apple, google, microsoft, dell, and tesla are being sued for using cobalt mined with child labor

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Seems weird that they are being sued directly when there are multiple companies before them in the supply chain. Shouldn't it be the company that hired the children that should be sued? 

my speculation is that they know they are not going to win any lawsuit against any of these companies because they paid off the right people / used the right loopholes to make sure they are never held responsible so this is just to get publicity for the issue and force the companies to do something that way

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

my speculation is that they know they are not going to win any lawsuit against any of these companies because they paid off the right people / used the right loopholes to make sure they are never held responsible so this is just to get publicity for the issue and force the companies to do something that way

And that kind of bothers me. 

If people wanted change then they should fight it at the source, which is the mining company. 

To me, the companies being sued are no more guilty than you and I, and I don't think neither of us should be sued. 

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And that kind of bothers me. 

If people wanted change then they should fight it at the source, which is the mining company. 

To me, the companies being sued are no more guilty than you and I, and I don't think neither of us should be sued. 

like i said the mining company probably set things up so they will never be found responsible and they probably wont win this lawsuit either since apple, google, and microsoft probably also set it up so they will never be held responsible either. but while a lawsuit against a mining company will just go under the bridge a lawsuit against apple etc is going to be reported on

[Guest]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I never really intended my comments to be directed at any one industry, it was more a call to remember that we are all a part of the bigger problem.  Even if our part is small or seems unavoidable,  there should always be thought for what we can do and what we can alter in that chain.

The comment was not directed at you, more to add to your comments which I fully agree with. Every one of us benefits from batteries or fuel which all use cobalt from the DRC. 

[Sauron]

On 12/19/2019 at 12:31 AM, Arika S said:

to be fair i doubt any of these companies sent a representative to the cobalt mines in congo to actually check for child labour on a regular basis. If they didn't know there's plausable deniablity. if they did, then yeah fuck 'em

There's no way they didn't know. Literally everyone knows. Maybe there isn't enough proof of that to condemn them legally, but fuck them nonetheless.

4 hours ago, yian88 said:

Thats just dumb, we should sue all ourselves for buying anything produced with child labour.

Wrong. We don't have the money and power to make any other choice.

[straight_stewie]

Are there actually any other suppliers of Cobalt that are able to produce the volume necessary for these companies to build their products?

Or, in other words, did they only have the choice of doing business with these specific cobalt suppliers or not doing business at all?

I'm just very confused as to why we are suing these companies, but not the actual companies that were essentially enslaving children?

If it's not wrong for us to have purchased the products manufactured with resources produced by child labor, then why is it wrong for them to purchase the resources produced by child labor from an independent third party?

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, straight_stewie said:

Are there actually any other suppliers of Cobalt that are able to produce the volume necessary for these companies to build their products?

Or, in other words, did they only have the choice of doing business with these specific cobalt suppliers or not doing business at all?

I'm just very confused as to why we are suing these companies, but not the actual companies that were essentially enslaving children?

If it's not wrong for us to have purchased the products manufactured with resources produced by child labor, then why is it wrong for them to purchase the resources produced by child labor from an independent third party?

There are alternatives that can be "chosen", however, the alternatives (lithium-Phosphate, Lithium-Magnese-oxide, etc) sacrifice capacity quite significantly. 

 

In EVs, this can stifle or slow efforts to move away from fossil fuels due to additional weight to carry more cells, and a reduction in capacity.

 

Low end phones with their efficient SoCs won't suffer much (octa Cortex A53s are very frugal), though high end devices with their more powerful SoCs and hungry displays will most certainly feel the capacity reduction. This is assuming flat cells can be produced, otherwise further capacity reductions and increase in device thickness will be necessitated.

 

So technically, manufacturers have a choice. It's merely the tradeoffs are unappealing (to put it mildly).

[straight_stewie]

10 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

So technically, manufacturers have a choice. It's merely the tradeoffs are unappealing (to put it mildly).

So as I said, they can either, not manufacture the products, or use Cobalt.

But that wasn't really the question, the question was: were these suppliers the only suppliers of Cobalt capable of meeting their quantity/quality needs?

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

So as I said, they can either, not manufacture the products, or use Cobalt.

But that wasn't really the question, the question was: were these suppliers the only suppliers of Cobalt capable of meeting their quantity/quality needs?

