Tesla Employee Calls For Unionization, Musk Says That's 'Morally Outrageous' (arstechnica.com)

"In a Medium post published today, Tesla employee Jose Moran detailed working conditions at the company's Freemont factory and called for the factory workers to unionize with United Auto Workers (UAW)," reports Ars Technica. In response, Elon Musk told Gizmodo via Twitter Direct Messages: "Our understanding is that this guy was paid by the UAW to join Tesla and agitate for a union. Frankly, I find this attack to be morally outrageous. Tesla is the last car company left in California, because costs are so high." Musk went on to blame the UAW for killing the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc (NUMMI), which sold the Fremont factory to Musk in 2010. Ars Technica reports: Tesla currently employs more than 5,000 non-union workers at its Fremont, CA-based factory. Moran wrote that the workers are often faced with "excessive mandatory overtime" and earn between $17 and $21 hourly, compared with the national average of $25.58 hourly for most autoworkers in the U.S. The Tesla employee noted that the astronomical cost of living in the Bay Area makes $21 an hour difficult to live on. Moran also claimed that the factory's "machinery is often not ergonomically compatible with our bodies," and requires "too much twisting and turning and extra physical movement to do jobs that could be simplified if workers' input were welcomed." He added that at one point, six out of eight people on his team were out on medical leave "due to various work-related injuries."

Comments

First

[Anonymous Coward]

But, what does our dear leader have to say about it?

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

My dick

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

My dick

So.. nothing substantial?

Re:First

[GLMDesigns]

Who? Obama? He's been silent.

Re:First

[wbr1]

His girlfriend told him he was two inches bigger than her last partner. I bet he's glad his girlfriend is no longer a lesbian.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

But, what does our dear leader have to say about it?

"You're fired!", what else?

You don't honestly think that Trump would love unions, do you? Anything that interferes with him getting his own way is morally reprehensible. Take "so-called" judges, for example.

Tesla employees call for fake news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk says all his bullshit is true.

Not what he said.

[duckintheface]

RTFA! Musk said that it as "morally outrageous" for someone to sign on as a Tesla employee, not because they wanted the job but because they wanted to be in a position to influence a unionization vote. Musk did not say or imply that unionization was morally outrageous. But that was obvious so the false title was intentional.

Re:Not what he said.

[Mass Overkiller]

Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, slashdot is opening itself up to being sued [over an idiotic crappy article headline] due to an editor being either too incompetent or too lazy to do his job!

Go figure!

I.e. it is just BeauHD's typical level of editorial quality. Nothing to see here, move on...

Re:Not what he said.

[drinkypoo]

Musk did not say or imply that unionization was morally outrageous. But that was obvious so the false title was intentional.

Well, let's look at his claim. Is it morally outrageous to take a job specifically for the purpose of encouraging unionization? I don't think that it is. I mean, it's a lot less outrageous to me than someone who takes a job specifically for the purpose of fucking off and phoning it in and doing a shit job. My perception is that most union members believe in their union, and thus, in the act of encouraging unionization. I don't see anything to be morally outraged about there. If I were a business owner, I would be peeved at them, but I'd be equally upset with my HR department.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.

Yes. Additionally, the guy was being paid by the union for doing this.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA! Musk said that it as "morally outrageous" for someone to sign on as a Tesla employee, not because they wanted the job but because they wanted to be in a position to influence a unionization vote. Musk did not say or imply that unionization was morally outrageous. But that was obvious so the false title was intentional.

s/Tesla/Walmart/g

I wonder what you'd be saying if Tesla were replaced with Walmart....

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

BeauHD's typical level of editorial quality.

Agreed. Humping a Starbucks cup is hardly an indication that one should win the Pulitzer Prize

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

If unions go away, those laws will go away so fast it will make your head spin.... especially with the current crowd that's in power.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's morally outrageous to pay somebody to take a job to try to force unionization in to your specific union. The problem with this is, I can see Tesla falsely making this claim as I've seen many large companies make these sorts of claims before. But UAW has a sleazy enough background that before reading the summary, I did think that maybe UAW paid the guy off.

Re:Not what he said.

[zaphod]

Did Musk offer proof Jose was working for the UAW? The guy's LinkedIn profile doesn't show that: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jo.... Just wondering if Musk is assuming the guy works for UAW or if he knows it.

Re:Not what he said.

[drinkypoo]

Unionization is no longer needed in the United States.

It's not the best solution; the best solution would be the things you think we have, that we don't. To wit:

There are laws in place to protect worker safety and inflating wages/job protection are the only real things unionization does anymore.

The laws in place which protect worker safety are inadequate, because they do not make unsafe work conditions sufficiently unprofitable for large industries. And there is absolutely zero job protection for non-union workers; in a world which insists that you have a job, there should be some form of job protection.

Wages are too high in the US in two areas.... the lowest paid unionized workers (floor sweepers, fork truck drivers etc) and the highest paid (CEO's).

CEOs don't have a union. The lowest-paid unionized workers are getting paid what we all should be getting paid. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over twenty years, and the inflation is meant not to simply pay a subsistence wage, but to pay a comfortable living wage upon which one could support a family. That's the minimum standard that we want to accept as Americans, because we don't want to see a race to the bottom.

Middle tier skilled labor positions such as welders have good wage parity between union and non-union jobs indicating the wage is FAIR to both the workers and the businesses.

That doesn't actually indicate that at all. You need a lot more information to determine whether a wage is fair.

CEO's wages should be capped at a percentage of average employee wages.

Well, finally you say something that makes sense. Too bad about the rest of your comment. Also, it's too bad that outside education, the administration isn't union, and so this idea is completely off topic.

This would create incentive to raise employee wages

False. They just find other ways to deliver compensation.

Re:Not what he said.

[drinkypoo]

It's morally outrageous to pay somebody to take a job to try to force unionization in to your specific union.

That would make a lot more sense if unions didn't have specific purposes. This is the obvious union they "should" be joining (if they are to join a union.)

But UAW has a sleazy enough background that before reading the summary, I did think that maybe UAW paid the guy off.

Paying your employees so poorly, and taking such poor care of them, is also sleazy. So we see here sleaze being used to fight sleaze. I am having a hard time getting upset.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or so the Unions claim, without proof, in order to scare their members into remaining members and continuing to pay their dues.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weasel words. Nothing more than weasel words.

If he's not opposed to unionization then why does it matter if the person applied to work at Telsa to encourage unionization or decided to do so on his own after becoming employed there.

Like all dictators, Elon Musk hates the idea of the average person having elected representatives working on their behalf.

Re:Not what he said.

[GLMDesigns]

Except unions have been going away and that has not happened. Unionization (not counting public service employees) is less than 10%. (AFAIR)

Re:Not what he said.

[Mr D from 63]

I have no problem with non-government unions. I think many have shot themselves in the foot over time. We have right to work states and union states and so we can let the market sort it out. Right to work is slowly winning the battle. Missouri just passed right to work.

I do have a problem with government employee unions. In particular government union political donations, which is basically creates a reward to politicians for enriching the union and their employees at the expense of taxpayers. These unions should be restricted from political donations and lobby limited to communications.

Re:Not what he said.

[segedunum]

Is it morally outrageous for someone to start a job and then want to start a union? I don't think it is. Musk's accusation that he was paid to do this is just that - an accusation. Musk has a habit of making these kinds of accusations when allegations against his companies are made.

Tesla is the last car company left in California, because costs are so high.

It's very clear what he's saying there. He also doesn't deny anything else, such as mandatory overtime. That's the classic way companies worldwide are now getting around minimum wages and cutting corners - by making you work more than your 'official' hours for the same money. H1B visas work on exactly that principal, so wait until Trump gets around to them ;-).

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

CEOs *do* have a union. It is called the Republican party.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

who needs all these regulations that cost so much money? Unions forces all those rules and keep all those rules in place. Thank them for the weekend.

The guy that is going to lead the FDA said: why have drug trials? just let them sell whatever they want and the free market will resolve anything.

Re:Not what he said.

[inhuman_4]

It's one thing to join a company and want to form a union. But it's another thing to join a company with the purpose of getting it's employees to join an existing union. If Musk's accusations are correct, then this man is an agent provocateur sent by UWA. He is there calling for unionization to help UWA expand it's business, not improve the working conditions at Tesla. It's a fake grass roots movement, aka astroturfing. And that is morally outrageous. I don't see that kind of shady business dealing as being any different than taking a bribe.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So we see here sleaze being used to fight sleaze. I am having a hard time getting upset."

Oh, I agree with you. I guess basically I don't have enough of the facts to come down one way or the other. UAW has a history of abuse and it doesn't seem alright to me for them to pay somebody to try to get people to join their union without full disclosure. If they want to send somebody there as a representative of UAW, that's fine, just keep it all above water. That being said, Tesla should be treating their employees in such a way that their employees have no interest in joining UAW.

That being said, the guy being paid by UAW does seem to be an unfounded allegation, where the claims against Tesla seem to have some fact since Tesla hasn't sued for slander yet. But UAW doesn't have a history of treating their union members terribly great either. They've negotiated people into unemployment on a number of occasions.

Re:Not what he said.

[Baleet]

Unions not only lobbied for those laws, they also force non-union shops to improve pay and benefits to compete with union shops. If you depend on a paycheck, you are a worker. If you are a worker who sides with employers against unions, you are like a chicken rooting for KFC.

Re:Not what he said.

[Oswald McWeany]

We do have worker safety laws. If they're not worded strongly enough they should be improved. (Not implement more unions with all the problems they bring).

I agree that minimum wage should be raised substantially. (But not implement more unions).

All citizens should have their basic rights and needs looked after, not just unionized ones. Unions introduce a problem for each one they solve. Unions built western economies- and also almost destroyed them.

Re:Not what he said.

[johanw]

Considering the massive support for Hillary in the past elections by some corporations, I'd say that the democratic party provides a similar role.

Re:Not what he said.

[oh_my_080980980]

No dip shit, Musk finds the attack against Tesla to be morally outrageous.

Re:Not what he said.

[Trailer Trash]

Yes, it is morally outrageous for the UAW to try to come and unionize his employees, to the point that they send a paid agitator in.

I don't have a problem with Tesla employees unionizing. The UAW coming in and extracting money from them in exchange for "helping" them isn't the same thing - not by a long shot.

I worked at Indiana University years ago and something similar happened with the clerical workers there. AFSCME was able to get enough of a foothold to get a vote and win. The benefits provided by the university were already far and above what you would get elsewhere. During the first round of "negotiations", which lasted for nearly a year, the new union workers had their wages frozen. When it was finalized, they ended up getting the annual raises they would have received, anyway. But with union dues taken out.

You see, AFSCME didn't give a damn about the workers. They cared about AFSCME. So, AFSCME was able to capture an income stream from IU while effectively doing nothing.

Don't be fooled - this is about the UAW, not Tesla workers.

Re: Not what he said.

[radiumsoup]

All the union had to do was approach an existing employee if they wanted to expand its money laundering busin...I mean lobbying business. Why didn't they? Could they not find just one sympathetic employee?

This is very much like a steel vendor sending a planted employee to get hired at a construction company to influence the construction company to buy exclusively from said steel company (except with the special force of legal organized thuggery that unions enjoy).

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Canada, we understand that Unions have their problems. After all, things like the FTQ are gargantuan organizations, and thus have some bureaucratic and corruption issues of their own.

But we also see plain as day what happens without them. It's only thanks to unions that teachers in Quebec got 36 (of the roughly 48 they do once you include prepping homework, activities, etc) hours paid instead of the 30 they'd been dealt. It's only thanks to unions that the mill my father and uncles work at was kept open, rather than simply bought to be shut down (it's gigantic "savings" and overhead-cutting on the stock-market for that quarter) four times in a row despite how profitable it was.

  It's only thanks to unions that the special combination hospital administrators enjoy so much (combining cuts with laws against just leaving people to die when providing an essential service so as to force 70 hour work weeks for the price of a 40) is thwarted in favor of having nurses that don't accidentally kill us while exhausted.

  The so-called "job creators"(sic) should thank Unions for McDonalds workers in Quebec not stealing their credit-card information and burning their families down, too, you road-raging psychopathic latte-ordering drunkards. Ten people in a line in front of you is NOT the fault of the guy cleaning the floor, and anyone dealing with you offensive parasites and your incoherent ramblings at 3 in the morning for 36 hours a week deserves to make a living wage. At least the homeless people just pass out.

Re:Not what he said.

[drinkypoo]

It's one thing to join a company and want to form a union. But it's another thing to join a company with the purpose of getting it's employees to join an existing union.

The two are clearly different things, and yet the two are clearly related things.

If Musk's accusations are correct, then this man is an agent provocateur sent by UWA. He is there calling for unionization to help UWA expand it's business, not improve the working conditions at Tesla.

Your logic is as faulty as your use of apostrophes. The moral question to be asked (remember, it's Elon that brought this into the realm of morality, and it is the subject we are discussing in this thread — I will resist all efforts to veer off topic) is whether one is justified in seeking employment specifically for the purpose of bringing unionization. I submit that the question hinges upon the following: Does the alleged agent provocateur in question believe that unionization will in fact improve conditions for employees? If so, then seeking employment specifically for the purpose of promoting unionization has the following moral components: deceiving the owner[s] of the business (or by proxy, their agents) while attempting to aid the employees of the business. Therefore, while it remains a morally questionable act, in balance the purpose would be (in my ever-so-humble opinion) essentially moral.

Of course, if the union is a scam, and the agent is in on the scam, then it is an act both reprehensible and illegal as well, and I share Musk's apparent moral outrage. As I have posted in numerous comments in this discussion, I have significant reservations about unions and would prefer to see them replaced with government protections for all workers. However, the likelihood of anything like that happening under a Trump administration (or any Republican, but we can table that argument for the next four to eight years) is basically nil. Under these circumstances, I can hardly justify agitating for the dissolution of worker's unions. I would like to see school administrator's unions eliminated, though. Let all the employees of the school have one union. Executive compensation in American schools today has become beyond outrageous.

Re:Not what he said.

[wisnoskij]

Except he is clearly against both. He is not saying that attack is theoretically morally outrageous. He is saying that both Moran and the UAW union are evil and bad. He is 100% against the union. He believes that unions killed all auto manufacturing in California.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confused. Unionization is legal. Don't like it? Tough shit, go live in some 3rd world hell hole.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's not opposed to unionization then why does it matter if the person applied to work at Telsa to encourage unionization

Because it's a dishonest self-serving manipulation by the union itself.
What if a vendor paid someone to get a job in a big organization for the purpose of influencing it to make a major purchase from the vendor?
You can be opposed to that without being opposed to buying things.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weasel words. Nothing more than weasel words.

