backtop

Print 58 comment(s) - last by MrBeans.. on Jul 25 at 1:15 PM

Sun Danyong was on TV just the day before he committed suicide after being harassed for losing a top secret iPhone prototype.  (Source: BBCNews)
Chinese government may be pursuing charges

The death of a young 25-year-old Chinese engineer shocked his friends and family.  The circumstances propelled the death into the international spotlight.   Sun Danyong, the deceased, worked at Foxconn and had been tasked with picking up the unreleased fourth generation iPhone prototypes, which will likely be released next year.  After he lost one his apartment was burglarized and he was reportedly beaten and then committed suicide.

Apple says it's awaiting results of an official investigation before it takes any action.  Its spokesperson, Steve Dowling, states, "We are saddened by the tragic loss of a young employee and we are awaiting the results of the investigation into his death.  We require that our suppliers treat all workers with dignity and respect."

Foxconn commented, "The company has noticed there has been much detailed discussion on the Internet and welcomes public discussion on how to help Foxconn's management where it is lacking.  We will scrutinize those places ... and strengthen our assistance to young employees."

Meanwhile the Hon Hai Group, the world’s largest contract-manufacturer of electronics and parent company of Foxconn, has suspended a security official at one of its subsidiaries who was involved in the harassment of Mr. Danyong.  The company would only reveal the surname of the individual -- "Gu" -- and say that it had handed over pertinent information to the Chinese authorities.

Officials at Foxconn, the world's biggest manufacturer of cell phones, claim that they did not order their employees to break any laws or to harass Mr. Danyong.  The incident is currently under investigation by Chinese authorities.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Here's One
By Truxy on 7/23/2009 9:17:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Foxconn commented, "The company has noticed there has been much detailed discussion on the Internet and welcomes public discussion on how to help Foxconn's management where it is lacking. We will scrutinize those places ... and strengthen our assistance to young employees."

More thinking (i.e. use of insured carrier companies), less employee beat-downs.




RE: Here's One
By invidious on 7/23/2009 9:47:54 AM , Rating: 1
I could go for a little more in th way of public humiliation and corporal punishment here in America. People, especially kids, need to get their feelings hurt if they are doing something wrong. Its good for their character and makes them a better person in the long run.

Obviously it should not be done to the extent of this example. Doing involuntary searches of someone's home and phyiscally beating them is over the line of the law, let alone business.


RE: Here's One
By pixelslave on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Here's One
By Nobleman00 on 7/23/2009 1:23:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
THERE'S NO PLACE for humiliation or corporal punishment in a democratic, non-repressive country like the United States.


No, but it would help. That place used to be called school or little league. I believe the previous poster was trying to say that if we stopped coddling kids, giving the winning team a trophy and the losing team a trophy, actually teaching them consequence and taking responsibility for their actions, and thinking out their actions before they take them, we would have better workers. Frankly most people grew up learning to take their knocks and dealing with them, it makes them better people. You mouthed off the wrong way, you got your @$$ kicked. You didn't do the work, you failed.

Now this "everyone wins" idea is even in the corporate environment where those that excel are treated the same as those that fail. End result is that the failures don't improve and the good employees begin to try less.

The person who grew up taking their knocks would also not have a problem with a company taking ridiculous punitive or abusive actions on them since they would fight back or move on accordingly rather than succumb to it. We all saw the firm, you fight and survive and live a paranoid life in hiding if you need to until you remedy the situation. We're not guaranteed fairy tale lives.

What happened at Foxconn should be investigated to find if this sort of behavior is pervasive, and action taken against the company, not just their scapegoat.


