Since the London-based Sunday Mail published its feature story about iPod factory in China on June 13, 2006, and since Apple company issued its own investigation report on the situation on August 17, the case seems having lost its momentum in the English-speaking world (amid many other pressingly urgent issues). Not many people know there had been a drama playing out in China. That is, before September 3.
I take it as my duty to inform you that the case has not been concluded satisfactorily, at least not to those who care about labor condition more than about building up harmonious relations between business media and capital interest in China.
To make a long story short, it concerns the contracted manufacturer of Apple’s iPod in China, Foxccon International Holdings of Taiwanese capital. A Chinese newspaper ran a story entitled “Foxccon Employees: Machine Demand You Stand up 12 Hours [in a Row],” and another follow-up story.
Foxccon sued the penning reporter and an editor for libel, without suing at the same time the newspaper. The two had all their personal assets frozen, since Foxccon asked for up to 30 million yuan damage compensation, unheard of in libel cases in China.
A public uproar ensued. Indignation and anger poured upon Foxccon on the internet and printed media. Eventually, Foxccon backed down, lowering its quest from 30 million yuan to a symbolic one yuan on August 31, and three days later issued a joined statement with the newspaper, withdrawing the case completely.
Ironically, Foxccon is one of the first Taiwanese firms in Guangdong that had set up cells of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It has also encouraged member recruitment by the Party Committee active within its premises. Yet, no trade union has been set up. What are those Party members do for the labor class in their factory? Any task that is more ideologically “Communism” than merely supporting the nation, the State, and the government at various level? Oh, yeah, must be things more: they support the capital.
Many people in the West have been debating if China has become a capitalist economy or remained a socialist one. In my view, the best criterion to this question is to see to which side the government’s policy is leaning in conflicts between capital and labor. Applying this to the Foxccon case, it is crystal clear that capital has been favored.
In more than two months when the drama played itself out, the Labor Ministry in Beijing and the municipal Labor Bureau in Shenzhen were conspicuously silent. It’s true the official trade union office in the city spoke out publicly, urging Foxccon to allow its employees to set up trade union branches (not independent unions). However, this has been the only semi-governmental office speaking about the case.
In other words, both the Party and the government have learnt to hide themselves behind the cover of “legal channels” to solve labor disputes. The authorities would do all they could to avoid making public statements, lest they be mistaken as if supporting the not-so-obedient workers in making trouble to capital.
The court is not much better, for capital is capable to manipulate the laws and the court to its own advantage. To single out vulnerable individual for crashing financial cost is but one “innovative” approach capital has created.
And so the media. When capital backed down, to borrow a blogger’s words, the media did not step up its own demand for social justice. Instead, most of the involved rushed to express their self-criticism and praise of the boss of Foxccon. The original content of the published stories were all but forgotten. Similarly forgotten are the workers who have to stand for 12 hours in a row everyday.
This is to say, Foxccon has never formally complained against the title of the first report, though it has done so against the Sunday Mail’s claim of workers working 15 hours each day. Foxccon itself takes pride in running a huge “city of factory” of almost 200,000 employees.
Population of a medium-sized city, living together almost 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, without any civil relations between each other. They are simply “employees” of a gigantic manufacturer. How amazingly classic a picture of capitalist production, of human beings becoming no more than the extension of machines.
I am reminded a French film, whose title has slipped my memory. It starts with two prisoners who, extremely depressed by the strictly controlled life inside prison, attempt an escape, with success. But, the first one running out is not clear if the second one has done it as well. After various tries, this first guy lands himself into working by the assembly line in a huge factory with its own dorm and huge canteen, a setting even more depressing than inside prison, only to discover that its owner is none other than his former inmate.
Or, Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times.
You will not see films of this kind coming out of contemporary China. The government will ban such films before you could have learned any news about it, for such films would no question offend Capital, the best bedfellow of today’s CPC.
