Tech Giants sued over child labor deaths in cobalt mining

[CaptainCrunch]

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...balt-1.5399492

An international advocacy group has launched a lawsuit against some of the world's largest tech companies for the deaths and injuries of child miners in Congolese cobalt mines.



International Rights Advocates brought the case on behalf of 14 Congolese families whose children were killed or injured while mining for cobalt. The metal is key ingredient in the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power most electronic devices.



The defendants named in the suit include Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Tesla and Google's parent company, Alphabet.

[81MC]

Good.
We ascollective society need to be willing to either pay more for our products, or demand a slightly lower profit margin for some of the wealthiest companies in the world, for the sake of basic human rights.

A company like apple is already vertically integrated. I think they should be held to a much higher degree of responsibility for their supply chain.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

If this is the case, based on sheer volume, shouldn't the EV industry also get roped into this? Tesla, GM, and VW in particular?

[Matata]

Soft touch liberals on the outside, ruthless corporate jackals on the inside.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by 81MC

We ascollective society need to be willing to either pay more for our products, or demand a slightly lower profit margin for some of the wealthiest companies in the world, for the sake of basic human rights.

Yeah, it's the latter. For what it actually costs Apple and Samsung to produce their products, it is highway robbery what they charge.

[Fuzz]

If you buy a replacement battery for a phone, it's like $20. I can't imagine there is more than $1 of cobalt in there. Who among us wouldn't be willing to pay $5 more for cobalt for an ethical source? Of course, then you have to add up all the OTHER unethical stuff, environmental damage etc that goes into it...but if I saw 2 batteries on Amazon, and one had Canadian mined cobalt, and the other from Africa, I'd pay the extra $5.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you buy a replacement battery for a phone, it's like $20. I can't imagine there is more than $1 of cobalt in there. Who among us wouldn't be willing to pay $5 more for cobalt for an ethical source? Of course, then you have to add up all the OTHER unethical stuff, environmental damage etc that goes into it...but if I saw 2 batteries on Amazon, and one had Canadian mined cobalt, and the other from Africa, I'd pay the extra $5.

Keep in mind, people stepping over their own mother to save 5 cents is what allowed companies like Wallmart to rise to power. People are cheap and people are lazy...they say they want ethical and local, but their actions often demonstrate the opposite.

Don't worry though, Im sure that battery will still be "designed in California"!

[AnonymousStranger]

So sad. Alexa, play despacito.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AnonymousStranger

So sad. Alexa, play despacito.

Gesundheit.

[Resolute 14]

Once you get past the emotional arguments, this is, honestly, a vexatious lawsuit. The tech giants aren't the ones running the mines. This lawsuit is nothing more than PETA-style attention whoring, and it is really no different than suing you over these deaths for buying a smart phone.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Once you get past the emotional arguments, this is, honestly, a vexatious lawsuit. The tech giants aren't the ones running the mines. This lawsuit is nothing more than PETA-style attention whoring, and it is really no different than suing you over these deaths for buying a smart phone.

I get what you're saying but not sure I agree.

More and more companies are being held accountable for their supply chain. They know the material and the background of the material that goes into their product. (They also know that they are being assembled by children in sweatshops, in some cases.) Every major company in the western world has a supplier pre-qualification process. The best one's include criteria for sustainable practices. This isn't new or radical. This is clearly a case of trying to squeeze out every penny of profit, primarily driven by large equity firms shareholders who demand more profit every year and every quarter. It's an unsustainable practice governed by blind, endless greed.

I'll echo the sentiment that I would gladly pay more money for a more ethical smart phone.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Keep in mind, people stepping over their own mother to save 5 cents is what allowed companies like Wallmart to rise to power. People are cheap and people are lazy...they say they want ethical and local, but their actions often demonstrate the opposite.

Don't worry though, Im sure that battery will still be "designed in California"!

Generally these are not the same people. The ones with the 1000$ Canadian made Canada Goose jackets can afford to buy them. The ones with the 49$ Walmart winter coat cannot.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I get what you're saying but not sure I agree.

More and more companies are being held accountable for their supply chain. They know the material and the background of the material that goes into their product. (They also know that they are being assembled by children in sweatshops, in some cases.) Every major company in the western world has a supplier pre-qualification process. The best one's include criteria for sustainable practices. This isn't new or radical. This is clearly a case of trying to squeeze out every penny of profit, primarily driven by large equity firms shareholders who demand more profit every year and every quarter. It's an unsustainable practice governed by blind, endless greed.

I'll echo the sentiment that I would gladly pay more money for a more ethical smart phone.

Ah yes, but heres the rub: How?

Sure, there has been more of a recent outcry about more ethical supply chain management, but the manner in which these companies have been 'made accountable' is more in line with Public/Internet shaming or Boycotting than in any real tangible or judicial terms.

And where that falls flat on its face is when it becomes something that the vast majority of people would prefer to have, regardless of how that item came to be.

And I think cellphones and anything powered by batteries requiring Cobalt are largely going to fall into that category.

Idealism and virtue, like most commodities, have their limits depending on how important that thing is to the average person.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...balt-1.5399492

Tech giants upon hearing the news:

[zamler]

So what's the solution? Overthrow the Congo government? Stop using cobalt?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by zamler

So what's the solution? Overthrow the Congo government? Stop using cobalt?

Well, in fairness, thats been done so often that I think most Governments have a standing order blueprint for that.

Dont blame me, I voted for Kitenge.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ah yes, but heres the rub: How?
.

...through the courts? The law isn't static.

" the argument for supply chain liability can be based on a combination of longstanding private law principles and recent case law that acknowledges the need to reinterpret old principles in the light of social change."

[Fighting Banana Slug]

The law isn't static, but there are still pretty fundamental principles that would make this sort of thing difficult. Causation, remoteness to name a few.

Reminds me of some recent climate change lawsuits (filed in California, I think?). Municipalities trying to sue big oil for climate change related costs. Aren't their own constituents more proximate to the problem by driving their cars, taking airplanes/cruises etc.?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I get what you're saying but not sure I agree.

More and more companies are being held accountable for their supply chain. They know the material and the background of the material that goes into their product. (They also know that they are being assembled by children in sweatshops, in some cases.) Every major company in the western world has a supplier pre-qualification process. The best one's include criteria for sustainable practices. This isn't new or radical. This is clearly a case of trying to squeeze out every penny of profit, primarily driven by large equity firms shareholders who demand more profit every year and every quarter. It's an unsustainable practice governed by blind, endless greed.

I'll echo the sentiment that I would gladly pay more money for a more ethical smart phone.

I'm not sure vexatious litigation that is more likely to be a stunt to promote donations to the 'cause' than a legitimate effort at helping the kids in the Congo really counts as "holding companies accountable", myself. Certainly you want to pressure these companies, but this isn't a method that's going to be viewed as serious.

Also, as far as being willing to pay more for a more ethical smart phone, here's the key question: how much more? Because we're not talking about raising the price by a few dollars. We're talking about a few hundred dollars. Or more. And if we're being honest with ourselves, if Samsung and Apple felt they could get away with asking $4-500 more for a phone, they'd already be doing it, with or without any justification of ethics.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Keep in mind, people stepping over their own mother to save 5 cents is what allowed companies like Wallmart to rise to power. People are cheap and people are lazy...they say they want ethical and local, but their actions often demonstrate the opposite.

Don't worry though, Im sure that battery will still be "designed in California"!

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Generally these are not the same people. The ones with the 1000$ Canadian made Canada Goose jackets can afford to buy them. The ones with the 49$ Walmart winter coat cannot.

No, I think Table5 has it right. It's not that someone shopping at Walmart or trampling old ladies to save $20 can't afford to spend $10 more for one product for ethical reasons. Almost everyone could.

The real issue is that everyone feels entitled to own everything that is awesome. If a person can choose between these scenarios of completely unnecessary, but convenient/fun products...

a) two $100 items, well crafted, locally produced and sold, will last awhile or;
b) three $33 items, cheap, delivered to the door tomorrow and you have THREE THINGS that you want for $100

85% of the lower/middle class is going for option A. The way she goes boys, the way she goes.