RE: Here's One
By PrezWeezy on 7/23/2009 1:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is a huge difference between allowing what will happen to happen and making it happen. It is unacceptable for a company to act in such a way as to intentionally humiliate someone. It is entirely scary to think that you are even ok with physical abuse. If someone does a poor job, they get fired. When they go to find another job they have to explain what happened at the last job. That's humiliation and that allows people to learn. Taking them out to parade around their mistakes is not a positive change. In fact it breeds resentment, which negatively effects performance.
I'm all for stopping giving out loosing trophy’s but you're assertion that it's ok for a company to abuse an employee just because a good person will fight back is extraordinarily messed up. The fact is that some people can fight back, some can't. That's not about whether or not the person joined a no win little league. That is about their own personal ability to stand up to authority. Most people cannot stand up to authority because they are not authoritative themselves. And before you say that they should be, they should not. There is a reason the adage "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" exists. We need people who follow the authority figures and do the work. People who follow usually cannot stand up for themselves when being oppressed and therefore we need to make sure they are not driven to suicide for something as ridiculous as losing a cell phone.
We should be focusing on helping people LEARN from their mistakes. Sometimes that means harsh reality. Sometimes you do mouth off and get beat up. That’s part of life. That does not mean we should ENCOURAGE people getting beat up. I would physically defend my family with no hesitation but it would be as a last resort, not for something trivial.
I believe we should be helping people learn to step up, but we also have to limit those people who are unable to control themselves. You’re statements can be likened to saying that we shouldn’t have stopped Hitler from continuing the holocaust and instead let the groups he was persecuting help themselves. Sometimes the school of hard knocks needs to be held at bay a bit.


RE: Here's One
By Nobleman00 on 7/23/2009 4:24:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I believe we should be helping people learn to step up, but we also have to limit those people who are unable to control themselves. You’re statements can be likened to saying that we shouldn’t have stopped Hitler from continuing the holocaust and instead let the groups he was persecuting help themselves. Sometimes the school of hard knocks needs to be held at bay a bit.


My statements are nothing like you describe, and you seem to be putting words where there were none.

Where do you think leaders, revolutionaries, heroes, defenders, protectors, etc... come from? The school of hard knocks is what creates those defenders. Currently we're breeding a nation of laissez-faire floaters instead of leaders that will take action.

Soon enough, such a mentality will lead to inaction in global atrocities, holocausts, Somalia, Darfur, or do they need to have a U.S. national interest like oil or "national security" before we launch more than humanitarian aid?

Did we stop a holocaust, or did we stop a power-hungry dictator from invading country after country (not Bush) with a secondary objective of liberating the people he oppressed?

quote:
you're assertion that it's ok for a company to abuse an employee just because a good person will fight back is extraordinarily messed up


Such was never asserted. However, if you were abused or humiliated, would you stay at that job? I see plenty that are abused in more subtle ways than with a bat, so thinking this corporate U.S. is so much better is pretty much naive.

quote:
If someone does a poor job, they get fired. When they go to find another job they have to explain what happened at the last job. That's humiliation and that allows people to learn. Taking them out to parade around their mistakes is not a positive change. In fact it breeds resentment, which negatively effects performance.


They don't get fired, they don't need to explain, there is no humiliation, no one said anything about parading, firing or taking corrective action would be nice though. Why pass the problem to another company? Counsel, mentor, train the employee and rehab them into a good one... or is that too expensive to make a good employee? Resentment is rife in every company, and performance is usually down the drain. Humiliation is negative, and so is doing nothing when faced with incompetance. Good employees get depressed too when they see bad employees excel.

You do a good job of selling people short and remind me of a certain HR professional. Believe me everyone will stand up when they need to, well unless they're suicidal or thrown off a roof, but some employee leaders should stand up now and make change at Foxconn. Maybe if they lost at little league they would have stood up before someone got tossed off a roof.


RE: Here's One
By PrezWeezy on 7/23/2009 8:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do you think leaders, revolutionaries, heroes, defenders, protectors, etc... come from?


