Bitcoin Forum

Foxconn

Clients

Foxconn makes consumer electronics for a number of well-known companies, including:

    Apple Inc. (United States)
    Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
    Amazon.com (United States)
    Asus (Taiwan)
    ASRock (Taiwan)
    Intel (United States)
    Cisco (United States)
    Hewlett-Packard (United States)
    Dell (United States)
    Nintendo (Japan)
    Nokia (Finland)
    Microsoft (United States)
    MSI (Taiwan)
    Sony Ericsson (Japan/Sweden)
    Vizio (United States)

Controversies

Allegations of employee mistreatment

Allegations of employee mistreatment have been made on a number of occasions. News reports highlight the long working hours, discrimination of mainland Chinese workers by their Taiwanese co-workers,  and lack of working relationships at the company.

In 2006 the Daily Mail accused it of abusive employment practices. Although Foxconn was found to be compliant in the majority of areas when Apple audited the maker of its iPods and iPhones,  the audit did substantiate a few of the allegations.
[edit] Suicides
Main article: Foxconn suicides

Sun Danyong, a 25-year-old male, committed suicide in July 2009 after reporting the loss of an iPhone 4 prototype in his possession.

In reaction to a spate of worker suicides where fourteen died in 2010, a report by 20 Chinese universities described Foxconn factories as labour camps and detailed widespread worker abuse and illegal overtime. In response to the suicides, Foxconn installed suicide-prevention netting at some facilities, and it promised to offer substantially higher wages at its Shenzhen production bases.
[edit] Imprisoned Indian workers

In October 2010 over 300 employees of an Indian operation in the Special Economic Zone of Chennai were arrested and jailed by Indian authorities for taking part in a strike.

All but a dozen of the arrested were soon granted bail.[28]
[edit] LCD price fixing

In December 2010 Chimei Innolux, a maker of LCD screens in which Foxconn has 24% ownership,[29] was fined by the EU for price fixing.[30]
[edit] 2011 explosion
Main article: 2011 Chengdu Foxconn explosion incident

On 20 May 2011 an explosion and fire broke out at one of the factory in Chengdu. The incident affected the IPad 2 assembly line and caused deaths and injuries to numerous workers.
[edit] Sacred burial ground

About 200 to 300 years ago, an area where the current Shenzhen factory resides was the home of an estimated 4,000 Hakka families.[31] The land at the time was undeveloped. Peiziyuan (皮仔园) and Ghosthead lake (鬼头潭) is situated in the area.[31] Peiziyuan in particular was a burial ground of more than 1,000 babies.[31] This area continued to be a burial site well into the 1970s after the one-child policy was promoted.[31] Massive numbers of girls were killed in favor of boys, and baby corpses were collected at the site.

brought to you by http://wikiterms.net - I mine myself, but I keep an eye on where the hardware I buy is coming from. We the consumer, have the power to change the world IMHO.#

Source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies

So, how could we possibly ensure these people perfect working conditions?

Hire them ourselves.

But for what purpose?

If it's so bad, why don't these people quit? They obviously prefer those conditions over not having a job. What's your solution, to deny them the choice that is rightfully theirs and theirs alone to make? Do you somehow know what's better for them than they do?

Every time I see this BS about Foxconn, I am reminded of of this statistic:

Foxconn workers have a LOWER suicide rate than China's national per capita rate.

+1

Or point to that telecommunications company at France whose employees sucided a lot too. I guess social-democracy does not work as proven by France...  ::)

So someone walks up to you on the street.  They put a gun to your head and tell you to bend over so they can ass rape you or they're going to kill you.  I happen to be walking by and carrying myself.  I could cap the guy in the back of the head, but who am I to deny you a choice that's rightfully yours and yours alone to make?  Do I somehow know what's better for you than you do?  Of course not.  So I'll do nothing to assist you.  Enjoy your choice between death and a terrible situation.


OP, you're in Libertarian land.  Corporations, no matter how sinister, can do no wrong here.  Your efforts, however noble, are wasted here.

Whilst I completely agree that corporations (including but definitely not limited to Foxconn) do a lot wrong, surely if supporting murder is the ultimate measure of bad, then continuing to use the dollar/euro which has funded the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, Afghan and now Libyan civilians is a multitude of orders worse.

However you look at it, states have traditionally killed a lot more people than these big bad corporations. The alternative to Bitcoin/supporting murder in this instance is supporting mass murder.

Excellent point.  It sounds like you're in touch with reality enough to understand just how deep these problems go.  We're surrounded by exploitation and corruption.  The question is, what do we do about it?  Do we throw our hands up in the air and say we can't do anything or do we attempt to change it (or at least boycott it for our own moral satisfaction) whenever possible?

