The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Should Professors Boycott Apple's New Electronic Textbook Platform?

by David Doorey January 30, 2012
written by David Doorey January 30, 2012

I’ve been working on a new textbook on employment and labour law and industrial relations for some time now.  This blog is in fact an ongoing source of material for that book.   I have been telling friends for a couple of years that I want to make the book available electronically to students who would prefer not to lug around the paper textbook. I think electronic texts are inevitable.  I’ve looked into
what’s available, and was surprised that Apple and some of the other textbook manufacturers hadn’t created a user-friendly electronic textbook platform.  I talked to people about developing my own.
However, last week, Apple finally got around to announcing its plans for the future of the textbook.  It’s called iBooks, and in Apple’s usual modest way, the company claims it will change the future of the textbook industry.

It might.  But as much as I love the Apple platform, can I really use Apple ibook, particularly one that relies on the ipad for delivery?

Apple has known about serious problems with labour conditions in their manufacturing facilities for years, and yet it has failed to take sufficient steps to remedy the problem.  Apple has the power to influence changes, but it is choosing not to exercise it to the fullest extent, while its profits soar.

Recent revelations in the New York Times are just the latest stories to reach Westerners.   Safety problems, excessively long hours, crowded living quarters, hazardous waste, under age workers, low pay. Most of the stories relate to Foxconn, a huge company employing hundreds of millions of Chinese workers in Guangdong Province. Stories about employees committing suicide, and Foxconn building safety nets to catch jumping employees hit the news last year.
Like most large multinationals, Apple has a vendor code of conduct.  Here it is. It has all the standard labour requirements:  no harassment or discrimination, 60 hour work weeks, prohibitions on child labour, overtime pay, health and safety, and freedom of association.  However, the Apple Code is weaker than many of the modern day codes seen in the apparel and sportswear industry in that most of its standards are only require compliance with “applicable national laws”.  That means that Apple mostly requires only that suppliers comply with the base minimum standards in the country the supplier operates in.  The standard codes produced by the Workers’ Rights Consortium and other multi-stakeholder codes  require a “living wage” rather than just compliance with national minimum wage laws.
Moreover, Apple’s monitoring and public dissemination of monitoring results is very low, and its response to violations is weak. Does Apple dispute that there are serious problems at Foxconn?  Apple’s CEO Tim Cook “expressed outrage” at reports of unsafe working conditions at its suppliers.  So, is Apple going to stop sourcing from that company?  Do you think it should?
The electronics industry has be spared the negative spotlight that has been shone at the apparel, footwear, sportswear, and toy industries.  I have described some of those developments in this paper. Now, the spotlight is shifting to the electronics industry.  My guess is we will find similarities in how the electronics companies respond and how the apparel companies did initially in the 1990s.  That involved a lot of bald claims that the problems are being overblown by activists and the media, that they are well on top of the problem, that they have a strong code and effective monitoring.  They will find that those claims don’t stop the negative attention. Eventually, Apple and its competitors will need to start cancelling orders with suppliers who do not improve, and will need to become far more transparent.
There are some signs of that movement. Apple recently published its supplier list, a development I predicted recently in an interview with The Financial Times.  You can find the list on this page, along with other information on Apple’s supplier monitoring. Unlike the apparel companies that have disclosed, the Apple list doesn’t give contact information (addresses).  However, many of the Apple suppliers are well known anyways, such us Foxconn. The real test for Apple and its competitors will be how they respond to knowledge of labour abuses in their supplier factories. So far, that response seems to be a shrug of the shoulders while they collect their cash.
Apple is the big fish, so it will attract the most negative publicity, as did companies like Nike, Reebok, and The Gap in the 1990s.  There is no reason to believe Apple’s competitors are any better–in fact, they may be doing even less to improve labour conditions since they are able to fly under the radar.

So, to return to my initial question:  Can a labour law professor really publish a textbook about labour law on an Apple platform for an ipad made at Foxconn?
Can any self-respecting professor?   Indeed, perhaps academics have an opportunity to influence Apple’s behaviour by boycotting the Apple ibook platform.  Should I start that boycott?

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
We are Hiring Again in the School of HRM at York!
next post
Court of Appeal on Need to Consider Employee Vulnerability in Interpretation of Contracts

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
peterframpton Peter Frampton @peterframpton ·
27 Mar

I have posted this before but ..

26 years ago, a gunman entered
Dunblane Primary School in Scotland,
killing 16 kids and a teacher. The UK
govt responded by enacting tight gun
control legislation. In the 9400+ days
since, there have been a total of O
school shootings in the UK.

Reply on Twitter 1640422829442121743 Retweet on Twitter 1640422829442121743 53735 Like on Twitter 1640422829442121743 195835 Twitter 1640422829442121743
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
21h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 234 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 674 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
27 Mar

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 123 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 336 Twitter 1640430514627551256
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.