I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person. The fundamental distinction with slavery is not a bad paycheck.

In this case, the distinction wasn't a bad paycheck either. The compensation was fine on paper, it just wasn't actually paid out, which is plain fraud. If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be.

I think the point in comparison to slavery is that:

> Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person

They were still - off paper - treated better than employees indirectly working for apple now. Bad taste? Sure, history wasn't pretty. It's absolutely crazy that slaves were paid more money than these employees, though. That is the point here.

These worker were defrauded. They expected a salary that they didn't receive. Had they known they wouldn't get paid, they wouldn't have taken the job, they would've looked elsewhere. Slaves can't do that and they don't have to get paid at all, even though it may make sense to pay a slave in order make them do a better job.

> I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person. The fundamental distinction with slavery is not a bad paycheck.

"Poor taste"? Seriously? I didn't say this is slavery, did I? I compared 19th century slaves' wages with these factory workers' wages. Somehow I can't do that because... why, exactly? Because you don't like it when people compare the working conditions of slaves with those of modern workers?

And it's not like I cherry-picked some well-off slaves here. $100 is the minimum slave wage numbers I could find—even the page said it was for unskilled labor. And to add insult to injury, those numbers appear to be NOT adjusted for (15x?) inflation! (Probably worth double-checking this part, but see: http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361...)

> In this case, the distinction wasn't a bad paycheck either. The compensation was fine on paper,

The average Indian factory worker earns ₹330,000/year or $371/month. https://www.payscale.com/research/IN/Job=Factory_Worker/Hour...

The engineers here hired for $286/mo and had their pay "on paper" reduced to $163/month ($109/month for non-engineers).

I don't know what your standard for "a bad paycheck" is, but I suppose, given how you were fine with this being equal to actual slaves' wages, I shouldn't be surprised that less than half the average salary for a person who build products for the world's richest company isn't bad enough for you.

Thanks for elaborating here. Your original post was low on analysis or context and left readers to draw their own conclusions about what relationship was implied between this scenario and slavery, which is probably why GP responded the way they did.

> "Poor taste"? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. No need to get defensive.

> I didn't say this is slavery, did I?

No, you're just pointing out that some slaves across history have been paid better than some modern workers. This is of course factually true, but also factually irrelevant.

On an emotional level however, it sounds like "Apple pays its workers less than slaves". Saying it plainly like that would be too obviously disingenuous, so you're going for the "I'll just leave these numbers here!" kind of middleground. Again, that's not wrong, that's just in poor taste (for me).

> I don't know what your standard for "a bad paycheck" is, but I suppose, given how you were fine with this being equal to actual slaves' wages, I shouldn't be surprised that less than half the average salary for a person who build products for the world's richest company isn't bad enough for you.

I don't actually know what these engineers were expected to earn in their respective market, but considering that they voluntarily entered into these contracts assuming to actually get paid that much, it must've been the best offer they have received. Consider that gatekeeping can keep earned wages high while simultaneously leaving a lot of otherwise qualified workers out of a job entirely.

If that salary is lower than whatever certain slaves may have earned at some point in history, that may be unfortunate, but again, factually irrelevant.

One definition of slavery is, working a day for a day's food. It's a condition almost impossible to get out of, as that involves starving.

as someone who has spoken English from ~2 years old, I have never heard that definition. Slavery has always been a person who was forever forced to do what their master told them to. Are interns/apprentices slaves? After all, they work for a day for even less than a day's worth of food.

There is a lengthy wikipedia page on "wage slavery", which has a long history, even if it is not part of the currently accepted definition of slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

"Similarities between wage labour and slavery were noted as early as Cicero in Ancient Rome, such as in De Officiis."

If you need the wage from your labour to feed and house yourself, such that you are completely dependent on your employer, how is that functionally different to slavery?

Unpaid internships are increasingly considered immoral for reasons that you identify - many people literally cannot afford to take such an internship, so cannot gain this experience.

