I’m going to side with Apple on this one for a couple of reasons.
- They have gone out of their way to inform me, as a customer, about battery recycling, to include prepaid mailers with battery replacements, and have minimal packaging.
- Apple has a strong track record in their manufacturing process for eliminating particularly harmful chemicals.
- I admire the fact that they pretty much told Greenpeace to fuck off when Greenpeace tried to bully them.
- Many of the environmental issues that Greenpeace is complaining about are related to the manufacturing process for circuit boards, and that is an industry issue and not a vendor issue so it’s more than unfair to give the Greenpeace ass-kissers at Dell high marks and Apple poor marks when they are subject to the same realities.
- Lastly, Greenpeace doesn’t display much intellectual honesty in when they admit the judging criteria are "subjective". This is another thinly disguised attempt by an activist organization to shakedown a large company
Kruszewska said the study intentionally ignored companies’ absolute size to concentrate on their relative performance. She conceded the choices of manufacturers and judging criteria were subjective. But Greenpeace tried to be "fair and transparent" in giving advance warning to the companies on the way they would be rated.
She said Greenpeace’s relationship with Apple has deteriorated since it set up a spoof web site devoted to criticizing Apple’s environmental policies, she added.
"Once we launched the ‘Green my Apple’ Web site, we stopped hearing from Apple altogether," she said.
Tags: Greenpeace, Apple, EPA
Anne Broache reports that Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced a bill that imposes additional obligations on companies hiring foreigners. Among the requirements in the bill:
* All companies must pledge that they made a "good faith effort" to hire American workers first and that an H-1B worker won’t displace a U.S. worker.
* Any company wanting to hire an H-1B worker must first advertise the job opening for 30 days on the Department of Labor site.
* Companies won’t be allowed to hire H-1B employees who are outsourced to other companies. They also can’t recruit only H1-B holders for a job.
* If companies employ more than 50 people and half of them are H-1B visa holders they won’t be allowed to hire any more.
What the hell are Durbin and Grassley thinking? Technology companies are the dominant consumers of H-1B labor and they aren’t going through this expensive process because they want to avoid hiring Americans for these jobs… there simply aren’t enough Americans to fill these positions!
This proposal, should it ever become law and that’s really unlikely, would absolutely drive companies to go offshore rather than go through the H-1B process to hire foreigners to work in the U.S.
On a related note, the USCIS reached the Congressionally mandated H-1B cap for fiscal year 2008 and the submission process is now closed. Here’s how the timeline worked:
- April 2, 2007 – applications for H-1B visas accepted for fiscal year 2008
- April 2, 2007 – 150,000 applications accepted, the legally mandated maximum number
- April 3, 2007 – submission process closed
There you have it, an entire year of H-1B applications received in 1 day. There’s something really really wrong with this process.
Tags: H-1B, offshoring