-------------------
To help my non-Chinese-speaking friends to grasp the fuller picture of the case, I compiled a document. It reads a bit dry, but with all the background information and a brief chronology in it you’ll be able to come to your own conclusion pretty clearly. The main source for the document is from the website run by China Business News (CBN), based in Shanghai, with its Chinese name literally meaning the “Number One [or, the First] Financial and Business News” (第一财经).
You’d get lost, however, if you try to google it. There are so many pages related to “China/Chinese business news” that it’s impossible to find the “right” one without opening hundreds or even thousands of pages containing something about economic news from China. It testifies to China’s growing importance in this globalizing world.
The good news is, if you know no Chinese, you don’t have to bother – the site is exclusively in Chinese. The bad news is, even if you know Chinese, all references to the case have been blocked, bringing out empty to search attempt through its search service. But the block is not yet absolute. You’d better check it through Google and select a “cached” link, then you can go back to the official – and very extensive and intensive – coverage of the case by the CBN (http://www.china-cbn.com). We can only hope it won’t be blocked completely in the future.
BACKGROUND OF THE TWO PARTIES:
1. The Taiwanese owned firm involved in the case has three layers in its structure: an operational company named Fushijin, wholly owned by Foxconn International Holdings, which is in turn an arm of Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Industry.
Hon Hai has grown into the largest manufacturing contractor in Taiwan, with its owner, a Mr. Kuo ranked the number one wealthiest Taiwanese, and number 198 in Forbes globally wealthiest list.
The company is still in an expanding process, at a time when some more established Taiwanese firms in electronics are planning to shed their manufacturing arms to concentrate on creating brand products.
2. In April 2004, Hon Hai sued a journalist in Taiwan for story about its pricing strategies, asking for 30 million Taiwan dollar for compensation. Hon Hai paid in advance court fees to have the court order personal assets of housing and bank accounts to be frozen.
Taiwan’s journalist association organized campaign on behalf of the journalist, collecting more than 1,000 signatures within four days and essentially forcing the journalist's employer, a business newspaper, to stand out to back the journalist.
Hon Hai dropped the case after negotiating an agreement (no details) with the newspaper in December 2004, and consequently withdrew the assets-frozen quest. The journalist did not take any legal action against Hon Hai subsequently.
After dropping the lawsuit case in late 2004, Mr. Kuo said in an interview that the lawsuit was aimed at seeking truth; it was designed with innovative approach, whose purpose was not for money; and all the money won from the case would have gone to charity completely. He also claimed "though this is the first time, it will definitely not be the last time." Presumably the reference is the “innovative” approach.
3. The mainland newspaper China Business News (CNB) or The Number One Business Daily was created by three established big media companies in Beijing (Beijing Youth Daily), Shanghai (a big one, don't know its English title), and Guangzhou (Guangzhou Daily News Group) in 2003. It is part of a big media group in Shanghai that includes major business channels in television and radio, transformed from previous official (governmental, state-owned) channels, with considerable government connections in Shanghai.
CHRONOLOGY (2006)
June 11, London-based Sunday Mail publishes a feature report on iPot’s producer, Hongfujin, in Shenzhen in China’s Guangdong Province, saying that women workers there work 15 hours per day for as little a salary as 300 yuan (less than US$40) per month.
Early June, more and more complaints about labor condition in Foxccon’s factories emerge in the Chinese internet.
The Shanghai-based "China Business News (CBN)" decides to run a story about it. Woman journalist Wang You is assigned the task.
June 14, China’s leading internet portal sina.com carries Chinese translation of the Sunday Mail report.
June 15, CBN carries Wang’s report, entitled "Foxccon Employees: Machines Demand You Stand for 12 Hours in a Row." For the report, Wang had on-line chat with a college graduate and checked main facts with a Miss He at Foxccon's PR office the previous day. It is the first independent report on Foxccon run by Chinese media.
Mid June, Chinese on-line and print media cover related news extensively. Most on-line media relay both the sina version and Wang's story.
Foxccon holds a press conference in Shenzhen, explaining the situation in their factory to the public.