Yeah, no, that's not the definition of slavery.

IS this really the definition of slavery here on HN? Pathetic. I've been supporting nonprofits engaged in anti-slavery issues - I will ABSOLUTELY stop if this is what is considered slavery. Such pathetic misuse of language.

"Work for me or starve" seems like slavery to me.

I didnt work for "you" and I didnt starve.

Guess why

Do you live in one of these cities in China?

"I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste."

The employer got caught trying to enslave it's workforce. I think the comparison is accurate and should be classified as the worst sort of behavior towards a workforce.

The employer tried to get out of paying its workers, which can work but only for a while. Nothing forced these worker to stay aboard except their hope to get paid eventually. It's fraud, that is all there is to it.

Speaking of actual modern day slavery, there's always some form of coercion, some threat of violence, some legal/immigration issues that keeps the worker from leaving. This just isn't the case here.

"there's always some form of coercion, some threat of violence, some legal/immigration issues that keeps the worker from leaving."

Actually, there were coercive disciplinary policies in play, too. For example, if you questioned the pay shortage, your id card was taken from you.

Do you have a source for that? I can not find anything like that in the reporting.

Sure. https://m.businesstoday.in/story/wistron-violence-salary-iss...

Thanks. I'm not sure that "identity card" here would mean something like a passport versus a company identification card. Taking away the passport is indeed a common scheme in human trafficking, but these seem to be domestic workers so it's unclear how that would work.

If these workers don't have other choice but to take that miserable paycheck or starve, there's not much difference with being enslaved.

Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal. It feels like you're acknowledging what I'm saying as true but you're not happy about it.

By that logic, any employee anywhere is a slave.

There was a huge honking "IF" at the start of that comment...

> If these workers don't have other choice but to take that miserable paycheck or starve...

Plenty of people everywhere have other choices between one employer or starving. So, no, by that logic, any employee anywhere is not a slave.

There also needs to be a meaningful distinction between the choices. If every employer is offering the same devil's bargain, and every one leaves the person at the edge of starvation, then the freedom to choose which devil to deal with doesn't mean much.

That's one of the arguments behind Georgism. If someone is not able to own enough land in order to provide for themselves then working for someone else isn't actually a free exchange.

Pretty much. You're only doing a free and willing exchange when you have an alternative. Otherwise by definition, there is no choice. Not that this means employers are slavers, it's the system that enslaves people, but employers gladly take advantage of it.

Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal. It feels like you're acknowledging what I'm saying as true but you're not happy about it.

I don't think having alternatives is the criterion for a free choice.

The problem with "free" is like one of the other commentators suggests. If you get two guys offering the same terrible deal, you're no better off, but the critic can tell you you had a choice. And it's turtles all the way down, package the choices as one and the critic will tell you to unbundle them.

Instead we have to look at cultural context. What people think is reasonable changes. At one point, people thought it was just fine that if you couldn't pay your debts, you had to work it off, and your kids would inherit that debt. We also thought it was just fine to let kids work in mines, and that labourers should work every day minus Sunday.

"Whatever you can get someone to shake hands on" (which someone else is essentially saying) is another one of those ideas that seems simple, but actually there are social constraints on what you can agree. It's inviting to pretend that whatever the person agrees to is free, but actually this isn't the case and historically hasn't been.

> "Edit: downvoting without discussion in this context means to me that you're hurt by my statements but have no rebuttal..."

From the HN guidelines:

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

In other words, complaining about being downvoted is a legitimate reason for having your comment further downvoted.

> If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be.

This suggests that the legal system ideally ought to exist for the benefit of capital owners who commit fraud, so they don't suffer material loss. Is that what you mean?

GP may also have meant that a functional legal system could provide a better remedy to the workers by enforcing compensation. And perhaps the destruction could have been avoided.

I think what the poster means is that the workers had so little trust in the legal system that they did not bother pursing this is court. Instead, they tried to create a media narrative to get Apple to pay attention.