Well, I prefer to boycott the dollar than Bitcoin, but if anyone can make a list of blood-free (or best known blood-free) components we can use, I would probably tend towards using them. I will always support companies which provide good conditions for their workers through my power to do so on the market.

At the end of the day, one of the greatest weaknesses of the free market is said to be that it enables corruption, but one of its' greatest strengths is that we, the consumer, have the right and ability to end that corruption where we see it through peaceful and voluntary boycott.

Ah, but I was ninja edited...


Who killed those people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya?  You think the governments killed those people?  Who did the US government invade those countries in the name of and for?

http://www.southbaymobilization.org/calendar/images/2006/06.1013.IraqForSale_poster_color_500x350_50pct.jpg


So whose hands is that blood on?

Throughout history, who have governments killed in the name of?  Is not the killing always to make the rich richer and the poor poorer?  Governments in and of themselves have nothing to gain by killing.  It is only when the rich are the government (as in the feudal days) or when the government is an agent of the rich (as in present day) that the government has something to gain will all this killing.

Well that's the theory, at least.  What if there's no alternative?  How does the consumer stop corruption if there isn't a non-corrupt opinion to choose from?

Who do you buy your blood-free gasoline from?

I apologise, it wasn't supposed to be a ninja edit, it was supposed to be a clarification.

I don't think the US government dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima or Nagasaki in the name of big companies. As much of an issue as the military industrial complex is, it is not the primary reason why governments kill. The ultimate reason why governments have gone to war over the centuries is to expand their own influence and ideals.

Also, even if you were correct, if you tell me to kill somebody and I do it, I'm not innocent. A corrupt government working in the interests of multinational corporations is still a corrupt government. Multinational corporations do not declare their own wars.

There is definitely a marriage of convenience between corrupt corporations and corrupt governments, and it's nothing new (see the East India Trading Company), but the government is a complicit and required part of this agreement.


This is an issue of misinformation. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the general public either don't know or don't care enough to demand change. Somebody more cynical than myself might propose that this is not an accident, and that governments and corporations have tried to shut our eyes and stupidify us, successfully, I'll just say it's apathy.

I don't actually drive a car at the moment, so I don't buy it at all right now. ;)

Trolololol

That's a violation of my rights. I have the right to not be raped, robbed or physically assaulted. I don't have the right to a livable wage.

Tell that to the guy that's going to rape you. I'm sure he'll stop dead in his tracks.

Yes, he will, when I tell him with MY pistol. You're welcome to help me tell him, if you like.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I agree with all of that and none of it is inconsistent with my point: government is a tool, it is not the root of the problem.

If Government is a tool, then whose hands is it in?

Please, do enlighten us, what is the root of the problem?

I think this may be of use to you...

http://i54.tinypic.com/20koi1u.jpg

Have you not been reading the thread?  The rich control the government - i.e. corporations control the government.  This is nothing new.  It's an evolution of the feudal days during which the rich WERE the government.


So while you sit there and rail against the evils of government, stop for a second and consider who is actually benefiting from those actions.

Libertarians have this hilarious tendancy to talk about government like it is a sentient being or some outside, otherworldly force.  Government is as government does.  It is not inherently good or evil.  It does whatever those controlling it want it to do, and it benefits whoever those people want it to benefit.  It's just a tool.  It's not a being in and of itself, it doesn't have interests, opinions, or biases.

You can remove the tool, but that does not address the one using it.

OK, so your claim is that Corporations control the Government?

Just want to make sure I have your position right.

I will stipulate that 'government' being an organization of individuals, can not, as a whole, have 'interests, opinions, or biases'.

I have a weird issue with the asian countries culture:
- Japan - highly technological and prosper, people suicide a lot
- China - highly crowded and poor, people suicide a lot

And it's not the kind of suicide where you take a pill, or hang yourself, or get electrocuted, or you get "assisted suicided by the mafia", it's the kind of "let the bodies hit the floor, from 50m above".

Not really a claim, so much as it is a fact.

Most Asian cultures involve extreme pressure towards excellence, conformity, honor, and teamwork.  It's a very stressful existence, thus the high suicide rates.

OK, so your position is that Corporations are control of the Government.

Are you aware that Corporations are creations of the government, and would not exist without it?

Really?  That's interesting! 

So if we got rid of government then big business would just cease to exist?

Did I say big business?

*reads back a few posts*

Nope, I said 'Corporations'.

Ah, so you ARE playing the semantics game!  I don't really like this game, it distracts from the arguments are hand.  So I think I'll sit out and you can get back to me when you're done playing.

No, A corporation is a specific entity, With protections from the government from liability. Remove either government, or just those protections, and it suddenly becomes much easier to bring a wily businessman to task. I don't deny that business will continue without Government. In fact, I contend that it will thrive. I do, however contend that the liability protections that the government currently provides to corporations are the major cause of things like what the OP is whining about.

