Under intense public pressure, Apple has joined the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and subsequently opened its suppliers to for factory inspections. After the month-long investigation at Foxconn in Shenzhen and Chengdu, the FLA released the report on Thursday. In the report, FLA pointed out several pressing issues at Foxconn, including, working hours, health and safety, industrial relations, compensation and interns. Foxconn is notorious for its harsh management methods, which is one of the factors triggered the spate of suicides in the company in 2010. Yet, the problem of hash management and work pressure has been tactfully omitted in the report. And the gross violation of forced internship was not addressed at all.

Up to 61% workers expressed work stress

In the appendix of the FLA report, 61.3% of respondents told the researchers that they often suffered from work pressure. And only 26.4% of interviewees disagreed they had work pressure. Over the past 2 years, many Foxconn workers confided in SACOM that they felt like machines and were continually insulted by management. Workers reported that they were sometimes required to write confession letters and copy quotes from the Foxconn CEO as punishment. Workers at the new Foxconn factory in Chengdu were even forced to undergo “military training,”[1] Disappointedly, the FLA has not exposed inhumane treatment at Foxconn in the report.

43% workers experienced or witnessed accidents

Apple and Foxconn have been denying negligence in occupational health and safety. The FLA report reveals systemic violations of work safety at Foxconn as over 40% of respondents experienced or witnessed accidents in the factories. Besides accidents, SACOM is disturbed by the threat of occupational diseases on the production lines of Foxconn. Throughout SACOM’s research in the past 2 years, overwhelming majority of the interviewees did not know what kind of chemicals that they were using. There should not be any tolerance in work hazards on the shop floor.

Play down the issue of forced internship

Vocational school students majoring in subjects such as tourism, language and journalism often end up with “internships” at Foxconn for three to twelve months. The student interns are used as flexible labour at Foxconn in the peak season. Sometimes, punishment will be imposed if the students refused the irrelevant internship at Foxconn. The FLA described the problem of abusive use of student workers as “controversial”. Yet, it has never addressed the issue of forced and bogus internship. Meanwhile, it has stressed that Foxconn has been providing protection for the student interns. And in the FLA’s recommendation, it has not urged Foxconn to scrap the bogus internship. In this way, it allows Foxconn to continue to exploit the student workers.

Decrease overtime but increase production target

A few workers complained that their overall wage has not significantly increased even with the pay rise. Recently, Foxconn has decreased the overtime work which is a positive move. However, the basic salary is not high enough for workers to meet their basic needs. Even worse, the workers have to work faster to meet the new production target which also intensifies work pressure.

High turnover rate at Foxconn

Turnover rate is a key indicator of job satisfaction. The FLA report stated that one of the causes of excessive overtime is the high turnover rate at Foxconn. Nevertheless, the FLA has not revealed the figure on the turnover rate. In 2010, among 420,000 workers in Shenzhen, only 20,000 have seniority of 5 years. About half of the workforce, 220,000 workers, has only joined Foxconn for less than 6 months. The turnover rate is about 35% per year, according to the Shenzhen Federation of Trade Unions.[2] The turnover rate is expected to be lower compares to the past 2 years, but it is still a concern raised by the FLA. Given that the turnover rate at Foxconn is high, SACOM considers it is because of the hardships in the factories which have not been addressed by the FLA report.

Democratic elections for unions

The FLA admitted that the existing unions at Foxconn are dominated by the management. It is evident that the unions do not aim to defend the interest of the workers but the image of the company. SACOM sincerely hopes that Apple and Foxconn can commit to facilitate democratic elections in the trade unions which will enable workers to monitor the working conditions by themselves. In the report, no specific timetable is given on the reform of the union. The remedial action should be launched as soon as possible.

Identifying problems at Foxconn and other Apple suppliers is only the first step. The real test of ethical labour practice is the implementation of the remedial actions. SACOM strongly demands the workers and the public should have the right to know the remedial actions. Furthermore, there should be effective channels for workers to report the grievances to Apple directly. Therefore, the reform of union should be carried out without delay.

Mr. Tim Cook

CEO, Apple

1 Infinite Loop

Cupertino, CA 95014

USA

Dear Mr. Cook,

We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations and labour unions, demand that Apple ensure decent working conditions at all its suppliers.

When confronted with escalating criticism of Apple’s unethical labour practices, you responded, “We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain. Any accident is deeply troubling, and any issue with working conditions is cause for concern.” But promises without action are merely empty rhetoric. In fact, none of the workers whom Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) interviewed reported feeling that Apple cares about them. In contrast, they describe their daily routine as work, eat and sleep. They described themselves as machines that repeated the same monotonous motion for thousands times a day. Apple’s Code of Conduct clearly states, “Apple suppliers must uphold the human rights of workers, to treat them with dignity and respect as understood by the international community.” But the investigative reports of SACOM reveal that Apple suppliers are not complying with this Code. In 2010-2011, SACOM issued five research reports[1] that documented labour rights violations at Apple suppliers in China, including Foxconn and Wintek. These violations are systemic problems, not isolated or unrelated incidents. We are frustrated with Apple’s continued failure to implement institutional reforms to protect the rights of workers in its supply chain.

Poverty Wages

The size of Apple’s bank account demonstrates the enormous greed and desire for profit of Apple and its executive. On 19 March 2012, Apple announced that it would finally share some of its $100 billion in cash reserves with shareholders. It is regrettable that Apple did not show any intention to share the revenue with its production workers whose labour helped the company become one of the most profitable corporations in the world.

In early 2012, Bloomberg reported that Apple’s profit margin was as high as 30%, while the profit margin of Foxconn, its main supplier, was a mere 1.5%.[2] Yet, the wages at Apple’s suppliers are so low that the only way for workers to feed their families is through overtime, often well in excess of the legal maximum. In 2011, the monthly basic salary of the workers who produced the iPhones and iPads in China was as low as CNY 850 (USD 134) and CNY 950 (USD 150), respectively. Although Foxconn subsequently implemented a minor wage increase, the company also eliminated subsidies for workers’ food and housing, virtually cancelling any impact of the wage increase.

Excessive and Forced Overtime

Apple conceded in its Supplier Responsibility 2012 Progress Report that 62% of suppliers failed to meet the requirements for working hours. Given that Apple is using a much lower standard – Apple limits overtime to 86 hours per month, even though the legal maximum for overtime in China 36 hours per month – the real situation is much worse.

In 2011, a typical work shift for Foxconn workers was 10 hours per day, 6-7 days a week in the peak season. Therefore, overtime work could be as high as 100 hours per month, almost 3 times the legal standard. Sometimes, workers must skip their second meal break in order to reach the factory’s production target. Workers reported that overtime work is mandatory and that if they fail to show up for one of the overtime shifts without the permission of the supervisor, it is considered a work stoppage. As punishment, the worker will not be given any overtime work for the following month. The implication of this is that the worker will only be able to earn the base salary, which is not enough for basic survival.

