>How does anyone think it's acceptable to [funcitonally] detain people
From the business perspective, provided they can get a way with it, it is just another business decision, namely reducing cost and increasing profit. I would do the same.
Alternatively, you could treat people like people and give them an actual measure of respect instead of stealing time and money from them.
But, frankly, literally every time without exception that I remember seeing you post, it's been a variation on the theme of "of course they shouldn't be decent, why should they, I shouldn't have to be decent either", so I'm going to pass on being surprised.
>Alternatively, you could treat people like people and give them an actual measure of respect instead of stealing time and money from them
Thats depends on what one value, if you think treat people like people is important then yes you should do it but if one value profit then doing what apple did make sense.
All the buyers who choose to buy at cheaper prices from sellers who cut corners such as matz1 is saying enable the behavior. Sweatshops are common knowledge, yet everyone has no problem continuing to purchase garments from them at cheaper prices, not to mention the electronics, chemicals, and who knows what else we get from other places with even more lax oversight.
In some businesses, I bet you can’t even survive if you don’t abuse employees since customers will simply buy from someone who will.
My point is it’s funny to see people call out others’ abuse of employees when the same people, the vast majority of the time, support the abusers by choosing to support their business.
The proper response needs to be political support for laws to protect all labor with harsh penalties, not waiting for certain groups to sue in court.
lets say hypothetically, nearly every farm worker was horribly abused.
Would people be hypocrites that shouldn't dare call out that injustice because they need to eat?
Acting like participation in a system is some kind of grave strike against protesting terrible aspects of the system is less than helpful, both logically and rhetorically.
It is pretty much the definition of tu quoque and a really lazy defence of the status quo
>Acting like participation in a system is some kind of grave strike against protesting terrible aspects of the system is less than helpful, both logically and rhetorically.
It is that participation that make it impossible for non abusive employers to compete and exist as a business. I know that there is no option in certain businesses, but even the ones where there is an option, it's obvious how price sensitive people are. Everyone decries abuse of employees, but, as reality shows, basically everyone will opt to save money and reward the businesses that import goods from places known to abuse employees. So what good is complaining about the abuse of a specific employer of its employees?
We like our cheap goods and services, that's why we don't have the political will to change the laws.
How do I know which companies abuse employees and which dont? If I ask the staff, will they tell me? Why is the companies press office even allowed to lie to me about worker conditions without going to jail for fraud?
It's not always cheapest stuff either - apple product charge a premium and Foxconn employees are not treated well.
From the business perspective, provided they can get a way with it, it is just another business decision, namely reducing cost and increasing profit. I would do the same.