He complains about my links when he has only linked, count it, one, to Reply #125 in this thread, and pasted a citation out of context to misrepresent the discussion. That makes him a fabulist. . . one of the worst kind. . . because he cynically thinks none of you are smart enough to check his work. Sparse? Try ZERO useful links from Loonard. . . about par for him in this entire thread. In my last post there are, counting Loonard's poorly executed link to the #125 Reply, SIX links, all of which are germane to the topic and facts I'm discussing. I expect readers to check my sources.
Loonard, assumes that Freepers are stupid, and will accept HIS assessment that the citations I make from my linked articles and my position and argument ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ARTICLES I've linked, and he claims baldly they are not!!! However, they are, otherwise, I would not cite them or link the articles. Of course, since I have, and they do, he'll then claim they are "cherry picked!" Of course they are. I selected them BECAUSE they were germane to my argument and to the topic at hand AND because they are factually correct. I'm NOT going to pick articles that are incorrect, contain falsehoods or FUD, and that present opinions containing zero factual meat.
More proof I'm not blowing smoke like Loonard? Here's another citation that rebuts Loonard's claim in Reply #313 that "No one else has standards as high as Apple.", other claims that Apple's Assembly plants were no better than any others in many previous posts. This part of the article quotes some of the inspectors who went into the various assembly plants and supply chain manufacturers that Loonard cites, such as the China Labor Watch:
"Even before Apple joined the FLA, conditions at its factories were better than others in the technology industry, said Yuan Fan, a researcher at China Labor Watch.“We see more improvement in Apple’s supply chain,” Yuan said. “The other companies that we talk with don’t have so many improvements. They are mainly focused on building a relationship with the labor groups as PR.”
Customer Demands
Rival technology companies may follow Apple in partnering with the FLA if customers begin to see Apple as having higher standards, said Jerry Kim, a management professor at Columbia Business School in New York.
“It will boil down to whether customers demand it,” said Kim, who researches management strategies and how companies deal with regulation. “There’s always an incentive to have the worst labor practices so long as customers don’t know. If Apple and the FLA can elevate this to a level where customers are demanding to see that certification, then competitors will have no choice but to join.”ibid. Business Week, page 3
SO WHAT IF THAT ARTICLE IS FROM FEBRUARY 2012?
Loonard wants us all to believe that no one could POSSIBLY have learned a damn thing in the 20 months of investigations and changes that took place since the suicides happened and the cited article was written. No, of course not.
After the regrettable events in 2010, other companies such as Nokia, Dell and HP began a limited auditing program either with in house auditors or through agencies engaged for audits, it is a fact that Apple was doing first and deeper into the supply chain and is still the only company with full time monitor staffing. Because of limited funding, the agencies have dropped from around 15% to only auditing 5% of their member's supply chains, while Apple has been deepening their reach into their supply chain with the goal of eventually reaching 100%. This auditing by Apple started pre-2007. When they published their first report on their supply chain findings in 2010, they included listing violations and the corrective actions Apple demanded of the suppliers. As the procurement Leaders Mag article stated, finding violations I'd difficult, even for full time and deep auditor teams such as Apple's. . . not when greater profits for the violators are on the line.
Now Loonard will claim, as he's done before, that I've somehow either created the "FAKE SITE" or coerced the author into writing the lies on it, or arranged the story, "experts," everything, all falling to my Svengali powers. . . Just To bamboozle ALL the iSheep. LOL!
Loonard's "Diaper rash" rash comment is hilarious, especially on this weekend, as tomorrow, according to no less an august organization than the Social Security Administration, I must start using MediCare for my medical needs! I'm officially a Geezer later this week, specifically on Friday.
My FUD speaker was Steve Jobs. My documents are from Apple and the EICC. You insisted that you had “primary sources” and instead post opinion pieces. Since you lie so hopelessly, I am going back to the beginning of this issue to demonstrate your deception. By conflating several issues across several years you’re just trying to obfuscate. I’ll help you sore that out.
The diaper rash is a comment about your constant butthurt that seems to be coming from your own mind reading. Try Desitin.
“As the procurement Leaders Mag article stated, finding violations I’d difficult, even for full time and deep auditor teams such as Apple’s. . . not when greater profits for the violators are on the line.” Tommy “Swordmaker” Flanagan
Just one more lie in a series of posts that are riddled with lies.
The article says nothing of the sort. The author made the point that Apple claimed in its post-suicide Progress Report from 2011, that APPLE was going to go DEEPER into IT’S supply chain.
There is no mention of “full time, deep auditor teams”.
The article actually says, “Apple is looking deeper into its supply base and, if you follow the language of the report, ‘work[ing] aggressively to prevent the hiring of underage workers.’”
Spotlight: Apple and the problem of supplier codes of conduct
http://www.procurementleaders.com/news-archive/news-archive/spotlight-apple-and-the-problem-of-supplier-codes-of-conduct
Apple was looking deeper into IT’S SUPPLY CHAIN because IT’S SUPPLY CHAIN was royally stuffed up!
And it’s not even a “deeply researched statement” but rather a reiteration of one sentence from Apple’s post-suicide Supplier Responsibility Report which reads, “We extended our compliance monitoring program deeper into our supply base.”
Apple Supplier Responsibility, 2011 Progress Report, page 4
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2011_Progress_Report.pdf
APPLE extended THEIR program deeper into THEIR supply base, which you’ve implied was already completely covered with paid full-time auditors (another unsubstantiated claim, by the way).