If he's not opposed to unionization then why does it matter if the person applied to work at Telsa to encourage unionization or decided to do so on his own after becoming employed there.

Like all dictators, Elon Musk hates the idea of the average person having elected representatives working on their behalf.

Because it should be up to the people who work there because they want to work there if they move to unionize or not. I'm all collective bargaining, but only where it's wanted.

Re:Not what he said.

[Higaran]

Unions do some very underhanded stuff now a days, if the guy was paid by the union to instigate unitization then I agree with Mr Musk. I always say that unions were necessary up until the 80's, since then I have not seen them do anything other than destroy companies, and do almost nothing for their employees, all the while the union management walks away stuffing their pockets with cash.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

He could respond in kind. Pay someone to join UWA, get involved in their work, and agitate for something like lower union dues (more to the workers instead).

Re:Not what he said.

[rtkluttz]

I not only root for non-union shops, I actively avoid buying products that I know are made with unionized work forces. I refuse to pay exorbitant fees for "name brand" that is typically sub par compared to Japanese or Korean made products. Like American made or European made automotive products... big green tractors etc. American and European workers have someone gotten an "entitlement" attitude. No one is entitled to anything in life.

Re:Not what he said.

[dnaumov]

So, basically, you are delusional. The minimum wage was never ever ment to be a "comfortable living wage upon which one could support a family".

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

$21/hour is paying poorly? And you wonder why jobs go overseas.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unionization is legal. Workers lobbying for unionization is legal. Management lobbying against unionization is legal. I don't know if it's legal for unions to pay workers to lobby for unionization, but it seems like a questionable practice. Management doesn't like unions, so they do things to keep workers from wanting to join. Go to a non-union shop -- productivity and safety are likely to be high. Workers are likely to be complaining -- because complaining is what people do best.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

But unionization is outrageous also.

An union of workers is no more outrageous than the "union" who calls itself "corporate leadership" or "upper half of the org chart".

One man against a corporation has no chance. An union of workers against a corporation is even footing. It may of course go wrong, as in the union strangling the company. But then, perhaps the company wasn't viable without exploiting workers? It may go well - workers want their share of the wealth created - but also understand that the company must make money.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the union is sending soldiers into Tesla to stir up trouble, what else are they willing to do? Toyota has been fighting to keep the union out in the USA for reasons like this.

Re:Not what he said.

[AndyMoney]

Tesla is sleazy to their employees... according to ONE employee who was hired to stir up trouble by the union. Sounds legit to me! Why aren't the other employees complaining? There are anonymous resources to lodge complaints such as OSHA, anonymous posts to forums, etc.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions HAVE assisted in destroying car companies. It's not all their fault, but they have not helped at all

Re:Not what he said.

[aaarrrgggh]

But there is a question of balance. $21/hour in the Bay Area isn't much, but with a little overtime it isn't terrible for a low to no skill job. It also isn't that different than $25/hour after union dues. Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.

While I like living in California and many of the protections it offers workers, it is already a lot like being in a union. Why add the extra layer of crooks to the mix?

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Paying your employees so poorly, and taking such poor care of them, is also sleazy."

I don't recall Musk forcing citizens to come to work for his company. They advertise a job, people apply, they're offered the job at a certain pay, they accept and tell their family how excited they are to get a job. If they start working there and decide they don't like it or the pay anymore they are free to find another job.

At what point in the process was anyone doing anything against their will?

Re:Not what he said.

[avgjoe62]

They may very well be dishonest, self-serving and manipulative, but are the complaints valid? Do the complaints about pay and working conditions stand on their own? If they do then Tesla needs to address those.

Has Tesla ever produced an analysis of their pay and benefits versus those of a unionized shop? Showing that there are advantages to working without unions sounds like a better response than assigning morality to what are essentially monetary transactions.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how many auto manufacturers are in CA?

Re:Not what he said.

[Holi]

The claim that a guy who has worked there for 4 years (and only now is speaking up) is a UAW plant is the "morally outrageous" part.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Additionally, the guy was being paid by the union for doing this.

Why do you believe Musk when he said this? Especially when he inserted weasel words in his statement?
FTA (updates):

In a statement this morning UAW categorically denied that Moran had ever been paid by their organization. “Mr. Moran is not and has not been paid by the UAW,” the statement claims. “We would hope that Tesla would apologize to their employee.” UAW goes on to confirm reporting done by Bloomberg yesterday that “Mr. Moran and others at Tesla, have approached the UAW.”

Re:Not what he said.

[aaarrrgggh]

It is morally reprehensible if the person was paid by the union to get the job and organize. There are many ways to justify it and to try and defend it, but it is clearly unethical.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

But we also see plain as day what happens without them

Let's not forget that unions brought us the 5-day workweek and the 8-hour workday

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe that the last car company left California when GM went bankrupt.
We can discuss over and over WHY GM went bankrupt, but I'm pretty sure that since Ford didn't go bankrupt, and Toyota didn't go bankrupt that the problem wasn't systemic.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

We do have worker safety laws. If they're not worded strongly enough they should be improved.

And WHO exactly would this hypothetical entity be who is reviewing safety laws and improving them?
U.S. Chamber of Commerce? the CEOs of Exxon and Shell?

How do you think Trump's going to bring back all those coal mining jobs? Obviously, all those ridiculous safety regulations have to go away.
Also, just think how much cheaper it will be for builders once they don't have to waste money on sprinkler systems....

Re:Not what he said.

[guises]

It's funny, there was a story just the other day about H1-B visas which inspired exactly the opposite response in most of the comments. When the union is the country, and the scabs they're keeping out are foreigners, the union is great (as long as you don't call it a union, even though it's doing exactly the same thing).

Re:Not what he said.

[jandersen]

Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.

As it stands, it still begs the question: why? If you are of the conviction that all workers should be encouraged to be in a union, is it wrong to try to convince others that they should join? IOW, does freedom of speech only hold for the right kind of opinions? Taking a job with Tesla so you can talk to your colleagues about joining a union is no different than going to any other place to argue for your particular opinions; or going to another country as a missionary. Is that morally wrong?

Re:Not what he said.

[alvinrod]

Therefore, while it remains a morally questionable act, in balance the purpose would be (in my ever-so-humble opinion) essentially moral.

What a terrible line of reasoning. What's to stop you from justifying murder or any form of atrocity by claiming that some moral good came of it therefore it was on the whole essentially moral? Hell, one could argue that he Holocaust was essentially moral since it gave rise to the U.N. and governments reluctant to engage in global wars. Maybe that's not enough equivalence for you, but as the punchline to an old joke goes, we've already established you're a whore, now we're just arguing over price. If there's no price high enough in your mind to reach that balance, then how could you argue against someone who claims there's nothing that can cancel out the immorality of deceit in this original case?

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

He could respond in kind. Pay someone to join UWA, get involved in their work, and agitate for something like lower union dues (more to the workers instead).

Or, you know, for Union bosses to not get paid, since they are supposedly there "for the good of the workers."

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that bit about it being enough to raise a family is nearly a quote from the president who signed it into law, right? I am not sure if it is possible for you to be more wrong.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating the failings of this or another union, the bureaucratization and/or corruption etc. with whether it's legitimate to encourage an organizer to go to work for some factory with the intent to unionize it.

Also, I somehow question your claim/suggestion that the clerical workers at your university get generous compensation and wonderful working conditions. In the situation you describe what sounds like the right plan is for clerics to form an independent union, or join up with other employees' union with some formal right of autonomy in the conduct of struggles etc.

And you know what? If I were an office worker around where you live, and another union would encourage to go in and help turn the unionization situation around at your university, I would go there in a heartbeat (with or without getting paid extra).

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Unionisation is not a crime. Workers do not owe their employers to not unionise. Workers are free people, not slaves. and free to join any kind of organisation they want to, outside what's clearly criminal such.

The deal between this particular employee and the union, is between him and the union and completely not anyone else's business, as long as he wasn't hired to do criminal work such as sabotage or espionage.

There is nothing morally reprehensible about it, unless you happen to equate workers with slaves who have no rights and want to keep it that way.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unionization is legal. And firing employees because they joined a union is legal as well. Our corporate policy is very clear: join a union, your contract is terminated, and one employee at random picked among the easily replaceable pool is terminated as well. Given that nobody is really unreplaceable (those that are really difficult to are in management) the workforce keeps itself in line very very well. :)

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

With so many drinkypoo at score 5, I smell an UAW shill.

Re:Not what he said.

[Altus]

Yeah but anyone can join the union right? Its not like its a barrier to employment, so you can't look at someone who isn't currently in the union and say "well at least that guy can't take my job" because he can just join up.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit that the question hinges upon the following: Does the alleged agent provocateur in question believe that unionization will in fact improve conditions for employees?

I counter that the agent's conflict of interest outweigh's their opinion on whether it will help the employees. The several thousand employees of Tesla are not being oppressed or prevented from unionizing. They don't need outside influence to come in and "show them the light". Also who's to say that even if that agent is altruistic, they aren't completely uninformed about the consequences of unionization. As Musk implied, unionization ended the previous owners of the factory.

Re:Not what he said.

[omnichad]

Probably won't get awarded until after unionization happens. They can easily say he hasn't been paid because they gave themselves a window for plausible deniability.

Re:Not what he said.

[Altus]

https://uaw.org/dues-faq/

Doesn't look like its 5 bucks an hour to me.... Seems like quite a bit less. It took less than a minute to find this.

Re:Not what he said.

[omnichad]

, since then I have not seen them do anything other than destroy companies, and do almost nothing for their employees

Agree somewhat. But the fact that there is a union is likely keeping conditions higher than if unions all suddenly disappeared and the employers had free reign to set working conditions again.

If only people could be happy with the union doing "nothing" and the union setting dues aside instead of spending them on lobbying and way too much staff.

Re:Not what he said.

[drinkypoo]

What's to stop you from justifying murder or any form of atrocity by claiming that some moral good came of it therefore it was on the whole essentially moral?

What, indeed? Your tax dollars at work!

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed a very important point that topples your entire diatribe, viz. the scenario which Musk called immoral was one in which the UAW sent an agent with the purpose of rallying Tesla workers to unionize. Therefore, considering what the individual believes to true is completely irrelevant. The agency in this scenario is entirely in the hands of the UAW leaders.

Re:Not what he said.

[thomn8r]

If unions go away, those laws will go away so fast it will make your head spin.... especially with the current crowd that's in power.

Exhibit A: Trump's executive order to repeal Dodd-Frank, a law which say (paraphrased) "don't deliberately fuck your customers" If the oligarchs had their way, they would punt us all the way back to the 1800's in terms of labor and environmental law.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, while the victims of bad safety aren't all grouped together to make a powerful voice, their bosses inflicting said working conditions on them *ARE*. What do you think all those associations and lobbying groups are?

And without a good, unified voice, what you get is people fired for being wounded on the job by those inadequate safety measures. What you get is one person going "my husband was killed by your crappy practices" attempting to deal with the labyrinthine colossus of lawsuits, against vast teams of trained professionals. What you get is people attempting to get the government to care - or even at least notice - the problems and violations, being pitted against billions in obfuscating bribes, and whistleblower punishment schemes designed to make anyone that dares speak out suffer for the remainder of their lives.

Consider what happened to the guys on Deepwater Horizon that kept "whining" about inadequate safety. Without someone whose job it is to make sure your concerns are properly dealt with, and with the power to enforce that, then the only one with "people" is the one mistreating you.

Re:Not what he said.

[dbIII]

That's how the movie would go, but anyone watching it would know it's "sexed up" drama and not a documentary.
Come on guys, the bullshit reeks with this one.

Re:Not what he said.

[guises]

Well, continuing the parallel between country and union - not really, it depends on the industry. Much as how rich countries make it tough to immigrate, unions in industries with a surplus of workers make it tough to join the union. For basically the same reason.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

$21/hr is only $42k/year, for skilled labor that is physically demanding and dangerous.a

Re:Not what he said.

[Grishnakh]

What if a vendor paid someone to get a job in a big organization for the purpose of influencing it to make a major purchase from the vendor?

I personally don't see how that's a problem. If we're going to allow politicians to take money and gifts from lobbyists, and we allow big corporations and other organizations to spend lots of money for the purpose of influencing the politicians who make our laws, I don't see how this is wrong.

Remember the saying about the fish rotting from the head.

Re: Not what he said.

[dywolf]

The disconnect between wages and productivity, between woker wages and ceo pay, and overall inequality, all mirror and councide with the trend of decreasing union membership.

Re:Not what he said.

[dbIII]

Where does the union get the money for this all powerful spy network? It's not as if they have argued for a gold plated deal and their members can contribute much.

I always say that unions were necessary up until the 80's, since then I have not seen them do anything other than destroy

Guess when the concentration of media ownership happened, and guess what Rupert Murdoch really hates.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have found that when more than one person complains about something the likelihood that there is a problem increases. I have seldom encountered issues where people complained just to complain. In fact I would say that when there is nothing to complain about most people seldom complain.

Re:Not what he said.

[dbIII]

So unions decided not to re-tool and just keep on rolling the same sort of crap down decaying production lines while the Japanese and Germans came in to dominate the automotive market?
I think you got the spelling of MBA wrong and wrote union instead.

Re:Not what he said.

[Dread_ed]

If the majority of people in the company don't want unionization then there shouldn't be a union. In the same way, if the majority of the workers want to unionize that should happen. What shouldn't happen is coercion through threats or specific incentives paid under the table to influence the vote.

If a union starts adding paid bodies to the workforce at the company specifically to push a union vote over a certain threshold that is not representative of the desires of the workers there.

Similarly, what if Musk was secretly paying bonuses for people to vote against the union? You would have a total shit fit, I am sure, and it would be justified. It is the same thing. When it comes to unions the rights and interests of the workers should be protected, both from the employer and sadly, also from the unions.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please cite the actual quotation to which you allude? I'm very curious about that history, and I couldn't find the quotation.

Re: Not what he said.

[WindBourne]

Actually, unions are still very needed in many industry. The problem is NOT unionization. The real issue is that most are the established ones that are corrupt and far more interested in flowing money to the top, just like businesses, than to the workers.

Re: Not what he said.

[WindBourne]

Uh, why compare to average union shop and instead compare to the average non-union shops such as Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, etc.

Re:Not what he said.

[dbIII]

But it's another thing to join a company with the purpose of getting it's employees to join an existing union

Indeed, but if you wrote a novel about it the publisher would throw it at your head in anger and ask how a union would get the money to fund spy stuff.

Secret undercover union man? Worst superhero ever. It's just stupid.

It's a fake grass roots movement

It's so incredibly fake that it's certain that it's not real in any way apart from a rant from Musk.

