Worker treatment that's acceptable in Taiwan simply won't be tolerated by US employees

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), one of the world’s largest advanced computer chip manufacturers, continues finding its efforts to get its Arizona facility up and running to be more difficult than it anticipated. The chip maker’s 5nm wafer fab was supposed to go online in 2024 but has faced numerous setbacks and now isn’t expected to begin production until 2025. The trouble the semiconductor has been facing boils down to a key difference between Taiwan and the U.S.: workplace culture. A New York Times report highlights the continuing struggle.

One big problem is that TSMC has been trying to do things the Taiwanese way, even in the U.S. In Taiwan, TSMC is known for extremely rigorous working conditions, including 12-hour work days that extend into the weekends and calling employees into work in the middle of the night for emergencies. TSMC managers in Taiwan are also known to use harsh treatment and threaten workers with being fired for relatively minor failures.

TSMC quickly learned that such practices won’t work in the U.S. Recent reports indicated that the company’s labor force in Arizona is leaving the new plant over these perceived abuses, and TSMC is struggling to fill those vacancies. TSMC is already heavily dependent on employees brought over from Taiwan, with almost half of its current 2,200 employees in Phoenix coming over as Taiwanese transplants.

  • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Agreeing to it doesn’t mean I like it…

    Trapping people in terrible jobs sucks. Especially when it’s considered the legal standard and your contract has to state it’s at will(which might be illegal in some places)

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      It means they can’t just fire you either. Unless they pay the entire severance up front, which can be multiple months of wage.

      Also, losing your job has a lot more impact on your life than a company losing one of its workers impacts that business. So it is definitely in the employees favour.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        It depends on the job. And you’re not always guaranteed severance.

        It’s a lot more impactful for the worker if they’re trapped in a terrible situation making them miserable. Or if they have to go somewhere else

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          You read like someone that got a rough deal, ended up in a shit company with a fixed term contract and now regrets signing it.

          Most contracts have a probation period… where it is effectively at will. After that, you are stuck for the duration, which is what was agreed.

          I don’t know what makes the company so miserable, but not going above and beyond, coming in on time and leaving on time usually helps a lot. I’m not saying start slacking off… but not meeting overbearing production quotas… What are they going to do… fire you? Or pull you off the floor for conversations…

          • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            It was a job that required traveling, was trying to refuse paying overtime for travel time. Because I was constantly traveling I couldn’t see my friends, family, or partner. Was unpredictable mandatory overtime.

            But I already quit months ago.

            And yes, I’m sure some of that was illegal on their part. But there wasn’t much I could do.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Such a weird take.

      A month is easily survivable, the snowball of Beiing fired on the spot, having no income, not being able to afford your living expenses, debts, homelessness is not.

      At will employment might be good for a view niche jobs, for most jobs especially the lower paid, it just gives the employer even more power over their employees.

      I’d suggest you take your weird american viewpoint on employment and go away. We like the fact that employees get proper protections against predatory corpos.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        A month is easily survivable

        Depends on the job/employer.

        Furthermore it’s more important when things come up. Say you need to go take care of a relative in an emergency.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, let’s make all regulations up based on exceptions and edgecases.

          If something happens and you need space, most EU countries have leave for that, you can also take vacation days (we also get those by law)… or your employer allows you to go.

          Again, strange corpo way of trying to normalize not having proper contracts and labor protections. You have bought in to the propaganda too much.

          Probably anti union too, no?

          • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, let’s make all regulations up based on exceptions and edgecases.

            When it comes to people’s freedoms, yes.

            If something happens and you need space, most EU countries have leave for that

            Assuming you’ve earned/haven’t used it.

            Again, strange corpo way of trying to normalize not having proper contracts and labor protections. You have bought in to the propaganda too much.

            Not a corpo. Stop with the ad hominems.

            Probably anti union too, no?

            Some unions do good things, some do bad.

            • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              Freedoms are good to protect, but protecting people most of the time and giving them freedom to live a prosperous life is most important. And the freedom at-will employment gives you is overshadowed by the freedom it gives companies to have employees bear the risk, while hoarding all the profits.

              Your argument only holds true for a small subset of employees and even then, their market value overshadows the need for the flexibility.

              I’ll leave it at that, and if you spout corporate propaganda that has been ingrained into you from birth… I’ll call it like it is.

              • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                3 months ago

                And the freedom at-will employment gives you is overshadowed by the freedom it gives companies to have employees bear the risk, while hoarding all the profits.

                Both parties bear the risk. It’s hard and expensive for companies to replace most people in developed economies. Have you ever been fired with no notice? Because my understanding is workers quit a lot more often than they get fired(or at least that’s what I’ve done).

                I’ll leave it at that, and if you spout corporate propaganda that has been ingrained into you from birth… I’ll call it like it is.

                My beliefs are based on a consistent set of ethics. Stop insulting me.

                • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  3 months ago

                  Yeah, your consistent set of ethics can go fly a kite.

                  • Employees do not share in the profits so should not have to bear ANY of the risks. (No, the fact they have a job at all is NOT sharing in the profit).
                  • Cost of recruitment is just cost of doing business. (There is no cost if you don’t have to recruit).
                  • Making employees disposable just means the employer has no exposure there, while the employee has it all.

                  Profits are supposed to be reimbursement for the investment and the risk involved. In an at-will environment employers have shifted all the risk involved with employing people onto the employee, while keeping the profits.

                  So your consistent set of ethics means exploiting people is OK, hoarding profit is OK and selling corporate greed under the guise of “freedom” based on false claims is OK. I’d suggest re-evaluation of your ethics.

                  • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    3 months ago

                    Employees do not share in the profits so should not have to bear ANY of the risks. (No, the fact they have a job at all is NOT sharing in the profit).

                    How is it not? In small businesses wages are often more than the dividends. As in, employees get paid first, ask any small business owner about that.

                    Cost of recruitment is just cost of doing business. (There is no cost if you don’t have to recruit).

                    Yes. But it means you’re not wanting to fire people randomly most of the time.

                    Making employees disposable just means the employer has no exposure there, while the employee has it all.

                    It doesn’t make employees disposable, see above. People quit far more often than they’re fired.

                    But like I said, I’m not even talking about this from the perspective of the employer, but instead from the employee. Money is more replaceable than time, and it is not ethical to trap someone in a situation that makes them hate their life for a month.