Following up on yesterday's post about the Beijing subway collapse, I saw an interesting article (subscription) by Mei Fong in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Asia. (I try to get that right ever since one of their journalists explained to our staff in Beijing that it's not the "Asian Wall Street Journal" any more, and that we had better get with the times.)

Because of its galvanizing effect on everyone with a China agenda, the Beijing Olympics has been described within my industry as "issues rich". This is PR code for "shitstorm waiting to happen", and is the kind of thing that usually leaves PR men cackling to themselves and planning expensive purchases. (Or, at my pay grade, grocery shopping.)

Among the many China issues that people get in a twist about is migrant laborers. There are by the government's own estimates 115 million of them. For perspective, that's less than 10% of the population of China, but more than 35% of the population of the United States. And I'm not sure the government is counting everyone.

A lot of these migrant workers are currently in Beijing, slaving away on extremely high-profile, deadline-sensitive projects that are part of the city's pre-Olympic renovation. People have noticed this. Mei writes:

[Beijing's] haste to meet its construction deadlines has resulted in round-the-clock work for the armies of often poorly paid, badly equipped migrant workers who build most of these projects. Some work shifts that can last as long as 24 hours.

The relatively poor working conditions of migrant workers has come under greater media scrutiny in recent months, causing international labor groups -- many already critical of China's poor human-rights record -- to put greater pressure on the International Olympic Committee to improve the situation.

IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said in an email that "our understanding is that all efforts have been made both in terms of safety -- specifically putting precaution first, and also in terms of transparent management."

Does the IOC really believe that? Even if it doesn't, is there anything else it could say without admitting culpability and precipitating its own crisis? How about:

"The IOC is aware of the widespread exploitation of Chinese migrant laborers, the mistreatment they commonly suffer and the appalling and unsafe conditions they endure. We sympathize completely. But we also believe that during the pomp of the opening ceremony, amidst the pageantry, grandeur and fireworks, no one will be thinking about a few bones in the foundations."

Maybe not. OK, what Ms. Davies says isn't as bad as my idiot scenario above. Note the weasel words, though: "Our understanding is..." That phrase is the IOC's absolution. It transfers responsibility onto BOCOG and the Chinese government. They told us everything is OK. But for credibility it depends upon you and me believing that the chain of honest communication and transparency from labor contractors to construction subcontractors to primary contractors to the municipal government and BOCOG is intact. Do you really believe that? Of the Chinese construction industry? And if you don't, then should the IOC?

I realize I am dissecting one partial statement out of context here. But that's what the public will see, so that's what will inform people's opinions.

As for BOCOG, it has duelling priorities:

Priority 1) Have a glamorous and untarnished Olympic Games that mark China's emergence on the International stage.

Priority 2) Get the goddamn thing done in time and on budget.

So which priority will win, and whose reputations will get trashed in the process?

 493 days, 6 hours, 51 minutes and 17 seconds to go as of this posting.