Currently both the fossil fuel industry and the battery industry rely on the resources from DRC. There is a lot sourced there from known mimes, but it is supplemented with stuff from mines where human rights are non existent. To some extent the companies are in a bit of a rock hard place situation. If they withdraw from the DRC market a lot of people there will be very adversely affected. So the current ethos seems to be to try and work with the country to improve things. The political situation in DRC is a big mess, far more than even we can comprehend here in Brexit central. So whichever course of action is taken, it has to be done with a lot of care and work.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, straight_stewie said:

So as I said, they can either, not manufacture the products, or use Cobalt.

But that wasn't really the question, the question was: were these suppliers the only suppliers of Cobalt capable of meeting their quantity/quality needs?

Hard to tell. I've never looked into cobalt mining before but here is what I found.

 

 

Number of metric tonnes of cobalt mined in each country:

Congo - 90000 (71,20%)

Russia - 5900 (4,67%)

Cuba - 4900 (3,88%)

Australia - 4700 (3,72%)

Philippines - 4600 (3,64%)

Canada - 3800 (3,01%)

Madagascar - 3500 (2,77%)

Papua New Guinea - 3200 (2,53%)

China - 3100 (2,45%)

South Africa - 2200 (1,74%)

United states - 500 (0,40%)

 

Total: 126400

 

 

There are only 2 companies in the world that has over 10% market share in the cobalt industry.

Glencore (specifically called out in this article) and China Molybdenum. These two together seem to have around 40% of the market share, with Glencore having the lion share.

The third largest, Fleurette Group, sits at around 6% market share, and that was before Glencore spent almost 1 billion dollars buying mines in Congo previously owned by Fleurette. So their market share is probably even lower now.

 

So yeah, not a whole lot of options. Especially not if you need large quantities. It's either Glencore (the company called out in this article), some partially Chinese government owned company, or one of the many, tiny local companies that has like, 0,2% market share.

 

But to me it doesn't make sense that these companies are getting sued. I mean, just look at the supply chain here.

Injury -> Local mining "company" -> Glencore -> Refinery -> Distributor -> Manufacturing plant -> Tech companies -> Consumers

It kind of pisses me off that it's the tech companies getting sued here when the issue happened so far down the supply chain. There are like 7 different steps in the supply chain and these lawyers decided to sue the ones at step 6? How about suing the mining company or the company that owns the mines for allowing children to work there? I really fail to see how Microsoft is any more guilty than for example I am, and I don't think I deserve to be sued.

[Jotoco]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Hard to tell. I've never looked into cobalt mining before but here is what I found.

 

 

Number of metric tonnes of cobalt mined in each country:

Congo - 90000 (71,20%)

Russia - 5900 (4,67%)

Cuba - 4900 (3,88%)

Australia - 4700 (3,72%)

Philippines - 4600 (3,64%)

Canada - 3800 (3,01%)

Madagascar - 3500 (2,77%)

Papua New Guinea - 3200 (2,53%)

China - 3100 (2,45%)

South Africa - 2200 (1,74%)

United states - 500 (0,40%)

 

Total: 126400

 

 

There are only 2 companies in the world that has over 10% market share in the cobalt industry.

Glencore (specifically called out in this article) and China Molybdenum. These two together seem to have around 40% of the market share, with Glencore having the lion share.

The third largest, Fleurette Group, sits at around 6% market share, and that was before Glencore spent almost 1 billion dollars buying mines in Congo previously owned by Fleurette. So their market share is probably even lower now.

 

So yeah, not a whole lot of options. Especially not if you need large quantities. It's either Glencore (the company called out in this article), some partially Chinese government owned company, or one of the many, tiny local companies that has like, 0,2% market share.

 

But to me it doesn't make sense that these companies are getting sued. I mean, just look at the supply chain here.

Injury -> Local mining "company" -> Glencore -> Refinery -> Distributor -> Manufacturing plant -> Tech companies -> Consumers

It kind of pisses me off that it's the tech companies getting sued here when the issue happened so far down the supply chain. There are like 7 different steps in the supply chain and these lawyers decided to sue the ones at step 6? How about suing the mining company or the company that owns the mines for allowing children to work there? I really fail to see how Microsoft is any more guilty than for example I am, and I don't think I deserve to be sued.

These companies are probably based on Congo or work through subsidiaries there, where the corrupt government will give then cover. 

 

 

[Donut417]

On 12/24/2019 at 8:44 AM, LAwLz said:

Seems weird that they are being sued directly when there are multiple companies before them in the supply chain. Shouldn't it be the company that hired the children that should be sued? 