Getting back on topic from your irrelevant tangent...


The rich control the government.

But you said that Corporations control the government.

Which is it, Corporations, or 'The Rich'?

If it's the latter, that significantly reduces the subset of people you say are in charge of the government, since not every Monsanto employee is rich.

Actually, I've used them interchangably throughout this thread, because I don't need to play a semantics game to argue my points.  Let me break it down into first grade lingo that you might understand...


Rich people run shit, end of story.  Rich people control the corporations, so saying that corporations control government is the same as saying the rich control government, because the rich control the corporations.  A > B and B > C therefore A > C, it's as simple as that.

Can you hear me now?

'The government' is not a tool. The government is a group of individuals who may or may not be corrupt (I assume some are and some are not). 'Corporations' are legal fiction. They exist to distance liability from decision makers. They are creations of government and grant legal privelege which is incompatible with the libertarian worldview.

We're not pro-corporatism. I personally have far more issues to pick with corporate law (and corporate welfare) than I do to pick with government, but government still has its own issues.

Can you reconcile those two contradictory statements for me?

Now we're getting somewhere. You said before that corporations control government. NOW, you're saying that the rich people run the world. These are two totally separate concepts. And you know what? I agree totally with you. The richest people DO have the greatest amount of power.

What you fail to ask, is why?

If you've ever bothered, the answer you came up with is likely, "Because they're Rich."

While this is true, I don't think you see the mechanism by which they do this. Let me break it down for you.

Rich people start business, and incorporate them, under limited liability laws. These laws protect the rich people from the consequences of their corporation's actions.

To prevent other people from doing the same thing, they pay government officials to pass laws to stifle competition in their industry. (these payments are often called 'Campaign contributions')

Both of these actions require one thing: Government. Without the government, there would be no limited liability laws. There would be no barriers to competition. There would be nobody for the rich people to pay off to run things.

That's where your leap of illogic fails.  Watch:


Guns cause murder.


Bad people get angry, grab a gun, load the gun, find someone to kill, then fire the gun at that person and kill them.


Guns cause murder.  That process requires one thing: a gun.



See how that works?  That's attacking the tool instead of attacking the entity using the tool

I don't need to. By threatening me with violence I'm within my rights to respond in kind.

People cannot be a tool, there is nothing contradictory here. Tools are inanimate and have no free will, this isn't true of the individuals which make up government, or the individuals which make up corporations.

That's where your leap of illogic fails. Watch:

A gun is an object.

A Government is an organization of individuals.

The existence of a gun does not require violence.

The existence of a Government does require violence.

So, in your alternative universe.... government isn't a tool, but big business plays it like a fiddle to get what they want - so it is a tool used by big business to get what they want.

Makes perfect sense.

Keep the semantics coming.  ::)

Not just a big business but a giant forced monopoly.

That company has 0.92m employees. Put that in relation to the suicides.

Also this video on sweatshops etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8

I guess you could say because the Chinese are somewhat intelligent and kill fetuses that would eventually contribute to the downfall of their own society you could say that buying anything from wal-mart or similar corporation would be like aborting your neighbor's unborn child, forcefully, with a coat hanger.

We don't walk around the internet saying things such as this because in internet lands everything is nice. The electricity comes from the wall and the computers come from Asia. It's all happy sunshine in internet!

Actually China is closer to a polygamous meritocracy- and has been for thousands of years. Test taking ability is absolutely key to success, successful men are expected to have mistresses or second families and even now can frequency afford to flaunt the one child polices.

That being said, during the Cultural Revolution they killed off their best and brightest and certianly set things way back. People over a certain age in China can act a bit frighteningly stupid, not even because they are- but because they grew up in a time that letting on you had any independent thinking going on upstairs would get you send to a reeducation camp.

I've visited several factories in Bo'an, Dongguan etc- most common complaint is they aren't given more hours. People should not be forced to work, but to impose your cultures work habits on a comparatively industrious people is silly. Telling Chinese we can't work crazy hours is like telling us we can't eat rice.

Mainland Chinese are, by and large atheist. Our bodies are not a temple, and suicide does not violate our Judeo-Christian value system.

Thank you. OP, all others wishing to force people to live 'better lives', You can all now shut up. Forever.







A man can dream, right?

+0.01 ;)

"So in your alternate universe.... mafia isn't a tool, but small businesses use it to destroy competitors - so it is a tool used by small businesses to what what they want.

Makes perfect sense.

Keep the semantics coming. ::)"

Government is not inanimate, it is a group of individuals, it cannot be a tool. The mafia is not inanimate, it is a group of individuals, it cannot be a tool. I can claim a gun is actually a lollipop too and then cry "stop playing semantics" when you attempt to correct me, but it doesn't make me right.

QED