Fair enough point. Let's assume that there are, at this moment, 1,000 good, strong, political leaders on a global scale. 10,000 on a national scale. Pick a number. Now compare the number of strong leaders to the 6 billion global population. I don't care how you slice it, the vast majority of the world are NOT leaders. Expecting them to be leaders is ridiculous. Even if you were to say there are 1 billion revolutionaries and heroes and defenders, that still means that over 80% of the world does not fall into that category.

quote:
Did we stop a holocaust, or did we stop a power-hungry dictator from invading country after country (not Bush) with a secondary objective of liberating the people he oppressed?


I have to imagine that if everyone was fat happy and rich with Hitler they wouldn't have wanted him stopped. One cannot be examined without the other.

quote:
Such was never asserted


In fact it was...and I quote:
quote:
The person who grew up taking their knocks would also not have a problem with a company taking ridiculous punitive or abusive actions...

You said in your original post that it was ok (assuming of course that you are one of these people you reference) to take ridiculous punitive or abusive action. You're welcome to rephrase, in which case I would take back my statements. Although I do stand by my point in saying that most people are incapable of stopping abuse. In fact taking the most exaggerated stance above, 83% of the population probably can't stand up for themselves. Therefore it is up to the rest of us, the other 20%, to stand up for them to make sure they are treated fairly.

quote:
They don't get fired, they don't need to explain


Then that is the problem there. If you can't do your job, you shouldn't be payed to not do it. There is a difference between doing one or two things that are bad and not doing your job. There is a line where it's time to let them go and when it's time to teach.

quote:
Resentment is rife in every company


So because it exists we should just continue to allow it or even do things which we know will exacerbate the issue? That seems rather counter-productive. So much of a good employee is a good employer. The attitude of the team is a reflection of the leader. As a leader myself I know just how much I impact the group. Companies which have poor employees which excel are generally already headed by incompetence. Someone who is good at creating change from the ground up should be able to shift the leadership, but it takes a very special talent in a rare person to do that.

quote:
You do a good job of selling people short


My goal is not to sell people short. My goal is to impress the fact that not everyone can be strong willed. Many people are doormats not because they are lazy, but because they just are that person. And your style of dealing with that person should be very different from dealing with a strong willed individual. Recognizing difference is not favoritism, it's realism. You can make the decision that everyone is the same, which is your prerogative, and that we shouldn't help people, or you can see the fact that it takes all kinds to have a successful society and create appropriate conditions for all types to exist. So long as no one is catered to unfairly. In a perfect world that's how it would be. In reality certain types do very well and get rich, and certain types barely feed themselves.

If this was two guys who were having a fist fight, that's a completely different story. Then loosing at little league would have helped this guy stand up for himself. But he was fighting a power which would have won no matter how much he fought. I'm trying to argue that he was not fighting a person. He was not even fighting a winning battle. He would have lost no matter if he had played little league or not. He lost because of unfair corporate punishment, not because of an inability to stand up for himself.

I believe that we should work at not pushing people off rooftops more than we should work on having the person fight against the people pushing him off before he falls. Equal fights are fair, but abuse is not to be tolerated.


RE: Here's One
By Nobleman00 on 7/24/2009 3:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
The entire statement was:

quote:
The person who grew up taking their knocks would also not have a problem with a company taking ridiculous punitive or abusive actions on them since they would fight back or move on accordingly rather than succumb to it.


In other words they didn't grow up coddled and aren't going to stand for unfair treatment. They will know when they're being screwed.

quote:
So because it exists we should just continue to allow it or even do things which we know will exacerbate the issue? That seems rather counter-productive. So much of a good employee is a good employer. The attitude of the team is a reflection of the leader. As a leader myself I know just how much I impact the group. Companies which have poor employees which excel are generally already headed by incompetence. Someone who is good at creating change from the ground up should be able to shift the leadership, but it takes a very special talent in a rare person to do that.


By treating people differently you are continuing to allow the issue. You do not strengthen those that you call "weak" and you seed resentment in those you call "strong". You call yourself a "leader" but a leader would treat their subordinates equally and fairly, building the team to generate a leader among them who will take your place when you are away, move up, or move on. If there is a difference in strengths a leader would foster an environment that built confidence and strength in those you call "weak".

