International Law

Microsoft: the Latest China Labor Villain

By Stan

Yes, the most recent bad guys in the China labor wars are the folks from Microsoft. The details are still a bit fuzzy, but here are some of the basics:

Two Chinese factories that supply goods to Microsoft and other global companies have been cited by government officials for violating local labor laws, including failing to register more than 300 workers between the ages of 16 and 18. (New York Times)

OK, what does this first charge mean? It does not say that these factories were illegally employing children. They were employing kids between 16 and 18, but doing so is legal. Whether that should be legal in the first place is not Microsoft’s immediate problem, it’s the Chinese government’s issue to consider.

The labor violation was failure to register them as minor workers. Now, if this was merely an oversight, then I say no big deal. The factories may simply be given a warning, or even made to pay a very small fine, but that’s it. The last thing the city of Dongguan wants to do, following the Apple/Foxconn uproar, is make a big issue of this. Here’s what the government determined:

Investigators with Dongguan’s human resources bureau said in a report that factories are allowed to hire workers between the ages of 16 and 18 as long as the laborers are registered with the authorities. The KYE factories had 385 such workers ? most supplied by vocational schools ? and 326 weren’t properly registered[.] (Associated Press)

The second allegation is that these workers were forced to labor in excess of normal working hours, some as much as 15 hours a day. The government has not made any formal findings of this charge thus far.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these workers were pulling 15-hour shifts. It’s certainly not unheard of in China factories. It is also a labor violation and should be dealt with according to law.

That being said, I have to say that this seems very much like business as usual for factories in Dongguan (and elsewhere in China). Maybe I’ve gotten so used to these conditions that I am missing the overall point being made by some of these labor rights groups.

The one that “broke” this story is the National Labor Committee (NLC), which the New York Times says is based in Pittsburgh, and the Associated Press says is based out of New York. (Their website says Pittsburgh – how hard was that, AP?)

Among the allegations made by the NLC in its report are the following:

• Workers are paid 65 cents an hour, which falls to a take-home wage of 52 cents an hour after deductions for factory food.

Does this meet local minimum wage rules or not? If yes, then story over. Using numbers like this is, in my opinion, unnecessarily inflammatory and fails to take into account local conditions. The intended audience of the report includes folks sitting in a Starbucks somewhere drinking $4 cappuccinos and clucking judgmentally about companies that pay “slave wages.” I’m just saying that things like per capita income and purchasing power make a difference.

• Workers have to report early, unpaid, for military-like drills.  Management controls every second of their lives.

Not to make light of all this, but the staff at the restaurant next door to where I live also has to report early for military-like drills. And management controls their time as well.

In other words, I’m not sure how specific this practice is to these factories. Sounds a lot like “normal” business activity to me. We might not all like that kind of customary activity, and if it violates labor law then it’s perfectly fine to complain about it, but singling out Microsoft for following local practice seems over the top.

• The work pace is grueling as workers race to complete their mandatory goal of 2000 Microsoft mice per shift.  During the long summer, factory temperatures reach 86 degrees and the workers are drenched in sweat.

I do not have full details here, but again, how many places of business reach that temperature in the summer? I’m thinking a fairly high percentage.

• Security guards sexually harass the young women.  Workers are prohibited from talking, listening to music or going to the bathroom during working hours.  Freedom of movement is restricted and workers can only leave the factory compound during regulated hours.

See above. This all sounds very familiar. No one likes sexual harassment, and the government should definitely crack down on it in China, but singling out these factories for it seems arbitrary. The complaint about the music policy is really, I’m sorry to say, laughable; I’ve worked in several companies that prohibited workers from listening to music on the job.

• Fourteen workers share each primitive, dirty dorm room, sleeping on narrow bunk beds.  To “shower” workers fetch hot water in a small plastic bucket for a sponge bath.  Workers report that the food is awful.

Last time I’ll say this: I am not trying to make light on a situation that for all I know is horrific. However, the dorm facilities described here (see the above photo) sound only slightly worse than some schools I’ve taught at over here. Not at all pleasant, but also not abnormal.

Anyway, enough of my nitpicking. The NLC, which apparently spent three years on this report, may have a real expose here, and I certainly support their work. I suspect, however, that while there may be some violations, the overall conditions have been painted in the worst light as possible; that’s what these organizations are forced to do to get attention.

While this will not win me many friends, I have to say that Microsoft is getting a raw deal here. One more example of a multinational being singled out because they are big and will guarantee that the story gets a lot of attention. Meanwhile, the working conditions for these kids is not going to get any better as a result.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: child labor, china labor conditions, dongguan, labor law, microsoft, minimum wage, national labor committee

Full post as published by China Hearsay on April 20, 2010 (boomark / email).