Rethinking that iPod Nano

“We have to work too hard and I am always tired. It’s like being in the army. They make us stand still for hours. If we move, we are punished by being made to stand still for longer … We have to work overtime if we are told to and can only go back to the dormitories when our boss gives us permission … If they ask for overtime we must do it. After working 15 hours until 11:30 p.m., we feel so tired.”

Those are the worlds of a female employee at factory in China that manufactuers the iPod Nano. It’s from a investigative report published in the British paper The Mail on Sunday. (The Mail’s report isn’t available online but excerpts can be found at Salon, Macworld, and Ars Technica.)

Since I’ve devoted quite a bit of blog space this past week to the overall economic benefits of sweatshops, I thought it time for some balance.

It also comes at a particularly opportune time, since I’d been not-so-subtly hinting to David about wanting one for my birthday later this month.

The reporters visited two Chinese factories where the iPod was made:

The first facility, run by Taiwanese company Foxconn, is described as “the original and largest plant to be built in mainland China. It’s a sprawling place where 200,000 people work and sleep.” Many are already questioning this figure as being an error of some sort, as that would basically be a city the size of Tallahassee, Florida. It is worth noting, however, that the Foxconn facility produces electronics equipment for a variety of IT companies besides Apple, and the Longhua facility holds one-fifth of their “million-strong workforce.”

iPod Nanos are produced in a five-story factory at the facility, stationed with police officers who check everyone who enters and leaves to “thwart rivals intent on industrial espionage.” For 15 hour workdays, pay at this facility is approximately US$50 per month.

The second facility visited benefited from its proximity to Shanghai. Dormitories are outside the plant, work is only 12 hours of the day, and pay is almost US$100 per month (the security guards who watch over the workers earn up to US$150), of which up to half is paid back to the company for housing and food. The remainder is typically sent home to families, many of which are struggling to bring in that kind of money farming.

[snip]

Given that the iPod nano components cost approximately US$75 but have around 400 parts, cheap labor becomes very important at keeping the price competitive. One guard at one of the facilities visited understood this:

“Payment is lower because the boss wants to reduce our costs,” he says. “Prices need to be competitive to get orders from abroad.”

Apple has responded that it is investigating the allegations and is commited to maintaining a safe workplace and that workers are “treated with dignity.”

Though everyone acknowledges that Apple isn’t alone in outsourcing manufacturing to Chinese sweatshops–and that the paltry wages are still much higher than other local alternatives– Andrew Leonard at How the World Works argues that just being the lesser of several evils doesn’t make it OK.

That Western corporations are exploiting cheap labor in China through Taiwanese proxies is not breaking news. Apple is hardly different from scores of other corporations, and, if it actually does adhere to the letter of its code of conduct, may be better than most. But Apple is also a prime example of a company that counts on being perceived as “cool” as part of its business plan. And exploitation, no matter how you slice it, ain’t cool. The U.S. government and Wall Street clearly don’t care about working conditions abroad. In our late-capitalist, consumer-driven society, it’s up to the consumers to call the shots. We can buy fair trade coffee beans. Where’s our fair trade iPod Nano?

Even if we can’t find a “fair trade” mp3 player (and I’m not saying I won’t look for one), I think it’s important for those of us lucky enough to mull over triple-digit electronic birthday presents to at least take a look at where the products we take for granted come from–from running shoes to stereo components to food–realizing that the “bargain price” we’re looking for may come at the cost of someone else’s health and safety.