Re:Not what he said.

[dbIII]

The first step would be to in some way prove that such a thing happened.
Is Musk taking legal action or just ranting about it? If it was real I'm pretty sure he would have let loose the lawyers over such an extreme action and he's be looking at a very easy win if it was real.

Re:Not what he said.

[Enigma2175]

It's very clear what he's saying there. He also doesn't deny anything else, such as mandatory overtime. That's the classic way companies worldwide are now getting around minimum wages and cutting corners - by making you work more than your 'official' hours for the same money. H1B visas work on exactly that principal, so wait until Trump gets around to them ;-).

Huh? The worker says they were forced to work overtime, not that they weren't paid for it. California has relatively generous overtime laws, guaranteeing 1.5x time for over 8 hours in a day or 40 in a week and double time for over 12 hours in a day or over 8 hours if you have worked more than 6 days in a row. H1b visas have nothing to do with it, those are usually salaried positions and auto workers are hourly.

Re:Not what he said.

[The Grim Reefer]

Agree somewhat. But the fact that there is a union is likely keeping conditions higher than if unions all suddenly disappeared and the employers had free reign to set working conditions again.

Agree somewhat. When the unions were formed labor laws were practically nonexistent. In some ways the unions were too successful for their own good. The majority of labor laws that are in place now are because of the past actions of unions. However, if the unions disappeared, the laws would still be in place. Unions are no longer the reason 9 year old children can't be forced to work 22 hours a day in a coal mine.

FTS:

Moran wrote that the workers are often faced with "excessive mandatory overtime"

I'd be curious to know what is excessive? is it 5 hours per week? or 30 hours? Is this on an ongoing basis? Or is it infrequent?

and earn between $17 and $21 hourly, compared with the national average of $25.58 hourly for most autoworkers in the U.S.

How much of that additional money do the unions take as dues? How much are unions members making on average in Detroit these days?

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a union starts adding paid bodies to the workforce at the company specifically to push a union vote over a certain threshold that is not representative of the desires of the workers there.

Well, to return a common Libertarian snark, if the paid bodies on the workforce aren't competent, then the company can tell them to go elsewhere. No one forced the company to hire them - it's the Free Market at work!

Until there actually is a union, firing an incompetent worker who just happens to be a union organizer shouldn't be overly difficult. You can probably have trouble firing someone just because someone is a union organizer, but not if they cannot actually do their primary job acceptably.

Especially, since we're living in an era where respective employers do things like demand applicants' Facebook passwords, a little due diligence should indicate when a candidate has a history with unions and as long as it's an employer's market, that should be the end of it, right?

Re:Not what he said.

[Grishnakh]

The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over twenty years, and the inflation is meant not to simply pay a subsistence wage, but to pay a comfortable living wage upon which one could support a family. That's the minimum standard that we want to accept as Americans, because we don't want to see a race to the bottom.

Completely wrong. We *DO* want to see a race to the bottom. We just voted for it.

Re:Not what he said.

[omnichad]

However, if the unions disappeared, the laws would still be in place.

Given that our current President is trying to undo almost everything from the past 30 years of progress, these laws could easily be gone. You can't assume the future will always be at least as bright as it is now.

I'd be curious to know what is excessive? is it 5 hours per week? or 30 hours? Is this on an ongoing basis? Or is it infrequent?

Probably at the point where you could just as easily have another employee, hourwise. And if there's a large number of employees doing mandatory overtime, that's several new jobs being suppressed.

Re:Not what he said.

[Dread_ed]

Bullshit on all of that.

The question is this: Do the other workers and the company know this guy is being paid to agitate for a union?

If so, no foul.

If not, well there is a reason why commercials have to indicate when someone is a "paid spokesperson." If they don't disclose right up front to both workers and management they are being paid to do this their message is tainted. Quid pro quo has already happened and their message cannot be conceived as honest, especially considering the exchange of funds was clandestine. It doesn't matter what the person thinks about the union itself, whether or not it is good for the company. They are already compromised by bribery. Their judgement is irrelevant. All that matters in the moral question is disclosure. Do all of the pertinent people have full disclosure of the interests of the involved persons, especially the spokespeople?

Plain and simple, look at it like this:

Joe talked to you a few days ago and convinced you to join the pro-union side. You then talked to 5 people, close friends you have worked with for years, and got them to vote for the union. Then you learned that Joe hired on specifically to get people to vote for the union. He got paid $20,000 dollars to do this. Do you feel like you were duped? Do you feel like you duped those other 5 people?

Of course you do.

Look, I'm pro-worker, without a doubt. The problem is unions and management can be both beneficial and detrimental to workers. When they start using outside resources to manipulate the workers this is more dis-empowerment of the workers. It undermines the whole idea of unionizing, which is power to the worker, not power to the union or the company.

Re:Not what he said.

[fluffernutter]

What's the difference? If the legal work week is 40 hours then it's 40 hours. Period. Ask people to work more, don't tell them.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing happened at VW in Tennessee. Unions are hurting for members as businesses move to right to work states. Musk is exactly right that the guy came in to do that, but it is no different than any funding strategy he used. In many ways. It's the cost of doing business. If you don't like it, automate everything and have no workers. Well, as that reality is in the near future, unions may want to tread lightly when doing with someone likely to go that route.

Re:Not what he said.

[ghoul]

Its called VC funding. You invest in a loss making Union where no dues are coming in for the growth. You will make your revenue/dues when you have captured market share (all/most employees are in the union). If you are in Silicon Valley you should understand this. Unions are doing what any good business should doo - grow or perish. Need to capture new markets all the time. If that needs employing a loss leader so be it.

Re:Not what he said.

[jargonburn]

one could argue that he Holocaust was essentially moral since it gave rise to the U.N. and governments reluctant to engage in global wars.

I don't believe that was a very well thought out comparison, though it's certainly inflammatory. Drinkypoo (imo) wasn't arguing that the ends justify the means; he was arguing that one's intentions are a significant part of the equation.

I sincerely doubt any of the aggressors involved in the Holocaust had any real expectation that it would somehow ultimately save more lives. Also, I happen to think that taking a life is only morally justifiable in the presence of a direct threat to your own life or the life of another (from the life you are taking).

Re:Not what he said.

[The Grim Reefer]

Given that our current President is trying to undo almost everything from the past 30 years of progress, these laws could easily be gone. You can't assume the future will always be at least as bright as it is now.

Most of the really important labor laws are much older than that. Though FMLA was in the last 30 years.

Re:Not what he said.

[atriusofbricia]

Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.

As it stands, it still begs the question: why? If you are of the conviction that all workers should be encouraged to be in a union, is it wrong to try to convince others that they should join? IOW, does freedom of speech only hold for the right kind of opinions? Taking a job with Tesla so you can talk to your colleagues about joining a union is no different than going to any other place to argue for your particular opinions; or going to another country as a missionary. Is that morally wrong?

In very general terms and most cases, missionaries don't show up in another country telling people they're structural engineers or the like and then proselytize. Is that sometimes the case, yes I imagine it happens for reasons of safety and such. I'm sure you could try and make the comparison that what this person may have done is exactly the same thing, entering hostile territory under false pretenses. Whether that comparison is accurate or not doesn't actually change the base fact that it is dishonest and arguably immoral.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no one is saying this person can't agitate for unions at all, but whether or not he was paid to go in as an agent of the UAW to take employment under false pretenses purely to advance the agenda of the UAW. It's one thing if the workers at Tesla hated life and figured the only way to fix things were to bring in the UAW and it's something else entirely if the UAW said to itself, "There's an untapped source of union dues!", and decided to pull some shenanigans.

Re:Not what he said.

[atriusofbricia]

But there is a question of balance. $21/hour in the Bay Area isn't much, but with a little overtime it isn't terrible for a low to no skill job. It also isn't that different than $25/hour after union dues. Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.

While I like living in California and many of the protections it offers workers, it is already a lot like being in a union. Why add the extra layer of crooks to the mix?

Not only that, but absent a very very tight job market, if Tesla is really paying so poorly for the area and treating everyone so badly then why work from them? If they aren't having any trouble getting employees then either they have one hell of a PR department to cover these awful awful conditions or.. maybe those awful conditions don't exist and the UAW just wants another source of dues?

Re:Not what he said.

[omnichad]

The EPA is on the hit list too. After 46 years.

Re:Not what he said.

[dbIII]

Paying for a sleeper agent for 4 years? Presumably doing this in a few places. That's going to be a lot of money.
Smell the bullshit yet? That bullshit has a bit of a scent of Musk.

Re:Not what he said.

[Thelasko]

Has Tesla ever produced an analysis of their pay and benefits versus those of a unionized shop?

Musk stated, "Tesla is the last car company left in California, because costs are so high."

It's hard to do a comparison when you are the only one in the state.

Re: Not what he said.

[ChrisMaple]

Actually, unions are still very needed in many industry.

The teacher's union didn't do you any good.

Re:Not what he said.

[nbauman]

Yeah but anyone can join the union right? Its not like its a barrier to employment, so you can't look at someone who isn't currently in the union and say "well at least that guy can't take my job" because he can just join up.

That wouldn't happen. A union would never allow a company to replace expensive workers with cheaper foreign (or domestic) workers. For one thing, that would violate seniority rules. For another thing, union workers aren't stupid enough to let that happen, and unions give them a way of fighting it. Unions have gone on strike over that, even when there was a risk that the company would close down the plant.

Unions are ultimately run by elections, so unions are as good and bad as democracy. Your local congressmen and your local police department can also be pretty corrupt sometimes (or maybe most of the time). But overall, unions, for all their faults, generally protect workers' interests.

Re:Not what he said.

[Thelasko]

My perception is that most union members believe in their union, and thus, in the act of encouraging unionization.

Not the union members I interact with. Most of them view it as needless bureaucracy. They believe a union is necessary, but has gotten way out of control because of a few power hungry people. Most good employees want to be part of a team that gets things done, but a union can be divisive to a company's culture.

Example: a member of local 5 can't help a member of local 6 pick up a box, because picking up boxes can only be done by local 6 members according to their contract. I've seen these things happen. Everybody is unhappy about it, but the union leaders insist it's necessary to keep out the "scabs".

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, why compare to average union shop and instead compare to the average non-union shops such as Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, etc.

If you are trying to decide between chicken and steak, you don't compare the chicken to other types of chicken and then proclaim "Clearly the steak is no better!"

Re: Not what he said.

[silentcoder]

Most Merc and BMW workers are in Germany where unionization is de facto legally mandated as you cannot comply with the legal requirement that 50% of board seats go to union reps without having a union.
I case you were wondering German workers live way better than Americans do. Germany understands what American companies dont: its impossible to compete on price against a country that had 2 billion desperate poor people and a government that works with businesses to keep it that way. So do not try. Compete on quality - by paying more.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assembly line work is not skilled labor.

Re:Not what he said.

[nbauman]

Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.

Have you ever filed a worker's comp case?

Fortunately, ProPublica has done a story on worker's comp.
https://projects.propublica.or...

In California, if you lose an arm, you get $190,000. How many readers here would be willing to lose an arm for $190,000?

Most of us would rather have an employer who does everything possible to prevent us from losing an arm in the first place. Failing that (and they often fail), we'd like to have a government agency inspecting the workplace, and a strong union, as backup.

Re:Not what he said.

[avandesande]

The laws in place which protect worker safety are inadequate, because they do not make unsafe work conditions sufficiently unprofitable for large industries. And there is absolutely zero job protection for non-union workers; in a world which insists that you have a job, there should be some form of job protection.

I worked at a chemical plant 25+ years ago at a non-union shop. OSHA laws are numerous and detailed, and yes they protected us. What do you base your claim on?

Re:Not what he said.

[Skuld-Chan]

I do wonder if this is the full story though - it's a lot of work to organize a company or department - and get people to vote and usually the instigator is really bad management.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience with UAW workers is that they take the job to fuck off and phone it in. I've worked with Big3, JD, HD, non-union automotive (Honda, second tier), and even Tesla. Unions are a detriment to productivity in several ways. First, lazy employees are untouchable. Operators don't care about production and marginally about quality. Maintenance personnel don't care about getting things running. I've seen outright sabotage in order to create overtime work for more pay. While much of this is reason for firing an individual, if a supervisor tries to do so, the union and the union employees target the supervisor by trying to get him fired or by slowing and/or stopping production. I've had UAW employees brag they took down entire lines for hours because the supervisor said something they didn't like. I had one explain how he could slow down a line and not be caught, before he even knew how to do the job. He was correct, as it's nearly impossible to prove. Even then, the employee files a grievance and is back within 30 days, tops.

Union reps need to get reelected, and so they make a lot of noise to "prove" they're doing a good job. The company feels forced to be a dick to employees, just to give the reps something to gripe about. It goes back and forth in a nasty loop of regression. In the end, no one works as a team and there is constant animosity. I could get a job in a union facility, but I'm not a big enough asshole to deal with it.

If unions worked, they sound great. But at this point they're like communism, and aren't as useful.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is pretty clearly retaliation and is illegal in the United States. If that policy is written down your company is run by morons.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

"undo almost everything from the past 30 years of progress"
What progress? The government, no matter which party was in control, have did more harm than good. The US Legislative branch of the government has done more harm to the country than any of the countries enemies could ever do. The President has very little real power when it comes to forcing actions on the government because of the built-in checks and balances in place. It's the Legislative branch who have been able to side step the checks on their power using procedural rules and also the power to block supreme court nominees. The legislative branch can withhold government funding in targeted areas as well as shut down the country through the budget approval process. The legislative branch can initiate articles of impeachment against the President prior to verifying any of the facts being used in the impeachment process. Just filing the articles of impeachment can shutdown the Executive branch of the government. The mob running around crying about Trump just shows their ignorance on how the US government really operates and who is really responsible for the problems that never get fixed.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. And he'll be paid in LIVE BABIES to gorge himself upon.

Meanwhile back in reality...what actual evidence did Musk provide to back his assertion. And it is Musk's assertion. "It is our understanding" is a phrase that actually means "It is our assertion but we are being very sketchy."

Re: Not what he said.

[WindBourne]

catholic schools do not have unions.
Sadly, your parents genes continue to put you in last place for brains.

Re: Not what he said.

[flink]

Uh, why compare to average union shop and instead compare to the average non-union shops such as Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, etc.

Because if I'm an employee weighing the decision to unionize, then I would like to compare my current conditions to the average conditions in a union shop.

Re:Not what he said.

[gosand]

Paying your employees so poorly, and taking such poor care of them, is also sleazy. So we see here sleaze being used to fight sleaze. I am having a hard time getting upset.