It seems to me you are practicing Management tactics rather than leadership. This is characterized by:

Your divide and conquer mentality which identifies personality traits in order to utilize them, but makes no effort to build-up those that you think need it.

Your positive self image projecting yourself as a leader.

Your goal setting for this discussion, and the goal being to set an impression that not everyone can be strong willed.

Managers subconciously destroy their teams in order to self-promote and deflect competition.

quote:
Many people are doormats not because they are lazy, but because they just are that person. And your style of dealing with that person should be very different from dealing with a strong willed individual.


So you're saying that given 2 team members, equally paid, equally skilled, and equally prepared, 1 is "strong willed", 1 is "a doormat".

You can now pile on the work on the doormat because he won't complain, and you won't have to hear the strong willed staffer complain.

Or...

You can pile on the work for the strong one because "he can take it" and take it easy on the doormat so you won't break his fragile little heart.

Which one breeds no resentment for the other? Which manager are you? The weakling, the predator, or the floater which just drifts along allowing the work to happen as they categorize and rate the staff?

It may not be your intent, but you sell people short. If you feel 83% are not strong willed, I suggest you walk out into the street and start telling people to "give you $20 or else." By your estimate, your odds of getting rich are pretty good.

You're being led buddy, not the other way around. That doormat has a limit like anyone else.


RE: Here's One
By PrezWeezy on 7/24/2009 8:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ridiculous punitive or abusive actions

And my counter point was that “ridiculous punitive or abusive actions” is inappropriate no matter who the action is taken against.
quote:
You do not strengthen those that you call "weak" and you seed resentment in those you call "strong".

I actually never called anyone weak. I did use the term doormat to illustrate a point, which was wrong of me. I should have used a better term to describe the person who chooses not to assert authority.
quote:
It seems to me you are practicing Management tactics rather than leadership. This is characterized by:

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about me. For one, I do not divide for the purpose of conquering. Every successful team I’ve ever been a part of has been successful because of a cohesive group attitude. You’re damn right that I identify individual personality traits, however.
For instance, let’s say you have two people you are in charge of and your team is tasked with building a play set on a budget, including status reports. John is extremely detail oriented and enjoys doing paperwork. He always gets it in on time and knows how to make sure it is worded correctly, and can write reports. Harry, on the other hand, hates paper work and much prefers to work with his hands. He likes to read and follow directions while being creative. In your style of management you would, in effect, flip a coin to decide who’s in charge of building and who is in charge of paper work. You might end up with Harry screwing up reports and hating his assignment while the play set falls apart because John hasn’t ever liked swinging a hammer. My style would be, well John would like this part of the job and would do it well, while Harry would not, and Harry likes this part of the job and can accomplish is effectively so let’s give the paperwork to John and the building to Harry. I fail to see that as a negative thing. It’s about playing to people’s strengths and not trying to force something on someone who will not do it well and has no interest in trying to do it well.
As for building someone up, if someone needs help changing from their current position then I am all about helping them. Some people are just content with where they are. I’m ok with them wanting to stay where they are and never move up the ladder, and I’m more than willing to help someone who is interested in moving up.
I do have a positive self image, however, that is actually a good thing if you have any background in psychology. Negative self image leads to low self esteem which is extremely corrosive. People with low self esteem are poor workers, have difficulty in social situations, and generally have an inability to learn new skills. My positive self image is based upon a very grounded understanding of what my strengths and weaknesses are. For instance, I’m terrible at organization, so when it comes to keeping things in order I have to rely on someone else to help me with that or it all falls apart. I haven’t stopped working on that personality flaw, but I also recognize I’m not perfect and where some people would look down on an assistant type position I know that it is absolutely integral to my ability to do my job. In that way all jobs and positions are of equal importance and the people in them should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. My point in saying that my attitude had a lot to do with the groups’ ability to produce was not a conceded thing to say, it was merely a personal experience of a fact of life. If I am leading a group and I have a negative opinion the group will be negative. If I am positive and helping build team spirit, the group generally will be as well. The same goes when I am not in charge and being led in another group.
My only goal in this discussion is the sharing of ideas with someone who has a counter opinion. I enjoy the debate and I enjoy the intellectual conversation. I have no illusion that at the end you will be completely in line with my thinking but I can hope to share some insight into a different style of leadership which I have learned. You should also abandon hope that I will exactly follow your method, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a meaningful conversation in which we both learn something and share ideas. To such end, I will ignore your personal attacks and attempt to bring the conversation back to neutral where we can both be equally represented.
I do not ever destroy teams. That attitude sounds, to me at least, as if you have some resentment towards someone who was a manager over you at one point. I would suggest that you be careful to not label someone as a bad influence purely because they hold the title of manager. Work must get done. In order for you to feed your family you must have money, which means you must get paid, which means your company must be able to afford to pay you and the logical endpoint of the chain is you must be productive as a corporation. Managers are there to make sure that happens, and that is not a bad thing. Someone has to be in charge and not every can be at once.