Its not always that easy. The company that owns and opperates the mine might not be a multi national company. It could just be a local company that sells to a distributor and therefor the law suit would have to be brought up in the congo. Sueing the companies at the end of the supply chain might encourage them to change where they get their supply. 

On 12/24/2019 at 8:46 AM, spartaman64 said:

my speculation is that they know they are not going to win any lawsuit against any of these companies because they paid off the right people / used the right loopholes to make sure they are never held responsible so this is just to get publicity for the issue and force the companies to do something that way

Depends on where the law suit takes place. If in the US, then your predictions would be right, our government's moral compass has been pointed in the wrong direction for some time now. If it happens in the EU, I think there is a chance of the law suit being won. The EU seems to be more about bending corporations over the barrel. 

[mr moose]

On 12/25/2019 at 9:01 AM, LAwLz said:

Hard to tell. I've never looked into cobalt mining before but here is what I found.

 

 

Number of metric tonnes of cobalt mined in each country:

Congo - 90000 (71,20%)

Russia - 5900 (4,67%)

Cuba - 4900 (3,88%)

Australia - 4700 (3,72%)

Philippines - 4600 (3,64%)

Canada - 3800 (3,01%)

Madagascar - 3500 (2,77%)

Papua New Guinea - 3200 (2,53%)

China - 3100 (2,45%)

South Africa - 2200 (1,74%)

United states - 500 (0,40%)

 

Total: 126400

 

 

There are only 2 companies in the world that has over 10% market share in the cobalt industry.

Glencore (specifically called out in this article) and China Molybdenum. These two together seem to have around 40% of the market share, with Glencore having the lion share.

The third largest, Fleurette Group, sits at around 6% market share, and that was before Glencore spent almost 1 billion dollars buying mines in Congo previously owned by Fleurette. So their market share is probably even lower now.

 

So yeah, not a whole lot of options. Especially not if you need large quantities. It's either Glencore (the company called out in this article), some partially Chinese government owned company, or one of the many, tiny local companies that has like, 0,2% market share.

 

But to me it doesn't make sense that these companies are getting sued. I mean, just look at the supply chain here.

Injury -> Local mining "company" -> Glencore -> Refinery -> Distributor -> Manufacturing plant -> Tech companies -> Consumers

It kind of pisses me off that it's the tech companies getting sued here when the issue happened so far down the supply chain. There are like 7 different steps in the supply chain and these lawyers decided to sue the ones at step 6? How about suing the mining company or the company that owns the mines for allowing children to work there? I really fail to see how Microsoft is any more guilty than for example I am, and I don't think I deserve to be sued.

I get that frustration. I share it too.  However between the first half of the supply chain being places like china and the congo (where the government is more concerned with economics than accountability) and the rest of the supply chain being tied up in companies set up solely for the purpose of being able to be dissolved and re birthed in the event of a legal issue,  it really only leaves the end user company as the most viable target.  

[RonnieOP]

On 12/24/2019 at 8:44 AM, LAwLz said:

Seems weird that they are being sued directly when there are multiple companies before them in the supply chain. Shouldn't it be the company that hired the children that should be sued? 

This is the first thing i thought.

 

I buy alot of products from local farms for my work. If it turns out they are using kids for illegal labor why would i be sued?

[Donut417]

55 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

farms

At least in the US many times those are family owned. So having kids working on the farm might not be far off. I’m fairly sure farms fall under different labor laws than most industries. 

[RonnieOP]

9 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

At least in the US many times those are family owned. So having kids working on the farm might not be far off. I’m fairly sure farms fall under different labor laws than most industries. 

Well thats not really the point. Although family farms due still have to abide by labor laws. 

 

Take a different example. I order custom clothing from a company that we sell and my workers wear. If they use illegal child labor why would i be the one sued? 

 

 

 

 

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Although family farms due still have to abide by labor laws. 

Federal Laws Laws pertaining to age Employers may not discriminate on the basis of age in any employment-related decisions, including hiring (unless required to do so based on laws regarding hazardous occupations and minimum age) and compensation. (See Michigan Civil Rights Law discussion on page 24.) Subject to limited exceptions, you must not employ children under 12 unless they are your own children and they work outside of school hours in a nonhazardous occupation. You must not employ 12- or 13-year-olds unless you obtain their parents’ written consent or their parents are employed on your farm and they work outside of school hours in a nonhazardous occupation. Fourteen- and 15-year-olds may work outside of school hours in any agricultural occupation not declared hazardous. Sixteen- and 17-year-old youth may be employed in most agricultural jobs except as handlers/ applicators of agricultural use pesticides (see Michigan qualifications on page 9).