In the lead-up to the new iPad release in March 2012, some migrant Foxconn workers in Shenzhen complained that they were not able to go back to their hometown for the Chinese New Year holiday – often their only opportunity each year to visit family in their home villages. They were only permitted five days of vacation, barely enough for travel time alone, making it impossible to go home to see their families.

In addition, the majority of the worker must stand for the duration of their shift, and grow weary from the long hours. Some workers reported that they feel so exhausted at the end of their shifts that they don’t even have the energy to talk or interact with their coworkers.

Use of Involuntary Labour

Owing to harsh management practices, the turnover rate at Foxconn is extremely high. To maintain the stability of the workforce and to meet production demands during the peak season, Foxconn hires, with the support of the local governments, tens of thousands of student workers.

Vocational school students majoring in subjects such as tourism, language and journalism often end up with “internships” at Foxconn for three to twelve months. According to the reports in China Daily, an English newspaper published in China, the Henan government recruited 100,000 students to work at Foxconn as “interns” in 2010.[3] This year, the government intends to recruit 100,000 new workers for Foxconn and has contacted 100 vocational schools in order to do so.[4] The so-called “internship” is a sham as it has no relevance to the students’ academic studies. Furthermore, this program is not voluntary. Foxconn requests school teachers to be stationed at the factory compound to monitor students’ attendance. Some students report that if they refuse the “internship” at Foxconn, they will be forced to drop out of school.[5] It is evident that this use of student workers is a form of involuntary labour, which is supposedly prohibited by Apple. Disappointingly, in Apple’s Supplier Responsibility Report, the use of student workers is not even mentioned.

Exposure to Hazardous Conditions

In 2009, nearly 140 workers at the Wintek factory in China were poisoned by n-hexane, a chemical used for cleaning the touchscreens of iPhones. Some of the victims were hospitalized for more than nine months due to nerve damage. When these individuals were discharged from the hospitals, they still suffered from weakness in their limbs. Apple eventually acknowledged the case in early 2011 in its Supplier Responsibility Report but ignored the demands of the victims to resolve the situation. The Wintek case reveals the threat of occupational injury that workers at Apple suppliers face. Furthermore, when SACOM conducted offsite interviews with Foxconn workers, nearly all the respondents had no knowledge of the types of chemicals they were using or what the potential harm to them might be. Some workers complained of skin allergies or headaches as a result of chemical exposure, but their only options were to endure the illness or resign.

Besides occupational illness, industrial injuries at Apple suppliers are equally appalling. In May 2011, a deadly explosion occurred in the polishing department at Foxconn’s plant in Chengdu, killing four workers and injuring 18. Seven months later, another blast occurred at another Apple supplier, Riteng Computer Accessory in Shanghai. 59 workers were injured and several suffered facial disfigurement and broken bones as a result. Both explosions were triggered by the excessive build-up of combustible aluminium dust in the air on the shop floor. The explosion at Foxconn could have been prevented, as SACOM had publicly reported on the problem of aluminium dust two weeks before the tragedy. Yet, Apple ignored SACOM’s warning. Tragically, Apple refused to take action following the first explosion, resulting in the accumulation of aluminium dust and subsequent explosion in Riteng.

Although Apple claims, “Suppliers must be committed to creating safe working conditions and a healthy work environment for all of their workers,” the reality is that workers at Apple suppliers are constantly exposed to unsafe working environments, at risk of being poisoned or injured due to Apple’s negligence in ensuring compliance with its own standards. Outrageously, Apple has never apologized to the victims for these gross labour rights violations nor has the company offered appropriate compensation to the workers for its failure to enforce basic safety standards.

Harsh Management Tactics

In 2010, at least 18 Foxconn workers attempted to commit suicide — 14 of them died. In May 2010 alone, there were seven suicide attempts at Foxconn’s factories in Shenzhen. Reports of these attempts led to public questions about the motivations for these workers to want to end their lives. Many Foxconn workers shared that they felt like machines and were continually insulted by management. Workers reported that they were sometimes required to write confession letters and to copy quotes from the CEO, Terry Gou as punishment. Workers at the new Foxconn factory in Chengdu were forced to undergo “military training,”[6] which they believed was a means to indoctrinate them into a system of absolute obedience. Some supervisors yelled at the new workers, “If you cannot endure this little hardship, then you can leave Foxconn immediately!” Although Apple’s Code of Conduct stresses that workers should be treated with respect and dignity, this has not been the experience of employees at Foxconn’s factories.

Company-Controlled Unions

In the aftermath of the suicides, Foxconn created a hotline and counseling service to assist workers who had thoughts of harming themselves or were suffering from mental anguish as a result of the harsh working conditions. Yet this is not a meaningful substitute for an independent union that could resolve labour disputes. Although there is an official trade union at Foxconn, most of the workers do not know about it. Those who have heard about the union do not trust it, because they perceive that the union serves the company rather than the workers. None of the workers know how the union was formed or how its representatives are selected. Apple states that it respects freedom of association, but the failure to ensure that the formation of unions at its suppliers is done in an independent and democratic manner is a major obstacle to freedom of association. If Apple is sincere in its professed respect for freedom of association, it must facilitate democratic elections in formation of unions at its suppliers. A democratic union is a prerequisite of collective bargaining which is a fundamental right recognized by the International Labour Organization. Without collectively bargaining, workers will never be able to negotiate with management for decent working conditions. More importantly, any factory inspection is not sustainable without a real union at the factory to defend labour rights.

We are greatly concerned about the inhumane working conditions at Apple suppliers. With all its success in the global marketplace, Apple undoubtedly has ability to rectify these problems. It is simply a matter of commitment. We strongly demand that Apple:

1. Provide a living wage for all workers so they do not have to work excessive overtime hours in order to support themselves and their families;

2. End the use of involuntary labour that occurs through the student worker intern program;

3. Conduct labour rights training for workers, including training on occupational health and safety;

4. Facilitate the formation of a genuine trade union through democratic election;

5. Compensate victims of non-compliance with the Apple code of conduct.

We look forward to a public statement by Apple in response to our demands as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Alliance of Associations Polish Green Network, Poland

Alliance of Progressive Labor, Philippines

Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong

Brandworkers International, United States of America

Bread for All, Switzerland

CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities, United States of America

Center for Workers Education, New Delhi, India

Change to Win, United States of America

China Labor Watch, United States of America

China Labour Bulletin, Hong Kong

China Study Group, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States of America

Chinese Progressive Association, San Francisco, United States of America

Christliche Initiative Romero, Germany

Clean Clothes Campaign

Committee for Asian Women

Computer Scientists for Peace and Social Responsibility ( FIfF e.V.), Germany

Consumers’ Association of Penang, Malaysia

Democratic Socialists of America, United States of America

Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research, Inc., Philippines

FAIR, Italy

FNV, The Netherlands

Freedom Socialist Party, United States of America

Globalization Monitor, Hong Kong

GoodElectronics Network

Hesperian Health Guides, United States of America

Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, Hong Kong

INKOTA-netzwerk e.V., Germany

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United States of America

International Metalworkers’ Federation

Labour Action China, Hong Kong

makeITfair

Maquila Solidarity Network, Canada

Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network, United States of America