quote:
So you're saying that given 2 team members, equally paid, equally skilled, and equally prepared, 1 is "strong willed", 1 is "a doormat".

You can now pile on the work on the doormat because he won't complain, and you won't have to hear the strong willed staffer complain.

No this is not what I meant. Assuming I have 300 reports which need to be processed then both people are expected to product 150 within the same amount of time. If one does 200 in the time it takes the other to finish 100 then I will be inquiring as to why one person was expected to do twice the work. Now assuming I have two projects which are different and require different skill sets, the strong willed person will get the job which requires more critical thinking and decision making, while the person with less drive will get the job which requires only minimal independence. The person who can handle more will get promoted quickly and will be rewarded through positive encouragement. If the person with less drive is ok where they are and is able to handle the jobs they are given then I say let them be.
I did not say that 83% was strong willed. I said that less than 17% were great leaders. If we all led we would have no one to follow. I don’t think that saying someone is not a leader is a bad thing. I think that is an objective assessment of their ability and while they should be allowed every opportunity in the world to do whatever they want, I also will not put them in charge of a group. You can’t have everyone lead, it’s just a mathematical impossibility.
quote:
You're being led buddy, not the other way around.

As I stated early I would prefer this not turn into an attack on each other’s character because neither of us know the other well enough to make fair judgment. This should be a constructive debate.


RE: Here's One
By dark matter on 7/24/2009 2:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Let's clarify one thing here. Whilst it was not explicit in your post, you certainly came accross that you were happy to reward failure (such as not meeting targets perhaps) with physical punishment.

Is this, or is this not your viewpoint?


RE: Here's One
By Totally on 7/23/2009 2:59:01 PM , Rating: 3
"End result is that the failures don't improve and the good employees begin to try less."

QFT - After I realized this, I don't believe there has been a day I've been on time in the past year. Get there when I get there, do my work, go home.


RE: Here's One
By Nobleman00 on 7/23/2009 4:26:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
QFT - After I realized this, I don't believe there has been a day I've been on time in the past year. Get there when I get there, do my work, go home.


Or post comments on a forum all day ;)


RE: Here's One
By axias41 on 7/24/2009 7:37:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
THERE'S NO PLACE for humiliation or corporal punishment in a democratic, non-repressive country like the United States.


So, is capital punishment a corporal punishment or not? I already know US answer, mine is different.


RE: Here's One
By Noliving on 7/25/2009 8:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
No capital punishment isn't corporal punishment, the reason why is because the person is dead after capital punishment is done. Corporal punishment definition is inflicing pain on a person so that they change or see the error of their ways and so they change their behavior. In order for it be corporal punishment, by definition, it is required that the person lives after the punishment is inflicted. With capital punishment the person is killed and thus is not able to change or see the error of their ways. So by definition it is not.

Man what dumb question.