June 20, instructed to write a follow-up story, Wang arrives at a Foxccon
factory in Kunshan County, Jiangsu Province, neighboring Shanghai to the
north. She talks for 50 minutes with a girl who just quitted her job there.
June 22, CBN carries the second story on Foxccon by Wang, entitled "Former Foxccon Woman Worker: Basic Pay Very Low, Welfare Pretty Good."
June 30, two Foxccon officials make appointment to see Wang and her editor (name unclear). The conservation was "pleasant and harmonious," according to Wang, when Foxccon side expressed hope that CBN should drop the topic, but did not question the truthfulness of the two published articles.
Later, Foxccon tries to arrange another meeting with Wang, which, "due to schedule conflicts on both sides, did never work out," Wang was quoted as saying by the Beijing News (Xin jing bao) in late August.
The CBN paper nonetheless runs no more coverage on Foxccon.
Early July, Foxccon sends out notification letters signed by its lawyers to a number of journalists nationwide, all of those who have covered the topic. Wang and Wong are the only two that eventually get the assets-frozen notice from a Shenzhen court.
[In late August, one journalist getting lawyer's letter from Foxccon asks to remain anonymous and confirms that the matter with him was "settled through mediation," without giving details.]
Foxccon launches lawsuit against Wang and Wong, but not their employer, CBN, who published stories. Foxccon asks for damage-compensation of 20 million yuan from Wang and 10 million yuan from Wong.
July 10, a court in Shenzhen issues notifications to Wang and Wong, upon quest by Foxccon, to put the two journalists’ personal assets frozen to safeguard potential compensation payments.
In the court document, Foxccon says that the two articles penned by Wang "make conclusive statements without checking facts, based merely on heresy or street talks," and using languages "apparently degenerating and insulting," "causing tremendous economic damages to the plaintiff."
Foxccon has not paid court fees and the order not taken effect yet. CBN starts (?) getting involved, contacting Guangdong’s Provincial Taiwan Office, seeking negotiation channels to settle the case outside court.
According to the Taiwan Office, Foxccon in Shenzhen is among the first that established CCP’s Party cells on its premise. It has also encouraged the party committee to recruit new members among its employees.
However, it has not allowed the set up of trade union organizations inside the firm. Since the case became focus of public attention, the Shenzhen municipal office of China's official trade union has announced Foxccon is one of 30 firms being targeted to set up trade union branched before the end of 2006.
July 17, Foxccon pays more than 170,000 yuan in total of court fees to the Shenzhen court. Assets frozen order goes into effect.
July 24, Wang and Wong issue their appeal separately to the court, asking for release of their assets, on the ground that Wong claims he does not have any connection with stories about Foxccon to be qualified as a defendant, and Wang says she has not received any court documents concerning her defendant status, except the asset-frozen order.
Aug. 18, Apple Company publishes its investigation report, saying that the situation is not as bad as the Sunday Mail's story claims. Excerpt of the report:
"The manufacturing facility supports over 200,000 employees (Apple uses less than 15% of that capacity) and has the services you'd expect in a medium city. The campus includes factories, employee housing, banks, a post office, a hospital, supermarkets, and a variety of recreational facilities including soccer fields, a swimming pool, TV lounges and Internet cafes. Ten cafeterias are also located throughout the campus offering a variety of menu choices such as fresh vegetables, beef, seafood, rice, poultry, and stir-fry noodles. In addition, employees have access to 13 different restaurants on campus. Employees were pleased with the variety and quality of food offerings.
"The supplier owns and leases dormitories that are offered at no charge to employees, provided they help in cleaning common areas to maintain the facility. Workers are not required to live in these dormitories, although the majority do. Our team randomly selected and inspected a wide range of dormitories (both supplier-owned on-campus and off-site leased facilities) that collectively house over 32,000 people. Buildings are separated by gender, with female dorms containing a private bathroom/shower for each room and male dorm rooms typically sharing bathroom/shower facilities. The dorms have TV rooms, potable water, private lockers, free laundry service, and public telephones. Many also have ping-pong and snooker tables, and sitting/reading areas. All of the on-campus dorms have air conditioning. Visitors are permitted in the dorms, although a sign-in process is used for security purposes."
(Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/
Report on iPod Manufacturing, August 17, 2006)
The Report admits that, on average during the investigation period, Foxccon employees worked overtime more than 35% each week and up to one fourth of its employees likely worked continuously for more than six days per week.
Late Aug. [apparently after Apple's report is out], Wang and Wong start a joined blog focusing on the case.
Aug. 26, full coverage of the lawsuit appears in Beijing News and Southern Daily (Guangzhou). English media start to cover the story.
The case starts to draw public attention. The joined blog had more than two million hits in ten days, with thousands of viewer comments. Survey shows overwhelming public support to the journalists. People also began to donate money. Wang thanks the public but declines to accept donation.
Taiwanese media come to cover the story intensively.
Aug. 28, CBN issues its first statement on the case, announcing its position to stand firmly with the two journalists. It says Wong has nothing to do with the case and it reserves its rights to sue Foxccon on Wong's behalf for libel. On Wang, it says it is part of her job’s duty at CBN to write the two stories.
CBN publishes editorial comments, calling journalists nationwide to support the two. Wong says it's a "9/11"-like shock for journalism in China, with potentially serious consequences.
National Journalist Association and other national organizations speak out to support the two. Public opinions focus on the social duty of news media, particularly business and financial news media to monitor companies on behalf of the society.
Aug. 29-30, the Shenzhen court decline to accept any interview. A court official asks not to be named and says everything have strictly followed appropriate laws and proper legal procedures.
Foxccon spokesperson says the same - everything is legal; the amount being asked is based on careful calculation of the company’s stock loss; Apple report confirms the Sunday Mail made mistakes in its story. Foxccon is fighting to protect its own rights, its reputation as a responsible company. "It is not easy to manage more than 100,000 workers." And, if it wins, the money will be strictly for charity purpose.
Aug. 30, public opinions begin to question the silence of government branches, Labor Bureau in particular.
Aug. 30, evening, CBN issues second statement backing its journalists. A "golden team" of lawyers and legal consultants is assembled.
Aug. 30, late night, Hon Hai announces in Taiwan decision to change compensation demand from 30 million yuan to one yuan, saying that the purpose is to direct public attention back to its damaged reputation from money figures. It also adds CBN to the two journalists to be sued in the case.
Foxccon singles out one specific sentence in Wang’s report as untrue, which says "of 1000 new recruits [to Foxccon], 500 are unhealthy from the beginning." Foxccon says "claims like this in the stories by Wang and Wong distort facts, damage the good reputation of our company, and caused serious consequences."
Wong has kept contact with Hon Hai. He says there were already new moves in the morning. He learns Foxccon’s changes from his Taiwanese friends. In an interview, He expresses relief, saying that, even if this is only one step forward, it is a victory for all journalists in China. Wong repeatedly expresses willingness of reconciliation with the Hon Hai boss Mr. Kuo, and his wish to meet Kuo in person soon, etc.
Wang shows defiance, saying she'd fight to the end even if it's for one cent only.
Aug. 31, one o'clock in the night, CBN issues its third public statement over the case, reiterate its determination to fight to the end.
Aug. 31, more public opinion pieces coming out on-line and in print. The absence of voice from the government in general is questioned.
Wong's changing attitude is questioned, too. People are asking what the big capital had done to our media.
Aug. 31, Shenzhen municipal branch of the official trade union accepted interview, demanding Foxccon to set up a trade union by the end of 2006.
Sep. 1, the Shenzhen court announces date of court hearing on the case, which is set to be on October 23. Guangdong Supreme Court and the Shenzhen court both say the case will be given top priority. Shenzhen court had not received document of changing demands from Foxccon.
Sep. 3, CBN and Foxccon issue a joined statement of five items, expressing explicit respect to each other (for contribution to building up a harmonious society and to the growth of economic development; Both sides would like to do its best to support the other in the future, etc.
Xinhua News Agency reports the joined statement, saying the two sides agree to work together to protect workers’ rights in the future.