The reason I ask the question is that I understand differently:

1. We don't know if these workers (or other workers) are pursuing this in court. Legal and illegal pursuit are not mutually exclusive, at all.

2. If the factory owner is not paying wages because they are already bankrupt, there is nothing that the legal system could reasonably do about that.

3. The workers would not have recourse to claim funds from Apple: I'm not aware that they would even in any country with a "good" legal system.

It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion.

1. We might reasonably assume that a worker who expects compensation through due process would also expect that same due process be used against them for causing property damage.

2. If I had assumed this to possibly be the case, I could not have reasonably made the argument. I am assuming this is a case of fraud and therefore it should be theoretically subject to legal recourse. If it's possible for the workers to cause 7 million dollars worth of property damage, it should've been possible to liquidate some of that equipment to pay the workers.

3. The company responsible for paying the salaries is not Apple.

> It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion.

Your parent and multiple siblings interpreted my comment correctly.

1. Again - there are multiple workers; different workers do not have to take the same position (and, despite the headline, there's no evidence presented that the rioters were workers)

2. I make the opposite assumption. If the company has 7 million dollars of assets, why would it be defrauding wages?

3. Yes, we agree that Apple is not involved in this dispute. There is a good argument that they hold some responsibility for the situation, that is not currently recognised in law.

So, we simply disagree.

But, even if I were to agree with your points, I still don't reach "bad/corrupt legal system".

Do riots which occasionally happen in every country in the world illustrate a bad/corrupt legal system? I think not, and I wonder why you reach this conclusion in this case.

1. Of course, not all workers were necessarily involved, that's besides my point. I'm assuming that they are indeed workers and not, say, agent provocateurs on behalf of some sinister agency.

2. What's better than 7 million dollars in assets? Free labor plus 7 million dollars in assets. To make fraud work, there must not be doubt about your liquidity. If you promise someone to pay money that can't actually be earned, that's a Ponzi scheme. If you promise someone to pay money, but the contract says wages can be reduced arbitrarily for something vague like "underperformance", you may well get away with it, at least in a sufficiently weak legal system.

> Do riots which occasionally happen in every country in the world illustrate a bad/corrupt legal system?

I'm talking about this specific riot with its specific circumstances, not a generic riot that may occur for any reason.

I read it as implying that the workers have no faith in public institutions to give them justice.

> This suggests that the legal system ideally ought to exist for the benefit of capital owners who commit fraud, so they don't suffer material loss. Is that what you mean?

No, that is an uncharitable interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

I set out my interpretation and I was inviting you to clarify.

> I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person. The fundamental distinction with slavery is not a bad paycheck.

How do you hold someone in high regard when they are your property? You cannot see me as less than yet hold me in high regard!

Right! A slave or two that were "treated well" speaks for generations that were maimed, raped, erased from existence.

The only thing I could discern from this is that you would have owned slaves were you born in that era.

Hot garbage!

> bad/corrupt the legal system must be.

Ah! So, slavery?

Does that account for inflation? Because I believe you could buy way more for $100 in the early 19th century...

Believe it or not, it appears to have NOT been adjusted for inflation. (So, multiply it by 15x.) See the $249.60 per year figure here and the following paragraph.

http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361...

adjusting for inflation is also adjusting for purchasing power, so the old numbers might be a better reference point for low Cost of Living in India

> > Self-hire _slaves_ [in the early 19th century U.S.]

Note that what you're referring to in that quote is what was called wage slavery. Today we just call it a job where we're not an owner. Back then such activity was considered a form of slavery and was frowned upon. It was semi-acceptable only because it was considered a temporary means to save up enough wealth to become a business/farm owner.

Nothing in the article tells me this is some exaggerated terminology for "people who weren't business owners". Everything in it is pretty clear that these people earned that wage while they were actual slaves.

That comment provides context for the phenomenon of "self-hire" slavery in the civil war era United States. Not talking about contemporary wage slavery.