Except for this: The claim is that he was specifically paid by the UAW to join the company and encourage people to join a union. If true, then that was his goal going in, which means he is just doing what he was paid to do - come up with a story about why they should unionize. If it were a former employee, or a current one, then it would have more credibility. But knowing that he joined for that purpose immediately weakens his credibility.

If that is not true, he could be just a regular working trying to organize in order to get better working conditions. We don't really know though.

Re:Not what he said.

[flink]

Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.

Really? So if I'm the guy who got fucked by a life-long injury or chronic pain, I'm supposed to be glad that the company eventually deigned to consider the problem after enough people got screwed? Why is it a bad thing to have someone looking out for me proactively?

Re: Not what he said.

[Bryan Ischo]

But correspondingly, if someone says "your chicken tastes worse than other people's chicken", you don't then compare your chicken against someone else's steak to see if they're right.

Re:Not what he said.

[Zxern]

This was the same argument used by companies hiring children to work coal mines. Does that make you rethink your position just a little bit?

Re:Not what he said.

[flink]

We do have worker safety laws. If they're not worded strongly enough they should be improved. (Not implement more unions with all the problems they bring).

Yeah, that's a good idea, maybe workers should form some sort of an organization to lobby congress in opposition to industry for stricter workplace safety regulations. Each employee could contribute a small monthly fee to fund the organization's lobbying activities and administrative costs. Hey, since we've got this thing anyway, maybe we could use it to increase our leverage with management when negotiating for things like benefits and wages.

I wonder what we should call such a thing?

Re:Not what he said.

[alvinrod]

Drinkypoo (imo) wasn't arguing that the ends justify the means; he was arguing that one's intentions are a significant part of the equation.

Another equally useless line of argument. There's even the pithy "pathway to hell paved with good intentions" from bog knows how long ago that encapsulates the idea of how useless that notion is.

I also used an intentionally hyperbolic comparison to show the extents to which someone could take that line of argument. I probably could have started off with something that an actual person might might (though there probably are some people who would argue the Holocaust is okay, but we'd instantly regard them as nutters and tune out their argument or their reasoning is even more flawed for other reasons, but that's neither here nor there.) use or you would accept as a reasonable argument, but the point is that somewhere along the line of increasingly dubious reasoning you would draw a line in the sand and reject the argument that the means were acceptable or that a person couldn't have possibly had good intentions or that their moral compass is so unattached to reality that their idea of good is utterly alien.

At that point, your mortality becomes arbitrary. You only accept your own line of reasoning up to a certain point, but it's probably not the same point as anyone else. Now we're stuck trying to argue a line in the sand where atrocity becomes okay because the intentions were good, or because enough good comes of it to justify the atrocity itself. That's how little tyrannies start to sneak in, such as police being able to arrest you for anything the find in plain sight in your residence if they just happen to be pursuing a criminal through it for completely unrelated reasons. You won't be able to get that evidence tossed in court, because the police's motives will be judged to be pure, even though in any other circumstance they couldn't have entered your premises to legal collect that evidence.

So even if you want to argue that atrocity can be justified if a person's motives are pure (and good luck judging that in some non-arbitrary manner) you can still find a position that some will argue is reprehensible. I could use hyperbole as before, but I've presented a very real scenario above. I don't know whether you find it acceptable that the law is permitted to act in that way or not, but it's done by using the same argument that you've presented. Maybe you're fine with the police having that power (I'm not) and we haven't crossed the line in the sand where you're no longer comfortable with your own line of reasoning being used, but we could certainly get there with enough time.

I'm sure that upon reaching it you could invent some new rule that excuses that case, but now you've got a wildly complex and intricate morality and I'm going to have to ask you to write it down for me in advance so I won't have to accuse you of making things up as go.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it was literally intended to promote the "health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers." What do you think that meant, the first time the minimum wage was raised in 1949? That workers weren't generally male and part of a nuclear family and that their kids starving wouldn't be detrimental to their well-being? If women were less than a third of the _entire_ workforce then, it's impossible that _most_ households weren't led by one wage earner.

It may well be true that we've collectively abandoned the idea that a minimum wage should be a "comfortable living wage upon which one could support a family"- that goes without saying given you call it "delusional". But you are no less delusional if you think that wasn't initially an explicit goal of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and at least its next several amendments.

Re:Not what he said.

[alvinrod]

Yours as well. I'm sure that there's something which the government does that they argue is morally appropriate for them to do because it results in a greater good or is equivalent to the harm caused by their action (that would be judged immoral should either you or I undertake it as private individuals) which you disagree with, but how can you argue against it or even claim that the government isn't acting morally since the balance is stated to be essentially moral?

Ultimately it just comes down to squabbles about how immoral was the harm or how beneficial was the argument. Utterly arbitrary and probably only positions taken well after the fact instead of something that a person could have arrived at before. This just leads to people arranging their beliefs afterwards in order to support or dismiss some outcome rather than being able to anticipate an outcome prior to its occurrence. I'd argue that the latter is highly preferable, but requires consistency in moral beliefs which isn't something your argument allows for, at least not with a high degree of certainty.

Re:Not what he said.

[TemporalBeing]

However, if the unions disappeared, the laws would still be in place.

Given that our current President is trying to undo almost everything from the past 30 years of progress, these laws could easily be gone. You can't assume the future will always be at least as bright as it is now.

Those laws can only go away if Congress makes it possible by passing more laws (to repeal those laws or make them overall benign). The POTUS cannot himself change law.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Says someone who has never tried it. Granted, it's different skills, but "not skilled"? GTFO. If you're not skilled, there's no way you can keep up.

Re:Not what he said.

[Oswald McWeany]

Whilst we're on my "government changes" lobbying is another activity I'd like to see erased. Even when it's unions doing the lobbying.

My point above was, for good or bad, you can unionise certain industries and at certain factories, but if we're talking about public safety, or minimum wage increases. That's an "EVERYONE" level issue, not just a union at one plant issue.

Instead of giving union dues and hoping they grease the right palms in Washington (essentially this is the poor giving money to the rich saying "please be nicer to me"), send someone to Washington. Make it a political issue- or if you care enough- run for office, or convince someone likeminded to do so.

Unions are leaking bandaids slapped on haphazardly. If you want true uniform change- get someone elected. Make worker safety, or minimum wage a priority- send letters to your representatives, let them know you care about the issue. Try getting people to steer and make the election about something other than immigrants and abortions for once.

Re:Not what he said.

[omnichad]

Many of those things have Republican-controlled Congress' support. I don't think that's a particularly difficult thing to accomplish, unless representatives start listening to their constituents rather than the party line.

Re:Not what he said.

[roman_mir]

It's not just the fact of unionization that killed all auto manufacturing in California, it's the weight that the unions hold with the government as a voting and financing block, it's the push by the unions of the governments towards more collectivist ideology and policy that killed all auto manufacturing and also propagated throughout the rest of the productive manufacturing sectors.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

I not only root for non-union shops, I actively avoid buying products that I know are made with unionized work forces. I refuse to pay exorbitant fees for "name brand" that is typically sub par compared to Japanese or Korean made products. Like American made or European made automotive products... big green tractors etc. American and European workers have someone gotten an "entitlement" attitude. No one is entitled to anything in life.

Except you and cheap products, apparently...

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile back in reality, companies are not permitted to ask prospects about union affiliations. Given this actual fact there can be no deceit on the part of the employee. Agent provocateur? I mean really? What is the provocation? Is there some incitement to riot? I think we should leave spy fiction to le Carre. So I would like to know the law that the employee would be breaking if Musk troubled himself to present any support to his assertion. I would also like to know what moral principle was violated. Not honesty. Employers are barred from asking. Not agent provocateur, there is no violence being provoked. It would only be reprehensible if collective bargaining itself were considered improper. I think this is a low point for Musk.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

"is not and has not been paid by the UAW" is completely different than "is not paid to be an inside plant to stir up unionization sentiment."

It just means that the UAW is paying another organization as a contractor, which then pays this guy.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that this guy entered into a contract in bad faith. He may have had no interest in doing the job; he certainly had a conflict of interest he didn't disclose: he was being paid to achieve someone else's objective within the company that was paying him. That's both immoral and probably illegal. I'm fairly sure if I paid people to get jobs at my competition and make it more difficult for them to succeed, I'd be breaking the law, even if my competitors are jerks.

Now, it may be that Tesla's workers are facing bad conditions and should be in a union. If so: more power to their elbow. But surely an organisation that pays people to lie and sabotage their workplace isn't the best choice to join?

Re:Not what he said.

[MachineShedFred]

$21/hour is basically $2,800/month take home after taxes, with no other withholdings (401k, medical, etc.). In the Bay Area where your rent is likely to be $2,500 a month even in Oakland or the South Bay, yeah, that's shitty pay. You would be forced to have a roommate or a spouse just to eat, much less find a way to get from your 'cheap' apartment in the South Bay to Fremont so you can bust your ass all day assembling cars.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

California is an "at-will" employment state. Anyone that doesn't find the compensation to be worthwhile is free to leave - I'm sure there are other people around that would love to get those poorly paying jobs.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about if you equate a union to a parasite on productivity? They plant a guy in there, who pisses and moans until the shop unionizes, and then they get a piece of the action for not actually improving anything for the workers.

This isn't the 1930s anymore - there are regulatory bodies for making sure that workplaces are safe, and that people aren't worked 12+ hours a day without due compensation. If the whole argument here is that the compensation sucks, then find another job.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than doing something you may not like, what is unethical? Please explain what principle is violated. It isn't honesty. Employers are barred from asking about union affiliation. It isn't loyalty. There is no specific pay to an hourly worker for loyalty. There is no loyalty required of the employer in kind. So what possibly could be left unless you wish to assert that union affiliation itself is unethical. Help us understand what is "clearly" unethical. I don't like unions but to call this unethical is ridiculous. It is also not a moral outrage. Paying people that low amount in that location seems reprehensible. Also working anyone over 60hrs a week. Such things have actual bodily harm and social isolation to point to as evidence they are improper. But some guys want to bargain together rather than separately? I don't see the ethical breach. I DO see the ethical breach in calling a person morally outrageous without providing any factual evidence to support the assertion. That is clearly unethical.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be, because as it stands tax payers at a whole are paying to subsidize the health and well being of the labor force used by companies who don't pay enough.

"Oh but my cheeseburger will cost more?", I hear. Maybe, just maybe that is what it actually fucking costs to bring a cheeseburger to market when McDonald's has to shoulder the total costs of keeping up its labor force, and maybe McDonald's share holders and customers should pay for that instead of tax payers at large because they are the one benefiting from the cheeseburger.

Most individual welfare is also corporate welfare.

Re: Not what he said.

[thesupraman]

You need to do done more research..
Guess who the largest contributor to the Democratic party was?
Guess who never asked their members of they actually wanted to donate that money to the party?
That's right.. The union's. Arse deep in the game of corruption, what a damn Surprise.
Unison is just a business for Union bosses these days.. And just like Facebook.. The members are the product, not the client.

Teachers union's have all but destroyed teaching, and resulted in a massive overburdening of Management.
Auto workers union's pretty much crashed the us car manufacturing system resulting in multiple government bailouts.
Medical union's are half the reason hospitals efficiency is down to single digits these days (and the insurance system is most of the other half).

Unions are very much like communism..A very good idea for workers on paper, however in the real world corruption and power games make them a disaster.

I suspect Musk is in for a lesson as to why no one else does major manufacturing in CA.

Re:Not what he said.

[DaTrueDave]

Not usually, although some unions have affiliate memberships. Most require that you belong to the bargaining unit, or are otherwise tied to the bargaining unit (like being retired). Many have certifications, licenses or degrees that you must possess in order to join.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

So that gives them the right to continue being parasites for all time? Because they were influential in getting some worker rights laws passed decades ago?

If the union is not actively spending the vast majority of it's resources to protect it's members, or further it's members' well being, then it's a parasite on those workers' paychecks that only exists to serve it's own interests, and should be cast off into the dustbin of history.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 comment. This ibe aline should replaxe all the ither 100+ comments here. Musk has not adressed the main points, and why workers should be paid so little, or constantly hacr to ask paid leave

Re: Not what he said.

[deadweight]

Having had a Porsche, VW, BMW, and Mercedes - competing on "quality" is a dubious claim at best. Fun - hell yes! Be prepared to pay for your fun.

Re: Not what he said.

[WorBlux]

If the person in question is actually receiving money from the union in compensation of campaigning activities, you could be justified in firing him for having a conflict of interest.

Re:Not what he said.

[MachineShedFred]

GM went bankrupt because they are a pension company that also makes cars that nobody wanted to buy.

After the bailout, to their credit, they've stepped their game up a bit. Now they actually make a car or two that aren't total piles of shit that will just end up being crushed 6 or 7 years after sale.

Re:Not what he said.

[Dread_ed]

The unions that brought us the 5 day work week and the 8 hour work week are not the same as the unions that are around today. The people, the organization, the politics, and the intention of unions have changed since then.

Not saying unions are bad by any stretch of the imagination. Just saying that things are different now.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it has nothing to do with political party. The union of CEOs is the union of wealth and privilege. Also known as the old boy's club.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, unions are still very needed in many industry.

The teacher's union didn't do you any good.

Oh? So you think teacher's are underpaid, maltreated, and the unions haven't helped?

Good on you. But it might be your local teachers aren't unionized.

But if you're unsatisfied with your local school's performance, that's your local school board's fault.

Despite Republican fear-mongering over federal taker-overs, schools are still run at the local level.

Mostly. Except for the biggest thing that DOES bother them is they can't racially segregate the schools. Officially.

Re:Not what he said.

[scatbomb]

Yep, Musk is now receiving the same slashdot/media bias that conservatives have been receiving. Guilty of associating with conservatives, no doubt. What a traitor! /s

Re:Not what he said.

[drinkypoo]

there is absolutely zero job protection for non-union workers; in a world which insists that you have a job, there should be some form of job protection.

I worked at a chemical plant 25+ years ago at a non-union shop. OSHA laws are numerous and detailed, and yes they protected us. What do you base your claim on?

I base it on being able to converse in English. "Job protection" is where your job can't be taken away from you trivially. It's not about chemical gloves and yellow safety ladders. Unless you're objecting to the first part, but workers get injured all the time because companies haven't spent enough money to protect them.

Re:Not what he said.

[qeveren]

How is it not up to the people who work there? One guy does not a union make.

Re:Not what he said.

[Jerry]

My first job out of HS in 1959 was at Shwayder Bros luggage plant on South Broadway in Denver. One of the brothers, Jesse, was manager. His door was always open and one could walk in at any time to offer suggestions with no fear of losing their job. Every Christmas he divided the company profits into bonuses based on years experience. I only worked there for a year but my dad worked for them from the middle 1930s until he retired in 1969, at 65.