Sep. 4, The London-based Financial Times reports the final settlement has brought Hon Hai's shares to record high at Taiwan’s stock market.
I take it as my duty to inform you that the case has not been concluded satisfactorily, at least not to those who care about labor condition more than about building up harmonious relations between business media and capital interest in China.
To make a long story short, it concerns the contracted manufacturer of Apple’s iPod in China, Foxccon International Holdings of Taiwanese capital. A Chinese newspaper ran a story entitled “Foxccon Employees: Machine Demand You Stand up 12 Hours [in a Row],” and another follow-up story.
Foxccon sued the penning reporter and an editor for libel, without suing at the same time the newspaper. The two had all their personal assets frozen, since Foxccon asked for up to 30 million yuan damage compensation, unheard of in libel cases in China.
A public uproar ensued. Indignation and anger poured upon Foxccon on the internet and printed media. Eventually, Foxccon backed down, lowering its quest from 30 million yuan to a symbolic one yuan on August 31, and three days later issued a joined statement with the newspaper, withdrawing the case completely.
Ironically, Foxccon is one of the first Taiwanese firms in Guangdong that had set up cells of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It has also encouraged member recruitment by the Party Committee active within its premises. Yet, no trade union has been set up. What are those Party members do for the labor class in their factory? Any task that is more ideologically “Communism” than merely supporting the nation, the State, and the government at various level? Oh, yeah, must be things more: they support the capital.
Many people in the West have been debating if China has become a capitalist economy or remained a socialist one. In my view, the best criterion to this question is to see to which side the government’s policy is leaning in conflicts between capital and labor. Applying this to the Foxccon case, it is crystal clear that capital has been favored.
In more than two months when the drama played itself out, the Labor Ministry in Beijing and the municipal Labor Bureau in Shenzhen were conspicuously silent. It’s true the official trade union office in the city spoke out publicly, urging Foxccon to allow its employees to set up trade union branches (not independent unions). However, this has been the only semi-governmental office speaking about the case.
In other words, both the Party and the government have learnt to hide themselves behind the cover of “legal channels” to solve labor disputes. The authorities would do all they could to avoid making public statements, lest they be mistaken as if supporting the not-so-obedient workers in making trouble to capital.
The court is not much better, for capital is capable to manipulate the laws and the court to its own advantage. To single out vulnerable individual for crashing financial cost is but one “innovative” approach capital has created.
And so the media. When capital backed down, to borrow a blogger’s words, the media did not step up its own demand for social justice. Instead, most of the involved rushed to express their self-criticism and praise of the boss of Foxccon. The original content of the published stories were all but forgotten. Similarly forgotten are the workers who have to stand for 12 hours in a row everyday.
This is to say, Foxccon has never formally complained against the title of the first report, though it has done so against the Sunday Mail’s claim of workers working 15 hours each day. Foxccon itself takes pride in running a huge “city of factory” of almost 200,000 employees.
Population of a medium-sized city, living together almost 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, without any civil relations between each other. They are simply “employees” of a gigantic manufacturer. How amazingly classic a picture of capitalist production, of human beings becoming no more than the extension of machines.
I am reminded a French film, whose title has slipped my memory. It starts with two prisoners who, extremely depressed by the strictly controlled life inside prison, attempt an escape, with success. But, the first one running out is not clear if the second one has done it as well. After various tries, this first guy lands himself into working by the assembly line in a huge factory with its own dorm and huge canteen, a setting even more depressing than inside prison, only to discover that its owner is none other than his former inmate.
Or, Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times.
You will not see films of this kind coming out of contemporary China. The government will ban such films before you could have learned any news about it, for such films would no question offend Capital, the best bedfellow of today’s CPC.
-------------------
To help my non-Chinese-speaking friends to grasp the fuller picture of the case, I compiled a document. It reads a bit dry, but with all the background information and a brief chronology in it you’ll be able to come to your own conclusion pretty clearly. The main source for the document is from the website run by China Business News (CBN), based in Shanghai, with its Chinese name literally meaning the “Number One [or, the First] Financial and Business News” (第一财经).