RE: Here's One
By Noliving on 7/25/2009 8:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Meant "Man, what a dumb question".


RE: Here's One
By 91TTZ on 7/24/2009 11:58:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
THERE'S NO PLACE for humiliation or corporal punishment in a democratic, non-repressive country like the United States.


I disagree. I think there are some places where it would be beneficial. If a politician was caught in a scandal, you don't think that's humiliating? Do they not deserve to have everyone asking them questions about what happened?


RE: Here's One
By dark matter on 7/24/2009 2:42:50 PM , Rating: 3
I am a great believer in the punishment should fit the crime.

However, in this instance being beaten up because you lost a phone does not fit the crime.


RE: Here's One
By PrezWeezy on 7/23/2009 1:32:55 PM , Rating: 3
That statement is a little naive. This person did not break any laws, in fact, we don't even know if it was a crisis to begin with. It could have just fallen down between the seats of his car for all we know. The fact is things get lost every once in a while. People make mistakes. I don't understand why just because it's an Apple product it gives them the right to humiliation and corporal punishment. It's a f***ing PHONE for Christ's sake and a man DIED. I don't care if it was the iPhone 11GSPMCH it is completely and totally unacceptable. And the sad truth is the Chinese authorities won't care because Foxconn generates millions of dollars of income and they will not want to jeopardize that relationship.
I'm not disagreeing that codling is an ostrich way to living, I'm just saying your criticism of American society (and by which excusing partial action on the part of the Foxconn employees) is out of place when talking about someone's life being taken because of a stupid cell phone.


RE: Here's One
By 91TTZ on 7/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Here's One
By dark matter on 7/24/2009 2:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they should have made a more secure iPhone then, as apparently the current method of security on the iPhone is worthless.


Hmm..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/23/2009 8:49:46 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
has suspended a security official at one of its subsidiaries who was involved in the harassment of Mr. Danyong. The company would only reveal the surname of the individual -- "Gu" -- and say that it had handed over pertinent information to the Chinese authorities.


I predict another death/suicide...




RE: Hmm..
By xsilver on 7/23/2009 9:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
Sad fact is the people involved in this probably believe that its cheaper to do this than drag it though their lackadaisical court system.

More face saving too...

I'd be afraid if I was called Gu and lived in that town...

Hello Mr Gu, your lunch order is ready....


RE: Hmm..
By MrBlastman on 7/24/2009 11:07:25 AM , Rating: 1
Gu might be turned into glue...

Sorry, couldn't resist.


RE: Hmm..
By WoWCow on 7/23/2009 10:39:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"The company has noticed there has been much detailed discussion on the Internet and welcomes public discussion on how to help Foxconn's management where it is lacking..."


Well, I might go to hell for linking this...

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-07-22/

But it could be the engineer may have been doing something like that for his managers/bosses. When businesses have no aptitude in product developments, the scent of money guides them rather than the quality of their products.


We've come for your liver
By opcow on 7/23/2009 9:58:08 AM , Rating: 4
Steve jobs stocking up on livers?




RE: We've come for your liver
By Pneumothorax on 7/23/2009 11:11:03 AM , Rating: 3
Yup they originally came for his liver, but when they found out he wasn't a match for the Jobster they threw him out the window.


RE: We've come for your liver
By MrBeans on 7/25/2009 1:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steve jobs stocking up on livers?


There's an App for that.


Anyone want to place a bet...
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/23/2009 8:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile the Hon Hai Group, the world’s largest contract-manufacturer of electronics and parent company of Foxconn, [b]has suspended a security official[/b] at one of its subsidiaries who was involved in the harassment of Mr. Danyong.


Do you think "suicide" or "car accident" for the security officer if this keeps getting press?




RE: Anyone want to place a bet...
By AntiM on 7/23/2009 9:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still trying to figure out the function of this so called "security" unit within the company. Apparently they have powers beyond what we in the U.S. would think of as corporate security; some type of goon squad.