National Coalition for the Protection of Workers’ Rights-Southern Tagalog, Philippines

National Free Trade Union, Sri Lanka

National Union Confederation, Indonesia

Occupational and Environmental Health Network, India

People’s Health Movement

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, United States of America

Serve the People Association, Taiwan

Students Against Sweatshops at University of Texas, United States of America

Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour, Hong Kong

Südwind Agentur, Austria

SumOfUs, United States of America

Thai Labour Campaign, Thailand

United Food Commercial Workers, British Columbia, Canada

United Students Against Sweatshops, United States of America

War on Want, United Kingdom

Women Workers Lead

Workers Assistance Center, Inc., Philippines

Youth Labour Union 95, Taiwan

###

Contact person

Chan Sze Wan, Debby

Project Officer

Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM)

Tel: (852) 23925464

Email: debby@sacom.hk

Joint statement by International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF), International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), GoodElectronics, MakeITFair, Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM), and SumOfUs.

By joining the Fair Labor Association, Apple has embarked on its latest program of auditing its suppliers, ostensibly to investigate and remedy the appalling abuses in its supply chain that have been well documented and widely reported. While Apple claims that it is finally taking the issue seriously, its top-down auditing approach can never be a long-term solution to the systematic violations of labour rights that are occurring every day in the manufacture of electronic products. Indeed, Apple promised in 2006 that auditing would protect the rights of workers in its global supply chain, with results that are all too apparent.

The FLA will likely publish next week some of the results of its audits at Foxconn and the organization will no doubt report that labor rights violations are taking place at these factories. Since violations at Foxconn have been well documented by independent investigators, and in many cases admitted by Apple itself, the FLA could hardly claim that all is well. We also have no doubt that the FLA’s report will be coupled with another round of promises from Apple and Foxconn that they will finally clean up their act. The question, however, is not whether there are severe labor rights problems in Apple’s supply chain. This has been obvious for years. And the question is not whether Apple will promise, again, to fix these problems. They surely will. The question is whether anything will actually change.

Because once the audits are over and FLA has gone home, the workers in the factories will again be left to deal, as best they can, with the brutal labour conditions that are imposed on them. Any hope that conditions for workers will improve rests not on the work of auditors, but on the ability of workers themselves to monitor whether their labour rights are being respected and to push for remedies when they are not.

If Apple is genuinely concerned about improving the labour rights of workers that manufacture its products, it must ensure that they can negotiate with their employer to bring lasting change to the way that work is performed and compensated. For the Foxconn workers this means allowing workers to conduct elections to democratically select their own representatives in the workplace who can negotiate with management on the pay and conditions of the workforce. Such elections must be conducted by the workers without interference from management and all managers must be prohibited from taking up union positions. In order for the elected worker representatives to be able to meet management on an equal footing to negotiate on pay and working conditions, they will need support in terms of skills and knowledge. Apple must therefore insist that union representatives be allowed to access training and capacity building that is independent of management, so that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to advocate on behalf of the workers they represent.

Collective bargaining is the mechanism that will enable workers to negotiate with management on appropriate levels of pay and decent working conditions and is one of the fundamental labour rights recognized by the ILO. It is especially critical to addressing health and safety problems. Apple and Foxconn must immediately establish a schedule of negotiations which will lead to a collective agreement that covers all aspects of work including wages and working hours, overtime, health and safety, etc. A collective agreement would help reduce the vast disparity between workers’ pay and the massive profits generated by both Foxconn and Apple, which has announced that it has $45 billion to spend on buying back its own shares rather than on improving pay and conditions for the workers that make its products.

There is no question that giving workers a real say in the way that their work is organized and remunerated will challenge the repressive management practices for which Foxconn is notorious. Foxconn must learn to work together with its employees, through their democratically elected representatives, to find solutions together that reconcile the demands of production with recognition of workers’ rights. This will mean giving access to information on wages, working hours, production schedules and financial information that enable worker representatives to take an equal seat at the table and work with management to resolve the issues. It will also mean that Apple must roll up its sleeves and get involved directly in the bargaining process, so that its demands on unit prices and production deadlines do not undermine agreements on pay and working conditions.

Bargaining should take place above a floor of decent minimum standards. This must include an immediate end to illegal overtime hours, coupled with wage increase to ensure that every worker in Apple’s supply chain is paid a genuine living wage that covers basic needs for a family for a statutory work week (40 hours in China). Given Apple’s gargantuan profits and mountainous horde of cash, there is no financial, practical or moral excuse for any worker making Apple products to go another day without being paid a living wage for a normal workweek.

Finally, it is clear that organizations like ours will need to continue to scrutinize conditions in Apple’s supply chain for the foreseeable future, to hold the company accountable and remedy any abuses. For this to be possible, Apple must be more forthcoming about the identity of its suppliers, not just releasing the company names, but the countries and specific factories in which all the components that go into its products are made.

Contact persons:

Jenny Holdcroft, International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF)

E: jholdcroft@imfmetal.org T: +41 (0)79 616 0103

Mathieu Debroux, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

E: Mathieu.Debroux@ituc-csi.org T: +32 2 224 0204 or +32 476 62 10 18

Chan Sze Wan Debby, Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM)

E: debby@sacom.hk T: +852 23925464

Irene Schipper, GoodElectronics and MakeITFair

E: i.schipper@somo.nl T: + 31 6 30390001

Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, SumOfUs

E: taren.sk@gmail.com T: +1 202 510 0065

The PDF version of the joint statement is available here.

On 16 March 2012, the NPR radio programme This American Life announced that spoken word performer Mike Daisey’s The Agony and the Estasy of Steve Jobs monologue was partially fabricated. The programme retracted the episode concerned immediately. Sfoon after the announcement, Foxconn’s spokesperson Louis Woo responded that “I am happy that the truth prevails, I am glad that Mike Daisey’s lies were exposed.” Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) is disturbed by Foxconn’s comments as if it is innocent. Since 2008 SACOM has been monitoring the working conditions at Apple suppliers in China, including at Foxconn and Wintek. During 2010 and 2011, we issued five investigative reports on Apple’s unethical labour practices in four different cities.[1] From our research, the credibility of both Foxconn and Apple is in doubt. Even worse, Foxconn has used money to buy the silence of its victims and cover up scandals. The comment from Foxconn about someone else telling “lies” is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Misrepresenting employees’ protest as a personal conflict

Unrest erupted at Foxconn in Chengdu on 6 January 2011 due to underpayment of wages. Workers in the Southwest Dormitory threw bottles and rubbish from dormitory rooms to show their discontent. Some 200 police quickly went to the dormitory and suppressed the protest. About 20 workers were arrested in the incident. Foxconn told a different story to the media. The company claimed there was a personal clash between workers, that the incident was not work-related but triggered by personal disputes between two rival social groups in the campus.[4] How ironic that Foxconn intentionally covers up the negative news in the factories and deceives both workers and the public and then exclaims “the truth prevails”!