You’d get lost, however, if you try to google it. There are so many pages related to “China/Chinese business news” that it’s impossible to find the “right” one without opening hundreds or even thousands of pages containing something about economic news from China. It testifies to China’s growing importance in this globalizing world.
The good news is, if you know no Chinese, you don’t have to bother – the site is exclusively in Chinese. The bad news is, even if you know Chinese, all references to the case have been blocked, bringing out empty to search attempt through its search service. But the block is not yet absolute. You’d better check it through Google and select a “cached” link, then you can go back to the official – and very extensive and intensive – coverage of the case by the CBN (http://www.china-cbn.com). We can only hope it won’t be blocked completely in the future.
BACKGROUND OF THE TWO PARTIES:
1. The Taiwanese owned firm involved in the case has three layers in its structure: an operational company named Fushijin, wholly owned by Foxconn International Holdings, which is in turn an arm of Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Industry.
Hon Hai has grown into the largest manufacturing contractor in Taiwan, with its owner, a Mr. Kuo ranked the number one wealthiest Taiwanese, and number 198 in Forbes globally wealthiest list.
The company is still in an expanding process, at a time when some more established Taiwanese firms in electronics are planning to shed their manufacturing arms to concentrate on creating brand products.
2. In April 2004, Hon Hai sued a journalist in Taiwan for story about its pricing strategies, asking for 30 million Taiwan dollar for compensation. Hon Hai paid in advance court fees to have the court order personal assets of housing and bank accounts to be frozen.
Taiwan’s journalist association organized campaign on behalf of the journalist, collecting more than 1,000 signatures within four days and essentially forcing the journalist's employer, a business newspaper, to stand out to back the journalist.
Hon Hai dropped the case after negotiating an agreement (no details) with the newspaper in December 2004, and consequently withdrew the assets-frozen quest. The journalist did not take any legal action against Hon Hai subsequently.
After dropping the lawsuit case in late 2004, Mr. Kuo said in an interview that the lawsuit was aimed at seeking truth; it was designed with innovative approach, whose purpose was not for money; and all the money won from the case would have gone to charity completely. He also claimed "though this is the first time, it will definitely not be the last time." Presumably the reference is the “innovative” approach.
3. The mainland newspaper China Business News (CNB) or The Number One Business Daily was created by three established big media companies in Beijing (Beijing Youth Daily), Shanghai (a big one, don't know its English title), and Guangzhou (Guangzhou Daily News Group) in 2003. It is part of a big media group in Shanghai that includes major business channels in television and radio, transformed from previous official (governmental, state-owned) channels, with considerable government connections in Shanghai.
CHRONOLOGY (2006)
June 11, London-based Sunday Mail publishes a feature report on iPot’s producer, Hongfujin, in Shenzhen in China’s Guangdong Province, saying that women workers there work 15 hours per day for as little a salary as 300 yuan (less than US$40) per month.
Early June, more and more complaints about labor condition in Foxccon’s factories emerge in the Chinese internet.
The Shanghai-based "China Business News (CBN)" decides to run a story about it. Woman journalist Wang You is assigned the task.
June 14, China’s leading internet portal sina.com carries Chinese translation of the Sunday Mail report.
June 15, CBN carries Wang’s report, entitled "Foxccon Employees: Machines Demand You Stand for 12 Hours in a Row." For the report, Wang had on-line chat with a college graduate and checked main facts with a Miss He at Foxccon's PR office the previous day. It is the first independent report on Foxccon run by Chinese media.
Mid June, Chinese on-line and print media cover related news extensively. Most on-line media relay both the sina version and Wang's story.
Foxccon holds a press conference in Shenzhen, explaining the situation in their factory to the public.
June 20, instructed to write a follow-up story, Wang arrives at a Foxccon
factory in Kunshan County, Jiangsu Province, neighboring Shanghai to the
north. She talks for 50 minutes with a girl who just quitted her job there.
