Apple Now Tracking Working Hours for Over One Million Supply Chain Employees

I'm probably in the minority here... but I think this whole affair is getting ridiculous.

Do I think employees should be whipped and treated as assembly line slaves? No. The responsibility should however lie with the Chinese government and Foxconn. They're not Apple employees. Foxconn is a CMO, nothing more. Staff issues are the sole responsibility of the CMO, same as any industry. What's even crazier is that the whole event is solely focused on Apple, as if Foxconn doesn't have other manufacturing partners, let alone all the other CMOs in China that manufacturer for the electronics industry.

If you're really that concerned about cheap Chinese labor, why stop at the Foxconn-Apple relationship? There's many more CMOs that undoubtedly have the same or worse conditions.

bawbac said:

Probably at Fullovshet General Hospital for cranial lobotomy internship.

Click to expand...

It's that hard to believe? It's actually easy to believe.

24 hour shift every two days: Sun, Tue, Thur, Sat. 24 hours x 4 days = 96 hours. Now, imagine if you have to leave a little later when your shift "ends" because there's paperwork to catch up on. Or you have a clinic that morning. So if you add another 6 hrs each day, that comes up to your 120 hours.

It's not common, but it happens. Especially in the surgical residencies. Now you might be getting some sleep during those 24 hour shifts, but it's not a given. And it's usually only a couple hours at a time.

Sound crazy? That's why it's against the residency commission rules now. There are a lot of exceptions, but it boils down to an average 80 hour work week. And the reason people let it happen? Because you're told that if you report accurate hours, your residency might lose accreditation, making your training suddenly worthless. It's a BS scare tactic, but it works on residents.

mankar4 said:

where/what did you do residency in?

Click to expand...

Family Practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

xionxiox said:

Yet somehow, activists will still complain.

Click to expand...

True, as throwing a name like Apple around will attract more attention to your cause.

But the bigger problem is the press, that has and does exalt everything Apple does or fails to do. That's the price of success, I suppose. But it comes at a more sinister cost.

The mainstream media more or less ignores Apple's less attention-grabbing competitors. For example, independent investigators discovered Samsung's suppliers using child labor, among some other egregious abuses. There was a blog entry all the Wall Street Journal, an article on Bloomberg, and some coverage from the tech blogs. Nothing on a front page like we would get if Apple was involved. Nothing that creates the kind of outrage Apple generated that forced them to change meaningfully.

Reacting to the media generated outrage, Apple joined a respected, independent body to investigate supplier labor practices (months later they are still the only technology company working with the FLA). They have faced their labor inadequacies head on, and yes, are still far from perfect. Meanwhile, Samsung outright denies the charges from CLW's independent investigation and surprisingly doesn't seem keen to copy Apple by using an independent organization to complete audits of their suppliers. Instead Samsung seems keen to continue with their likely inadequate "internal" investigations.

All the while the mainstream press is giving Samsung, and others a pass. Apple only involved the FLA because of the media's outrage and because the question of their labor practices was hurting their image.

But how can we expect labor rights to improve overseas when we only hold one company's feet to the fire? Where's the outrage against Samsung? Or other companies whom CLW and other organizations expose?

That is the real cost of the mainstream media's failure to report. But when they are beholden to the almighty dollar above all else, of course you'll report only on the brand that generates the most attention.

seems strange that they won't let people work more than 60 hours if they choose to do so, unless it's a peak time. if free market was allowed to work, then wages would adjust themselves to provide incentives for people to voluntarily work 60+ hours. isnt it?

iamkarlp said:

While I am not sure I am comfortable with the state of affairs, almost everyone I know here in the states works 60 hour weeks. Most companies mandate a minimum of 50, average of 60 with the occasional 80 being required.

Again, not to say I agree with it, but I would be careful about acting like 40 hour work weeks are anything but a distant memory to most in the US.

Karl P

Click to expand...

I hope you're getting paid for all 60 hours. Else you're getting boned.

Damage control in due to the negative publicity about the workers at Foxconn.

"Apple notes, however, that it allows the normal 60-hour standard to be exceeded during period of high demand if workers volunteer for the additional time."

is that "volunteer" as in when my manager tells me i have to stay through the weekend to finish design testing that i say "sure no problem" ? or is that "volunteer" as in i volunteer to get paid the same amount of money whether i work 40hrs or 80hrs?

this is nothing but a PR stunt by Apple, what goes on behind the scenes at these chinese factories is horrendous. my company used to source to china for certain products, and i took a visit there for 2 weeks to verify their molding process. let's just say i was happy to get back to my 60 hr job

sransari said:

seems strange that they won't let people work more than 60 hours if they choose to do so, unless it's a peak time. if free market was allowed to work, then wages would adjust themselves to provide incentives for people to voluntarily work 60+ hours. isnt it?

Click to expand...

To let people work more than 60 hours a week, an employer would have to be unscrupulous and remarkably stupid. Why stupid? Because there has been study after study, with the first study that I know of in the 1940's, showing that long working hours are not productive.

In software development, for example, it has been shown that a developer working 40 hours a week for 6 weeks, and a developer working 60 hours a week for 6 weeks, have the same productivity. Which means the amount of useful work produced in the extra 120 hours is exactly ZERO. The difference is that after these 6 weeks, you have one employee who is happy and fresh and can continue to be productive, and another employee who is unhappy and tired and whose productivity is now going to drop, no matter what you do.

The first study that I heard of was about weapons production in war time Britain, where it was shown that people working 57 hours a week did less work, not less work per hour but less work per week, than other people doing the same job for 48 hours per week.

I work on average 40 hours a week and I find that exhausting. Sometimes I have to work a little more than 40... Other times I work a little less but it all averages out.

I can't imagine my company expecting at least 50 a week... Our capacity models take into account admin work in addition to training and project work. Managers are told to keep everyone at or near the 40 hr/ week mark.

Well first off, you're equating software development to building physical product, so it's not analogous at all.

Apple allows over 60 hours a week during peek production times...so are you saying that that's stupid? My point is that two mutually agreeing parties should make the decision on work hours and that if someone wants to work more than 60 hours, at any time (peak season or not), that there shouldn't be some arbitrary rule that prevents them from doing so. Now if that particular employee is unproductive and the employer isn't getting their money's worth, then the employer can make that decision to not approve extra hours or to even let the employee go.

gnasher729 said:

To let people work more than 60 hours a week, an employer would have to be unscrupulous and remarkably stupid. Why stupid? Because there has been study after study, with the first study that I know of in the 1940's, showing that long working hours are not productive.

In software development, for example, it has been shown that a developer working 40 hours a week for 6 weeks, and a developer working 60 hours a week for 6 weeks, have the same productivity. Which means the amount of useful work produced in the extra 120 hours is exactly ZERO. The difference is that after these 6 weeks, you have one employee who is happy and fresh and can continue to be productive, and another employee who is unhappy and tired and whose productivity is now going to drop, no matter what you do.

The first study that I heard of was about weapons production in war time Britain, where it was shown that people working 57 hours a week did less work, not less work per hour but less work per week, than other people doing the same job for 48 hours per week.

Click to expand...