Cina, condizioni lavoro Wsws 06-03-24
Terribili le condizioni di lavoro nelle fabbriche di
giocattoli della Cina
Carol Divjak
Circa il 75% della
produzione mondiale di giocattoli è fabbricato in Cina, da circa 8000 imprese con
3,5 milioni di addetti; oltre la metà dell’export (forse il 65%) proviene dalla
provincia del Guangdong. Le condizioni di lavoro ricordano quelle degli inizi
della rivoluzione industriale.
($4,25MD di spedizioni all’estero gennaio-nov. 2005 dal Guangdong,
con solo +2,5% di crescita annuale)
Da una ricerca su 13 fabbriche di giocattoli di Dongguan,
nel Guandong, con un numero di addetti dai 300 ai 4000:
– nella
provincia sono state aperte 301 fabbriche nei primi sette mesi del 2005, per la
maggior parte di proprietà di Hong-Kong;
– orario di lavoro 13-15 ore al giorno,
con un giorno libero la settimana, oppure con una sola notte,
– nella
stagione di picco (settembre-fine
maggio) è concesso un solo giorno libero
al mese;
– in
alcune fabbriche ci sono turni che comprendono la notte di 16-19 ore, con intervalli per pranzo e cena
di 2,5h.
– La legge cinese prevede le 8 ore
giornaliere, con max 3 ore di straordinario. Solo una delle fabbriche non
rispetta di regola legge.
– Secondo la legge (maggio 2005) il nuovo minimo salariale è di 41 cent di $ l’ora,
secondo standard di produzione e di produttività
fissati.
– Anche
la retribuzione non rispetta la legge; nella maggior parte delle fabbriche non
esiste il pagamento degli straordinari.
– Nel
reparto verniciatura della fabbrica Huangwu n.2, che produce per wal-Mart e Dollar
General: $3,45$ il giorno, pari a 43 cent l’ora, ma solo se viene raggiunta la
quota di produzione entro le 8 ore. Questo significa verniciare 8920 piccoli
pezzi di giocattoli al giorno, 3,232 al secondo, per $0, 000 3862 per
operazione.
– I lavoratori che non raggiungono la quota
ricevono $1,48 il giorno, 18 cent l’ora.
– La
Lungcheong, che produce per Wal-Mart, Matel e MFA, paga i salari di legge, ma
ha tagliato i tempi di produzione, aumentato le quote di produzione e aumentato
i prezzi di dormitorio e mensa.
– Molti
padroni non pagano il primo mese di lavoro, il primo salario è pagato alla fine
del secondo mese.
– Le multe sono comuni: nella Lungcheong
per 1 minuto di ritardo 18 cent; per 10 minuti $3,70; per 30 minuti la paga di
un giorno + gli straordinari.
– Le
assicurazioni anti-infortuni e malattia, il congedo per
maternità e i contributi per le pensioni
sono obbligatori per legge, ma non sono
normalmente rispettati.
– Alla
Lungcheong i lavoratori dovevano firmare un accordo in cui sollevavano l’impresa
da qualsiasi responsabilità in caso di infortunio sul lavoro.
– La
stragrande maggioranza dei lavoratori
proviene da province rurali, come Guizhou, Hunan, Hubei e Henan; la
maggioranza è costituita da donne e
giovani 18-30 anni. Sono normalmente assunti anche giovani sotto i 16 anni,
nonostante il divieto posto dalla legge.
– La
maggior parte delle fabbriche comprende dei dormitori, meno costosi dell’affitto di un appartamento, a volte
gratuito, ma in genere con affitti di 25-50 yuan, contro i 150 yuan esterni,
servizi igienici molto scarsi.
– Per
mancanza di tempo il pasto è spesso consumato nella mensa aziendale, a
pagamento.
– La
maggior parte dei lavoratori non è iscritta a un sindacato e non sa cosa sia. In ogni caso le organizzazioni sindacali sembrano
fungere principalmente da dopo-lavoro. Dove il sindacato esiste (come alla Lungcheong)
viene detratta d’ufficio al salario la quota di iscrizione per tutti i lavoratori
(12 cent al mese).
I funzionari governativi a livello sia nazionale che provinciale tollerano
la situazione nelle fabbriche per non far allontanare gli investitori.
Wsws 06-03-24
Appalling
conditions continue in China’s
toy factories
By Carol
Divjak
In recent years, several reports have
exposed the harsh working conditions in Chinese toy factories, which produce
almost 75 percent of the world’s output. The perspective behind many of
these reports was to shame multinationals such as Wal-Mart, Mattel, McDonalds
and KFC into ensuring decent conditions and pay in the plants that churn out
their toys.
However, investigations last year by China Labor
Watch show that the appalling
exploitation of Chinese workers continues unabated. Three reports issued
in September and December 2005 detailed working and living conditions in
13 factories in Dongguan City,
Guangdong province.
–
Across the Chinese mainland about
8,000 toy making companies employ some 3.5 million workers. More than
half the toy exports come from Guangdong province—some put the figure as high
as 65 percent—and an estimated 301 new factories were set up in the
province during the first seven months of 2005, mostly Hong Kong-owned.
The number of workers employed in the
13 surveyed factories varied from 300 to 4,000.
–
Excessive working hours, debilitating temperatures of up
to 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.7 degrees Celsius), dangerous equipment, toxic
glues, paints and solvents, cramped dormitories, abusive managers, crooked
hiring practices and wages below even China’s legal minimum were the order of the day.
–
The working week was
grueling—a 13-hour to 15-hour day was common, with one day off a week or
in some cases just one night off. During the peak season, typically
from September to the end of May, workers were allowed only one day off
a month. In some factories, mandatory all-night shifts of 16 to 19 hours
were common during busy periods. Lunch and supper breaks accounted for 2.5
hours each shift.
–
Chinese labour law
stipulates an eight-hour day with a maximum three hours of overtime. All but one of the factories under investigation routinely flouted
this law.
Toy workers were also systematically
cheated out of their wages. Just one factory paid workers in accordance with
labour law. In most factories, extra pay for overtime or for Saturday or
Sunday work was unheard of. Many employers withheld the first month’s wages
and workers were often paid for the first time at the end of the second month.
By law,
production quotas and piece rates must be set at levels that provide the new
minimum wage of 41 cents an hour, decreed by the government in March 2005.
–
Not so at the Huangwu No 2
factory, which makes toys for Wal-Mart and Dollar General. In the spray
paint department, workers earned 28 yuan per day or $3.45. That was 43
cents an hour but only if they reached their production quotas within the
regular eight hours.
–
To achieve that, an
experienced worker had to paint 8,920 small toy pieces a day or one every 3.23
seconds—an astounding $0.0003862 cents per operation. Workers who failed
to meet their quota had their wages reduced to 12 yuan or $1.48 a day,
or 18 cents per hour.
Recent assembly line speed-ups
meant that workers producing small plastic heart-shaped children’s rings had to
complete 10,000 operations a day at the relentless pace of one every three
seconds. Workers passed out from exhaustion. The constant repetition left
workers with bleeding and blistered hands and fingers.
–
The Lungcheong factory,
making toys for Wal-Mart, Mattel and MFA, nominally
complied with the new minimum wage. But in order to gouge back the increase
they sped up production lines, raised production quotas and hiked up dormitory
fees and canteen food prices. More fines were handed out and
existing bonuses taken away. Workers often had to keep working long overtime
hours without pay just to complete their quotas and receive the base wage.
An average assembly line of 55
workers at this factory had a quota of assembling
1,000 “Big Foot Ragin’ Monster Trucks” in eight hours. Each worker had to complete
a truck every 26.4 minutes. The direct labour cost was 18 cents per
truck—less than 0.3 percent of Wal-Mart’s retail price of $64.97.
–
In all factories, a series
of fines existed to fleece workers. At Lungcheong, for being one minute
late, the fine was 1.5 yuan or 18 cents. For being 10 minutes late, it
was 30 yuan or $3.70, which is more than a full day’s wage. Anyone arriving
more than 30 minutes late was docked an entire day’s wage, including
overtime.
It was compulsory for employers to insure
workers against work-related injuries and illnesses, provide maternity leave
and co-fund retirement benefits. These requirements were routinely
ignored. At the Lungcheong factory, workers had to sign an agreement
acknowledging that the company bore absolutely no responsibility if they were
injured on the job.
To cover their tracks, some employers
bought insurance for a few workers when the Ministry of Labour and Social
Security scheduled a site inspection, but it was obvious that the employers had
no fear the government would police these laws stringently. At the Huangwu
factory, only a handful of older workers were insured, despite constant health
risks. Nose bleeds were frequent in the spray paint department, where people
suffered constant exposure to oil-based paints but were supplied only with very
thin facemasks.
–
Almost all workers came from
rural provinces such as Guizhou, Hunan and Hubei and Henan. The majority were usually female and young. There was a policy
of hiring 18- to 30-year-old workers. Employers were prohibited from
hiring labourers younger than 16 years of age but it was a common practice.
All the major toy plants had on-site
dormitories. Living in them was voluntary but workers usually did so out of
necessity, because it was cheaper than renting a flat. Accommodation
inside the factory compounds was sometimes free, but most monthly fees
ranged from 25 to 50 yuan. Some workers paid rent outside—up to 150 yuan or
$18 a month—for the sake of privacy and freedom as many factory dormitories
imposed a midnight curfew.
Dormitory conditions ranged from
adequate to very poor. There were separate male and female quarters. Buildings
usually had 6 to 10 floors, with up to 20 rooms per floor. Each room had 4 to
14 sets of two-tiered bunk beds but there was usually just one bathroom and
toilet per floor. As many as 400 workers shared one bathroom. Most rooms
had fans and most dorms had hot water and electricity but often only for a
certain number of hours.
Because working hours were so long and
dormitories were not equipped with kitchens, workers rarely prepared their
own food and were forced to eat in factory cafeterias or nearby cafes. In
many cases, factories deducted monthly cafeteria fees regardless of whether
employees ate in them or not. Workers complained that the cafeterias were
unsanitary, and the food was insufficient and of poor quality.
Most workers were not union members
and had little idea of what unions were. It would
appear that employers established unions as fronts. At the Lungcheong
factory a union was established in 2004, but workers knew little about it except
that three people occupied the union office. Its main function seemed to be
organising weekend dance parties, which were mostly attended by office staff
rather than workers, who were either working or too exhausted. All workers
paid union dues of one yuan or 12 cents a month—just one more way of robbing
them.
An official union existed at the Huangwu
factory, but had only two members—the plant director and the manager. Workers
were not permitted to join.
In response to earlier exposures of such
conditions, the multinationals have attempted to portray themselves as
seriously committed to corporate codes of conduct, backed by factory monitoring
programs. This begs the question. Why have the combined efforts of Wal-Mart,
the largest toy seller in the world, Mattel and others failed to put a stop to
this human misery?
For a start, the corporate giants
always notify factories in advance of monitoring visits. This serves to warn employers to clean up the plant and prepare
workers for the visit. Signs are posted on workshop doors instructing workers
how to respond to questions that monitors may ask them. Commonly, new workers
and those who cannot be trusted to adhere to the script are forced to take the
day off without pay. Most workers censor themselves, knowing that if they spill
the beans they will be immediately fired once the monitors leave. They are
given bonuses for responding correctly to monitors’ questions.
China Labor Watch executive director Li
Qiang noted that as factories frequently had four or more clients,
multinationals often claimed that if laws were broken, they could not be held
responsible for the work orders of other companies. As he observed, however,
the corporations paid close attention to even the slightest changes in
costs—changes that could and have led them to move production to other plants
and other countries as soon as profit rates fell fractionally. This belied
their professed inability to stay informed of working hours or pay levels.
In other words, the conditions
imposed on workers flow inevitably from the relentless slashing of production
costs in pursuit of profit.
As for the Chinese authorities, they
have accommodated the profit drive by dismantling state-run industries and
driving millions of workers and peasants out of the countryside and into the
cities. Government bureaucracies, both national and provincial, accept and
police unbearable conditions knowing that increased labour costs will only
cause the employers and their clients to flee to even greener pastures in other
regions and countries.
An article in the official Chinese
People’s Daily last December registered concern that things were not going as
well as the factory owners would like and agonised about uncertain profits
because of falling orders leading up to the Christmas period. From January
to November, Guangdong’s
toy shipments overseas totalled $US4.25 billion but showed only an annualised
growth of 2.5 percent.
The shocking conditions of Chinese toy workers bring to mind the life
of the working class of the nineteenth century, at the beginning of the
industrial revolution. The astounding advances in
technology, science, education and communication that have made globalised
production possible could vastly improve the lives of working people in China and
internationally but instead are doing the opposite.