Across the street was the Gates Rubber Co. Their employees were always striking about something. About three months before I quit and went to college, union members from Gates began picketing in front of Shwayder Bros with posters making outrageous claims. Also, some recent employees, obvious plants, started making equally outrageous claims a/o lies of abuse and mis-management. A couple years after I left a vote was held and the Union lost. After a few more years the union won. The employees lost. Instead of going directly to Jesse employees had to take their suggestions to union stewards, who would decide if and when they would be passed to management. During financially hard times, which the unionization caused to happen regularly, union stewards had job security regardless of seniority. Bonuses stop. Wages stagnated, except for union stewards and the union bosses who had front offices. Union dues, however, did not. 2% of your income for the "privilege" of being a union slave with no freedom or rights except those "granted" by Union bosses.

Re: Not what he said.

[silentcoder]

Would you seriously suggest that any Chinese made vehicle is anywhere close to the quality of those ? I bought a BMW specifically because they are so damn reliable, me previous car was an Audi. They only cost more up-front, in saved time, hassle and repairs they end up a lot cheaper.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions do some very underhanded stuff now a days, if the guy was paid by the union to instigate unitization then I agree with Mr Musk.

Why, what's underhanded about that, even if they did do it? Is it underhanded for the president of the Teacher's Union to admit he's representing the interests of teachers? Is it underhanded for a defense attorney to admit he's representing his client? What's inherently wrong with advocacy, even compensated?

I always say that unions were necessary up until the 80's, since then I have not seen them do anything other than destroy companies, and do almost nothing for their employees, all the while the union management walks away stuffing their pockets with cash.

Why would you expect to see unions representing their members against unfair treatment, for health problems, for safety issues, when if done properly, that'll completely forestall incidents meaning there will be no news? Why would you expect to hear about training programs, job searches, and other activity?

The lack of reporting, the lack of awareness on your part, is not information that proves anything. It just means reporting isn't interesting when it's boring.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

unions are anachronistic. We have an entire 70k employee labor department that governs workplace safety, rules, and hours. The only purpose for unions these days is to artificially inflate wages and benefits and line the pockets of the union bosses.

Re:Not what he said.

[thegarbz]

Do the complaints about pay and working conditions stand on their own?

I remember one union calling for workers to stand down in conditions above 28 degC because evil corporations only want workers to die of heatstroke. I was living in Cairns at the time. The average temperature is higher than that for half the year. Interestingly all their complaints disappeared when talks of pay rises were started.
Quite frankly many unions come up with some incredible cherry picking bullshit at the best of times.

No doubt there are some good ones, but they are few and certainly aren't big-name groups.

Re: Not what he said.

[easyTree]

It's a who's-the-slipperiest-weasel contest :D

Re: Not what he said.

[easyTree]

I've found (in my laboratory of off-the-cuff thought experiments :-) that "if you all complain in unison, you'll receive more pay for less work" is a motivator for staff as is "gaining a well-placed lever over the internal running of a private and profitable business" to union bosses. Just saying...

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. I can drink the water out of any tap in the US. My GPS works really well. Weather forecasts are amazingly good. There are still wild areas in the US. What were you saying again?

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

(In the US) Actually, no. Firing people because they joined a union is still against the law. Immediately coming up with some other reason would be legal however. In "At-will" states, like Texas, the valid reason can be "no reason given". Any HR department will definitely advise against firing someone for joining a union.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Two have major manufacturing plants. Toyota and Tesla. Of those, only Tesla seems to put together entire vehicles. The Toyota plant is for making tons of different parts.

Ford and GMC used to have several each, but no more. One of the Ford Plants is now run by the National Park Service as a National Historic Place.

Check wikipedia yourself, next time.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” -- Roosevelt

Re: Not what he said.

[deadweight]

I have never had a Chinese car and never will. That said, having put 250,000 miles on a BMW, 200,000 on a Porsche, 95,000 on a Mercedes, and 50,000 on another Mercedes, I can tell you they run AT LEAST 3X the cost of repairs per mile as my Toyotas and Mazdas have. At 195,000 miles, my Mazda 3 has had a battery, tires, brakes, spark plugs, and a thermostat. The BMW it replaced by that time had all 4 window regulators replaced, new water pump, new radiator, new power steering pump, new ignition coils, new tie rods, besides the usual brakes and tires. It did fun stuff like have the expansion tank blow up at 102,000 miles (100,000 suggested replacement they weren't kidding!), the radiator fan bearing got loose and the fan attacked the radiator, and the freaking parking light sockets would fall apart (WTF?). The dealer wanted around $1,000 to replace the whole front wiring harness too! I found sockets on Amazon for $5 each and saved $990. The Mercedes needed a new cylinder head at 50,000 miles and had weird electrical issues that made the heat run full blast and disabled the windows. The dealer tried to bone me on the warranty too until I proved I had been complaining about using a quart of oil every 500 miles for 2 years. Oops - forgot I had a Volvo that had an indestructible engine and an interior that rotted to pieces if you looked at it wrong.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Tesla's hiring children? If they are, you might have a point, and should probably contact the relevant authorities.

Re: Not what he said.

[silentcoder]

You need to buy diesel. Study after study confirms the lowest TCO car that currently exist is BMW 3-series between 8 an 14 years old.

Re: Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." -- Roosevelt

Roosevelt was great at quotes, but he was one of the worst presidents in US history from an economic perspective (and also from an individual right's perspective, though I won't go into that) - and he was just as wrong about minimum wage as he was about his other economic policies. A spoiled child of a wealthy family, he was a failure at handling money his entire life. We're still trying to recover from the damage he did.

The United States went from having the lowest unemployment in the world to not even being in the top ten - and didn't recover from the Great Depression until long after the rest of the world - all thanks to Roosevelt and his cronies. For every person he helped - primarily those in Swing states where the help would get him votes - he hurt several people. It was more of a Raw Deal than a New Deal.

During the Great Depression, many people were willing to work less than "living wages" as defined by the government - but often, thanks to Roosevelt and his delusional and stupid cronies they got to starve instead. A lot of them committed suicide.

Any economic history of the era will go into the details - and any good economics text will explain at length why minimum wage policies actually hurt the people they are ostensibly intended to help. Not only do they cost people their jobs, they also reduce working hours - often forcing people to take a second or third job, often with a lengthy or costly additional commute. There are much better ways to help the poor, such as a negative tax system, or a mandatory profit sharing system.

Re:Not what he said.

[segedunum]

You're misunderstanding. Officially, this isn't overtime.

Re:Not what he said.

[segedunum]

H1b visas have nothing to do with it, those are usually salaried positions and auto workers are hourly.

No. The classic ploy is getting people with H1B visas to work almost double their officially allotted hours. I think you need to understand what is going on.

Re:Not what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a worker who sides with employers against unions, you are like a chicken rooting for KFC.

Unions cause net economic harm, which primarily affects the poor. That means if you side with unions, then you support the groups of chickens that band together to sell the rest of the chickens to KFC.

Kind of like the Africans that sold their brethren into slavery.

Of course, you could unionize all workers, in which case the more powerful unions would still harm everybody else in the smaller unions. Plus, there would have to be all kinds of complex laws to support that, and complex laws are a net loss to society.

Much simpler to have a simple, sensible law regarding profit sharing, or UBI, and to disallow unions striking for pay (especially when it is done with violence, intimidation, and destruction of private property rights and the right to freedom of association).

In the case of government workers - where there is no profit sharing - they should not be allowed to strike for pay. Otherwise we end up with ugly situations where the senior union members get the lion's share of the pay, such as we find with teacher's unions - and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of government goes way down because they can't attract competent and energetic younger people.

The only legitimate reason to have a union is worker health and safety.

Re: Not what he said.

[deadweight]

I *had* a diesel Mercedes. I am not unfamiliar with them. It was far from trouble-free, but it could tow things you never thought a car could move. Diesel torque is fun :) You and whomever else thinks old BMWs are cheap to run is hitting the crack pipe a little too hard though. Between my friends cars and mine I have wrenched on about 6 old BMWs. They are great fun to drive when they work, but Satan on Wheels when they don't.

Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[RobotRunAmok]

He should quit. Or move to where the Cost of Living/Wage for His Expertise ratio is friendlier.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier said than done. Single, yup, not an issue. Married, that's hard if the wife is in a career. You now have two jobs to find in a new area. Kids, yeah, good luck with matching up schools to new areas and finding two jobs. So how about you wind in your next you smug git and think there's more to life than a dweeb fly-by comment maker on a dead site.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen closer.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the employees able to afford a Tesla? Or do they drive yugo's?

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[RobotRunAmok]

You lost me when you became incomprehensible toward the end there...

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe he should listen to his employees and address their concerns. Than maybe his lemons wouldn't have such shitty build quality.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

How far removed from reality are you?

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[rmdingler]

California wages in many fields already require two incomes to make ends meet,

and a Tesla factory job probably comes with more benefits than other employers who don't require a collegiate-level education.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[amalcolm]

Yugo's what?

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

How far removed from reality are you?

GP seems a lot closer to reality than someone who thinks he DESERVES a job a $X/hour simply because he consumes oxygen.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[drinkypoo]

So how about you wind in your next you smug git and think there's more to life than a dweeb fly-by comment maker on a dead site.

You lost me when you became incomprehensible toward the end there...

"Consequently, perhaps you might consider not sharing your next thought, you self-satisfied ignoramus, and consider that life may have more meaning than an uncultured, thoughtless author writing in a venue which has lost all relevance." HTH, HAND!

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I hear they recalled Yugos because they found traces of metal in them.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[GLMDesigns]

What's the relevance in that statement? Can ironworkers and carpenters afford the cost of the buildings they work on? Not necessarily? Do you think the network engineers and programmers, chip makers (and others) who worked on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supercomputer can afford one in their mancave?

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? "Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job"? Yep, sure. Workers don't just consume oxygen, they also... you know... make the cars. They don't deserve (should I make that uppercase and bold?) to be paid "$X/hour" but they do have the right to complain and to unionize if they think they are being exploited. Also, some people have family and moving is not always an option. If it was that easy, all that would be left working at Tesla would be people miserable enough to accept being paid that much below the average.

GGP's suggestions would actually be good in an ideal world with no constraints. But, given the title of his comment and the general tone, it seems like he lives in a bubble.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[stooo]

Yougoslavan people don't exist any more.
Yougoslavia has been splitted into many countries.
>> I hear they recalled Yugos because they found traces of metal in them.
Yeah, some metals are quite harmful to people's organisms. Take Lead, for example.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

"So how about you wind in your next you smug git and think there's more to life than a dweeb fly-by comment maker on a dead site."

Um, are you having a stroke? I think I might get one trying to understand that incoherent word salad.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[omnichad]

I can't understand your post or the end of the original post. Whatever you're doing, it's not helping.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[omnichad]

already require two incomes to make ends meet

That's true almost everywhere in the US. Unfortunately, the extra income afforded by a dual income household has long ago massively inflated prices on everything so that it's more or less required.

And as a result, living alone on minimum wage is very difficult and so is being a couple raising a child on a moderate income without either 1) losing half your household income, or 2) spending half your income on childcare.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[drinkypoo]

Are the employees able to afford a Tesla? Or do they drive yugo's?

What's the relevance in that statement?

I think it's a fairly relevant question, actually, especially if you're familiar with the history of the automobile industry. Now, it's not true that Ford specifically wanted to profit from his employees buying his cars, but he did say this:

"I will build a motor car for the great multitude...constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise...so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one-and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces."

Ford doubled salaries in his plants at one point to increase employee retention, which did in fact improve worker's pay to what one might have called "a good salary" — he could afford to buy a Ford with just four months' pay. Ford became tightly dialed in on this subject and saw clearly the value of paying an employee a living wage:

"No one loses anything by raising wages as soon as he is able. It has always paid us. Low wages are the most costly any employer can pay. It is like using low-grade material--the waste makes it very expensive in the end. There is no economy in cheap labor or cheap material."

Or uh, how about this one?

"You can't tell me you can make any system or country work with low wages and high prices, and high wages with high prices don't mean anything when the prices eat up the wages and don't leave anything over."

So yeah, it's an entirely reasonable question.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who doesn't have a job should just pack up and move to where the jobs are. And when those jobs stop, just pack up and move again.
Yeehaw, just a giant caravan circling the world!!

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Grishnakh]

That won't help. Lots of American cars have been built by UAW unionworkers for many decades now, and their build quality is infamous for its shittiness.

If you want great build quality, you buy something made in Japan.

The problem isn't unions, or the lack of unions, it's the culture of the workers, and the pride they take in their work. All evidence points to Japanese workers simply being superior, as seen in the quality of their products. This can be seen when comparing Japanese-brand vehicles made in Japan to the very same model vehicle made in other nations like Mexico. Though to be fair, Mexican-made Japanese cars are still much better than American-labor-made American-brand cars, so the engineering and corporate culture and management also play a large role.

Finally, I haven't heard of Teslas having bad build quality, though I'm not claiming the opposite as I really don't know and haven't researched it. I have heard of them having to replace a lot of drive motors, but that's not an issue with build quality on the assembly line, that sounds an engineering problem, which labor has no control over.

But listening to employees and addressing their concerns is something that is completely lacking at pretty much every corporation in America. Why do you think we software people all have open-plan work areas now?

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[ghoul]

Tesla sells premium priced cars. Part of why people are willing to pay such prices are they think with a factory in California Tesla's costs are higher . The other assumption is that with workers paid more than in the rest of the country the quality must be higher. If Tesla is actually paying even the same as in other car companies in other parts of the country Tesla is cheating its customers.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not particularly difficult to live on a single income with a family, unless you are at minimum wage. You have to budget, not live beyond your means, but it is able to be done.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[superdave80]

Kids, yeah, good luck with matching up schools to new areas

What? Why would you have to 'match up' schools? You move to an area, you send your kids to the school in your district. Do you even have kids? Or understand how schooling works?

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[CrimsonAvenger]

Part of why people are willing to pay such prices are they think with a factory in California Tesla's costs are higher

Unlikely in the extreme.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere, say that they bought an expensive car because the maker's costs were higher wherever he/she was located.

For that matter, I've never heard anyone, anywhere, use that reasoning for paying more for anything. .

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with liking your job so much you start taking steps preventing your employer from ripping the rug out from under you.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[lactose99]

Never heard anyone say they bought a Ford or GMC because it was made in America? Really? I've heard this from several people over the years.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't find drinkypoo's version hard to read at all. As with all translation services, I'll just have to take his word for it.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

The relevance goes back to the origin of the car industry. Henry Ford paid his workers enough so the workers could actually afford to buy a Model T. That was an amazing advance for the time.

