Apple requires its business partners to continue paying underage workers while they go to school. In this case, the company is no longer a business partner. Therefore, it would seem that the children aren't going to get paid.
>>As a result, Apple terminated its relationship with PZ and reported the labor agency (Shemzen Quanshun Human Resources) to the provincial governments of Shenzen and Henan. "The agency had its business license suspended and was fined. The children were returned to their families, and PZ was required to pay expenses to facilitate their successful return," wrote Apple. "In addition, the company that subcontracted its work to PZ was prompted by our findings to audit its other subcontractors for underage labor violations—proving that one discovery can have far-reaching impact."
Remember, this company is breaking Chinese labor law. And committing fraud, to boot.
To me, it sounds like your quote is simply saying that the companies were legally obligated to pay the travel expenses for returning the kids to their families.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I hope that the kids are being cared for after they go home, but my understanding from reading the article was that it was just a requirement Apple imposed on it's business partners. If Apple terminates the contract, why would the companies still have to pay the children's salaries?
>> As long as it's voluntary, the conditions are okay and the pay is fair, who does it hurt?
CO: They are underage. They can overestimate short-running goals over theirs long-running goals: better education, better health.
>>Should we work at fixing the root problems which drive children to work? Yes. Should we fire them and let them starve in the mean time?
As I understood, Apple doing exactly as you said. They are not just firing them, Apple guarantee their income wo work.
Can you propose the better way than Apple chose?
(excuse me for my Runglish)