All employee actions are company actions. You partnered with a company that can’t control what it’s employees do? No internal audits to make sure their reputation wasn’t being tarnished by a few employees?! Your loss.
I understand the indignation etc etc. And the suggestion to not use these kind of companies anymore.
And that sounds really reasonable, until you realize that pretty much all contract manufacturers in the Far East will source cheaper or off-spec components than those on the BOM if they can get away with it.
One of my friends supplied small widgets for a well known consumer electronics maker. He routinely gets widgets returned to him as defect for inspection, which then inevitably turn out to be clones of his widgets.
The only way to make sure that your product rolls of the product line as expected, is to have people on-site with continuous inspection (and pray that they're not the cousin of somebody who's on the other side.)
If you want the benefit of dirt cheap manufacturing, you need to have a system in place to deal with these practices.
How much do you think you would have to pay them to make it worth their while to not use cheap components (so as not to risk losing you as a customer)? It’s amazing how people never consider using economics.
Edit: But let’s not get away from the matter at hand. The issue wasn’t cheap components, it was full-on credit skimmers installed in yor hardware (IIRC). Should be easier to incentivize the conpany into halting those before they get shipped to you, no?
As somebody else noted: it doesn't have to be the company that does it, but a lower level employee who cuts a deal. So paying the company more wouldn't solve the issue completely.
All of these things are extremely cost sensitive. Your suggestion that people don't consider using economics is simply wrong. If you can manufacture a million pieces for a few cent less per piece, and the only negative is having to paying a bunch of inspectors who are fixed cost, it's an easy choice.
And again, you should make it the company's problem if they can't control their own employees. They can learn to put some controls in place once it starts hurting their bottom line.
> All of these things are extremely cost sensitive.
Say their profit margin is 1%. If you offer to pay them a 1% higher price, you're offering to nearly double their profits on whatever they sell to you.
Admittedly, that only works if you are a sufficiently large portion of their business. If you're a tiny percentage, then it may take a lot more to motivate them if their other customers aren't willing to pay more.
If the solution to the problem involves line checks, independent audits, personnel checks, increased pay, etc., thenyes, throwing money at the problem is a large part of the solution.
You have to pay them as much as it would cost to manufacture in the Western country doing the out-sourcing...so unless the cost of these extra quality checks outweighs the cost of on-shoring you might as well measure angular momentum.
IMO this is not indignation, it's supplier sourcing 101.
> If you want the benefit of dirt cheap manufacturing, you need to have a system in place to deal with these practices.
I will definitely agree that holding suppliers to standards regarding consistent output, unadulterated products, and conducting audits all make production much more expensive.
But if you're a device manufacturer, these sourcing controls are key to shipping quality products.
But make no mistake, this yet another globalized race to the bottom, but one that hits capital (or the end consumer), rather than labor or the environment.
