A leading labor rights group alleges excessive overtime, wage withholding, and discriminatory hiring at a key Chinese factory assembling Apple’s latest iPhone

At the height of the late‑summer production rush for Apple’s newest iPhone, a leading labor rights organization says tens of thousands of Chinese factory employees were pushed to the limits—working prolonged overtime, waiting weeks for bonus payments, and facing discriminatory hiring filters that excluded some ethnic minorities and pregnant women. The findings, published this week by China Labor Watch (CLW) after a months‑long investigation at Foxconn’s giant Zhengzhou complex, raise fresh questions about conditions inside the world’s most closely watched electronics supply chain.

CLW’s report describes a production system straining to meet launch deadlines: during peak build weeks, most frontline assemblers clocked around 60 hours and some up to 75 hours—a level that edges beyond Apple’s own stated cap of 60 hours per week and China’s legal limits when overtime is tallied across the month. Investigators allege that Foxconn relied heavily on so‑called “dispatch” labor—temporary workers hired through agencies—who, at times, made up more than half of the workforce. Chinese regulations generally limit dispatch staff to 10% of headcount.

The report also details staggered wage payments and bonus schedules that, workers say, were designed to discourage resignations before the model ramp finished. Several dispatch workers described delayed or withheld bonuses tied to attendance, performance, or completion of multi‑week terms—money they counted on to offset relatively low base pay. Others said they lacked full social‑insurance coverage and paid leave because of their temporary status.

Another flashpoint is hiring discrimination. CLW alleges that algorithmic or manual filters on recruitment platforms screened out candidates from certain regions or ethnic groups and rejected pregnant women. Some applicants reported being funneled into night shifts during training or asked to sign documents that truncated required safety instruction. While the group says it found no evidence of underage labor in this round of fieldwork, it documented workplace bullying, intrusive searches, and pervasive surveillance, including bag checks at dorm and factory gates.

Foxconn, the world’s largest contract manufacturer and Apple’s key assembler for flagship iPhones, said it adheres to the law and company policies and that it investigates credible complaints. Apple said its Supplier Code of Conduct prohibits excessive hours, discrimination, and retaliation, and that it audits suppliers—adding that teams are assessing the latest claims. Over the past decade, both companies have repeatedly pledged improvements and, at times, announced corrective actions after watchdog reports. But CLW argues that core problems have persisted, especially the overreliance on dispatch labor during launch season.

The allegations revive a familiar tension at the heart of modern electronics: balancing punctual product cycles against humane labor standards. Every autumn, Apple orchestrates one of the world’s most complex manufacturing sprints, synchronizing thousands of parts and hundreds of suppliers. As volumes crest, factories commonly add night shifts and weekend overtime. Veteran workers often seek the extra hours because base pay lags far behind what they can earn with bonuses; yet labor researchers note that when overtime becomes systemic rather than voluntary, safeguards tend to erode.

China’s labor law framework allows overtime within defined monthly ceilings, but enforcement varies, particularly with agency‑hired workers. Dispatch arrangements can blur accountability: agencies recruit and pay wages, while factories direct day‑to‑day work. Workers told CLW that when pay disputes arose—say, over missing attendance bonuses—they were bounced between the agency and the factory’s HR department. Student workers, a recurring feature of peak seasons, reported limited access to benefits and, occasionally, mandatory night shifts.

The Zhengzhou site—nicknamed “iPhone City”—has long been a bellwether for Apple’s labor posture. It drew global attention during the pandemic, when disease controls and a pay dispute sparked rare worker protests. Since then, Apple has widened its manufacturing footprint to India and Southeast Asia, partly to hedge geopolitical and supply‑chain risks. Yet for marquee launches, China remains indispensable. That dependence amplifies the stakes of CLW’s allegations: if the core build is still concentrated in Zhengzhou, working conditions there reverberate through the entire release.

The new report also illuminates the hidden calculus of “launch economics.” Base wages cited by CLW for some entry‑level roles were as low as the mid‑teens in RMB per hour, with take‑home pay heavily dependent on punctual bonuses and scheduled overtime. When those incentives are delayed or clawed back—as multiple workers alleged—household budgets can wobble. For migrant workers, long gaps between bonus tranches can be the difference between staying on the line and heading home.

Recruitment filters, if verified, would cut against commitments under Chinese law and Apple’s policy on equal opportunity. CLW says it captured screenshots and job posts that excluded applicants based on their region of origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, or pregnancy status. Foxconn has previously denied discriminatory hiring in other markets, and Apple says suppliers must not use such criteria—yet the watchdog argues that decentralized recruiting via third‑party agencies creates loopholes that are hard to police.

Auditing remains the system’s pressure valve—and its chronic weak point. Apple’s annual supplier responsibility reports often tout high audit coverage and remediation plans. But independent researchers have long criticized social‑auditing regimes for scheduled visits, limited worker interviews, and an overemphasis on documentation. CLW’s method—embedding investigators as line workers and collecting pay stubs, schedules, and chat records—aims to reveal what paperwork may not. The organization acknowledges limitations: access is partial, and individual lines and workshops can differ widely across a campus that swells to hundreds of thousands of staff.

Policy experts say sustained improvements hinge on three levers: predictable hours, transparent pay, and genuine worker voice. Predictable hours would align seasonal peaks with legal ceilings and Apple’s own 60‑hour standard. Transparent pay would front‑load or at least guarantee bonuses and insurance entitlements for dispatch and student workers. Worker voice—the hardest piece—would allow elected representatives to flag excessive overtime or discriminatory screens without fear of retaliation.

There are signs of incremental change. CLW notes modest improvements in some workshops’ weekly hours compared to past years, and Apple has diversified final assembly beyond China. Still, as long as the flagship iPhone’s commercial stakes remain immense, the temptation to stretch overtime and back‑load compensation may persist. Absent tighter oversight of dispatch agencies and stronger penalties for discriminatory recruitment, experts warn, the same dynamics that surface each launch season will recur.

For Apple, the reputational risk is nontrivial, especially amid leadership shifts in its operations ranks and heightened scrutiny from investors focused on social metrics. For Foxconn, the calculus is equally stark: compliance lapses can trigger audit findings, contract pressure, or even shifts in production share. For workers, the calculus is the most basic of all—steady wages, safe hours, and equal access to hiring. As the latest iPhone ships to millions of customers, CLW’s allegations offer a reminder that the true cost of punctual perfection is still being tallied on the factory floor.

Sources

• China Labor Watch, “Apple’s Dependence on China in Its Supply Chain: An Investigative Report on Foxconn Zhengzhou,” September 25, 2025 (report and PDF).

• Bloomberg, “Workers Faced Tough Conditions During Rush to Make iPhone 17, Labor Group Says,” September 25–26, 2025.

• Financial Times, “Inside China’s mega iPhone factory: long hours, discrimination and delayed pay,” September 26, 2025.

• AppleInsider, “iPhones still allegedly being made in China under sweatshop conditions, watchdog alleges,” September 26, 2025.

• 9to5Mac, “Report accuses Apple of ignoring labor issues at key Chinese supplier,” September 26, 2025.