Your other examples are ridiculous. No individual needs a supercomputer or a skyscraper, but most people in the world today need a car.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[s.petry]

I was with you until you tried to claim that the problem had nothing to do with Unions and blamed workers. I call BS, and simply point you to Detroit, Flint, and every other place that collapsed with big Union controlling the workers. The larger Unions of today are not helping workers, they are making a fat living as bureaucrats at the EXPENSE of workers. The UAW in Detroit demanded "Job Banks" where people caught using drugs, drinking, sleeping, or simply not working, while on the job were placed. Automakers had to pay for rehab and then pay the people to sit and do nothing in the bank. I lived nearly 45 years in Detroit and the majority of the workers hated the Union because they blocked firing and protected the worst of the workers. So not only were the worst protected, but they didn't even have to show up at a factory to get paid by the Automaker.

The biggest complain about Government workers today is that Unions prevent removing the crappy workers. In fact if you search around for Union issues, the number one complaint (not by employers but workers) is that the employers are forced to keep the crappy people around. The Peter Principle is heavily involved in how managers end up getting rid of the worst, because the only way to get rid of people is to make them someone else' problem.

All that said, I think there are times when Unions are helpful and have been historically. Minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, EPA regulations, and mandated healthcare have greatly reduced the need for them.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the commentators here have long leaned Ayn Randian Libertarian and recently a bunch of Trump fanatics as well (maybe those fearing H1B visa holders as well as some who likely don't even work in tech but are on a mission to dominate online discussions relating to Trump and politics). Would be surprised if a comment favoring unions would get a score of 5.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[losfromla]

Sure, if by budget you mean live on hamburger helper and get two extra jobs so you can eat meat twice a week. Not a healthy way to live, leading to poor long-term health outcomes.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[losfromla]

drinkypoo, I wish I had mod points to give you. Not sure how GLMDesigns got anything above -1 troll.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[losfromla]

*sigh*
The problem isn't the worker quality, are you really so racist as to suggest that white (most of the US is white) males are lower in quality that the males from Japan? The problem is that the corporations in the USA did not institute modern quality control methods which were invented in the USA. Workers do as they are told, they follow the rules as they are implemented. Japanese corporations kicked ass at quality control not due to some higher morality in Japan, it was due to the controls and feedback they implemented which perforce drove their products to higher quality. Stop blaming the workers, you sound very ignorant when you do.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Grishnakh]

For your Detroit and Flint, I can point to Germany where they have very strong unions and build good products and the companies are quite successful. Of course, you could blame this on "American unions", which is valid. Why the unions of America are *so* bad these days, I really don't know; my guess is that our country simply has a big culture of corruption which we refuse to admit. We're really more corrupt than Mexico, and at least as bad as crappy little Central American countries, we just refuse to believe it. Basically, culturally speaking, we're a third-world country that won the lottery.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[ArmoredDragon]

That's true almost everywhere in the US.

Based on what? Phoenix's cost of living is roughly the same as the average of the whole US, and I had no problem at all living by myself on $25k earlier in this decade. The mortgage on the house I lived in at the time (3 bedroom, ~1,600 square feet) was about $500 a month, which was livable even on a single income minimum wage.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Grishnakh]

So why are Japanese-made cars better than Mexican, Thailand, or American-made cars by the same companies? Sorry if it offends you, but culture exists, and workers are not robots; people are different in different places. And why are American companies *still* unable to make things as good as German or Japanese companies? They've had at least a half-century to figure out that quality control thing. That's again a product of culture: American culture doesn't value doing a good job, it just values making money as fast as possible, and short-term results.

American culture does value risk-taking and entrepreneurialism a lot more (goes back to that short-term results thing), so we have things like Google and Uber, but we really suck at making high-quality, reliable products in mass quantities, and also doing really good engineering work to come up with the best designs (look at how lousy our software is).

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Bitmanhome]

... they bought an expensive car because the maker's costs were higher ...

That sort of reasoning is weakly implied by anything tagged "Made in America", and strongly implied by anything tagged "Artisinal".

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more that goes into the car than just its assembly.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[s.petry]

The bigger US Unions have been corrupt since I was a kid 50 years ago, so that is nothing new. You can't compare German Unions to the US because laws for how Unions operate in the two countries are night and day in difference. You think a German Union can protect a worker from being fired in Germany if he's caught shooting up on the assembly line? Think again.

No, we are not a third world country but sure have been moving that way. I'm hoping the new administration can reverse course on a long run of progressivism which has corrupted the US and taken us further and further away from the Constitution. Immigration is the easiest way to see the path the ideologues on the far left have us on. It won't be easy to turn the ship, but we are not quite out of time yet.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Grishnakh]

You can't compare German Unions to the US because laws for how Unions operate in the two countries are night and day in difference. You think a German Union can protect a worker from being fired in Germany if he's caught shooting up on the assembly line? Think again.

Ok, but why does that difference exist? Why are the laws so messed up in the US, and so effective in Germany?

No, we are not a third world country

Well 3rd-world countries are generally known for having poor rule of law and a lot of corruption (so that the law is not effective). That seems to be exactly what you describe in the difference between Germany and the US with regard to unions.

I'm hoping the new administration can reverse course on a long run of progressivism which has corrupted the US

Wow, that's some serious delusion there. The new administration is composed of a bunch of billionaire kleptocrats; if you thought we had corruption problems before, it's going to be 100x worse after they're done. It's just that the groups that'll benefit from the corruption will be different: unions won't be benefiting any more, but instead the prosperity gospel megachurches with their millionaire preachers will be making out like bandits, setting up BS "schools" and getting federal money for them, as one example.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Or unionize. Why would "keep the status quo or break everything" be the only two options.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time when the relevance of the gp's statement wouldn't need to be spelled out on this site.

Henry Ford thought that it was important to pay comparatively high wages to maintain the stability of his workforce. It also ensured that his employees were able to afford to buy Ford cars.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/27/267145552/the-middle-class-took-off-100-years-ago-thanks-to-henry-ford

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[YouGotTobeKidding]

While the unions DID try to shame US consumers in to doing that... it didn't work. What worked was making a comparable product at a comparable price. People don't give a shit where something is made as long as it does what they want, is priced right and is durable enough for their needs.

Re:Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[s.petry]

Ok, but why does that difference exist? Why are the laws so messed up in the US, and so effective in Germany?

Great question, and I'll suggest that you petition for changes in law to restrict what Unions can and can't do. Many people have been petitioning for that for quite some time, but Unions are obviously fighting those changes for self preservation of their jobs and the worst type of worker fights to keep theirs. It is a very good political lesson to learn, which is that once power is granted it is extremely difficult to remove. The founding fathers knew this pretty well.

Wow, that's some serious delusion there. The new administration is composed of a bunch of billionaire kleptocrats; if you thought we had corruption problems before, it's going to be 100x worse after they're done. It's just that the groups that'll benefit from the corruption will be different: unions won't be benefiting any more, but instead the prosperity gospel megachurches with their millionaire preachers will be making out like bandits, setting up BS "schools" and getting federal money for them, as one example.

No delusion at all, re-read what I wrote. I'm not guaranteeing they can, or will, but I hope that some of the administration keeps their word. I have made extensive study of certain people in the current Executive staff, and people like Bannon provide some hope. Read his speech history or go watch them. Don't believe what media tells you, because they lie about everything.

To preempt a common liberal response (may not apply to you, but worth noting): It's really sad that many people complain about people in politics (especially this administration, but not limited) yet have zero knowledge of them and won't even look. I was having a conversation with a bunch of Liberals on my floor during the primaries. I happened to mention one of Ann Coulter's books and they were all aghast and immediately went to "she's a *&$^" and "&^$^$ her". I asked "Which books have you read and what facts in the book was wrong?" All of them stated that they refused to read her books because "she is a *$&&". Not a single free thinker in the bunch.

Another consideration is that few of these people wanted a Government job where they are losing shit tons of wealth. Mixed bag for sure, but I'm more hopeful with this administration that I would have been with Clinton.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

I happened to mention one of Ann Coulter's books and they were all aghast and immediately went to "she's a *&$^" and "&^$^$ her". I asked "Which books have you read and what facts in the book was wrong?" All of them stated that they refused to read her books because "she is a *$&&". Not a single free thinker in the bunch.

There's more than a few people who have looked at what Ann Coulter has said and written, if you want to lool them up, you can.

Frankly, you'd be better off demonstrating your awareness of her flaws yourself.

Re: Sounds Like He Doesn't Like His Job

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm old enough to remember this when it was live (totally irrelevant, but funny, IMO) http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/adobe/n9492?snl=1

They changed the title

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that Ars changed the title to reflect the fact that Musk was not referring to unionization.

Re:They changed the title

[wardrich86]

I seriously don't understand how people are so anti-union. I assume none of them have ever been part of a union... They're the reason why we have breaks, weekends, and 7 hour shifts (instead of unlimited-hour shifts). The only way I can see somebody being anti-union is if they are a slave-driving exec who will have to suddenly start treating their staff like humans.

Re:They changed the title

[superdave80]

I seriously don't understand how people are so anti-union. I assume none of them have ever been part of a union...

Bad assumption. I am against unions, and I actually worked with the NUMMI union (and even briefly was forced to join their union). The workers were low skilled, but felt they deserved high pay. And don't even get me started on the 'leadership' of the union. The fliers that they wrote for their elections looked like they were written by 5th graders for a class president election.

Re:They changed the title

[Shane_Optima]

From what I can tell, it's the fermented remnants of anti-socialist/anti-communist propaganda that's been going on since the 19th century. For one fun example, see the Sherlock Holmes novel about the brave and noble Pinkertons breaking up the evil, evil unions.

It's not that I think unions work great or are above criticism, it's that the common arguments used against them generally come out of the mouths of people who would never, ever apply those same arguments to corporations. The idea of unions being free to enter into contracts with employees and the companies they work for is treated much more negatively than the idea of one for-profit corporation entering into an exclusive service-providing agreement with another for-profit corporation, even if there are no in-principle differences other than the union representing and answering to (at least in theory) the employees.

Either both of these ideas are compatible with the free market or neither are. It's absurd and cynical in the extreme to say that it's only fair and pro-free market if the "third party" is another for-profit entity that explicitly does not have the workers' best interests at heart.

Re:They changed the title

[Anonymous Coward]

"instead of unlimited-hour shifts"

The reverse of this is also equally distressing for the worker: being called in for bitty short shifts scattered throughout the day week is the absolute pits.

Re:They changed the title

[wardrich86]

I guess I've just been fortunate enough to be part of a union that has had my back as a temp to get me into a permanent gig. They also do a lot to fight management against their bullshit and attempts to stiff the regular crew.

Elon Musk

[kkoo]

Is beginning to sound more and more like Trump.

Yes,i know

[Anonymous Coward]

If they unionize they will be replaced by robots
blablabla

Time to replace Moran and others with robots...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see what they are going to do then!

They should be lucky they have jobs and are not replaced by machines already...

Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

is a right. This right to work crap must be killed, repelled, etc. You want people to have a higher standard of living, well unions are the best bet, not some gift from the bombastic monkey throwing feces. Now it is true that unions have to be careful not to harm the parent companies, but we are no where near that.

The biggest danger to unions are the idiocy which says it is appropriate to pass laws that require unions to represent everyone, but either limits their power to nothing or their dues to nothing, since no one is required to pay.

At this point if we ever want to take back any power from the megacorps we need unions in all fifty states, and, at minimum, they should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this! Younger generation forgets that this country was built on strong unions.
Government and business were _always_ pro child labour in the U.S. (don't believe me,
read the Supreme Court's ruling on child labour - right to enter into a contract my arse!)
Unions, (like U.S. juries are supposed to do) help keep business and government honest
and are a needed and necessary part of a free democratic society. The original purpose
of a union was the strike fund (which is sadly "illegal" now, though it exists in other forms)
which allow workers to strengthen their bargaining position when management was tough.

As far as IT, if we all weren't a bunch of snobs and embraced unions back in the 90's, we
would not have the horrible H1B situation that we have to struggle to regain control again.
I like to think Trump can help fix the H1B problem, but it might be too late to become a
world technology leader again because of the problems created by the H1B program
(lack of native born U.S. citizens entering the field, etc.)

CAP === 'births'

Re:Being a member of a union

[drinkypoo]

You want people to have a higher standard of living, well unions are the best bet,

It's already been tried, and it's not working. Unions' progress has stalled. They haven't done anything for the common man in over a decade. They only represent their members, if that. Further, they hold back their best and brightest members as well, letting those with seniority have the best positions and salary. This effectively penalizes anyone who works harder than the baseline, thus enshrining mediocrity.

The unions were an absolutely necessary step in worker's rights, but at this time they are retarding progress by removing the incentive for union members to fight for the rights of all workers. They've got theirs and are fat and happy, so fuck you.

Today the most reasonable solution is a combination of MGI, and protection of worker's rights. But good luck!

Re:Being a member of a union

[argStyopa]

I think people should freely be allowed to unionize, but people should also be allowed to NOT be part of the unions if they don't want to be: it's their economic choice, really.

However, I do believe that if a union interposes itself as the collective-bargaining agent for a number of workers, then the union logically should be legally held liable for the conduct of the workers it's representing: ie if productivity falls below normal, etc, the union should be liable to compensate the firm for lost income.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Richard_at_work]

The problem here, and one most non-US readers wont get so I will spell it out and repeat some of what you say, is that in the US most unionisation through majority vote means *total* workforce unionisation, whether individuals want it or not.

Even if you, as a worker, disagree with the union, in most states you are *required* to at least pay dues to the union if you want to continue to work at that employer, even if you never engage with the union in any way. Thats not something that has been foisted on the unions, thats something the unions have wanted - mandated whole workforce dues payments increase their funding.

So yes, unionisation is a right, but its a right which is forced on a lot of people who don't want it and whose only recourse is to quit and find a different job.

So I agree with you that unions should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues, its the laws requiring or allowing 100% union shops against individual employees wishes that need to be gotten rid of.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Trailer Trash]

Sure, being a member of a union is a right. That's not what this story is about. The UAW wants to capture some of the wages from Tesla along with all the other money that they capture. Then they can hand it to Democrats while keeping a few million for the bosses who run the union. That's all they do.

If Tesla employees want to have a union, they should do so. They don't need the UAW to "help".

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Right to work is expanding across the nation. It will not be killed. Leftism is dying off however.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

The strong unions of yesterday are not what the unions of today are about. I think like the music industry unions need to change to support their members. Things like coordinating job recruitment, benefits provided while out of work etc should be a major focus of unions in addition to making sure the workplace is safe. If a union can act like a recruiting service that provides quality workers to a company, then companies would be more likely to embrace them. Instead a large number of unions are no longer fighting for what's right for their members, but are fighting for making sure EVERYONE participates whether they want to or not.