Buying the silence of victims and their families

In the past two years, SACOM has come to know how Foxconn uses money to cover up scandals in its factories. Victims’ families have disclosed to SACOM that Foxconn conditioned its compensation payments to them on their silence about their sons’ and daughters’ cases. The cases range from death from exhaustion to injury after a suicide attempt. According to the victims, Foxconn will only pay the compensation it owes if the family promises not to reveal the case to the public. Unfortunately, to respect the will of the families and the surviving victims who are bound by these confidentiality agreements, SACOM cannot disclose the details.

Apple claims it cares about workers, but refuses to compensate victims

Apple adopts the same strategy of lying to the public and pretending to be socially responsible. In response to the reports of unethical labour practices at its suppliers in China, CEO Tim Cook has stated in an email “[w]e care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain. Any accident is deeply troubling, and any issue with working conditions is cause for concern.” Yet Apple refuses to have a dialogue with the victims who have suffered from gross labour violations at its suppliers. Further, it will not compensate the workers who have been harmed by its failure to comply with its own code of conduct.

In 2009, at least 137 Wintek workers were poisoned by n-hexane while cleaning iPhone touchscreens. In contrast to Apple’s statement that they have all been treated successfully, many workers still suffer from weak limbs and other health problems after nine-month hospitalizations. The victims sent three letters to Apple last year, but the company did not answer them at all. Likewise, after the explosion at the iPad case manufacturer Riteng in Shanghai in last December, which injured 59 workers, Apple has not sent anyone to visit the victims. The young workers are in despair because their faces were disfigured due to the fire from the blast. Some of them suffer from bones so severely shattered that they may be permanently disabled. Three months have passed, but the victims have not received any compensation.[5]

In addition, none of the workers whom SACOM has interviewed feels that Apple cares. While Apple hypocritically expressed that the company was deeply saddened by the tragedy, it has never apologized or offered compensation to the workers for its negligence in complying with work safety rules. Apple is fooling the public by claiming that it has turned over a new leaf, but in fact it remains the same.

Foxconn, from SACOM’s perspective, is capitalizing on Mike Daisey’s case. In the past two years, there are lots of reports from labour groups and media on deplorable working conditions at Apple suppliers. Foxconn and Apple are not clean and innocent. Foxconn and Apple know about the labour abuses in the factories. They must launch a remedial action plan and announce it to the workers. More importantly, Apple and Foxconn should facilitate democratic elections at the unions in their production facilities. When they can organize trade unions, workers can monitor working conditions themselves and strive for sustainable improvement in the factories.

Today, SACOM issued a public letter to Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, with the endorsement of 200 university teachers and students from 96 universities in 19 countries. This endorsement demands Apple to end the use of student workers and rectify blatant labour rights abuses in its supply chain. When confronted with escalating criticism of Apple’s unethical labour practices, Tim Cook responded, “We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain. Any accident is deeply troubling, and any issue with working conditions is cause for concern.” However, promises without action are merely empty rhetoric. Furthermore, Apple attempts to whitewash its unethical labour practice through purchasing membership from the Fair Labour Association to “probe” the problems at its suppliers. Apple has known about the labour rights abuses in its supply chain for years, however it has not addressed these abuses. Given this, Apple should act without hesitation to remedy labour rights violations.

In 2010-2011, SACOM has investigated a number of Apple’s suppliers, including Foxconn, in China and found that workers always have to work incessantly in factories, day and night to meet production demands. Many of them are student workers, only 16-18 years old. These students should be studying, but rather they now work 10 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, taking on night shifts for months at a time, equivalent to that of adult workers. Many of these student workers report that after repeating the same motion thousands of times a day, they feel like machines, and are treated as such. Any mistake, or working slowly, leads to reprimand or punishment. Their lives consist only of waking up, working, eating, and sleeping. They have no social life whatsoever. Sometimes, such exhausting conditions rendering these students depressed and unsociable. Moreover, the 16 to 18 year old students endure hazardous working environments without proper protective equipment. When SACOM conducted offsite interviews with Foxconn workers, nearly all the respondents had no knowledge of what kind of chemical they were using or what the potential harm to them might be. The students are de facto workers on the production lines. And the so-called “internship” is a sham as it has no relevance to the students’ studies. SACOM always find that students who major in subjects such as pharmacy, tourism, and language end up working as intern at Foxconn. Some students even complain that if they refuse the “internship” at Foxconn, they will be forced to drop out of school. This is a form of involuntary labour, which is approved by Apple in producing its products.

The unethical use of student workers is a consequence of the deplorable conditions at Foxconn. Many young workers have high aspirations when they arrive at Foxconn but are soon disappointed by the inhumane working conditions in the factory. As a result, the turnover rate in the factory is high. To counter this problem, the factory uses student workers to maintain the stability of the workforce, especially during the peak season.

There is neither a genuine trade union nor any effective communication channel at Foxocnn to handle labour disputes. A worker who produces the iPhone cases reports, “I have never seen an iPhone. Not to mention having a chance to use one. I’m not proud of producing iPhones at all. All I want to tell the Apple CEO is not to exploit the workers anymore.” The workers at Foxconn have no means to express their grievances to Tim Cook. Therefore, SACOM and the university students and teachers across the world have to speak up for the workers.

Apple undoubtedly has ability to rectify these problems. It is simply a matter of commitment. SACOM and the signatories strongly demand that Apple:

1. end the use of student workers;

2. provide a living wage for all the workers so they do not have to work excessive overtime hours;

3. conduct labour rights training for workers, including training on occupational health and safety;

4. facilitate the formation of a genuine trade union through democratic election; and

5. compensate the victims if there is non-compliance with the Apple code of conduct.

Although Apple is infamous for ignoring public criticism on labour rights abuses, we repeatedly call upon Apple to respond to the above demands by 30 March 2012.

Hong Kong, 20 February 2012

On 18 February, Foxconn Technology Group announced a pay rise for the production workers in China. The new basic wage at CNY 1800 only applies to the workers in Shenzhen. In inland provinces, where two-third productions workers are based, basic salary remains meager. Given that the inflation in China is high, Foxconn is just following the trend of wage increase in the electronics industry in China.

Pay rise is a trend in Guangdong Province

According to the Shenzhen research team of the National Bureau of Statistics, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food in January 2012 rose 10% over the last year, of which price for pork increased by 30%.[1] Apparently, the low-income migrant workers are disproportionately affected by the inflation. As a result, there is a strong demand from workers to increase the basic salary. Moreover, most of the migrant workers can only visit their family once a year during the Chinese New Year. In the past few years, there are more job opportunities in the inland provinces, more workers prefer to seek jobs in their home provinces. The enterprises in coastal area worry about the shortage of labour. Therefore, many companies tend to increase the basic salary to attract workers. As such, Foxconn is not the only enterprise which raises the basic salary of workers. Other electronics factories, like Huawei is also paying CNY 1800 a month for new workers. In Dongguan, many electronics factories like Flextronics and Wintek are paying CNY 1400 a month to new workers. The amount is about 27% higher than the minimum wage. In other words, Foxconn increases the salary is not out of benevolence, but the needs to maintain stability of the workforce.

