Chances are these Apple employees are mostly middle-upper class trust fund whites who went to expensive colleges, often exclusive ivy leagues. They use emotionally charged language and minorities as a shield against criticism. Saying that you're doing something on behalf of the marginalized is highly effective at disarming people.

"we are faced with a pattern of isolation, degradation, and gaslighting."

This is also a disarming tactic. In reality they are gaslighting us.

"When our stories are collected and presented together, they help expose persistent patterns of racism, sexism, inequity, discrimination, intimidation, suppression, coercion, abuse, unfair punishment, and unchecked privilege."

A bog standard laundry list of critical social justice language. That "unchecked privilege" makes the list of grievances betrays any possible seriousness.

"aren't all given equal rights."

Which rights are they missing exactly?

Not only against criticism, but against actual understanding.

See: the usage of recently coined, or at least re-popularized words ("minoritized", "gaslighting") that are weighty with implication, and light on concrete claims or accusations.

> Which rights are they missing exactly?

Forcing this explanation would move the debate into an area they worry they can't win, so they couch their complaints in -isms and -ations, and go no further.

Like most people, I know that racism, sexism and inequality exist. But they are not magic words that absolve you of actually making an argument.

It's infuriating, to be frank. The issues are too important not to have a serious, sober debate about how to address them. We just can't seem to get there.

At the very least, the burden of proof must be on the accuser to point out where and how they are taking place.

[1] Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

California labor law prevents employers from firing you for engaging in "protected activity" [0][1], which includes labor organizing and forms of political speech. They can still fire you for a long list of other reasons, though.

[0] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp?Button1=P

[1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/harassment/political-reta...

I'm also a little (not a lot) surprised at the lack of clear examples. The language is 100% vague accusations of abuse and mistreatment. Did the people who created this website experience any of it firsthand? Why can't they be more specific? Why didn't they gather more concrete examples before going public?

“For too long, Apple has evaded public scrutiny. The truth is that for many Apple workers -- a reality faced disproportionately by our Black, Indigenous, and other colleagues from minoritized racial, gender, and historically marginalized groups of people -- the culture of secrecy creates an opaque, intimidating fortress,”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28280134

Are we pretending that NYT, NPR, WashPo, etc are right-wing now?

Second, Apple is far from the only company that uses Foxconn for manufacturing. Other major customers of theirs are:

  * Acer
  * Amazon
  * Apple
  * Cisco
  * Dell
  * Google
  * HP
  * Intel
  * Lenovo
  * Microsoft
  * Motorola
  * Nintendo
  * Sony

Consider that Apple has publicly done more to ensure reasonable working conditions for their third-party suppliers than the rest of the companies on this list combined.

Yes. Allowing it because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it right.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_China

Also, looking at:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

"The total number of Foxconn employee suicides is unknown."

If the total deaths are not reported how can we compare?

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying we don't have to data to even determine whether or not there's a problem.

At the same time, you're willing to shutter the vast majority of the world's consumer computer hardware businesses over it?

That still doesn’t excuse the juicy hypocrisy.