2014 Update: In looking at my old articles, I clearly didn’t exercise good headline judgment. The URL maintains the word “slavery“, but I did change the headline. So, I apologize if I offended anyone. My point is that Foxconn workers, at least from the portrayal in the media, have little choice and few options. While they are there by choice, it is almost truly a situation where it is their only choice.
An article in the New York Times explains the reason why manufacturing the iPhone in United States will likely never happen 1:
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.
The article goes on and explains that it is flexibility and NOT cost that makes China so competitive. With added commentary that the Middle Income in America will continued to get squeezed and eventually disappear, the article is overall very unoptomistic on the prospects of America being able to compete with China. Indeed, the article claims that flexibility of that type is unheard of and virtually impossible in America.
I don’t know about you, but I’m glad that this type of Taylorism and inhumane treatment of people is not allowed via government legislation. True, whenever the government steps in, lead time increases and costs also increase, but sometimes the price for liberty requires added precautions and boundaries that keep people from treating others inhumanely. Freedom has bounds.
In general, there are two things wrong with the New York Times article:
- It is celebrating
slaveryIndentured Servants is a more fair term. By claiming that flexibility will, in its current state and in the end, beat out America, the article is inadvertently celebrating slavery. If the price of flexibility for a company like Apple means that people work 14 hours and $17 a day and are woken up in the middle of the night and given a biscuit and tea to then work some more because of a last minute design change from Apple, then China wins on flexibility. - Their definition of “flexibility” fails to acknowledge the power of Lean Manufacturing for last minute changes the article describes. In fact, lean manufacturing – properly applied and executed – shines in situations where there are last minute changes, provided the operation had Heijunka in place and was already operating on a single piece flow philosophy. But that approach doesn’t require people waking up in the middle of the night and slavery-like conditions. It requires a well-formed and designed operation built on the tenets of lean manufacturing.
Despite Apple’s Code of Conduct for suppliers, last minute design changes like the article describes will continue to “train” suppliers to treat their people badly. Indeed, Apple will continue to be demanding on the one hand, but making it almost impossible for suppliers to comply to its demands on the other.
- http://nyti.ms/AEHFOY ↩
Related Posts:
Become a Lean Six Sigma professional today!
Start your learning journey with Lean Six Sigma White Belt at NO COST
Julien Couvreur says
I find it demeaning to people who actually suffer from slavery that you equate voluntary work with their condition.
While I certainly don’t rejoice of the working conditions of sweatshops, I find your recommendation rather inhumane. Since when are people made better off by removing their best available alternative?
Finally, your reasoning suggests that child labor is gone because of legislation, likewise for US sweatshops, poor working conditions, etc. This is counter to facts. All those conditions had been improving dramatically prior to intervention, which highlights that economic development is the real cure, not legislation.
There is plenty of reading on sweatshops in the economics literature. It’s better to educate oneself to avoid harming others by using forceful policies.
http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html
Pete Abilla says
@Julien,
Thank you for your comment.
I suppose “slavery” is less accurate than the more accurate “indentured servant”, except with indentured servants, there’s a time limit. In this situation, would you agree that the Chinese people are essentially slaves to their government and leaders?
You comment on the next best alternative is fair. I’m not a politician or an economist. But for someone who grew up and lived in a 3rd world country, my first hand experience tells me that situations like this are avoidable.
I’m a libertarian. I’m not an advocate for almost any government legislation. Yet, some make sense to me, at least in the short term, until our hearts become more pure, which is a hopeful and diminishing vanishing point.
Thank you for your comment.
tcarlson says
Pete, you are so right. While “slavery” is not exactly the right word, Apple’s exploitation of Chinese workers is being justified by playing to our desire to have that great new iPhone or iPad at a bargain price. I have no doubt that consumers (of cotton) before the Civil War were making the same argument about actual slavery.
Julien Couvreur says
Thanks for your measured reply. Looking back, my response was a bit harsh, at least in tone. I used to support minimum wage and other “worker protection” policies, so I should be more patient with those who still do.
> In this situation, would you agree that the Chinese people are essentially slaves to their government and leaders?
I would say that in any country, to various extents. But I’m not sure how that is relevant to your post, which is suggesting that the workers are slaves to the corporations like Apple/Nike/etc.
Does Apple use force (directly or through government) over those workers? Not to my knowledge.
> my first hand experience tells me that situations like this are avoidable.
I’ve been trying to learn more economics (for the second time in my life) and I would recommend it. It is often the case that some effects are visible, while some others are harder to see or require imagination. The built bridge is seen, but the things that could been built (had that money not been taxed) are unseen. See “Economics in One Lesson” or Bastiat’s essay on the topic (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).
So you can avoid people working in sweatshops or getting paid a meager salary (the visible improvement), but it is often harder to see the other effects (people moving back to worse conditions).
The power of libertarianism is that it understands the moral evil and logical inconsistency of using aggression. I fail to see how this is less true in the short-term.
Also, economics is really useful to see how things can (and do) improve without relying on or waiting for hearts becoming more pure (although that’s laudable). Peaceful and cooperative relationships work, even if people don’t have the best intentions. The best intentions are optional.
Bladerunner says
And yet you didn’t edit your post. If it’s not “slavery,” then edit it. You keep saying the word “slavery” but I don’t think you know what it means. Do the workers get paid? Yes. Are they free to leave their jobs? Yes. That’s not slavery. That’s called working and getting paid. Take out the emotion of the issue. You want to have your cake (iPhone for $200) and eat it too (have American workers make it @$20/hour where it will cost nowhere near $200 anymore). This whole article is nothing but bleeding heart emotional drivel. Aren’t Chinese workers allowed to earn a living? I guess only at our standards.