Wages in most of the Foxconn plants remain low

Foxconn has over 1.2 million workers in China. The workforce in Shenzhen is estimated at 400,000. Workers in inland province receive a much lower salary. For example, Foxconn workers in Chengdu and Zhengzhou who produce iPads and iPhones, their basic salary is CNY 1350-1550 per month. After deducting CNY 110-150 for the dormitory and about CNY 300 for food per month, the disposable income remains meager.

Wages of Foxconn workers in Shenzhen, Chengdu and Zhengzhou (in CNY):

Since Apple has bought a membership from the Fair Labour Association, it seems that Apple becomes transparent and socially responsible. Apple is the world’s most valuable brand. It can definitely afford a living wage for the workers. Without raising unit price, workers still have to toil long hours in the production lines to earn a living from the overtime premiums. Yet, the FLA will not pressure its members to raise the unit price to provide a living wage for the workers. To fight for a living wage, workers should have the right to form union by democratic elections. At the same time, consumers should keep up the pressure on Apple.

Owing to escalating pressure on Apple from consumers, computer giant Apple Inc. recently purchased a membership in the Fair Labour Association (FLA). The group began factory inspections at Apple suppliers last week. After one week of research, on 15 February, the president of the FLA, Auret van Heerden, praised the working conditions at Foxconn as “better than average”. He suggested that the recent rash of worker suicides at Foxconn could be attributed to “boredom and alienation,” which are not considered labour rights violations. Today, the FLA contradicts its previous statement and announces that “tons of issues” are uncovered at Foxcon but doesn’t give any details. Both these statements make SACOM question the FLA’s ability to carry out a serious independent investigation. The FLA seems to be trumpeting the positive aspects of Foxconn but putting its labour rights abuses in undertones.

Since 2008, Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) has been monitoring the working conditions at Foxconn. And SACOM has found systematic labour rights violations in the company, including involuntary labour, negligence in work safety and excessive overtime. Disappointingly, FLA has avoided these problems. The recent statements from the FLA demonstrate that its audits represent merely a cosmetic effort to cover up Apple’s unethical labour practices, rather than a real commitment to decent working conditions.

Problems at Apple suppliers are well-acknowledged

In fact, Apple does not need to join the FLA to uncover the problems at its suppliers. According to Apple’s latest supplier responsibility report, the company conducted 229 audits throughout its supply chain last year, before joining the FLA. Foxconn workers in Chengdu have confirmed to SACOM that Apple representatives always come to the production lines. It is evident that Apple has known about the labour rights abuses at its suppliers, for years, but did not care about them. At this point, to rectify the labour rights abuses, the questions Apple should be asking are not “do we have labour violations?” but “when and how are we going to fix the unethical labour practices?”

SACOM has been tracking the working conditions at Foxconn and has repeatedly demanded Apple to rectify the following problems:

- Use of involuntary labour: To maintain the stability of the workforce and to meet production demands during the peak season, Foxconn hires tens of thousands student “interns”. The so-called “internship” is bogus as it has no relevance to the students’ studies. If students refuse to work at Foxconn, they are threatened with not being permitted to graduate from school. The use of student workers is definitely a form of involuntary labour.

- Extremely hazardous environment: In May 2011, a deadly explosion occurred in the polishing department of Foxconn’s Chengdu factory. Four workers died and 18 were injured. The explosion was triggered by combustible aluminium dust, a hazard that can be averted with an adequate ventilation system. Apple did not disclose the cause of the explosion or the number of causalities until January 2012. The aluminium dust was a long-standing problem in the department, but Apple claims to have become aware of it only after the tragedy. Of the Foxconn workers who have been interviewed by SACOM in the past 2 years, none has known the names of the chemicals they used, nor do they know the ingredients or the potential harms the chemicals can cause. Workers’ only choices when they suffer from skin allergies, difficulty breathing, or other symptoms of occupational diseases are to resign or to live with the problems.

- Excessive overtime: The basic salary at Foxconn is far below the living wage. Workers need to do overtime in order to earn enough to live on. However, overtime work is not entirely voluntary, especially during the peak season. Without permission from supervisors, not working the overtime shift is regarded as a work stoppage and arbitrary punishments are imposed.

Foxconn has prepared for the audits

FLA stated that Foxconn was cooperating fully with the audit, Foxconn workers in Zhengzhou, who produced iPhones told the opposite. Underage workers, 16-17 years old, who used to work from 8am to 8pm a day, are not assigned any overtime work due to the FLA audit. Moreover, Foxconn workers have experienced factory inspections for years. They do not have confidence in these inspections because they have observed no significant changes. The FLA, instead of showing that it is interested in doing better than past inspectors and making real improvements, is already making unwarranted statements that put its credibility in question. As such, workers believe the FLA audits are no different from the previous ones.

SACOM has never trusted that factory inspections alone can improve working conditions. Apple and FLA should not divert public attention with superficial audits, but instead address the issues of abuse of student workers, poor work safety, and excessive overtime immediately and carry out a remedial action plan. More importantly, to ensure decent working conditions at Apple suppliers, a genuine workers representative system is indispensable. The inclusion of workers in the monitoring of conditions and mediation of disputes is the greatest safeguard for lasting change. Apple and FLA should facilitate democratic elections at Foxconn’s trade unions, in accordance with the Chinese Trade Union Law, without delay.

The pdf version of the statement is available here.

[lang_en]

[Petition] Students & Scholars Demand Tim Cook Stop Using Student Workers and Ensure Decent Working Conditions at Apple Suppliers!

When Apple fans become excited by the launch of new Apple products, workers have to toil in the factories day and night to finish production targets because of the influx of orders. Many of them are student workers, 16-18 years old. These students are supposed to be studying in school, but instead they now work 10 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, even taking on night shifts for months at a time like the adult workers. Many student workers report that after repeating the same motion thousands of times a day, they feel like machines. Any mistake, or working slowly, leads to reprimand or punishment. Their lives consist only of waking up, going to work, eating, and sleeping. They have no social life whatsoever. Sometimes, these student workers become so exhausted and depressed that they don’t even want to talk to others. Even worse, they endure hazardous working environments without proper protective equipment. Apple allows their suppliers to hire student workers as “interns.” In reality, students from vocational schools are forced to work at Apple suppliers. This is a form of involuntary labour, which is approved by Apple to produce its products.

The unethical use of student workers is actually a consequence of the deplorable conditions at Foxconn. Many young workers have high aspirations when they arrive at Foxconn but are soon disappointed by the inhumane working conditions in the factory. As a result, the turnover rate in the factory is high. To counter this problem, the factory uses student workers to maintain the stability of the workforce, especially during the peak season.

