Chinese workers pay a price for no Labor Unions.

[DOC]

This is the price that Chinese workers pay no Labor Unions?



Please do explain which module on that course in logic (y'know... the one where you got an A) equipped you with the skills to jump to such conclusions

The module of common sense. I have a feeling you wouldn't want to work 12 hour days for 275 a month, not be able to talk while working, and not be able to walk alone on a company street. Not to mention possibly seeing people fly out the window during your lunch break.

 

[DOC]

DOC,

Your whole problem here is that you draw wide conclusions from a single instance (a trend I see throughout a majority of your posts).

As I said before, this is a Taiwanese company. In Taiwan -- where they do have labor unions -- they have similar policies, and higher suicide rates.

What is your source that this company's workers are unionized in Taiwan and "those specific unionized workers" of this specific company have have a higher suicide rate than the non-union workers of this company in China?

 

[Wolfman]

What is your source that this company's workers are unionized in Taiwan and "those specific unionized workers" of this specific company have have a higher suicide rate than the non-union workers of this company in China?

Ya' don't get the irony of this at all, do you?

If you were even remotely as demanding in the evidence you presented for your own claims, people might actually take you seriously.

Fact. Suicide rates in Canada and the U.S. are higher than in China...despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. both allow unions, and both are democratic.

Fact. You've presented not even the slightest iota of evidence to support your assertion that the suicides in the Foxconn factory were because of the lack of a union, or could have been prevented had they had a union.

So I'll make you a proposal.

You do some research to find statistics or facts that demonstrate that suicide rates in non-unionized Chinese factories are higher than in unionized factories in other countries, and then I'll do more research to support my own assertions.

But all I can see now is that to support your arguments, you need only provide on isolated case, no corroborating evidence, and a whole bunch of unsupported conclusions; but if anyone wishes to disagree with you, they have to provide very detailed support for their claims, or you won't even consider it.

YOU are the one who made the claim initially (that these suicides are directly attributable to the lack of labor unions, and presumably that if they'd had a labor union, the suicides wouldn't have happened). I see no reason why I should have to put more time and effort into researching specific information in order to disagree with you, if you can't even find evidence to support the claim in the first place.

 

[timhau]

The module of common sense.

Is that the one that allows an American direct access to the mind of Chinese factory workers?

 

[Wolfman]

In the interest of fairness:

A little research revealed that, although unions are legal in Taiwan, Foxconn is not unionized.

This negates my claim above; but does nothing to support DOC's assertion. In order to actually prove his claim, he has to demonstrate that there is a direct correlation between suicide rates, and the unionization (or lack thereof) within companies.

And the fact that suicide rates in countries like Canada and the U.S. are higher than in China, while it doesn't prove that DOC's claim is wrong, certainly goes a long way to raise serious questions as to its validity.

 

[DOC]

Ya' don't get the irony of this at all, do you?

If you were even remotely as demanding in the evidence you presented for your own claims, people might actually take you seriously.

Fact. Suicide rates in Canada and the U.S. are higher than in China...despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. both allow unions, and both are democratic...

Not according to the World Health Organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

[Taffer]

The module of common sense. I have a feeling you wouldn't want to work 12 hour days for 275 a month, not be able to talk while working, and not be able to walk alone on a company street. Not to mention possibly seeing people fly out the window during your lunch break.

You do realize that the wage, and the number of hours worked per day, is normal for China?

 

[Wolfman]

Not according to the World Health Organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

You're both right, and wrong.

So far as I can see, all the suicides have been men (at present, 13 suicides have been attempted, and every report refers only to male victims.)

And China's rate for male suicides is lower than that in Canada and the U.S.

As I mentioned above, China has a freakishly high rate for suicide among women. However, I don't see how this can be attributed to lack of unionization, since men and women are equally un-unionized (and other countries that don't allow unions don't have similarly high rates of female suicides). And it is the female suicide rate that puts China (slightly) ahead of Canada and the U.S. overall.

So, once again.

The challenge issued to you was to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a demonstrable correlation between unionization, and suicide rates.

To take an old example, I can easily prove that almost everyone who dies of cancer drinks milk. That does not mean that there is automatically a correlation between drinking milk, and getting cancer. In order to demonstrate this, one must demonstrate that cancer rates increase proportionately with milk consumption (ie. those who drink less milk are less likely to get cancer).

Similarly, it isn't enough to show that one single factory that doesn't have a union also has a lot of suicides. You have to demonstrate that there is a consistent pattern that companies that have unions have lower rates of suicide than companies that don't.

You've entirely failed to do this. Despite demanding far more detailed and specific proof from those who oppose you.

And hey...I've been as honest as possible, admitting freely when a claim that I made turned out to be false. Let's see if you can demonstrate a similar level of integrity in regards to assessing your own claims.

 

[DOC]

In the interest of fairness:

A little research revealed that, although unions are legal in Taiwan, Foxconn is not unionized.

This negates my claim above; but does nothing to support DOC's assertion. In order to actually prove his claim, he has to demonstrate that there is a direct correlation between suicide rates, and the unionization (or lack thereof) within companies..

Let's say there are two companies. The workers at Company A have a 40 hour work week, are paid 1000 dollars a month, can talk to co-workers while working their 8 hour shift, can walk on the company street alone if they want, and can go to a union representative if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

The workers at company B have a 60 hour work week, are paid 300 a month, can't talk while working their 12 hour shift, can't walk on the company street alone if they want, and have no recourse if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

Now please answer these questions honestly:

In you were forced to bet $1000 on which company's workers would likely have the higher suicide rate over a period of 10 years which company would you bet on? A, B, Either one because the odds should be the same.

Also in your opinion would the workers of company B be more likely to get the same working conditions of company A with or without union representation?

 

[paximperium]

Has DOC boy presented any evidence for any of his assertions yet?

 

[DOC]

You do realize that the wage, and the number of hours worked per day, is normal for China?

And it is also normal that a woman in Saudi Arabia can be killed by her family for having premarital sex.

 

[DOC]

Has DOC boy presented any evidence for any of his assertions yet?

Answer my questions in post 89 and we'll see?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let's say there are two companies. The workers at Company A have a 40 hour work week, are paid 1000 dollars a month, can talk to co-workers while working, can walk on the company street alone if they want, and can go to a union representative if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

The workers at company B have a 60 hour work week, are paid 300 a month, can't talk while working their 12 hour shift, can't walk on the company street alone if they want, and have no recourse if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

Now please answer these questions honestly:

In you were forced to bet $1000 on which company's workers would likely have the higher suicide rate over a period of 10 years which company would you bet on? A, B, Either one because the odds should be the same.

Also in your opinion would the workers of company B be more likely to get the same working conditions of company A with or without union representation?

Maybe you want to read that article you linked to again. You seem to have missed the point I mentioned earlier, that THE WORKERS THERE ARE UNIONIZED, making much of this thread absurd to at least the fourth power. And now you're misremembering. It does not say they cannot walk alone. It says that if they are in groups, e.g. more than two, they're asked to not walk three-abreast, but go in single file.
And that's a language/interpretation problem. What the rule actually is is an attempt to avoid congestion. Chinese are small-a anarchists when it comes to pedestrian issues. If twenty of them are going one way out of a factory, they'll happily block the twenty coming in the other direction. In order to get them to not do so (there are tens of thousands of workers changing shifts all the time), they ask them to "walk no more than two abreast". Someone mis-translated that as "If there are more than two of you, walk in single file."

But no where does it say, "can't walk on the company street alone". I read the thing this morning, and I could be misremembering, myself, but I'm pretty sure that's not in there (link doesn't work from my office).

 

[paximperium]

Answer my questions in post 89 and we'll see?

No. Why don't you present some evidence and we'll see?

 

[Lothian]

Let's say there are two companies. The workers at Company A have a 40 hour work week, are paid 1000 dollars a month, can talk to co-workers while working their 8 hour shift, can walk on the company street alone if they want, and can go to a union representative if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

The workers at company B have a 60 hour work week, are paid 300 a month, can't talk while working their 12 hour shift, can't walk on the company street alone if they want, and have no recourse if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

Now please answer these questions honestly:

In you were forced to bet $1000 on which company's workers would likely have the higher suicide rate over a period of 10 years which company would you bet on? A, B, Either one because the odds should be the same.

Also in your opinion would the workers of company B be more likely to get the same working conditions of company A with or without union representation?

Doc please answer this questions honestly:

Let's say there are two companies. The workers at Company A have a 40 hour work week, are paid 1000 dollars a month, can talk to co-workers while working their 8 hour shift, can walk on the company street alone if they want, and have no recourse if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

The workers at company B have a 60 hour work week, are paid 300 a month, can't talk while working their 12 hour shift, can't walk on the company street alone if they want, and can go to a union representative if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.


In you were forced to bet $1000 on which company's workers would likely have the higher suicide rate over a period of 10 years which company would you bet on?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Let's say there are two companies. The workers at Company A have a 40 hour work week, are paid 1000 dollars a month, can talk to co-workers while working their 8 hour shift, can walk on the company street alone if they want, and can go to a union representative if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

The workers at company B have a 60 hour work week, are paid 300 a month, can't talk while working their 12 hour shift, can't walk on the company street alone if they want, and have no recourse if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

Now please answer these questions honestly:

In you were forced to bet $1000 on which company's workers would likely have the higher suicide rate over a period of 10 years which company would you bet on? A, B, Either one because the odds should be the same.

Also in your opinion would the workers of company B be more likely to get the same working conditions of company A with or without union representation?

If we are talking about China I would bet on factory A paying $1000 a month having the highest suicide rate as the stress from having no business and probably shutting the factory doors would take a toll. Redundancy is probably more of a trigger for suicide than cleaning a toilet.

 

[Taffer]

Let's say there are two companies. The workers at Company A have a 40 hour work week, are paid 1000 dollars a month, can talk to co-workers while working their 8 hour shift, can walk on the company street alone if they want, and can go to a union representative if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

The workers at company B have a 60 hour work week, are paid 300 a month, can't talk while working their 12 hour shift, can't walk on the company street alone if they want, and have no recourse if their boss makes them clean a toilet as punishment.

Now please answer these questions honestly:

In you were forced to bet $1000 on which company's workers would likely have the higher suicide rate over a period of 10 years which company would you bet on? A, B, Either one because the odds should be the same.

Also in your opinion would the workers of company B be more likely to get the same working conditions of company A with or without union representation?

You are forgetting that people in company B might not know any different from what they are experiencing. In China, the working conditions at this factory are normal. Why, then, would a factory worker be more depressed than other workers from another company, if all they know are those conditions?

And it is also normal that a woman in Saudi Arabia can be killed by her family for having premarital sex.

And? What is your point? If these factory workers do not work here, chances are they will have no food to eat. Despite the 'terrible working conditions' that you are talking about, there are still large lines outside the factory every day of people trying to get a job there.

Stop using your western-tinted glasses to view another culture. It's obnoxious.

 

[kmortis]

Since I don't remember most of the majority responders (Wolfman, Taffer and foolmewunz) in the other DOC thread (you may have lurked, but wisely decided not to post) your requests for evidence will go unansered.

Otherwise, thanks for the info. I never realized how ignorant I was of China before reading this thread. Thanks to you all...

 

[carlitos]

yes please

Stop using your western-tinted glasses to view another culture. It's obnoxious.

You are telling this to a guy who thinks that the English translation of the bible, 1700 years after its writing, is the most reliable version. Good luck with that.

 

[joobz]

There is a central truth to what DOC is getting at.

Anything which condones the exploitative abuse of employees is immoral.


How about if we were to generate a list of things which would fit that description?

I'll start:
Luke 12:47-48