Re:Being a member of a union

[XxtraLarGe]

I think people should freely be allowed to unionize, but people should also be allowed to NOT be part of the unions if they don't want to be: it's their economic choice, really.

Collectivism only works when it's mandatory--and even then, it doesn't work.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here, and one most non-US readers wont get so I will spell it out and repeat some of what you say, is that in the US most unionisation through majority vote means *total* workforce unionisation, whether individuals want it or not.

Even if you, as a worker, disagree with the union, in most states you are *required* to at least pay dues to the union if you want to continue to work at that employer, even if you never engage with the union in any way. Thats not something that has been foisted on the unions, thats something the unions have wanted - mandated whole workforce dues payments increase their funding.

So yes, unionisation is a right, but its a right which is forced on a lot of people who don't want it and whose only recourse is to quit and find a different job.

So I agree with you that unions should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues, its the laws requiring or allowing 100% union shops against individual employees wishes that need to be gotten rid of.

Absurd. If unions only represent paid members, and workers can elect not to join, then the corporations simply hire more people who don't want to join a union, and then the union disappears.
Back to hell, corporate overlord!

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

If being part of a union is a right, shouldn't not being part of a union? I worked at a place that REQUIRED me to join the union. I really don't care if its the union or the employer who is infringing on my rights, either way my rights are being taken away. The right to work "crap" is merely recognizing this fact.

Also, TFA has a stupid headline. Musk didn't call unionization morally outrageous, he called a union planting an employee morally outrageous. If this is true, then it is certainly morally outrageous.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Richard_at_work]

Thats the unions problem - if they aren't getting people to voluntarily sign up, then theres something wrong with their offering, surely...?

Unions seem to have survived here in the UK and Europe, where practices such as enforced union membership is illegal and unions only act for and on behalf of voluntary members, so that makes your argument somewhat moot really doesn't it?

Re:Being a member of a union

[unixcorn]

As others have stated, unions have become self serving. Instead of representing the "local" they have become national organizations with homogeneous wants that may or may not reflect the local area conditions. In addition, if a shop truly wants to unionize, why wouldn't all employees get together, form the bargaining unit and go to work with management. Why do they need to pay dues and why does the union need money if it's truly an organization that represents those in the workplace? Finally, why are unions allowed to donate any of their hard-earned employees pay to any political entity? Can't the workers donate directly to the candidate of their choice?

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, unionize! That way, Tesla will move the plant to another location and those CA workers can instead draw unemployment. Economics is economics. The world allows companies to practice capitalism. If wages are too high in the US, move the factory to China or Taiwan.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think the best solution for this is to change unions to optional - but allow a strict accounting to determine what it cost to negotiate a wage and then figure out a cost per employee covered that would be charged to everyone as a service fee.

This way if a non union employee gets the same pay/benefits of a union employee that had been negotiated, some of that money would be recouped. This way you could have people who do not want to be a full union member not be able to piggyback on their work, but also not have to pay for contributions to things they may not agree with (like political donations) but also not have any union representation or rules if something goes wrong.

I think the "everyone has to be union" rules helped create this situation...

Re:Being a member of a union

[alexo]

It is all about balance. When the balance swings too far in the employers' favour, unions are needed to bring it back; but when the unions get out of hand, their power needs to be curtailed.

There was a teacher in my kids' school who actively sabotaged the children's education. She taught practically nothing and in the middle of the year got up and left for Mexico to live with her boyfriend or something like that. The teacher that replaced her had to cover a whole year's worth of material in less than half the time.

The next year, our heroine returned (maybe she had a falling out with her boyfriend) and got a class to teach. The parents were livid, but the school administration admitted that the teachers' union forced them to take her back, and there was no way they could get rid of her unless she started killing or raping students.

I am not against unions per se, but some of the aspects of unionization are harmful.
 

Re:Being a member of a union

[Grishnakh]

You want people to have a higher standard of living, well unions are the best bet

Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone wants people to have a higher standard of living? We just voted for massive oligarcy; obviously, the American public does *NOT* want people (including themselves) to have a higher standard of living.

At this point if we ever want to take back any power from the megacorps we need unions in all fifty states

Why would we want to take back power from the megacorps? We just voted to give them far more power and less regulation.

Re:Being a member of a union

[ghoul]

How is that different from having to be ruled by a President which only a small plurality(not even a majority) of the people wanted (I am taking about Bill Clinton). Democracy means the majorities will prevails and the Constitution and courts protect the minority from majority abuse. Unions elected by Majority are no different from govts elected by majority. There are laws to prevent the abuse of the workers who were against a Union. Enforce those laws rather than crying about Unions.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither do democracy, governments, corporations, companies, or PTAs if by "work" one means to consistently be the panacea to the problems they can and were meant to address. It's why there's supposed to be accountability to ANY organization of people. Over time, that rarely follows through in large part because the focus of those in charge changes and those responsible to fix problems often lack the power to do so.

So, what's the solution? Obviously, on a case-by-case basis to attempt to resolve the power imbalance causing the problem by informing those with power to act (possibly illegally, but usually it doesn't come to that) and to get them to recognize they have to spend a considerable amount of their lives involved in these organizations to begin to see a more utopian world.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point of total workforce unionization and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining means that employees as a group can better bargain that each individual worker can. The union then negotiates wages and benefits for EVERYONE in that group.

If the union negotiates a wage of $25/hr for a certain job, and you march in and say I don't want to join the union, and as a result of your own negotiation, you are only getting $22/hr, you are screwing over all the other workers and jeopardizing their negotiating leverage. But if you march in and say I'll take the job at the $25/hr collectively bargained rate, but I don't want to join the union, then you are a freeloader and basically want something for nothing - the benefits of collective bargaining, but not having to pay for it. The union is your "agent" for negotiations with your employer, and they are entitled to get paid for that.

Re:Being a member of a union

[aardvarkjoe]

Being a member of a union is a right. This right to work crap must be killed, repelled, etc.

Living in a "right to work" state does not prevent you from joining a union. It just prevents people from forcing you to join a union.

If you believe in freedom, you believe in "right to work."

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even if you, as a worker, disagree with the union, in most states you are *required* to at least pay dues to the union if you want to continue to work at that employer, even if you never engage with the union in any way."

Even if you never engage with the union in any way, you are still benefiting from their work. Unless you're volunteering to take less pay and fewer benefits, and to forgo safety protections than the union negotiated, of course. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is probably not your intent.

What you're really asking for is to get all of the benefits of union membership without having to contribute. To freeload, in other words.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Never gonna get married eh?

Re:Being a member of a union

[Cederic]

When I walk in and demonstrate that I'm worth $30/hour and the union prevents me getting it, the "agent" just cost me a lot of fucking money.

Yes, that's happened to me.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Opting out of the union, at least in my case, results in union dues being replaced by a "fee", which is ~25% cheaper.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

So I agree with you that unions should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues, its the laws requiring or allowing 100% union shops against individual employees wishes that need to be gotten rid of.

Brilliant. I love this line of thought. I, for instance, totally respect everyone's right to bear arms, but I don't want guns around me. Therefore, the laws allowing manufacture, sale, or import of guns or ammunition should be gotten rid of. There, your right to bear arms is still intact, but your _ability_ to bear arms against my wishes evaporates. I love how as a minority not wanting to own a gun myself would render your right to bear arms meaningless.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. If Christians weren't getting people to voluntarily convert in Japan in the late 16th century, there must have been something wrong with their religion, surely?

Or it may be that the powers of state and society prevented people from rationally considering conversion, I dunno.

Re:Being a member of a union

[superdave80]

Now it is true that unions have to be careful not to harm the parent companies, but we are no where near that.

Soooo... you didn't notice that this article is about Tesla Motor's production plant in Fremont.... which formerly housed the NUMMI production plant.... that was shut down due to high union costs? Really?

Re:Being a member of a union

[dywolf]

That was idiotic and irrelevant.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

You should go ahead and insist that the union of workers could of course pay this liability by involuntary servitude. Oh and of course make sure the employer defines what is normal income. Of course union workers are so valueless that their own servitude and meager assets may be inadequate to compensate the company for the company's disappointment so the children of union workers should also be available to compensate the aggrieved company. This is much better than the current system where employees are voluntarily working and if their work is deemed inadequate they are dismissed. Profits would be much higher by your proposed arrangement. At least for a little while.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Registered Coward v2]

While I agree non-union mem bers should not enjoy anything negotiated in the contract, such as wages,benefits, job protection iunless the employer wants to extend them to non union workers. For example they could nit use the grievence procedure and if the union negotiated job protections so that they are the last to get laid off then the non union memebers would have no recourse to being let go first. The union could laso negotiate contract terms that guaranties they get the same level of pay and benefits as non union employees to ensure the company doesn't sweeten the pot in an attempt to bust the union.

Re:Being a member of a union

[dywolf]

european labor laws are a lot different...and lot more employee and union friendly to start with.
and the entire work place culture is more friendly towards unions, whereas corporate culture in the US outright and blatantly hostile.
and the unions themselves are organized differently.
in europe its more or less organized along entire industries.
in the US each individual shop is essentially its own union, regardless of any affiliation with a particular "brand".

Re:Being a member of a union

[TrekkieGod]

Collectivism only works when it's mandatory

I don't think that's true, but if it were, that would be enough for me to side against collectivism.

I'm not here to say unions haven't gotten us great things like child labor laws, 40-hour workweek, overtime pay, etc. This is fantastic. That said, if the cost for those great things are that I lose my choice to bargain for myself and HAVE to join an union, I'd rather not have those things.

Luckily, I think collectivism does work when it's not mandatory. Not being mandatory is, in fact, a great check on the corruption of unions just as much as unions are a check on the corruption of employers. When conditions are really bad, more people join the union, causing the employers to make concessions. When the unions make unreasonable demands, people leave the unions because they'd rather have a paying job. The equilibrium point of union membership gives you the fairest situation. In fact, ideally you'd be able to join competing unions that make different demands that better match what YOU want to bargain for.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Sabriel]

1. One difference is that, good or evil, a government - a.k.a. hierarchical organisation of some kind - will form due to human nature. A union, however, is only _conditionally_ necessary (as a response to excesses of pre-existing authority). Thus the right to form a union should be upheld, but not the right to forcibly conscript others into that union.

2. Insert long-winded sociological blah that can be TLDR'd as "it really is different, because human nature".

3. There are also laws to prevent the abuse of workers by a boss. If the debate presupposes those aren't being enforced, why does your argument expect laws preventing the abuse of workers by a union to be enforced?

4. Your argument is that having to be stuck with one ruler you didn't vote for is undesirable, so why are you arguing that more rulers you didn't vote for is better?

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant. Of course union would fail if it was not mandatory, because the best workers would not join.

Re:Being a member of a union

[ghoul]

All I am saying absolute freedom of choice does not exist . its an illusion. As social animals we live in society and hence we follow societies' rules as we get benefits from it. Such rules only work when everyone follow them even though a minority may not agree with them. Same thing about a Union shop - it may restrict your choice but it is beneficial to the majority hence it exists

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

That 100% requirement is what prevents employers from finding ways to only promote, or only treat well, or only hire people who won't join the union.

Compare working conditions before unions existed to those today, and tell me what sort of market forces would replace unions? Hint: there are none.

Unions hold the floor up for working conditions, pay, and general treatment, for all workers in this country, even if you aren't in a union. Without unions, businesses will race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a member of a union is a right. This right to work crap must be killed, repelled, etc.

Living in a "right to work" state does not prevent you from joining a union. It just prevents people from forcing you to join a union.

If you believe in freedom, you believe in "right to work."

That is only half. It also tends to require the union to represent those that aren't paying dues, at least where I'm from...
That is the part that really kills the unions...

Re:Being a member of a union

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I really have no problem with union shops. I don't follow the philosophical object of people to them. They agree that two entities can make deals. Part of the union's deal is that only its members are hired. From where does the objection come? I mean, maybe you disagree with the union, but you have to support things that you disagree with sometimes... choose your least favorite government program or your CEO's charity choices.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If the UAW really was beside this, then obviously the Tesla employees do need th UAW to help. Because they wren't getting it done on their own. But the real question for the workers should be if the wages, after dues, arfe higher than wages before joining.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Actually, I do RTFA]

That said, if the cost for those great things are that I lose my choice to bargain for myself and HAVE to join an union, I'd rather not have those things.

Quit Dunning-Kruger'ing all over the place. You really think you can do a better job negotiating for yourself than a group that (a) has more leverage and (b) knows more about the company and what it can afford. Now, there is a bit of principle/agent problem (where your goals and the unions may not align), sure. But I'd be surprised if they outweighed the benefits. As you pointed out, there are a lot of benefits that only unions were able to provide.

Also, you can repeat all your statements about, say, the city/state/country you live in (accomplishes good things, but mandatory membership; members vote to change things).

When the unions make unreasonable demands, people leave the unions because they'd rather have a paying job.

This is not what is being discussed. That's the reason people cross the picket lines once the union strikes (which involves leaving the union). However, the situation being discussed is when you collect your union-negotiated benefits and wages, and then decline to pay the union dues. It's a free rider problem.

Re:Being a member of a union

[TrekkieGod]

Quit Dunning-Kruger'ing all over the place. You really think you can do a better job negotiating for yourself than a group that

No, I don't. But I'd rather get a worst deal than lose my freedom.

However, the situation being discussed is when you collect your union-negotiated benefits and wages, and then decline to pay the union dues.

Unions should negotiate union-only benefits. So if you leave the union, you lose whatever benefits they negotiated for. Problem solved.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I'd rather get a worst deal than lose my freedom.

Your confusing concepts. The only freedom you lose is the freedom to get a worse deal. Technically you are less free in that dimension, but its hard for me to imagine its a valuable freedom. Especially when compared to the freedom you get from having more money.

Unions should negotiate union-only benefits

In a union shop, they do. One of the benefits they negotiate for is the right to work at that company. At non-union shops, they're not allowed to have split-benefits like that - thank (mostly republican) lawmakers.

Re:Being a member of a union

[LienRag]

So, what happens if one disagrees with the established union and wants to start a workers' union?

Re:Being a member of a union

[TrekkieGod]

Your confusing concepts. The only freedom you lose is the freedom to get a worse deal. Technically you are less free in that dimension, but its hard for me to imagine its a valuable freedom. Especially when compared to the freedom you get from having more money.

That's not true. What if the group is negotiating for something I don't agree with? Most people in the union can think something is a better deal, but I can personally think that's not true.