 

Pretty much if they are your kids you can work the dog shit out of them. LEGALY. 

 

 

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

use illegal child labor why would i be the one sued? 

Because your the one benifiting from that. Plus, large corporations know where their materials are coming from. If you know that your buying raw materials from a company that uses not ethical business practicies your just as guilthy as the person doing the act. There are local, national laws that forbit the practice and Im fairly sure there are a few treaties that also forbit the practice. Not to mention the potential damage of a companies reputation. While this law suit might not go anywhere, it has gotten out and now groups will pressure theses companies to stop doing business with those parties and look for new ways to get those raw matteirals. 

[RonnieOP]

51 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Federal Laws Laws pertaining to age Employers may not discriminate on the basis of age in any employment-related decisions, including hiring (unless required to do so based on laws regarding hazardous occupations and minimum age) and compensation. (See Michigan Civil Rights Law discussion on page 24.) Subject to limited exceptions, you must not employ children under 12 unless they are your own children and they work outside of school hours in a nonhazardous occupation. You must not employ 12- or 13-year-olds unless you obtain their parents’ written consent or their parents are employed on your farm and they work outside of school hours in a nonhazardous occupation. Fourteen- and 15-year-olds may work outside of school hours in any agricultural occupation not declared hazardous. Sixteen- and 17-year-old youth may be employed in most agricultural jobs except as handlers/ applicators of agricultural use pesticides (see Michigan qualifications on page 9).

 

Pretty much if they are your kids you can work the dog shit out of them. LEGALY. 

 

 

Because your the one benifiting from that. Plus, large corporations know where their materials are coming from. If you know that your buying raw materials from a company that uses not ethical business practicies your just as guilthy as the person doing the act. There are local, national laws that forbit the practice and Im fairly sure there are a few treaties that also forbit the practice. Not to mention the potential damage of a companies reputation. While this law suit might not go anywhere, it has gotten out and now groups will pressure theses companies to stop doing business with those parties and look for new ways to get those raw matteirals. 

Everyone already knew that companies were benefitting from inhuman labor in other countries. Nikes china shoes were talked about when i was a kid and that was decades ago.

 

And your statement about it being ok to sue these tech companies because they benefit from it makes no sense. 

 

If i own a local mom and pop tech store im benefitting from it as well....do i get sued?

 

Me and you as the consumer knows where these products are coming from...do we get sued?

 

Its an asinine lawsuit thats going to go nowhere and isnt going to damage anything. Its pointless. Hell the courthouse that is going to hear the case is benefitting from the inhuman labor with the tech products they use.

 

If you buy something in good faith then in the eyes of the law you are safe from prosecution. My little brother actually purchased a stolen car from a used car dealership a few years ago. He wasnt punished and he actually got to keep the car even though it was stolen. Because he bought it in good faith.

 

They would have to prove that these companies know for a fact what goes on at the mine. And unless the conpanies have toured the mine how would they know? Of course we can all say that they know whats going on because all of us kinda know whats going on. But in a court case "kinda knowing" isnt going to cut it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

They would have to prove that these companies know for a fact what goes on at the mine. And unless the conpanies have toured the mine how would they know? Of course we can all say that they know whats going on because all of us kinda know whats going on. But in a court case "kinda knowing" isnt going to cut it.

And here in lies the crux of the issue, they may well have enough evidence to show these companies know full well what is happening in those mines and factories.   What we lack in knowledge on the subject may be the difference between this being a legitimate lawsuit and an elaborate stepping stone for a much larger lobby.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

do we get sued?

If someone cared, yes, you could. Though you would have to SHOW that the company knew about it. The fact is a mom and pop shop is to small to know what the fuck is going on. Microsoft is a GLOBAL company, they know whats going on. They know whos mining that material. As it stands most of these companies are GLOBAL companies. Some where they are breaking the law and they can be held accountable. Globalization has made the world a much smaller place. If the EU can impose rules on to youtube that effect pretty much everyone in the world. Then US based companies can be held to account for using child labor. 

 

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Me and you as the consumer knows where these products are coming from...do we get sued?

Consumers are not building the tech. The consumer doesnt know where the raw matierals are coming from. So no, they are safe. 

 

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Nikes china shoes were talked about when i was a kid and that was decades ago.

 

Things have changed in China. Remember what Linus said on the Wan Show, they are looking for a factory with better conditons. BECAUSE that does exist. It really depends on the factory. 

