Log In | Register
UPDATE: MIKE DAISEY'S RESPONSES ADDED IN. Mike Daisey, for those who aren't familiar with his work, is a monologist. I knew quite a bit about Mike Daisey before I knew what a monologist was so, as is often the case, thank God for Wikipedia:
A monologist (also spelled monologuist) is a solo artist who recites or gives dramatic readings from a monologue, soliloquy, poetry or work of literature for the entertainment of an audience. The term can also apply to one who dominates a conversation, or a bird with a repeating monotonous cry.
In my ignorance, I half expected the page for "monologist" to redirect to the Wikipedia entry for Mike Daisey, but no: It's a real thing, practiced by more than one person. If you have heard of Daisey, it's likely because he's in the news as the performer of a monoloquy (sadly, the actual term is monologue) entitled: The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs.
Daisey's next monologue, which came to Portland's TBA Festival in September 2010, Berkeley Repertory Theatre in January 2011, and played in Seattle in April–May 2011, examined globalization by exploring the exploitation of Chinese workers through the lens of "the rise and fall and rise of Apple, industrial design, and the human price we are willing to pay for our technology, woven together in a complex narrative." Portions of his monologue were used in the "This American Life" episode "Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory", in which Daisey performed and discussed his experiences in China.
And, of course, if you know anything about Apple and Apple's relationship with a Chinese company called Foxconn, it's likely because of two recent exposés published by the New York Times:
The first article explore the trends which led to the proliferation of overseas manufacturing, with Apple as the primary case study:
How the U.S. Lost out on iPhone Work
The second article examines the human cost of America's obsession with technology, again using Apple as the primary case study:
In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad
And, of course, CNN and other news outlets have pounced on the page views that these stories are generating.
A common thread in all of this is that Mike Daisey has become a de facto talking head; a ready-made and reliable spewer of intriguing talking points. This is, in large part, due to the fact that part of his research in preparation for his monoloquy involved chatting up some Foxconn workers.
As someone who has read the exposés, followed the coverage, I feel as though I know a few things but, primarily: 1) It @!$%#ing sucks to work at Foxconn and 2) Apple is Foxconn's most successful client.
I do have some lingering questions, though, and who better to answer them than Mike Daisey: Monologist?
Unfortunately, I don't know Mike Daisey and I don't have any contacts who know him. He doesn't even seem to have a Twitter account. To top it all off, he's pundit-famous now, so there's a good chance that he won't take the time to answer my questions or respond to my thoughts, as he's been known to do in the past:
The fact that you managed to walk down to the theater and stumble inside gives you the unalienable right to talk @!$%# about it, even though what you saw isn’t the completed work, even though you were told this repeatedly and clearly. It even gives you the right to post it as a review, rating it on this site as though it is a @!$%#ing commodity that can be bought or sold, and that is the way it is.
Even so, these are good questions to have in mind when thinking about Apple, and Foxconn, and the broader issues at play, even if we don't have all the answers. After all, quotes from Chinese readers seem to indicate that asking different questions might lead to a different perspective and, well, the more you know...
Q: What was the spark that led you to write and perform The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs?
A: First, I'm a monologist, so you should know that the piece isn't written—I'm an extemporaneous autobiographical solo performer, in the tradition of monologists like Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Spaulding Gray.
But setting aside that, the answer is actually contained in the piece itself—as I speak about both on stage and in the TAL excerpt, I am a tremendous Apple fan, and I saw pictures that I became obsessed with, and that started me asking questions and researching, which culminated in traveling to China.
Q: Do you have a background in manufacturing? Any business experience? What about Chinese history and/or culture?
A: I have a background in a number of areas. I worked at Amazon.com in Business Development for a couple of years a decade ago. I have written for WIRED, the New York Times, and a number of other publications, in addition to being the author of a memoir. I've made a full-time living as a monologist for twelve years, touring around the world to places like the Sydney Opera House and the Public Theater, and doing work in both India and Tajikistan, where I worked with people from all walks of like to tell stories from their time during their terrible civil war and afterward. The New York Times has called me, "The master storyteller—the finest solo performer of his generation." My work has for years involved reporting from a wide variety of places and contexts.
My knowledge of manufacturing is limited to specifically studying electronics manufacture in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone for the last three years. My knowledge of Chinese history is focused on the development of the SEZ after the Cultural Revolution.