When I see the guy's name .. "Gu", I can't help but think the rest of the name is "ne" ... GUNE, sounds like GOON.


RE: Anyone want to place a bet...
By Hakuryu on 7/24/2009 5:09:21 PM , Rating: 3
In addition, why is a 25 year old engineer tasked with picking up prototypes of the next iPhone, when the company has a security force?

Hmmm, lets see... send some of our security force to pick up the secret prototypes, or a young engineer? Either Foxconn is filled with management that 'got the job' because of family working there, even if their expertise was farming rice, or something very fishy is going on.


Tragic
By euonymous on 7/23/2009 9:31:13 AM , Rating: 4
It seems pretty clear what happened here and it is absolutely tragic. This is management covering its behind at the expense of its employees in the worst possible way. The phrasing around "helping young employees" reminds me of a vp at Prime Computer years ago. When told of a spectacularly horrific screw up (which any normal person would think would call for immediate dismissal) sat back and said words to the effect that we would have to "help" the individual. Yeah, right. The employee was gone within the week, of course. This would smack of a Dilbert comic strip if it wasn't so horrible.




not that kind of scrutiny
By stonemetal on 7/23/2009 12:53:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Foxconn commented, "The company has noticed there has been much detailed discussion on the Internet and welcomes public discussion on how to help Foxconn's management where it is lacking. We will scrutinize those places ... and strengthen our assistance to young employees."


Anyone else think they need to quit reading the viagra spam in their inbox.




By ultimatebob on 7/23/2009 10:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'll bet that all of the Apple rumor sites are in a bidding war for it :)




not expecting much
By Maxfli81 on 7/23/2009 12:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
Given china's "stellar" human rights record, I don't expect to see much come from this. Thuggery is unacceptable and cost a human life - more valuable than any apple prototype.




So Wheres the Missing Prototype?
By Yeah on 7/23/2009 12:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe following the phone will help shed light on what happend? With all the GPS tech there is, I cant believe that if someone turns that sucker on someone cant track it within seconds.... right?




By Nobleman00 on 7/23/2009 1:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
Save the intern, save the phone.




Suicide
By btc909 on 7/24/2009 10:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
Hummmm suicide, ok so who threw they guy out the window?




By dark matter on 7/24/2009 2:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
You know what globalisation is? Exploitation of the poor.

Capitalism originally offered reduced costs by increasing effeciency.

Today it is much simpler to just outsource to a country with lower wages, lower enivronmental checks and lower health and safety laws.

All you have to do is ensure enougth layers (outsourcing) between your brand and how the product is made.

Having your trainers made by a chinese peasent girl of 11 who sleeps under the table she works at and has to work 14 hour days is not effecient. It is exploitation. And if you are happy to pay top dollar for those "designer" trainers than you fooling yourself if you think you are buying "quality".

Sooner or later you can kiss goodbye to your job. How you going to compete with a workforce who can be beaten into submission and be forced to work 14 hour days and sleep at their place of work.




Bad journalism?
By psonice on 7/23/2009 9:35:33 AM , Rating: 1
Nope, not at all. Good article! :)




Lacking?
By Ebbyman on 7/23/2009 10:44:23 AM , Rating: 1
Foxconn: "The company has noticed there has been much detailed discussion on the Internet and welcomes public discussion on how to help Foxconn's management where it is lacking." (wtf, this is the most ridiculous line I have heard in light of the circumstances)

To Foxconn management, an employee killed himself because he was harassed by you and likely expected to get whacked. I think it is clear you are lacking in a lot of places. I hope that the Chinese government gives you the salami sideways, but I will believe it when I see it.




What about Tibet ....why Apple
By crystal clear on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By xsilver on 7/23/2009 10:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
Why free tibet when you can sue apple? (well at least the possibility of a lawsuit anyways.)

its all about the $$$


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By crystal clear on 7/23/2009 11:24:27 AM , Rating: 1
If its $$$ then there are better ways to grab them by sueing Apple-the ipods ....they burn,they smoke,they explode...