 

6 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its an asinine lawsuit thats going to go nowhere and isnt going to damage anything.

It can cause damage. PUBLIC OPINION my friend. Play a big role in the 21st century. If your customer base hates you enough they can hurt you where it will hurt most. The bottom line. 

[Sharp_3yE]

How can you sue those companies? The ONLY company that can be sued is the mining company. IF there is even child labor laws in Congo. How can those companies be sued in USA when the event takes place in Congo? Doesn't make sense. 

 

To be incredibly frank, the problem is not these companies like Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, ect... It's the situation they are in, the economy they are in, and the fact that the mining companies and other companies around are either not demanding enough for their product or pay enough to their workers. 

 

This is, this is what happened in USA as well. Lots of kids use to work. The ONLY reason we do not now is because we became rich enough. People would grow up on a farm or where ever and have to help out. We live in such luxury now that this is not as much of an issue today in USA. 

 

THAT is the reality of the world. Be thankful for where and the time you live in. Don't judge these people cuz their situation is very different. 

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, Sharp_3yE said:

How can you sue those companies? The ONLY company that can be sued is the mining company. IF there is even child labor laws in Congo. How can those companies be sued in USA when the event takes place in Congo? Doesn't make sense. 

First of all California has a law stating that comapnies of a certian size have to report what/if anything they are doing to stop Slavery and Human Trafficing in their supply chains. 

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/u-s-import-laws-and-goods-made-by-child-labor-or-slaves-overseas-31787

Accrdoing to the link the US does have laws about imporation of Goods using Child labor.  While its hard for them to enforce this, it does provide some legal justfication in this case. 

 

As I stated above, its likely this lawsuit will not get any traction. But this issue could get traction in the media and that in some cases is more harmful to a company than acutally legal action. 

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

 

It can cause damage. PUBLIC OPINION my friend. Play a big role in the 21st century. If your customer base hates you enough they can hurt you where it will hurt most. The bottom line. 

Except they dont care. This isnt new information. You would have to of lived under a rock for the past 30 years for this to be news to you.

 

You really think apple customers are going to stop buying iphones over this? No 

Are pc gamers going to stop using windows over this? No

Are console players going to stop buying consoles over this? No

 

Most customers arent even going to know this lawsuit is even a thing. And if they find out its not going to change their purchases.

 

People can say they care all they want on social media. But they wont speak up with their wallets. Which is the only thing that matters 

 

You drastically over estimate peoples moral convictions. You could tell people that iphones were made from endangered animals and they would still line up outside an apple store for the newest phone 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Except they dont care. This isnt new information. You would have to of lived under a rock for the past 30 years for this to be news to you.

 

You really think apple customers are going to stop buying iphones over this? No 

Are pc gamers going to stop using windows over this? No

Are console players going to stop buying consoles over this? No

 

Most customers arent even going to know this lawsuit is even a thing. And if they find out its not going to change their purchases.

 

People can say they care all they want on social media. But they wont speak up with their wallets. Which is the only thing that matters 

 

You drastically over estimate peoples moral convictions. You could tell people that iphones were made from endangered animals and they would still line up outside an apple store for the newest phone 

So what are you arguing here?  Are you suggesting people should just ignore the problem?  Is addressing the problem that futile?

 

The goal to induce social change is to make it socially unpopular first,  that requires lawsuits like this to help keep the momentum up.   Did you know that a lot of today's LGBTQSU discourse (the new compelled speech laws in Canada and accusations of violence from using only words) started out exactly the same. People also said the similar things about same sex marriage,  "it doesn't matter how much they try to sue people still won't accept it",  fast forward  2 decades and CEO's get the arse for opposing it.

 

It may seem on the surface like a hopeless case aimed at the wrong end of the supply chain, but even if they lose it still stands as a prop to further discourse in the battle against such practices.   Social reform does not require a court win, just the case to have happened. 

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Is addressing the problem that futile?

yes

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Did you know that a lot of today's LGBTQSU discourse (the new compelled speech laws in Canada and accusations of violence from using only words) started out exactly the same. People also said the similar things about same sex marriage,

only because it happened within their own, first world, country

show me an african, asian, mid eastern country doing the same

 

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It may seem on the surface like a hopeless case aimed at the wrong end of the supply chain, but even if they lose it still stands as a prop to further discourse in the battle against such practices. 

as long as affected countries do nothing to solve the problem in their own garden, in this case RDC, nothing will ever change.