Q: You talked with Foxconn employees, and those who follow your work can get a sense of life at Foxconn, from a certain perspective. How many people did you talk to and how long did you spend talking to them?
A: This is actually covered in Act II of the THIS AMERICAN LIFE piece I recorded.
Q: Can a worker quit their job at Foxconn if they determine that conditions are not acceptable? In other words, are we talking about forced labor or voluntary employment?
A: Foxconn workers are as free as anyone in an authoritarian state without civil liberties or recourse are, under a stacked deck of economic circumstances where they come into the work knowing they usually need to support a large number of dependents back in their villages.
Q: Assuming the latter, how many employees who are hired on actually decide to quit based on poor working conditions and/or low pay?
A: A huge number—one of the most exceptional things about Foxconn is their incredible turnover, which upwards of 20% a month. This is an extraordinary figure, and it reflects how many workers do everything they can to find other work within the SEZ as soon as they are able to. It says something extremely unsavory about Foxconn.
Q: Realistically speaking, what are Apple's options, if not Foxconn?
A: Apple has $100 billion dollars waiting in a strategic reserve, doing nothing. Apple has more than enough resources to pursue any course of action—that is an insane quantity of money, so it must be recognized that they could do almost anything. By far the most cost effective course of action has been what Apple has been doing—ignoring local labor laws, letting accidents and deaths happen, and simply calling it all the price of doing business. If they got serious about reform, the most cost-effective strategy would be to work to monitor and reform Foxconn by working with them, giving them incentives for compliance, and rehabilitating the way work is done there.
Q: How much of what we see at Foxconn is steeped in Chinese culture? Chinese politics?
A: Not as much as one might think—what is important to understand about Foxconn is that it is a Taiwanese company, and the tension between Taiwanese management and Chinese labor is part of its equation. Culture and politics inform any situation, but this one is informed more by the economic pressures that drive these workers into the cities to make a new life for themselves.
Q: Suicide (or threats of suicide) seem to be a common form of protest. Is this cultural? Why is suicide a better option than simply quitting?
A: Remember that at these numbers of workers, there have been extraordinary clusters of suicides, but most workers do quit if in a poor situation. Many, however, feel trapped—they have large families back in their villages they are trying to support, and they feel intense family pressures, and sometimes the management techniques at Foxconn have been especially abrasive for some. There are a constellation of stressors, so it is hard to say in generalities.
It is true that the protests on January 2nd were using the threat of suicide as a protest. This was clearly what happens in a country where all organized labor is faced with prison time—it is one of the few ad hoc tactics workers feel they can use, and it should tell us something about the atmosphere there.
Q: Is there a manufacturing facility in China with better working conditions than Foxconn?
A: How would we truly know? There is so little accountability and oversight that it's hard to crown anyone king, and I have not encountered, even anecodtally, any large-scale manufacturers that truly excel.
Q: Does Foxconn pay better, or worse, for similar work at similar factories?
A: Roughly similar, though many workers feel it is on the low side because the way it is computed derives so much from overtime that there was a belief, in mid-2010, that one might be better off elsewhere.
Q: Generally speaking, what is life like for the average Foxconn employee, prior to being employed by Foxconn?
A: Generally speaking its an agrarian life in rural China—extremely hard and poor with high rates of infant mortallity. It is a difficult life, which is the reason so many try to make it to the cities to change their lives.
Q: Do workers go to Foxconn seeking a career? A summer job? A way to save up for school?
A: They are looking to transform their lives.
Q: Assuming Apple issues an ultimatum, and Foxconn refuses to comply: What happens to the 200,000-or-so workers who are dedicated to building iPhones and iPads if/when Apple packs up and leaves? In other words, for those 200,000-or-so workers, does life become better, or worse?
A: This scenario is so absurd, but if we entertain it, I think the workers should walk across the street to the new factory Apple is now working with in the SEZ that will hire them. The SEZ has rampant labor shortages now—this isn't going to happen in this way, ever.
Q: Labor activist Li Qiang has this to say about Apple:
Although I know that the iPhone 4 is made at sweat shop factories in China, I still think that this is the only choice, because Apple is actually one of the best. Actually before I made a decision, I compared Apple with other cell phone companies, such as Nokia,” he said through a translator. “And the conditions in those factories are worse than the ones of Apple.
As more and more outlets publish on this topic, much of the dialogue seems to be focusing on populist demands that Apple do more, but there seems to be evidence that Apple is, in fact, doing more. (Here, I mean "doing more" in the sense that they're doing more than they were and that they're doing far more than other companies to improve conditions and increase accountability.) Meanwhile, Qiang seems to suggest that Apple "doesn't care about Chinese workers" and he bases this claim on the fact that Apple won't talk to him (or other labor activists) while other companies (with worse track records) will.
Is action less important than lip service?
A: First, if you are going to crib from Gruber, you should link to him. Second, the entire premise of this is false. Li Qiang has been a labor activist for decades. His work is above reproach, and stretches across the electronics industry, into every manufacturer, doing everything possible to keep them accountable. The fact that Apple has been "doing more" than others doesn't absolve them of the crimes they've been committing, and now that they have been brought to light clearly he's doing his job. Your casual connection between Li Qiang's statement that Apple "doesn't care about Chinese workers" is, in the article, clearly based on the NYT and SACOM coverage of their behavior—only a gross misreading of the article would come up with the idea that this is about PR.
I say "doing more" in quotes because it has to be remembered that Apple's efforts have been utterly untransparent, hidden from all outside scrutiny, and based on the NYT report have largely failed. Their own metrics show that overtime abuse is totally out of control, and even with their very infrequent audits (which everyone has told me are announced in advance) they still find underage labor. So I would strongly question that these examples of "doing more" do much for Apple's record.
Q: Is there evidence which suggests that Apple is in a position to demand more change than they're already driving and if so, what is that evidence?
A: Apple dominates the industry in terms of their incredible profit margin, and their immense strategic reserve of $100 billion dollars. This gives them all the position they need. Their relationship with Foxconn is well understood—Foxconn would jump if Apple provided the incentive, and if Apple made it a priority to truly reform the supply chain because of public pressure, they would. They could have done it years ago. They have chosen not to.
Q: What was it like to work in a similar factory in China 10 years ago? 20 years ago?
A: That's a great way to end. There were no factories like this 20, or really even 10 years ago. What's happening in the SEZ is a particularly virulent form of globalism that lives at the collision point of capitalism, corporatism, and fascism. Knowing how quickly the zone is changing is part of us understanding how we can have a huge effect on the shape of things if we begin to be aware, and then show the world that humane conditions in workplaces is a fundamental human right.
The fact is, Mike Daisey has already answered (some of) these questions:
Monologist Mike Daisey on Apple's "Capitalistic Cowardice"
Why do you think that is? I don't know. Why do we all sell out our ideals as we get older? I mean, he [Steve Jobs] probably had other things he wanted to concentrate on, like selling iPhones at tremendous profit. And making sure his devices were incredibly well designed, which they are. The two things are not exclusionary though; it would not have taken that much effort to change the human rights abuses that are happening in the zone. A lot of them are very straightforward. You know, a worker at Foxconn died while I was there, after working a 34-hour shift. It doesn't take that much to prevent that kind of thing from happening. It takes a commitment to monitor what's happening in your factories 24/7, it takes a commitment to inculcate an atmosphere of basic respect where people don't work themselves to death.
Here's a rough draft of a monoloquy I'm formulating about Mike Daisey. As it is a work in progress, please -- no criticism. That simply wouldn't be fair:
Mike Daisey is an actor playing a part. He's a performance artist playing the role of the "curmudgeonly @!$%#" fighting for the forces of good against capitalistic greed.
In his world, any message purporting to be a truth -- so long as it is delivered with anger and conviction -- is the only acceptable truth. If Mike Daisey suggests that change is easily obtainable well, that's absolutely the case, and don't you @!$%#ing dare question the assertion -- unless of course you're willing to feel the brunt of Mike Daisey's anger.
With The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, Daisey stumbled onto his best and most marketable performance, offering easy claims but no workable solutions. Guess which half of that formula gets all the publicity? Guess which half is more easily accepted and regurgitated by your average technology-loving American consumer?
The average Mike Daisey answer is easy to dance to. It's got a great beat. It inspires you to nod your head in agreement and can even make you feel good about being the sort of person that cares about the plight of workers in China.
None of that means that the average Mike Daisey answer holds up under scrutiny.
In the end, Mike Daisey cannot compromise, cannot abide reasonable arguments, and will not argue rationally, because the role he's written for himself depends upon raw emotion.
As a means to an end, Mike Daisey is always in character.