Read below-

It took more than 7-months for KIRO 7 Consumer Investigator Amy Clancy to get her hands on documents concerning Apple’s iPods from the Consumer Product Safety Commission because Apple’s lawyers filed exemption after exemption. In the end, the CPSC released more than 800 pages which reveal, for the very first time, a comprehensive look that shows, on a number of occasions, iPods have suddenly burst into flames, started to smoke, and even burned their owners.

http://www.kirotv.com/money/20089894/detail.html

Free Tibet !


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By xsilver on 7/23/2009 11:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
yeah but thats all from the consumers side.
I was thinking that this is going to get the workers at the factory a raise because of stress/risk/whatever either in a lump sum payout or fixed increase in income.

raises some moral questions really. eg, if in the US some whacko came in and shot a co-worker; the company offers hush money do you take it? (assume company has small to zero actual negligence.)


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By crystal clear on 7/23/2009 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
I frequently travel to Chaiwan China/Taiwan & see for myself there how those workers in China are treated,its hell...
You can see slavery in its best form, forget a pay raise or compensations etc.

Its common for workers to sleep/live in their workplace or factory premises.

For them work conditions/rights are non existant, for them USA is heaven or paradise.


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By Gul Westfale on 7/23/2009 11:22:39 PM , Rating: 4
maybe this gets so much attention here because THIS IS A TECH WEBSITE, not a political website.


By crystal clear on 7/25/2009 1:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
I gave Tibet just as a comparison ......

DT articles are vague/inaccurate/highly biased against Apple - not that I support Apple...I want accuracy & neutrality.

I prefer accuracy & neutrality thats why I am the favourite of the downraters here on D.T.


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By AnnihilatorX on 7/23/2009 12:19:27 PM , Rating: 5
Arg oh. Now DailyTech won't go through the great firewall of China.


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By HrilL on 7/23/2009 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
If someone is too ignorant to get past their firewall then maybe they shouldn't. After all it is for their protection.


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By Maxima2k2se on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By crystal clear on 7/23/2009 8:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hey I am NOT Pirks in disguise or anybody else in disguise...I am the very CRYSTAL CLEAR very much appreciated by the downraters (they give their precious votes -1)..& I enjoy it.

In this very article above I posted this-

If its $$$ then there are better ways to grab them by sueing Apple-the ipods ....they burn,they smoke,they explode...


Go to the link provided for more details.

So I do post negative comments about Apple.

As for the missing iphone & the dead china man ...whats so special about it...just because its Apple connected.

I gave Tibet just as a comparison ......

Nobody knows if its really the iPhone or the iTablet....

The next time I support Apple "i" may suspected to be JOBS in disguise....(joking)


By crystal clear on 7/23/2009 9:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Copy paste of a pirk comment-

By Pirks on 7/22/2009 1:40:30 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
why a BMW 7 series costs so much more than a Chevy Aveo
*DING DING DING*

downraters, here we come! :)))


RE: What about Tibet ....why Apple
By JakLee on 7/23/2009 5:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder why TIBET does not get the same attention where peace loving/religious monks are killed....

Why anything concerning Apple gets the attention ?

Apple is only a company TIBET is a country ....


Well..... this is a tech site, if you want to discuss Tibet you can always go to www.smouch.net/lol and share your heartfelt feelings.


By crystal clear on 7/25/2009 1:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
You should be cleaning toilets rather wasting your time on a tech site.....go smouch it there.


Huh?
By The0ne on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/23/2009 9:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
"and strengthen our assistance to young employees."

I don't think Danyong needed any more assistance out of his window. He probably would have appreciated a little less.


RE: Huh?
By alexfenway on 7/25/2009 3:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
i did find this amusing.


RE: Huh?
By MrPoletski on 7/23/2009 9:12:35 AM , Rating: 4
Managers? trained to BS?

NEVAR!


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki