From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Mon May 31 21:08:38 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 18:08:38 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] What good are corporate labor standards if factories ignore them? Message-ID: <44E3A892-2D08-4F1D-96D4-8EDC15A5E4A5@countercorp.org> Concern Over Human Cost Overshadows iPad Launch A gadget to die for? By Martin Hickman (Independent [UK], May 27) -- The American electronics giant Apple is investigating damaging allegations that Chinese workers making its new iPad device were subjected to such "inhumane" treatment that some of them took their own lives by jumping off factory roofs. Documents seen by the Independent reveal there are widespread failures by Apple's suppliers to respect the standards on worker rights and safety specified by the company, which had sales of $45 billion last year. An update to the U.S. firm's supplier codes of conduct in February revealed that a majority of its 102 facilities flouted its "rigorous" rules on working hours, which include a weekly limit of 60 hours a week -- equivalent to 12 hours a day. Some 39 percent broke rules on workplace injury prevention, and 30 percent broke guidelines on the management of toxic chemicals. Audits also uncovered violations involving child labour, falsified records and disposal of hazardous waste. The company has been embarrassed by publicity surrounding 11 suicide attempts at the vast Foxconn facility where the iPad is made near the southern boom city of Shenzhen, which threatens to overshadow the international launch of the touch-screen computer. A "saddened and upset" Apple promised to investigate whether the plant, which employs 300,000 people who earn around 50 cents an hour, should continue to make its products, which sell for hundreds of dollars each. At the 1.2-square mile Foxconn facility, which also makes products for Dell, Hewlett Packard, and Acer, nine workers have died and two have been gravely injured in roof jumps in the first five months of 2010. All the incidents involved workers aged under 25, who apparently have been disturbed by the long shifts and strict discipline. Talking and music are banned during shifts, which last at least 10 hours. Workers must perform a certain number of repetitive operations per shift, under the eye of allegedly harsh military-style supervisors. "Foxconn's management is totally inhuman," one worker told the Reuters news agency. Another said: "They don't treat workers as humans." A young Foxconn line supervisor, Tang Wenying, told journalists allowed into the complex yesterday: "This is a good place to work because they treat us better than many [other] Chinese factories." In an attempt to prevent more suicides, the Taiwanese-owned firm has hired 2,000 singers, dancers, and gym trainers. It is also putting up netting to thwart future suicides. Concerns were expressed about the factory three years ago by China Labour Watch, a U.S. organization which claims dire conditions involved "serious labour violations including excessive working hours, unpaid wages for up to 30 minutes of work each day, compulsory overtime, and extremely poor dormitory conditions." Last July, it revealed the suicide of a young worker, Sun Danyong. According to its report, only workers producing for Apple were given a stool to sit while working, while all others had to stand. Workers also complained of violence, including beatings with iron bars and whips. The allegations have not surprised campaigners, who say that while Western shoppers often hear of problems at Asian clothes factories, conditions for workers in bigger consumer electronics plants are just as grim. "When you look at large-scale export-driven trade, it doesn't really matter whether the workers are making clothes or electronics," said Simon MacRae, senior campaigns officer at War on Want. "There's a similar pattern: long working hours, very poor pay, and suppression of labour rights." "The [technology] sector provides jobs", MacRae said, "but without decent wages, you are not going to lift people out of poverty." Last month a report by the National Labour Committee, an American NGO, found that workers at a Chinese factory supplying Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, and other brands toiled for up to 15 hours a day in heat of up to 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Other allegations about the KYE factory included sexual harassment and humiliation by supervisors. Teenage workers were pictured slumped over their desks during a break in a 15-hour shift. One said: "We are like prisoners. We do not have a life. Only work." KYE management responded that conditions were excellent, and fully complied with Chinese labour laws. Microsoft said it was "very concerned" and launched an investigation. Although China has occasionally expressed concern over the regime in export factories, the spate of suicides has spurred a national debate about whether workers fulfilling foreign orders are being pushed too hard. Campaigners believe Bangladeshi clothes factories are the very worst sweatshops, but factories in China combine the financial advantages of a cheap labour supply with a totalitarian state's intolerance of industrial rights. Most factories in free-trade export zones such as Shenzhen, the "the workshop of the world", are owned by foreign companies. Apple said it was taking the spate of suicides "very seriously". A spokeswoman said: "A team from Apple is independently evaluating the steps [the factories] are taking to address these tragic events, and we will continue our ongoing inspections of the facilities where our products are made." Hewlett Packard said it was investigating "the Foxconn practices that may be associated with these tragic events". Dell said it expected its suppliers "to employ the same high standards we do in our own facilities". Acer declined to comment. ===== SIDEBAR ===== Hard Labour for Gadgets 60 hours -- Maximum working week stipulated in Apple's "supplier responsibility" code of practice 54 percent -- Factories breaking Apple's rules on working hours (according to Apple's Supplier Responsibility 2010 Progress Report) 39 percent -- Factories breaking Apple's injury prevention rules 30 percent -- Plants breaking Apple's hazardous substance rules 45 cents -- Hourly wage of 300,000 workers at Foxconn in Shenzhen 86 degrees -- Temperature exceeded in workshops at the KYE Factory in China, which supplies Microsoft 2,000 -- Number of Microsoft mice each worker in the KYE Factory must make per shift 15 hours -- Maximum length of a shift at the KYE factory From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Thu Jun 3 16:53:04 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:53:04 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] The short life and quick death of CSR Message-ID: <45A715F0-F173-4F31-9CA6-3FC92301B0CD@countercorp.org> Corporate Social Irresponsibility by Phil Mattera (Dirt Diggers Digest, May 14) -- The catastrophic Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 gave rise to the modern corporate social responsibility movement; the current spill in the Gulf of Mexico marks its collapse. The past two decades have been an experiment in corporate behavior modification. An array of well-intentioned organizations such as the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) promoted the idea that large companies could be made to do the right thing by getting them to sign voluntary codes of conduct and adopt other seemingly enlightened policies on environmental and social issues. At first there was resistance, but Big Business soon realized the advantages of projecting an ethical image -- so much so that corporate social responsibility (known widely as CSR) is now used as a selling point by many firms. Chevron, for example, has an ad campaign with the tagline "Will You Join Us" that is apparently meant to convey the idea that the oil giant is in the vanguard of efforts to save the earth. What also made CSR appealing to corporations was the recognition that it could serve as a buffer against aggressive regulation. And while CSR proponents in the non-profit sector were usually not pursuing a deregulatory agenda, the image of companies' agreeing to act virtuously conveyed the message that strong government intervention was unnecessary. CSR thus dovetails with the efforts of corporations and their allies to undermine formal oversight of business activities. This is what General Electric was up to when it ran its Eco-imagination ads while simultaneously lobbying to weaken the air pollution rules that govern the locomotives it makes. Recent events call into question the meaning of a commitment to CSR. The company at the center of the Gulf oil disaster, BP, has long promoted itself as being socially responsible. A decade ago it adopted a sunburst logo, acknowledged that global warming was a problem, and claimed to be going "beyond petroleum" by investing (modestly) in renewable energy sources. What did all that social responsibility mean if the company could still, as emerging evidence suggests, cut corners on safety in one of its riskiest activities -- deepwater drilling? And how responsible is it for BP to join with rig owner Transocean and contractor Halliburton in pointing fingers at one another in an apparent attempt to diffuse liability? BP is hardly unique in violating its self-professed "high standards." This year has also seen the moral implosion of Toyota, another darling of the CSR world. It was only months after the Prius producer was chosen for Ethisphere's list of "the world's most ethical companies" that it came to light that Toyota had failed to notify regulators or the public about its defective gas pedals. Goldman Sachs, widely despised these days for unscrupulous behavior during the financial meltdown, was a CSR pioneer in the investment banking world. In 2005 it was the first Wall Street firm to adopt a comprehensive environmental policy (after being pressured by groups such as Rainforest Action Network), and it established a think tank called the Center for Environmental Markets. Even Massey Energy, which has remained defiant in the face of charges that a pre-occupation with profit over safety led to the deaths of 29 coal miners in a recent explosion, publishes an annual CSR report. When the members of a corporate rogues' gallery such as this all profess to be practitioners of CSR, the concept loses much of its legitimacy. The best that can be said is that these companies may behave well in some respects while screwing up royally in others -- the way that Wal-Mart is supposedly in the forefront of environmental reform while retaining its Neanderthal labor relations policies. Selective ethics, however, should be no more tolerable for corporations than it is for people. Heaven forbid that we violate the free speech rights of CSR hypocrites, but there should be some mechanism -- perhaps truth-in-image-advertising laws -- to curb the ability of corporations to go on deceiving the public. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Fri Jun 4 01:55:12 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:55:12 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] AT&T: Charging extra to make your phone work and get cancer Message-ID: <457D10D2-4C81-4FC7-AAD2-B208F4F16956@countercorp.org> Mini-Cell Towers: Good for Reception, Bad for Health By Seth Fiegerman (Mainstreet[.]com, April 8) -- AT&T is about to do something extreme: provide a functioning phone network to their customers. Unfortunately, there's a downside. Many AT&T customers have complained about weak signals on their phones, and even AT&T has admitted that some of their networks get overtaxed. In one peculiar move, AT&T actually tried to prevent New Yorkers from buying more iPhones last year in order to help the network run smoother. Now, AT&T has another bright idea: mini-cell towers. This month, the carrier will begin selling what they call "MicroCells" for $150. According to the New York Times, these towers are relatively small, about as big as "a couple decks of cards," and they work by "redirecting cell phone calls from congested cell towers to home Web connections." The Times notes that several other phone companies, including Verizon and Samsung, already sell these towers, but usually for "niche use to customers in places with limited cell phone signals, like basements or homes with particularly thick walls." While these towers will likely improve your phone reception and hopefully limit the number of calls that get dropped, there are two potentially serious problems with this plan. First, the towers are bad for your wallet. In addition to the $150 price tag, the Times reports "AT&T customers would be charged for the minutes of phone service in their existing wireless plans unless they pay an extra $20 a month for unlimited calling." Perhaps more importantly, the towers may also be bad for your health. We interviewed several experts who believe consumers should think twice before purchasing these cell towers. "It is not a smart idea," said Dr. Lennart Hardell, who authored a pivotal study on the link between long-term cell phone use and brain tumors. "It will increase radiofrequency emissions in the home, and we do not know the long term effects of that." The FCC describes radiofrequency emissions as "the movement of electric charges" coming from the antennae of mobile devices. As with radiation in general, some studies have shown that radiofrequency emissions can be harmful at high levels. Hardell cautions that these emission could be particularly harmful to children, causing various "cognitive effects" including sleep disturbance, headaches and potentially even cancer. Devra Lee Davis, a professor at Mount Sinai Medical Center and author of 'The Secret History of the War on Cancer', argues it may be okay to install these towers in the home, since they tend to have a low "electric field intensity." However, she cautions families to be careful how they use these devices. "While these mini-towers pose no immediate threat to health, the long-term impact of their use, especially for the young and those with 24/7 exposure, is a matter of concern," she said. "I would advise turning these things off when their use is not needed, such as at night. And never place them close to children, pregnant women, or men trying to become fathers." Of course, if you are one of the many disenchanted AT&T customers who own an iPhone and are hesitant about buying one of these towers, there may be another out for you. Rumor has it that Apple is developing a version of the iPhone specially designed for use on Verizon's wireless network, and the CEO of Verizon recently admitted to being in talks with Apple. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Fri Jun 4 14:49:09 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:49:09 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Serial drillers are also serial spillers Message-ID: <074401A4-4271-4901-98C7-E5CBFA36E9F9@countercorp.org> Obama's "Revelations" and the Oil Industry's Slimy History No oil company executive has ever gone to jail for environmental devastation By James Ridgeway (Mother Jones, June 1) -- "What's been made clear from this disaster is that for years the oil and gas industry has leveraged such power that they have effectively been allowed to regulate themselves," President Obama said last week in his press conference on the BP oil spill. "I was wrong," he declared, "in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios." Ya think? If this isn't a textbook example of closing the barn door after the horse is out, I don't know what is. In fact, it isn't even closing the door so much as acknowledging that the barn actually has a door, which we might want to consider using once in a while if we don't want the horses running wild. What the president's statement reminds me of most is Alan Greenspan's admission, after the economic meltdown took place, that there just might be a tiny "flaw" in his approach to financial regulation. "I made a mistake," Greenspan told Congress in October 2008, "in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." In the aftermath of his press conference, political pundits seem to be focused on whether Obama -- and by implication the federal government -- was taking too much responsibility for the spill, or not enough. Only a few have pointed out the patent absurdity of believing in the first place that the oil companies could be trusted to "have their act together" when it came to either preventing or dealing with massive spills. The history of global oil spills over the last half-century shows a pattern of carelessness and ineptitude on the part of the industry -- and of failure on the part of governments who tried to intervene after the fact. When the tanker Torrey Canyon drove straight into the rocks off Land?s End in Britain in 1967, spilling its 31-million-gallon cargo, chemical dispersants were spread on the expanding slick with no result. According to the "Report to the Committee of Scientists on the Scientific and Technological Aspects of the Torrey Canyon Disaster," the British Air Force was called in to set the oil afire by bombing it. Some of it eventually caught fire; most of it did not. A Dutch salvage team thought they could fix things by pulling the ship off the rocks, but the tow cable broke. The spill ended up killing marine life and spreading glop all over the beaches of Southern England and some in France as well. In 1969, a well on the continental shelf six miles off Santa Barbara, California, went out of control. All initial efforts to control the spilling oil were as futile. When the flow was finally stopped after 11 days, 3 million gallons had escaped and coated the pristine beaches of Santa Barbara channel. (At the time it was considered a devastating disaster, and helped fuel the fledgling environmental movement in California -- though the numbers sound almost quaint compared with the current BP spill.) After the Santa Barbara spill, the U.S. government came up with a plan to keep teams of experts from different parts of government on standby, so they could fly in and assess damage in the event of a spill. In 1969 alone, the Coast Guard was reporting 1,007 oil spills in U.S. coastal waters. Many others were not reported. For example, it was standard industry practice at the time for ships to pump waste oil into the water as they were approaching port. That same year, a Woods Hole Oceanographic research project in the Sargasso Sea reported finding "quantities of oil-tar lumps up to 3 inches in diameter" in nets they were using to study undersea plants. "It was estimated that there was three times as much tar-like material as Sargasso weed," the report said. "Similar occurrences have been reported worldwide by observers from this as well as other institutions.?? In 1970 an Onassis tanker called the Arrow hit Cerberus Rock off Nova Scotia. It was the Torrey Canyon all over again: Detergents were sprayed with no effect. The U.S. Army dispatched teams armed with flame throwers to burn it up, which didn't work. Chemists from Pittsburgh Corning Glass arrived with bags of little glass balls intended to act as wicks for burning the oil, but these did not ignite. Fiberglass collars set up to keep the spreading oil out of a fish processing plant also failed. Attempts to pull the ship off the rocks were futile. Eventually a gale broke the tanker?s back and the stern sank in one hundred feet of water with one million gallons of congealed crude oil aboard. In this case, by pure luck, the remaining oil stayed inside the tanker until a salvage team pumped it out a few months later. In 1979, Pemex's Ixtac oil well in the Gulf of Mexico off Campeche suffered a blow-out. Various measures -- some of them similar to those currently being used on the BP spill -- slowed the flow of oil from 30,000 to 10,000 barrels a day, but it took nearly ten months for it to stop completely. By that time, an estimated 3 million barrels had reached the U.S. coast. From the 1970s through the 1990s, there were more than a dozen spills larger than the Exxon Valdez, pouring oil into the waters off Trinidad, Uzbekistan, Iran, Angola, South Africa, France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Mozambique, Chile, and Sweden. As for the Valdez disaster itself, its effects still linger nearly two decades after the 1989 spill. During that time, suits against Exxon made their way through courts, resulting in a $5.5 billion jury trial settlement. But the Supreme Court later thought this was too much money, and cut the settlement to $1 billion. No fine ever levied against the oil industry has seriously inhibited its ability to keep doing business as usual -- or employing lobbyists, or making campaign contributions. And to my knowledge, no oil company executives have ever gone to jail for the environmental devastation caused by their negligence or greed. This, perhaps, is the real lesson of history when it comes to oil spills: It isn't enough, even, to close the barn door, if you allow the horses to keep making hay. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Sun Jun 6 15:40:40 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] California county ends unhealthy toy bribery Message-ID: County Officials Pass Nation?s First Restaurant Toy Give-Away Ordinance (Santa Clara County government, April 27) -- The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors today approved an ordinance to combat childhood obesity by preventing restaurants from using toys and other incentives to lure kids into eating meals that are high in fat, sugar and calories. The new law, proposed by Board President Ken Yeager, is intended to support parents? efforts to choose more nutritious options for their children and is the first of its kind in the United States. Restaurants encourage children to choose specific menu items by linking them with free toys and other incentive items, and research shows that parents frequently make purchases based on requests made by children. In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission estimated that restaurants sold 1.2 billion meals accompanied by toys to children under 12. While there are currently no nutritional standards for meals marketed to children, a 2008 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that 10 out of 12 meals that came with toys exceeded the recommended caloric limits for children. ?This ordinance levels the playing field,? said Yeager. ?It helps parents make the choices they want for their children without toys and other freebies luring them toward food that fails to meet basic nutritional standards.? One in four youth in Santa Clara county are either overweight or obese, and one in three low-income children in Santa Clara County between ages two and five are overweight or obese. Nationally, childhood obesity has tripled since the 1970s. Obesity is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Thirty percent of boys and 40 percent of girls born in 2000 will be diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which can result in the loss of, on average, 10-15 years of life. ?The latest generation of children may be the first to live shorter lives than their parents,? said Yeager of the childhood obesity crisis. ?Using toys to entice children into poor health habits is a problem that needs to be addressed.? The ordinance supports the health of children in the County by setting basic nutritional standards for children?s meals accompanied by toys or other incentive items. It permits restaurants to offer toys and other incentive items long as it is with food that meets national nutritional criteria for children. The ordinance imposes very specific, common-sense restrictions. Restaurants cannot use toys as rewards for buying foods that have excessive calories (more than 120 for a beverage, 200 for a single food item, or 485 for a meal), excessive sodium (480 mg for a single food item or 600 mg for a meal), excessive fat (more than 35% of total calories from fat), or excessive sugar (more than 10% of calories from added sweeteners). The criteria are based on nationally recognized standards for children?s health created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and recommendations for children?s food published by the Institute of Medicine. The Santa Clara County healthcare system has seen rapid increases in children seeking healthcare for obesity-related problems at a cost of millions of dollars each year. The county even created a Pediatric Healthy Lifestyle Center to address the complex medical needs of obese children in the county. ?Childhood obesity is a critical public health issue,? said Dr. Sara Cody, the county's acting public health officer. ?If we can help parents break the link between eating unhealthy food and getting a prize, we should.? The ordinance affects all restaurants in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Restaurants will be granted a 90-day grace period to come up with alternative measures that meet the goals of the ordinance.