對(duì)于富士康電子公司(Foxconn Electronics Inc.)將以機(jī)器人全面取代中國(guó)工人的新聞，媒體以及產(chǎn)業(yè)有好幾種不同的解讀方式。 首先是公認(rèn)最諷刺的觀點(diǎn)：機(jī)器人不會(huì)抱怨工作環(huán)境不佳，也不會(huì)鬧自殺。或許所有有關(guān)剝削勞工的負(fù)面形象與新聞也將隨之而去。 另一種較中肯的看法是：富士康將可為全球制造業(yè)帶來(lái)公平的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境。如果中國(guó)的最大的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)是勞動(dòng)力成本低，那么在機(jī)器人全面取代勞工后，中國(guó)還剩些什么呢？ 當(dāng)然，中國(guó)還有其它的優(yōu)勢(shì)：龐大的制造設(shè)施基地、既有的供應(yīng)鏈網(wǎng)絡(luò)，以及約十億人口的消費(fèi)市場(chǎng)。但如果世界最大的合約制造商打算引進(jìn)機(jī)器人，你可以想象其它的制造商也將會(huì)跟進(jìn)。為了保持競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，小型EMS公司必須符合成本。 對(duì)于真的真的很想將制造業(yè)外移至海外的公司來(lái)說(shuō)，這可能是個(gè)千載難逢的好機(jī)會(huì)。只要讓機(jī)器人開(kāi)始工作，就不必再擔(dān)心勞動(dòng)成本了。然而，這樣做并不能增加工作機(jī)會(huì)。我們一直聽(tīng)到如何使制造業(yè)回流的種種討論，其背后的真正用意不就是為了要增加工作機(jī)會(huì)嗎？ 至少在美國(guó)，增加就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)才是關(guān)鍵。不過(guò)，最近一個(gè)電視節(jié)目強(qiáng)調(diào)美國(guó)制造業(yè)合格工人短缺的問(wèn)題。這種觀點(diǎn)真是令人耳目一新，在失業(yè)率持續(xù)攀升的情況下，怎么還會(huì)有工作斷層的問(wèn)題？ 首先，美國(guó)制造業(yè)的確還存在許多工作機(jī)會(huì)－－Alcoa Inc.就是其中之一，而且這家公司還面對(duì)找不到所需人才的問(wèn)題。近來(lái)，入門(mén)級(jí)的制造業(yè)工作必須懂得三角學(xué)以及高精確設(shè)備的校準(zhǔn)等技能。而現(xiàn)有的求職人員不是條件太好(Alcoa并不需要電子工程師)就是資格不符。制造業(yè)員工最好至少要有社區(qū)大學(xué)或機(jī)械工程學(xué)位的背景。 此外， 無(wú)法滿(mǎn)足就業(yè)需求的大學(xué)教育體系也是問(wèn)題之一。還有，培訓(xùn)員工的成本又是另一個(gè)問(wèn)題。當(dāng)然還有來(lái)自中國(guó)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)威脅。如果工作環(huán)境動(dòng)蕩不安的問(wèn)題解決了，就真的能夠取得進(jìn)展嗎？事實(shí)上，真正的問(wèn)題還出在一個(gè)容忍侵犯人權(quán)的環(huán)境。同樣地，如果移除了人為的因素，是否就能解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題？ 我認(rèn)為未來(lái)在這方面將會(huì)取得進(jìn)展，因?yàn)樵絹?lái)越多的中國(guó)人開(kāi)始了解到，在他們的國(guó)家以外還有一個(gè)全然不同的世界。西方公司在中國(guó)生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)品，他們所制造的產(chǎn)品也為當(dāng)?shù)厝嗣翊蜷_(kāi)通往世界其它地方的一扇窗。中國(guó)無(wú)法獨(dú)立于經(jīng)濟(jì)真空下。但很諷刺的，因應(yīng)工人動(dòng) 亂的問(wèn)題以及虐 待工人的指控，最快的解決方案之一就是擺脫掉這些工人？ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Susan Hong 參考英文原文：Foxconn's Solution to Labor Unrest，by Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 工業(yè)機(jī)器人需求激增，電子產(chǎn)業(yè)成訂單新貴
• 三星在中國(guó)八家代工廠被曝剝削勞工
• 圖文報(bào)道：去DESIGN East上看新鮮玩意兒Bpjesmc

{pagination} Foxconn's Solution to Labor Unrest Barbara Jorgensen There are a couple of ways to spin the news that Foxconn Electronics Inc. is replacing Chinese workers with robots. The first is admittedly the most cynical: Robots don't complain about lousy working conditions, and they don't commit suicide. Maybe all that nasty PR about exploiting workers will go away. Here's the more moderate reaction: Foxconn is leveling the playing field for global manufacturing. If China's biggest competitive edge is low-cost labor, and labor is taken out of the equation, what's left? OK, there are other advantages: a huge base of manufacturing facilities, an established supply chain network that shouldn't be dismantled, and a billion or so consumers buying electronic goods manufactured close to home. But if the world's largest contract manufacturer is going robotic, you can bet other manufacturers will follow. To stay competitive, smaller EMS companies will have to meet costs. This could be the opportunity of a lifetime for all those companies that say they really, really want to manufacture onshore again. Stop worrying about labor costs, and put those robots to work. But this isn't going to create jobs. (We're using robots.) And job creation is the real force behind the bring-back-manufacturing movement we've been hearing so much about, isn't it? There is a jobs angle to this, at least in the US. A recent 60 Minutes report looked at the alleged shortage of qualified workers for US manufacturing jobs. With unemployment so high, how could there be a job gap? The report was eye-opening. First, there are still US manufacturing jobs -- the $25 billion Alcoa Inc. was among the companies interviewed for the story. And, yes, it is having trouble finding workers. These days, entry-level manufacturing jobs require skills like trigonometry to calibrate the high-precision equipment used in manufacturing. The available workers are either overqualified (Alcoa doesn't need EEs) or underqualified (they have only a high school diploma). The perfect manufacturing employee will have about two years at a community college and/or a mechanical engineering degree. There are a number of bigger issues at play here. An educational system that doesn't match employment needs is one. The cost of training employees is another. Then there’s China. If the recent unrest regarding working conditions disappears, will progress ever be made? As EBN readers have pointed out, the real problem is an environment that tolerates human rights abuses. Again (taking the cynic's view), removing humans from the employment equation solves that problem. I think progress will be made because the Chinese are acutely aware that things are different outside their nation. Western companies manufacture there, and the products they make give citizens an open window to the rest of the world. China can't exist in an economic vacuum. But it is ironic that one of the quickest solutions to charges of worker abuse is to get rid of the workers.