There is neither a genuine trade union nor any effective communication channel at Foxocnn to handle labour disputes. One worker who produces the iPhone case reports, “I’ve never seen an iPhone. Not to mention having a chance to use one. I’m not proud of producing iPhones at all. All I want to tell the Apple CEO is not to exploit the workers anymore.” The workers at Foxconn have no means to express their grievances to Tim Cook. But we can. Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) calls on students and scholars across the world to sign the petition for decent working conditions at Apple suppliers.

Please sign the petition if you support the cause to demand Apple to:

1. end the use of student workers;

2. provide a living wage for all the workers so they do not have to work excessive overtime hours;

3. conduct labour rights training for workers, including training on occupational health and safety;

4. facilitate the formation of a genuine trade union through democratic election; and

5. compensate the victims if there is non-compliance with the Apple code of conduct.

Full text of the open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook is available here.

Thank you for your support!

=============================================

Signatory (as of 29 February 2012)

Adam Zamora, Bowling Green State University (OH) - USA

Agnes Ku, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology – Hong Kong

Akio Kawamura, Kwansei Gakuin University – Japan

Alan McGaughey, Carnegie Mellon University - USA

Alvin Yiu-Cheong So, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology – Hong Kong

Amanda Bell, Columbia University in the City of New York – USA

Andrew O’Hara, Glasgow Caledonian University - United Kingdom

Andrew Ross, New York University – USA

Andy Danford, University of the West of England - United Kingdom

Angela Cheung, Duke University – USA

Angela Zito, New York University – USA

Anita Chambers, Fielding Graduate University - USA

Anita Chan, University of Technology, Sydney – Australia

Anita Koo, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Anna Soja, High School nr.2 in Rzeszów – Poland

Arthur Miao, Duke University – USA

Becky Cairati, University of Michigan – USA

Beryl Liu, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Billy Yates, University of Texas - USA

Bingbing Wei, National University of Singapore – Singapore

Bing Chao Zhou, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Bric Daii – China

Boy Lüthje, University of Frankfurt - Germany

Caixia Chu, University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Carlos Marentes, University of Massachusetts Amherst – USA

Casey Sweeney, Cornell University - USA

Charles Umney, University of Greenwich – United Kingdom

Chang-jiang Li, Peking University – China

Chao-ju Chen, National Taiwan University – Taiwan

Chen-Sen Chang, National Tsing Hua University – Taiwan

Cheng Chang, University of Cambridge – United Kingdom

Cheng Shen, Nanjing Normal University – China

Chi Yuen Leung, Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Hong Kong

Chin-fen Chang, Academia Sinica – Taiwan

Ching Yee Chan, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Ching Ying Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Chris Tilly, University of California Los Angeles – USA

Cindi Katz, City University of New York - USA

Claudia Bernardi, University of Romatre – Italy

Daisy Chen, Duke University – USA

Damian Cheng, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Dan Wang, University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Daniel Spencer, University of Montana – USA

Desmond Hok-Man Sham, Goldsmiths, University of London - United Kingdom

Douglas Martin, University of Central Lancashire - United Kingdom

Dung-sheng Chen, National Taiwan University – Taiwan

Eileen Boris, University of California Santa Barbara – USA

Elaine Hui, University of Kassel - Germany

Elena Shih, University of California, Los Angeles - USA

Eli Friedman, Cornell University – USA

Ellen David Friedman, Sun Yat-sen University - China

Fai Pang Au, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Fangqin Du, Tianjin Normal University – China

Fei Gao, Duke University – USA

Galit Wernick, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor - USA

Hagen Schenk, Passau University – Germany

Hariati Sinaga, University of Kassel – Germany

Hei Fai Chun, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Hongzhe Wang, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Hsiao Yang Hsihe, Université Paris 8 - France

Hsin-Hsing Chen, Shih-Hsin University – Taiwan

Hsiu-hua Shen, National Tsing-Hua University – Taiwan

Hwa-Jen Liu, National Taiwan University – Taiwan

Hua Qi Wang, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Huilin Lu, Peking University – China

Hui Po Ai Shan, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Iain Webb, American University of Central Asia, Bishkek - Kyrgyzstan

Ian Cook, Exeter University - United Kingtom

Jack Linchuan Qiu, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Jackie Flynt, University of Colorado Denver – USA

Jason Chan, Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Hong Kong

Jay Ting Fung Li, Hong Kong College of Technology – Hong Kong

Jennifer Cohen, University of Massachusetts - USA

Jennifer Jihye Chun, University of British Columbia - Canada

Jenny Sharpe, University of California, Los Angeles - USA

Jenny Wai-Ling Chan, Royal Holloway, University of London – United Kingdom

Jessica Wilczak, University of Toronto – Canada

Jhoni Tuerah, University of Indonesia - Indonesia

Jieh-min Wu, Academia Sinica – Taiwan

John Yip Hon Leung, Hong Kong College Of Technology – Hong Kong

Jon Solomon, Université Jean Moulin – France

Jonah Zinn, University of Wisconsin-Madison - USA

Josephine P. Wong, Ryerson University – Canada

Ju Hui Judy Han, University of British Columbia – Canada

Julia Chuang, University of California, Berkeley – USA

Jurgen Sprik, University of Amsterdam - The Netherlands

Ka Lam Chan, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Ka Long Mak, Communication College of City University – Hong Kong

Ka Ming Wu, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Kate Alexander, University of Canterbury – New Zealand

Kathryn Buchanan, Royal Holloway, University of London – United Kingdom

Katja Winter, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg – Germany

Kaxton Siu, Australian National University – Australia

Ka Yiu Chan, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Kenneth Tsz Fung Ng, Peking University – China

Kenya Williams, Michigan State University – USA

Kim Ming Lee, Community College of City University – Hong Kong

Kıvanç Eliaçık, Dokuz Eylül University – Turkey

Kwan Kit Lam, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Kwun Kit Law, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Kwang-Yeong Shin, Chung-Ang University - South Korea

Kyung-yun Moon, Seoul National University – South Korea

Lee Mackinnon, Goldsmiths, University of London – United Kingdom

Lei Song, Peking University – China

Leigh Campoamor, Duke University – USA

Lena Felde, Leuphana University of Lueneburg – Germany

Li Zhao, Beijing Normal University – China

Lok Hang Lui, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Louise Lamphere, University of New Mexico – USA

Lu Zhang, Temple University – USA

Lulu Fan, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Manfred Elfstrom, Cornell University – USA

Marcos Ancelovici, McGill University - Canada

Margaret Levi, University of Washington, Seattle – USA

Mark Rupert, Syracuse University - USA

Mark Paul, University of Massachusetts – USA

Mark Selden, Cornell University – USA

Mark Silverman, University of Massachusetts Amherst - USA

Marthe Breure, University of Amsterdam - The Netherlands

Michael Burawoy, University of California, Berkeley – USA

Min Sun, Peking University – China

Mirana M. Szeto, University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Mobo Gao, University of Adelaide – Australia

Natasa Boskovic, Simon Fraser University – Canada

Nate Funkhouser, Santa Clara University – USA

Ngai Pun, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Nicolas Lockheimers – USA

Norma Field, University of Chicago – USA

Pa Jiang Zhong, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences - China

Paul Bowles, Northern British Columbia – Canada

Pauline Overeem, Good Electronics – The Netherlands

Paolo Do, Queen Mary University – United Kingdom

Parry Pak-Nang Leung, City University of Hong Kong - Hong Kong

Pei-Chia Lan, National Taiwan University – Taiwan

Peter Evans, University of California, Berkeley - USA

Peter Leykam, University of California Santa Cruz - USA

Peter Scott, University of Portsmouth – United Kingdom

Philip Bedall, Free University Berlin – Germany

Qi Zhang, Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences – China

Quan Li, Sun Yat-sen University – China

Rachel Taber, University of Washington – USA

Rachel Willcutts, Idea Frontier College Preparatory - USA

Ralph Litzinger, Duke University – USA

Renita Wong, York University – Canada

Restaria F. Hutabarat, Universitas Indonesia - Indonesia

Ren Yan, Sun Yat-sen University – China

Richard Maxwell, Queens College City University of New York - USA

Richard P. Appelbaum University of California, Santa Barbara – USA

Ruth Milkman, City University of New York – USA

Sarinah Lo, Calvin College - USA

Saul Thomas, University of Chicago - USA

Scott Prudham, University of Toronto - Canada

Sebastian Jekutsch, FIfF e.V. – Germany

Shaopeng Song, Renmin University of China – China

Shu Fai Chan, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Soenke Zehle, Academy of Fine Arts Saar – Germany

Sophia So Lok Yee, University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Stephan Ye, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola – Sweden

Stephanie Barrientos, Leuphana University Lüneburg – Germany

Stephanie Luce, City University of New York – USA

Steve McKay, University of California, Santa Cruz - USA

Steve Rabson, Brown University – USA

Steven Li, Duke University – USA

Terasia Bradford, Ohio State University - USA

Terence Chiu Fai Lin, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Thung-hong Lin, Academia Sinica – Taiwan

Tom Butler, University of  Limerick - Ireland

Tom McCallum, University of Toronto - Canada

Tom Young, John Abbott College - Canada

Tsun Long Fan, National Taiwan University – Taiwan

Tsz Yin Chang, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Tze-Ken Yau, City University of Hong Kong - Hong Kong

Valeria Lovato, University of Trieste – Italy

Verity Auden-Stevens, University of Pittsburgh - USA

Veronique Domaratsky, Brooktondale, New York, USA

Victor Koschmann, Cornell University – USA

Violeta Camarasa San Juan, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Wai Yu Wong, Community College of City University – Hong Kong

Wei Ding, Shenzhen University – China

Wei Wang, Columbia University – USA

Weihe Guo, China University of Political Science and Law – China

Wenjuan Jia, Sun Yat-sen University – China

Wendy Yin Yee Tang, City University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Wing Hang Lau, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Xueying Han, University of California, Santa Barbara – USA

Ya Liu, Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Hong Kong

Ya-hwei Hsu, National Taiwan University - Taiwan

Yan Hairong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Hong Kong

Yan Ting Luk, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Yi Xu, Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Hong Kong

Ying Chen, University of Massachusetts Amherst – USA

Ying Sum Chan, University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Yiu Kai Terence Yuen, Chinese University of Hong Kong – Hong Kong

Yiu Keung Tong, Lingnan University – Hong Kong

Yiu Kwong Chong, Hong Kong Institute of Education - Hong Kong

You Yenn Teo, Nanyang Technological University – Singapore

Yu Huang, University of Washington, Seattle – USA

Yuan Shen, Tsinghua University – China

Yuchen Han, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Yuhua Guo, Tsinghua University – China

Yun-Chung Chen, Baptist University of Hong Kong - Hong Kong

Yun Xue Deng, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Zhaofan Guo, Tsinghua University – China

Zhongjin Li, University of Massachusetts Amherst – USA

Zicun Liang, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Hong Kong

Ziyuan Wang, London School of Economics – United Kingdom

[/lang_en]

Mr. Tim Cook

CEO

Apple

1 Infinite Loop

Cupertino, CA 95014

United States of America

Dear Mr. Tim Cook,

We the undersigned students and scholars categorically demand Apple to ensure decent working conditions at Apple suppliers.

When confronted with escalating criticism of Apple’s unethical labour practices, you responded, “We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain. Any accident is deeply troubling, and any issue with working conditions is cause for concern.” But promises without action are merely empty rhetoric. Apple’s code of conduct clearly states, “Apple suppliers must uphold the human rights of workers, to treat them with dignity and respect as understood by the international community.” The investigative reports of Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) reveal that Apple suppliers are not complying with this code of conduct. In 2010-2011, SACOM issued 5 research reports[1] that documented labour rights violations at Apple suppliers in China, including Foxconn and Wintek. These violations are systemic problems, not isolated or unrelated incidents. We are frustrated with Apple’s continued failure to implement institutional reforms to protect the human rights of workers.

Involuntary Labour

Owing to harsh management practices, the turnover rate at Foxconn is extremely high. To maintain the stability of the workforce and to meet production demands during the peak season, Foxconn hires tens of thousands student workers with the support of the local governments.

Vocational school students majoring in subjects such as tourism, language, and journalism, end up doing “internships” at Foxocnn for 3-12 months. According to the reports in China Daily, an English newspaper published in China, the Henan government has scheduled 100,000 students to work at Foxconn as “interns”in 2010.[2] And this year, the government intends to recruit 100,000 new workers for Foxconn and has contacted 100 vocational schools.[3] The so-called “internship” is a sham as it has no relevance to the students’ studies. Furthermore, it is not voluntary. Foxconn even requests school teachers stationed at the factory compound to monitor the attendance of the students. Some students even complain that if they refuse the “internship” at Foxconn, they will be forced to drop out of school.[4] It is evident that this use of student workers is a form of involuntary labour, which is supposedly prohibited by Apple. Disappointingly, in Apple’s Supplier Responsibility Report, the use of student workers is not mentioned at all.

Exposure to Hazardous Environments

Over 137 workers at Wintek were poisoned in 2009 by n-hexane, a chemical used for cleaning the touchscreens of iPhones. Some of the victims were hospitalized for over 9 months due to nerve damage. When they were discharged from the hospitals, they still suffered from weak limbs. Apple eventually acknowledged the case in early 2011 in its Supplier Responsibility Report but ignored the demands from the victims. The Wintek case reveals the threat of occupational diseases at Apple suppliers. Furthermore, when SACOM conducted offsite interviews with Foxconn workers, nearly all the respondents had no knowledge of what kind of chemical they were using or what the potential harm to them might be. Some workers complained of skin allergies or headaches as a result of the working with the chemical, but they could only choose between enduring the problem or resigning.

Besides occupational diseases, industrial injuries at Apple suppliers are equally appalling. In May 2011, a deadly explosion occurred in the polishing department at Foxconn’s plant in Chengdu, killing 4 workers and injuring 18. Seven months later, another blast occurred at Riteng Computer Accessory in Shanghai. 59 workers were injured. Both explosions were triggered by the combustible dust of the shop floor. Although Apple claims, “Suppliers must be committed to creating safe working conditions and a healthy work environment for all of their workers,” the reality is that workers at Apple suppliers are constantly exposed to unsafe working environments, at risk of being poisoned or injured due to Apple’s negligence in ensuring compliance with its own standards.

Harsh Management Methods

In 2010, at least 18 Foxconn workers attempted to commit suicide, 14 of whom died. In May 2010 alone, there were 7 cases of suicide attempts at Foxconn’s factories n Shenzhen. Reports of these suicide attempts led the public to begin questioning what made these workers want to end their lives. Many Foxconn workers shared that they feel like machines and are continually insulted by the management. They reported that they are sometimes required to write confession letters and to copy quotes from the CEO, Terry Gou. Workers at the new Foxconn factory in Chengdu were forced to undergo “military training”[5]. Workers believed it was a means to indoctrinate them into a system of absolute obedience. Some supervisors yelled at the new workers, “If you cannot endure this little hardship, then you can leave Foxconn immediately!” Although Apple’s code of conduct stresses that workers should be treated with respect and dignity, that has not been the experience of employees at Foxconn’s factories.

Excessive and Forced Overtime

During the peak season, the work shift for Foxconn workers is 10 hours per day, 6-7 days per week. Sometimes, workers have to skip the second meal break in order to reach the factory’s production target. Workers reported that overtime work is mandatory. When a worker does not show up for one of the overtime shifts, without the permission of the supervisor, it is regarded as work stoppage. The worker will then not be allocated any overtime work for a month. This means that the worker will only be able to earn the base salary, which is not enough for basic survival. Chinese Labour Law limits monthly overtime work to 36 hours. But when there is an influx of orders, overtime work can increase up to 100 hours per month, almost 3 times the legal standard. The majority of the workers have to stand while at work and grow weary from their long shifts. Some workers reported that they feel so exhausted at the end of their shifts, they don’t even want to talk to or interact with their peers.

Company Union

Hotline and care centre, , , set up by Foxconn in the aftermath of the suicides to provide counseling services to workers, are not meaningful substitutes for a genuine union to resolve labour disputes. There is an official trade union at Foxconn, but most of the workers do not know about the role of the union. Those who have heard about the union do not trust it, because they perceive that the union serves the company rather than the workers. None of the workers know how the union is formed or how its representatives are selected. Apple states that it respects freedom of association, but the failure to facilitate the formation of unions whose representatives are selected by the workers is the major obstacle of freedom of association. If Apple is sincere in its professed respect for freedom of association, it must facilitate democratic elections in the unions at its suppliers.

We are greatly disconcerted by the inhumane working conditions at Apple suppliers. With all its success in the global marketplace, Apple undoubtedly has ability to rectify these problems. It is simply a matter of commitment. We strongly demand that Apple:

1. end the use of student workers;

2. provide a living wage for all the workers so they do not have to work excessive overtime hours;

3. conduct labour rights training for workers, including training on occupational health and safety;

4. facilitate the formation of a genuine trade union through democratic election; and

5. compensate the victims if there is non-compliance with the Apple code of conduct.

We look forward to the public statement by Apple in response to our demands by 30 March 2012!

Thank you!

Yours sincerely,

Introduction

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) expects  to generate at least GBP 86 million from sales of “London 2012” merchandise. Among the merchandise, the majority of products feature the official mascots, Wenlock and Mandeville, and the Team GB mascot, Pride-the-Lion.

In 2008, LOCOG issued sustainable and ethical sourcing codes with the aim of ensuring that  all products associated with LOCOG are produced under internationally acceptable social standards. In terms of labour practices, the codes refer to the provisions of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) Base Code which spells out that workers should receive at least the minimum wage as specified in their national legal standards and have a contract defining their terms of employment and payment. The ETI Code also states that punitive fines are prohibited and that working hours should not be excessive. Regrettably, LOCOG has not issued any lists detailing the firms that supply goods to the licensees. Moreover, there have been no reports on the levels of compliance with the code by these suppliers. Consumers are kept in the dark about the conditions in which the goods are produced.

In summer and autumn 2011, Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) investigated the Yancheng Rainbow Arts and Crafts Company, a manufacturer of Wenlock, Mandeville and Pride-the-Lion goods in Dafeng City, China. The factory is also a supplier to Disney. This investigation revealed numerous violations of workers’ rights violations in the Rainbow Factory, which puts it far outside the promises of the code. The following are the major labour rights violations found in the factory:

- Workers are told to tell lies to the auditors during factory inspections.

- No labour contract is given to workers.

- The factory does not pay a basic salary to workers.

- Workers do not know about the piece rate before production.

- Overtime premium is not paid in accordance with legal standards.

- Sewing workers have muscle fatigue, due to the repetitive work, and cloth-cutting workers have to stand during the whole day.

- No paid maternity leave for workers.

“The quality control of Olympic products is demanding. It is very difficult to produce the mascots. There cannot be any flaws. Although they are Olympic products, the unit price is lower than for other products. I am not proud of making the mascots at all,” explained one sewing worker. According to the workers, the Olympic products were to be sent to the British companies, Golden Bear and John Lewis. It is disappointing that the client puts so much effort into quality control of the products but turns a blind eye to the labour rights violations. The Rainbow Factory is a primary labour rights violator and Golden Bear and John Lewis failed to examine the working conditions at their supplier. Nevertheless, LOCOG cannot evade its responsibility for enforcing its own sustainable and ethical sourcing codes.

SACOM’s Demands to LOCOG and IOC

The rampant labour rights violations in the Rainbow Factory demonstrate that, at present, the sustainable and ethical sourcing codes are nothing more than pieces of paper. In line with its proclaimed goal of respecting labour rights, LOCOG should:

- publish the full list of suppliers to its license holders;

- conduct selective investigations at the licensees’ suppliers to examine the level of compliance and publicise the reports; and

- work with the licensees to launch remedial actions in any factory where rights violations are found.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) should establish a policy to prevent violation of labour rights at the suppliers of Olympic products. On top of the demands for disclosure of supplier lists and selective audits at the licensee suppliers, SACOM further demands that the IOC should:

- adopt a code of conduct for the suppliers which should include terms like living wages, freedom of association and the right to remedy; and

- require the licensees to ensure that every worker, at every supplier, receives a copy of this code.

The full report is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/79021678/2012-01-23-LOCOG-s-Empty-Promoise.