June 22, CBN carries the second story on Foxccon by Wang, entitled "Former Foxccon Woman Worker: Basic Pay Very Low, Welfare Pretty Good."
June 30, two Foxccon officials make appointment to see Wang and her editor (name unclear). The conservation was "pleasant and harmonious," according to Wang, when Foxccon side expressed hope that CBN should drop the topic, but did not question the truthfulness of the two published articles.
Later, Foxccon tries to arrange another meeting with Wang, which, "due to schedule conflicts on both sides, did never work out," Wang was quoted as saying by the Beijing News (Xin jing bao) in late August.
The CBN paper nonetheless runs no more coverage on Foxccon.
Early July, Foxccon sends out notification letters signed by its lawyers to a number of journalists nationwide, all of those who have covered the topic. Wang and Wong are the only two that eventually get the assets-frozen notice from a Shenzhen court.
[In late August, one journalist getting lawyer's letter from Foxccon asks to remain anonymous and confirms that the matter with him was "settled through mediation," without giving details.]
Foxccon launches lawsuit against Wang and Wong, but not their employer, CBN, who published stories. Foxccon asks for damage-compensation of 20 million yuan from Wang and 10 million yuan from Wong.
July 10, a court in Shenzhen issues notifications to Wang and Wong, upon quest by Foxccon, to put the two journalists’ personal assets frozen to safeguard potential compensation payments.
In the court document, Foxccon says that the two articles penned by Wang "make conclusive statements without checking facts, based merely on heresy or street talks," and using languages "apparently degenerating and insulting," "causing tremendous economic damages to the plaintiff."
Foxccon has not paid court fees and the order not taken effect yet. CBN starts (?) getting involved, contacting Guangdong’s Provincial Taiwan Office, seeking negotiation channels to settle the case outside court.
According to the Taiwan Office, Foxccon in Shenzhen is among the first that established CCP’s Party cells on its premise. It has also encouraged the party committee to recruit new members among its employees.
However, it has not allowed the set up of trade union organizations inside the firm. Since the case became focus of public attention, the Shenzhen municipal office of China's official trade union has announced Foxccon is one of 30 firms being targeted to set up trade union branched before the end of 2006.
July 17, Foxccon pays more than 170,000 yuan in total of court fees to the Shenzhen court. Assets frozen order goes into effect.
July 24, Wang and Wong issue their appeal separately to the court, asking for release of their assets, on the ground that Wong claims he does not have any connection with stories about Foxccon to be qualified as a defendant, and Wang says she has not received any court documents concerning her defendant status, except the asset-frozen order.
Aug. 18, Apple Company publishes its investigation report, saying that the situation is not as bad as the Sunday Mail's story claims. Excerpt of the report:
"The manufacturing facility supports over 200,000 employees (Apple uses less than 15% of that capacity) and has the services you'd expect in a medium city. The campus includes factories, employee housing, banks, a post office, a hospital, supermarkets, and a variety of recreational facilities including soccer fields, a swimming pool, TV lounges and Internet cafes. Ten cafeterias are also located throughout the campus offering a variety of menu choices such as fresh vegetables, beef, seafood, rice, poultry, and stir-fry noodles. In addition, employees have access to 13 different restaurants on campus. Employees were pleased with the variety and quality of food offerings.
"The supplier owns and leases dormitories that are offered at no charge to employees, provided they help in cleaning common areas to maintain the facility. Workers are not required to live in these dormitories, although the majority do. Our team randomly selected and inspected a wide range of dormitories (both supplier-owned on-campus and off-site leased facilities) that collectively house over 32,000 people. Buildings are separated by gender, with female dorms containing a private bathroom/shower for each room and male dorm rooms typically sharing bathroom/shower facilities. The dorms have TV rooms, potable water, private lockers, free laundry service, and public telephones. Many also have ping-pong and snooker tables, and sitting/reading areas. All of the on-campus dorms have air conditioning. Visitors are permitted in the dorms, although a sign-in process is used for security purposes."
(Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/
Report on iPod Manufacturing, August 17, 2006)
The Report admits that, on average during the investigation period, Foxccon employees worked overtime more than 35% each week and up to one fourth of its employees likely worked continuously for more than six days per week.
Late Aug. [apparently after Apple's report is out], Wang and Wong start a joined blog focusing on the case.
Aug. 26, full coverage of the lawsuit appears in Beijing News and Southern Daily (Guangzhou). English media start to cover the story.
The case starts to draw public attention. The joined blog had more than two million hits in ten days, with thousands of viewer comments. Survey shows overwhelming public support to the journalists. People also began to donate money. Wang thanks the public but declines to accept donation.
Taiwanese media come to cover the story intensively.
Aug. 28, CBN issues its first statement on the case, announcing its position to stand firmly with the two journalists. It says Wong has nothing to do with the case and it reserves its rights to sue Foxccon on Wong's behalf for libel. On Wang, it says it is part of her job’s duty at CBN to write the two stories.
CBN publishes editorial comments, calling journalists nationwide to support the two. Wong says it's a "9/11"-like shock for journalism in China, with potentially serious consequences.
National Journalist Association and other national organizations speak out to support the two. Public opinions focus on the social duty of news media, particularly business and financial news media to monitor companies on behalf of the society.
Aug. 29-30, the Shenzhen court decline to accept any interview. A court official asks not to be named and says everything have strictly followed appropriate laws and proper legal procedures.
Foxccon spokesperson says the same - everything is legal; the amount being asked is based on careful calculation of the company’s stock loss; Apple report confirms the Sunday Mail made mistakes in its story. Foxccon is fighting to protect its own rights, its reputation as a responsible company. "It is not easy to manage more than 100,000 workers." And, if it wins, the money will be strictly for charity purpose.
Aug. 30, public opinions begin to question the silence of government branches, Labor Bureau in particular.
Aug. 30, evening, CBN issues second statement backing its journalists. A "golden team" of lawyers and legal consultants is assembled.
Aug. 30, late night, Hon Hai announces in Taiwan decision to change compensation demand from 30 million yuan to one yuan, saying that the purpose is to direct public attention back to its damaged reputation from money figures. It also adds CBN to the two journalists to be sued in the case.
Foxccon singles out one specific sentence in Wang’s report as untrue, which says "of 1000 new recruits [to Foxccon], 500 are unhealthy from the beginning." Foxccon says "claims like this in the stories by Wang and Wong distort facts, damage the good reputation of our company, and caused serious consequences."
Wong has kept contact with Hon Hai. He says there were already new moves in the morning. He learns Foxccon’s changes from his Taiwanese friends. In an interview, He expresses relief, saying that, even if this is only one step forward, it is a victory for all journalists in China. Wong repeatedly expresses willingness of reconciliation with the Hon Hai boss Mr. Kuo, and his wish to meet Kuo in person soon, etc.
Wang shows defiance, saying she'd fight to the end even if it's for one cent only.
Aug. 31, one o'clock in the night, CBN issues its third public statement over the case, reiterate its determination to fight to the end.
Aug. 31, more public opinion pieces coming out on-line and in print. The absence of voice from the government in general is questioned.
Wong's changing attitude is questioned, too. People are asking what the big capital had done to our media.
Aug. 31, Shenzhen municipal branch of the official trade union accepted interview, demanding Foxccon to set up a trade union by the end of 2006.
Sep. 1, the Shenzhen court announces date of court hearing on the case, which is set to be on October 23. Guangdong Supreme Court and the Shenzhen court both say the case will be given top priority. Shenzhen court had not received document of changing demands from Foxccon.
Sep. 3, CBN and Foxccon issue a joined statement of five items, expressing explicit respect to each other (for contribution to building up a harmonious society and to the growth of economic development; Both sides would like to do its best to support the other in the future, etc.
Xinhua News Agency reports the joined statement, saying the two sides agree to work together to protect workers’ rights in the future.
Sep. 4, The London-based Financial Times reports the final settlement has brought Hon Hai's shares to record high at Taiwan’s stock market.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment