Rolex Home Workers.

[padi56]

Found this article on the net,perhaps this explains getting rid of anchor
ect they might have to pay there home workers more wages.

To put the mentioned wages in perspective, a teenager working at McDonalds will make around 18 francs (10.50 USD)The luxury watch manufacturer Rolex turns over billions every year but lets their home workers down. They do the finicky work of finishing watch parts, for 7 to 12 francs (4 to 7 USD) per hour.



By Rahel Stauber.


The ladies watch Datejust from Rolex - in 18 K white gold studded with diamonds - costs a proud 72,600 francs (59,000 USD), nothing for small wallets. But the luxury watch business is booming. Christmas sales were better than they'd been for a long time, certain models are sold out and the manufacturers are announcing that they urgently need additional manpower and are offering "wages better than ever before". Sandra K. doesn't notice anything of this, the single mother of two children in school age works as a home worker for Rolex in Bienne. Using a loupe, she has to file the edges of thumb-sized machine made watch parts. A finicky work. Average hourly wage: 10 francs (5.9 USD).

When Sandra K. started working a half year ago, she was in good spirits because she knew her qualities. "I'm a quick worker, that's what they told me at all my other jobs". And she knows the trade too. For 20 years she's regularly been working for one, or the other watch company. To do her job for Rolex well, Sandra started by working 8 half days at Rolex in Bienne, for altogether 250 francs (200 USD). The meager wage didn't bother her. But she wanted to know what she could earn in the future. "That's not important, all will be fine" the department head told her. And she believed him. After all, it wasn't some dubious company she was working for but Rolex - with estimated annual sales of 2.5 billion francs (1.47 billion USD) Switzerland's second largest watch manufacturer. According to the Swiss financial magazine "Bilanz", the co-owning family Borer is "easily in the mid-field of the 300 richest" in the country.

280 francs for 14 days of work
Sandra K.'s optimism quickly faded. Rolex, for example, pays 6 francs (3.5 USD) for the "rouage" of 100 pieces of Calibre 5030. At first, Sandra K. barely managed 50 pieces per hour. Her first pay statement looked accordingly: For two weeks of work, she received 280 francs (165 USD). "I was devastated, just couldn't believe it", Sandra K. says. A calculation error ? No. "The department head told me clearly that it was normal that home workers hardly made any money in the first year". Roughly 350 women work for Rolex under these conditions. Quitting isn't for Sandra. That's why she's diligently continuing to work, in the hope of becoming quicker. In the mean time, if she hurries, she can make between 7 and 12 francs an hour (4 to 7 USD). Still a pittance. And additional activities are required: She has to drive to Bienne every second day to pick up the parts - at her own cost.

Union wants to act
Why does such a noted company like Rolex let their home workers work in such miserable circumstances ? Franziska Borer-Winzenried, general directress of Rolex, Bienne wrote the "Beobachter" a dry note on ritzy paper with gold coinage: "Depending on pace and sensitivity, the monthly income can vary". Sure, could well be. But the law says something different. The employer must set a basic wage and a target time for the home worker - meaning an approximate time for the work. And: Home workers may not earn less than comparable employees working at the factory. In the case of Sandra K, this isn't true. What's even more offending is that - due to the fact that Sandra used to be unemployed and can't make ends meet with such a pay - she receives supplemental unemployment benefits. So Rolex is employing cheap labor at the expense of the state unemployment insurance. The union "SMUV" now wants to intervene. And general directress Borer-Winzenried writes that she will review the rates for home workers and "if required, adjust them appropriately". The requirement certainly seems to be here ...

[Gedanken]

I'm just glad I never lectured any Nike wearers about sweat shops - otherwise I'd be feeling plenty stupid right about now.

[JJ Irani]

Those wages are pathetic....but probably good by Third World standards.

JJ

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Those wages are pathetic....but probably good by Third World standards.

JJ

I didn't realize Switzerland was a Third World country. Live and learn.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

I didn't realize Switzerland was a Third World country. Live and learn.

Hey Ed,

Let me rephrase: good by Third World countries, namely the places I've visited...certainly not Switzerland.

[molex]

Man, that's a tough call IMO. It really pits my sense of fairness to people against my feeling that one can't fairly expect a profit-oriented company to pay more in wages than the market requires them to.

On the one hand, when one looks at the tremendous income Rolex generates for their corporate coffers it's *very* hard to justify them paying such lowly salaries.

On the other hand, companies (including the one I work for) will nearly always pay their lowest-level workers the bare minimum necessary to keep them from quitting.

So personally, I'm torn. I'd love to jump on the "Hey, that's not fair!" band-wagon, because naturally a situation like this makes anyone who *doesn't* jump on that wagon look like an ogre. But, in all honesty: If the wages are too low to be tolerable then why do people provide these services to Rolex? I assume the economy in Switzerland is good enough that higher-paying jobs can be had by people willing to learn the proper skills etc.

Anyways, where I work we're almost always hiring. We pay exactly the minimum we can and still get the level of workers we need. No one is forced to work here, and many people work here until something that pays better shows up. Most of our long-term hourly employees stay because they have no other marketable skills and aren't interested in getting any. I assume Rolex does the same, unless I'm missing some important part of the puzzle here.

[Gedanken]

Dunno, Micah - there's a few things that need addressing here:

- Why isn't this lady paid equally for her labour, compared to an on-site worker? After all, she's even picking up and delivering the parts at her own expense.

- Why hasn't Rolex set a target time and wage as required by law?

The gist of the report is that Sandra is not an inexperienced worker - she's reported to have done reasonably well by the reckoning of other watchmakers, so there's no real reason why she should be struggling with Rolex, is there?

I understand that according to the business imperative, you pay as little as you can get away with, but this is a bit much. First, it appears that Rolex have set up movable goalposts, and you'd have to ask to what ends this has been done. Are they trying to put a carrot on a stick that can be extended should the horse be able to reach it?

The last time I saw employees being kept in the dark in the manner that Rolex has done to Sandra, it was a sleazy little pizza shop owner who squeezed his workers out of 2 months' labour and then left them high and dry. I'm not impressed at all.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Dunno, Micah - there's a few things that need addressing here:

- Why isn't this lady paid equally for her labour, compared to an on-site worker? After all, she's even picking up and delivering the parts at her own expense.

- Why hasn't Rolex set a target time and wage as required by law?

The gist of the report is that Sandra is not an inexperienced worker - she's reported to have done reasonably well by the reckoning of other watchmakers, so there's no real reason why she should be struggling with Rolex, is there?

I understand that according to the business imperative, you pay as little as you can get away with, but this is a bit much. First, it appears that Rolex have set up movable goalposts, and you'd have to ask to what ends this has been done. Are they trying to put a carrot on a stick that can be extended should the horse be able to reach it?

The last time I saw employees being kept in the dark in the manner that Rolex has done to Sandra, it was a sleazy little pizza shop owner who squeezed his workers out of 2 months' labour and then left them high and dry. I'm not impressed at all.

Well said James my sentiments exactly,think Madam Rolex is flouting the law
in this case.And being a single mother she can only work from home,its the
same old story worldwide, if these companies can get away with it they will.

[AJC]

J.O.B.

Just over broke

Aaron

[maverick]

They do not pay 10.50 an hour HERE for Mc Donald's workers! Our minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. =) maverick

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by maverick

They do not pay 10.50 an hour HERE for Mc Donald's workers! Our minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. =) maverick

$5.15/hour?? That's terrible!! In NZ, it's now NZ$9.50/hour minimum wages.

[molex]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Dunno, Micah - there's a few things that need addressing here:
- Why isn't this lady paid equally for her labour, compared to an on-site worker? After all, she's even picking up and delivering the parts at her own expense.
- Why hasn't Rolex set a target time and wage as required by law?

Good points all, I'd not thought of the legal aspect; if Rolex is breaking the law by keeping this employee in the dark regarding her pay scale, there's no excuse for that. And there certainly shouldn't be a wage-difference between and on-site worker and a home worker, particularly if the home-worker is performing to the same standards and output as the on-site worker. If anything, the home-worker in that case is *saving* the company money by not using company resources such as space in the building etc.

[JJ Irani]

BIG QUESTION, guys.

This home worker thing....who checks or controls the quality control of the end products which she produces??

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

BIG QUESTION, guys.

This home worker thing....who checks or controls the quality control of the end products which she produces??

Me thinks that is simple: the same person that performs the checks in the factory. I guess she delivers a batch once a week and picks up new 'roughs' at the same time. The homeworkers parts are only checked with a delay but I would schedule the delevery of parts thus that there is a constant stream during the week.

Frans.

[mbogo]

Oh, cry me a river!

Piecework is what it is. She can get a different job, or learn a new trade.

No one owes anyone else a living or a decent lifestyle.

George

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by molex

Good points all, I'd not thought of the legal aspect; if Rolex is breaking the law by keeping this employee in the dark regarding her pay scale, there's no excuse for that. And there certainly shouldn't be a wage-difference between and on-site worker and a home worker, particularly if the home-worker is performing to the same standards and output as the on-site worker. If anything, the home-worker in that case is *saving* the company money by not using company resources such as space in the building etc.

I'm not familiar with Swiss laws on labour and thus cannot comment on the above. I assume the only reason for Rolex SA to employ home workers in the first place is to be able to state that all parts are made by themselves (bar the Navirox spring). BTW, home workers are paid equally bad everywhere, be it by Rolex or not. It certainly isn’t a get rich quick scheme. We’ve all read the ads: “make up to a $1000 a week from the comfort of your own home”. Yeah sure, if you can put together 100,000 give away pens in one week! And one question remains: if the pay is that bad, why doesn’t she quit then? Give Rolex the finger, so to speak


Frans.