thank you not to try to interpret my motive(s), as you're incorrect. There are problems, namely that public unions are contributing to state and local budget crises.