[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Why are we targeting Apple when there is a nice long list of companies that are allowing the same thing to happen?

Do the other companies on the long list do this kind of things:

Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.
[...]
More than half of the suppliers audited by Apple have violated at least one aspect of the code of conduct every year since 2007, according to Apple's reports, and in some instances have violated the law.
[...]
''We've known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they're still going on,'' said one former Apple executive who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. ''Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn't have another choice.''

''If half of iPhones were malfunctioning, do you think Apple would let it go on for four years?'' the executive asked.
[...]
Banners on the walls warned the 120,000 employees: ''Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow.'' Apple's supplier code of conduct dictates that, except in unusual circumstances, employees are not supposed to work more than 60 hours a week. But at Foxconn, some worked more, according to interviews, workers' pay stubs and surveys by outside groups. Mr. Lai was soon spending 12 hours a day, six days a week inside the factory, according to his paychecks. Employees who arrived late were sometimes required to write confession letters and copy quotations. There were ''continuous shifts,'' when workers were told to work two stretches in a row, according to interviews.

You might wonder how long the problems have been around:

In 2005, some of Apple's top executives gathered inside their Cupertino, Calif., headquarters for a special meeting. Other companies had created codes of conduct to police their suppliers. It was time, Apple decided, to follow suit. The code Apple published that year demands ''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.''
[...]
Those audits have found consistent violations of Apple's code of conduct, according to summaries published by the company. In 2007, for instance, Apple conducted over three dozen audits, two-thirds of which indicated that employees regularly worked more than 60 hours a week. In addition, there were six ''core violations,'' the most serious kind, including hiring 15-year-olds as well as falsifying records.

Over the next three years, Apple conducted 312 audits, and every year, about half or more showed evidence of large numbers of employees laboring more than six days a week as well as working extended overtime. Some workers received less than minimum wage or had pay withheld as punishment. Apple found 70 core violations over that period, including cases of involuntary labor, under-age workers, record falsifications, improper disposal of hazardous waste and over a hundred workers injured by toxic chemical exposures.

Last year, the company conducted 229 audits. There were slight improvements in some categories and the detected rate of core violations declined. However, within 93 facilities, at least half of workers exceeded the 60-hours-a-week work limit. At a similar number, employees worked more than six days a week. There were incidents of discrimination, improper safety precautions, failure to pay required overtime rates and other violations. That year, four employees were killed and 77 injured in workplace explosions.

''If you see the same pattern of problems, year after year, that means the company's ignoring the issue rather than solving it,'' said one former Apple executive with firsthand knowledge of the supplier responsibility group. ''Noncompliance is tolerated, as long as the suppliers promise to try harder next time. If we meant business, core violations would disappear.''

Apple says that when an audit reveals a violation, the company requires suppliers to address the problem within 90 days and make changes to prevent a recurrence. ''If a supplier is unwilling to change, we terminate our relationship,'' the company says on its Web site.

The seriousness of that threat, however, is unclear. Apple has found violations in hundreds of audits, but fewer than 15 suppliers have been terminated for transgressions since 2007, according to former Apple executives.

''Once the deal is set and Foxconn becomes an authorized Apple supplier, Apple will no longer give any attention to worker conditions or anything that is irrelevant to its products,'' said Mr. Li, the former Foxconn manager. Mr. Li spent seven years with Foxconn in Shenzhen and Chengdu and was forced out in April after he objected to a relocation to Chengdu, he said. Foxconn disputed his comments, and said ''both Foxconn and Apple take the welfare of our employees very seriously.''

The reason why the attention is on Apple:

''We've spent years telling Apple there are serious problems and recommending changes,'' said a consultant at BSR -- also known as Business for Social Responsibility -- which has been twice retained by Apple to provide advice on labor issues. ''They don't want to pre-empt problems, they just want to avoid embarrassments.''

'We Could Have Saved Lives'
[...]
The next year, a Foxconn employee fell or jumped from an apartment building after losing an iPhone prototype. Over the next two years, at least 18 other Foxconn workers attempted suicide or fell from buildings in manners that suggested suicide attempts. In 2010, two years after the pilot program fell apart and after multiple suicide attempts, Foxconn created a dedicated mental health hotline and began offering free psychological counseling.

''We could have saved lives, and we asked Apple to pressure Foxconn, but they wouldn't do it,'' said the BSR consultant, who asked not to be identified because of confidentiality agreements. ''Companies like H.P. and Intel and Nike push their suppliers. But Apple wants to keep an arm's length, and Foxconn is their most important manufacturer, so they refuse to push.''
[...]
''You can set all the rules you want, but they're meaningless if you don't give suppliers enough profit to treat workers well,'' said one former Apple executive with firsthand knowledge of the supplier responsibility group. ''If you squeeze margins, you're forcing them to cut safety.''
[...]
Many major technology companies have worked with factories where conditions are troubling. However, independent monitors and suppliers say some act differently. Executives at multiple suppliers, in interviews, said that Hewlett-Packard and others allowed them slightly more profits and other allowances if they were used to improve worker conditions.

Apple has enough hold on the suppliers to stop inspections:

The company's supplier list does not disclose where factories are, and many are hard to find. And independent monitoring organizations say when they have tried to inspect Apple's suppliers, they have been barred from entry -- on Apple's orders, they have been told.