In a union shop, they do. One of the benefits they negotiate for is the right to work at that company

That particular right prevents anyone else from competing with them on negotiations, which in my opinion gives them an unfair amount of power.

they're not allowed to have split-benefits like that - thank (mostly republican) lawmakers.

Well, I'm certainly against any laws that would prevent them from doing that. To me that's equivalent of removing my freedom to negotiate my own deals, except in this case it's removing their freedom from negotiating their own deals.

Re:Being a member of a union

[Actually, I do RTFA]

What if the group is negotiating for something I don't agree with?

I suppose there are times when that's true. For instance, limiting the work-week to 40 hours, and after that time-and-a-half. You may prefer a 50 hour week or a 30 hour week. On the other hand, standardized employment packages have a huge benefit to the company (less negotiating) and to society (can make reasonable inferences about a person's work schedule). And, frankly, a lot of negotiations like that only work out better for you if most people don't do it, e.g. if everyone is willing to work 50-hours/week, we go from that earning you an extra 25%, to that being the new normal and the salary for everyone remaining the same.

But, long story short, I view that loss of freedom as similar to the loss of freedom living in a society. You miss out on some autonomy, but in return you get a range of benefits that should more than compensate you. And a voice (via elections) in what those benefits are. While occasionally you'll be screwed some, it's hard to imagine how a system could work that didn't do that to anyone, ever.

That particular right prevents anyone else from competing with them on negotiations, which in my opinion gives them an unfair amount of power.

It may be "unfair", but it is definitely the results of a free negotiation between two parties. Now, if you want to discuss limiting their freedom to enter into contracts with each other, that's fine. I don't think that freedom is absolute. But as most people professing your beliefs are fairly libertarian in outlook, I'd like to impose on you to explain why it's okay in this case. Especially since the right you think it is imposing on is your right to enter into a contract with one of those parties under your preferred conditions.

I'm certainly against any laws that would prevent them from doing that.

I believe the original intent was to try to damage unions by allowing free riders, and also make it harder to have a de facto union shop.

Re:Being a member of a union

[TrekkieGod]

I suppose there are times when that's true. For instance, limiting the work-week to 40 hours, and after that time-and-a-half. You may prefer a 50 hour week or a 30 hour week.

It can be way more fundamental than that. Sometimes it can be even be an ethical disagreement over some issue.

But, long story short, I view that loss of freedom as similar to the loss of freedom living in a society. You miss out on some autonomy, but in return you get a range of benefits that should more than compensate you. And a voice (via elections) in what those benefits are. While occasionally you'll be screwed some, it's hard to imagine how a system could work that didn't do that to anyone, ever.

I'm fairly pragmatic about that, and I agree with you that sometimes you trade some fundamental rights by living in a society. But the system of that society is pretty important. The United States is currently polling as 70% Christian. If we straight off voted via an election to make that the official religion of the country and started enforcing certain beliefs over the remaining 30%, that would be a bad system of government. Instead we have a system that says that no matter what the majority of people believe in, individually everybody has the right to believe or not believe in whatever they wish, and that right is not to be infringed upon. Protecting individual freedoms from a tyranny of the majority is something I believe in.

It may be "unfair", but it is definitely the results of a free negotiation between two parties. Now, if you want to discuss limiting their freedom to enter into contracts with each other, that's fine. I don't think that freedom is absolute. But as most people professing your beliefs are fairly libertarian in outlook, I'd like to impose on you to explain why it's okay in this case. Especially since the right you think it is imposing on is your right to enter into a contract with one of those parties under your preferred conditions.

You've sort of got me pegged, but libertarians come in a spectrum. Sometimes when you just see the most vocal among us, you can get the wrong idea. For example, I'm a libertarian who is very much in favor of strong anti-trust laws. I come to this belief because even though I believe the free market is the way to achieve the best results, I also believe monopolies are a failure mode. In fact, the general distrust of the ability of government to take on duties that I believe are best handled by private enterprise is because the government is a monopoly, so having any one company be the monopoly isn't any better. In this case, I see the union as the monopoly, if you're not allowed to work without being a member.

I believe the original intent was to try to damage unions by allowing free riders, and also make it harder to have a de facto union shop.

I agree, and like I said, I'm against such laws.

Just leave

[Sooner Boomer]

If you don't want your plant unionized, pack up and move to a non-union or "right to work" state. I bet Texas would love to have you. Other benefits, lower taxes, less regulation, good selection of high tech workers.

Re:Just leave

[Gavagai80]

Or better yet, just skip straight to the developing world so you can even more fully exploit people.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck yea, there's a reason Texas has a thriving economy, great cost of living index, rock solid property values, etc. Unions don't have jack to do with it. Kommifornians think they're so smart, yet their economy is in the crapper. Unfortunately the Kommiefornians are like cockroaches - once they lay waste to one area, they move to another and keep trying the same stupid crap all over again. I'm seeing a lot more Priuses with Kommie plates on them over the past few years. :(

Re:Just leave

[Richard_at_work]

Why should someone have to switch jobs to avoid the union? Why shouldnt they have the fucking *right* not to have to join the union at a workplace?! How is that not the union interfering in someones private life?!

Re:Just leave

[dbIII]

Blame the government not the union - or better still vote for someone that will remove the stupid all or nothing thing (if you can find someone). Other countries don't do the all or nothing thing.
I think the laws were originally drafted to ensure that "nothing" would be the default in most places. From what I've seen it's only the places where employees already feel screwed over that more than half would bother to join a union.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, dipshit, he's talking to Musk. He's telling Musk to move his plant.

Re:Just leave

[ghoul]

California is a Right to work state. Right to work deals with notice period. In fact Right to Work states need Unions more as there are no protections from the State so the Union is your only protection. That and a hot job market where there are other people ready to hire you. Unfortunately for Tesla workers there are no other car companies in the area so that doesnt apply as it does for Tech workers. Tech workers can just leave abusive employees or if they are on H1B do the minimum possible till they get their Green Cards and then leave. Tech employers understand this and try to treat their workers well. Tesla on the other hand has no such constraints.

Re:Just leave

[Gnomaana]

Why should someone have to switch jobs to avoid the union? Why shouldnt they have the fucking *right* not to have to join the union at a workplace?! How is that not the union interfering in someones private life?!

They have to switch jobs to avoid the union because it was made illegal for a union to only negotiate for its members. It has to negotiate for all employees that are in the same job they are negotiating for. Why should you get the higher wages a union brings(and it does bring them) but not have to help pay for the expense of getting those better wages?

Re:Just leave

[clong83]

It's not interfering with someone's private life unless they opt to work for a union shop... Unions are a collective of people freely associating and negotiating a contract with a private entity which stipulates that all new hires must be amenable to joining the union. Sounds pretty free-market libertarian to me. If enough union members are pissed about mandatory membership, that's probably a sign the union isn't functioning properly. In that case, the union members themselves can then vote to disband or to not require membership. But in an otherwise normal union, removing mandatory membership from the contract turns the situation into a tragedy of the commons dilemma, wherein people will avoid paying dues while still enjoying the protections that a union affords. That is, until the union shrivels and dies.

The 'interference' comes in the form of the government meddling with contracts between otherwise private and freely associated entities, and weakening the tools that one party has at its disposal.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, moving to the third world and giving them jobs they would otherwise not have is a horrible form of exploitation.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

no union can just eat cost of raising wages for non-members like other companies/groups of people eat different costs not directly related to them so they can do buisiness

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people would love to be exploited. Much better than no job.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. You are the reasons pay, hours, and rights are all at risk across industries.

Re:Just leave

[Cederic]

Because I don't want to pay a corrupt bloated bureaucracy that cares about its own perpetuation and political power and doesn't give a flying fuck about me.

Because I can negotiate my own fucking wages.

Because I'm worth what I get paid, and if someone negotiates that higher than I'm being paid more than I'm worth. If someone negotiates that lower then they've cost me money. Neither of these are good.

Because I didn't ask the union to do a fucking thing for me.

Because my employer can't afford those wages so the company is doomed.

Is that enough reasons yet, or do I need to keep going?

Re:Just leave

[Gnomaana]

Because I don't want to pay a corrupt bloated bureaucracy that cares about its own perpetuation and political power and doesn't give a flying fuck about me.

Because I can negotiate my own fucking wages.

Because I'm worth what I get paid, and if someone negotiates that higher than I'm being paid more than I'm worth. If someone negotiates that lower then they've cost me money. Neither of these are good.

Because I didn't ask the union to do a fucking thing for me.

Because my employer can't afford those wages so the company is doomed.

Is that enough reasons yet, or do I need to keep going?

Please keep going. Maybe at some point you will address my point about it being MANDATED by law that the union negotiate for you if you work in a union shop. I doubt it since you seem a little upset but go ahead and give it a shot.

Re:Just leave

[Cederic]

Maybe at some point you will address my point about it being MANDATED by law that the union negotiate for you

Because being in a union is an indicator of reading difficulties.

Because I can negotiate my own fucking wages.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

California is a right to work state already.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, listen to the employees and take their experiences and observations into account in designing the product and the production line. Jose Moran did not actually call for unionization; he claimed that some workers were exploring unionization because Tesla would not respond favorably to their requests and advice, and was not even making an attempt to pay attention to the workers' job experience. His post is very reasonable.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always the "consultant" loophole..

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiotic political wankers, unions aren't good or bad per se, but they are a sign of bad management.

Re:Just leave

[SeaFox]

I bet Texas would love to have you.

Yeah, I bet Texas loves cars that don't run on petroleum. /snort

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Texas won't let him sell the cars. LOL.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that by making anti-unionization a matter of "personal freedom" you create free-rider incentives that will essentially scupper any attempt to unionize. In a unionized workplace everyone benefits from collective action, but the non-participants benefit the most, because they don't have to pay dues, go to meetings or go on strike when negotiations break down. But if enough people choose not to participate, the union won't have enough negotiating leverage to effect positive change. It's a classic case of the prisoner's dilemma, where individuals working for their own advantage (narrowly conceived) make things worse for themselves and everyone else. Enforcing participation is pretty much the only way to get around such collective action problems.

Re:Just leave

[Gnomaana]

Obviously not being in one doesn't help your comprehension difficulties. The fact you negotiate yourself IN NO WAY affects a union's LEGALLY MANDATED responsibility to negotiate on your behalf if you work at a union shop. Get rid of that law and I have no problem with not forcing everyone to pay dues but with that law in affect, if you don't want to be in a union, work somewhere that isn't unionized.

Re:Just leave

[Cederic]

Well, we agree that law is wrong. I don't want to be in a union, I refuse to be in a union and I now refuse to work for any company that demands a union negotiate on my behalf.

Last time I was in that situation the union's negotiating position was not to my benefit anyway, I was getting fucked over whether I was a union member or not.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could move away from the US to the developed world >:>

Pointed out elsewhere by Richard_at_work).

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Shazam!

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, aside from the owner of a company, nobody has the right to given job at all. More to the point, though, making membership optional defeats the entire point of a union, because it removes the Union's leverage over the company. Without any leverage, the Union has no way to negotiate better pay, hours, and working conditions for employees.

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

the only reason you can negotiate is because of progression brought about by past union activity..

obviously you would prefer to be in a victorian workhouse..

why are americans such selfish cunts...you president is the king of selfish cunts...

Re:Just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

yep all texans are rich...mmm don't think so, been there its fucking backwards, bunch of selfish dicks, cheering the present king of dicks the orange wotsit

Re:Just leave

[Shalhav]

We couldn't compete at exploitation. The developing world does a better job of it than we do.

Unions

[nehumanuscrede]

Unions certainly had their time and place in history, but these days it seems to be less about standing up for the little guy and more about how much money can we bring in via Union Dues. ( My opinion of course, I work within a Union Company )

That said, $21 an hour is a rather laughable wage in a State with a high cost of living like California. Hell, a wage of $80k is laughable in a State where housing starts at $500k and goes right off the scale.

So there is this thought:

If Musk doesn't want his employees getting seduced by the Union, he should probably consider bumping the pay of his workers to near what the national average is and address any concerns they may have ( like excessive mandatory overtime per the article ). As long as he keeps his workforce happy, they'll have no reason to Unionize and Musk will have nothing to worry about.

Of course, there is the flip side.

Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California and into another State where the cost of doing business is much lower.

Re: Unions

[fluffernutter]

Companies certainly had their time and place in history, but these days it seems to be less about making a quality product for the consumer and more about making as much profit for the shareholders as possible.

Re:Unions

[Baloo Uriza]

Unions certainly had their time and place in history, but these days it seems to be less about standing up for the little guy and more about how much money can we bring in via Union Dues. ( My opinion of course, I work within a Union Company )

Sounds like your union sucks, therefore all unions suck? Maybe you should get more involved in your union.

That said, $21 an hour is a rather laughable wage in a State with a high cost of living like California.

That's rather the union's point, is it not?

Re:Unions

[ausekilis]

Unions certainly had their time and place in history, but these days it seems to be less about standing up for the little guy and more about how much money can we bring in via Union Dues. ( My opinion of course, I work within a Union Company )

I agree with this sentiment. One of my mom's friends is a unionized electrician that, last I heard, hadn't actually worked in near 3 years and is still having to pay union dues to be "in the club" and he signed a contract that he can't back out of. I also have a buddy, in the same city, that is a non-unionized electrician and he works 4-10's every week. Granted this isn't the story with all unions, but a good example nonetheless.

Given the choice between earning a living and slowly bleeding out, I'd pick the former any day.

Re: Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

...And sucking up as much government cash as possible via tax credits or overcharging on things like military procurement.

Re:Unions

[Gavagai80]

California doesn't have a high cost of living, only specific localities like Fremont and the bay area in general. Tesla could pay the same wage in Sacramento and it'd be perfectly fair because it'd go at least 3x further. They chose to build their factory in Fremont apparently because those are the people they really wish to hire, so it's time to pay them for their apparent specialness.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

between $17 and $21 hourly, compared with the national average of $25.58 hourly for most autoworkers in the U.S.

So out of that $25.58 how much of it immediately gets eaten up by union dues?

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

That's precisely what he should do. UAW would be the kiss of death. Good riddance.

Re:Unions

[squiggleslash]

Want to know why Wal-Mart hasn't unionized? Funny story. Those unions who are only interested in dues and are Mafia controlled and {insert other anti-union nonsense here} keep turning up at stores, organizing meetings, and so on.

And then, oddly enough, those stores start treating their employees well. There are wage increases, grievances are suddenly addressed, management starts dealing with various unpleasant aspects of working at Wal-Mart, and meetings are called where they point out all those voluntary improvements, all done because Wal Mart values their associates, and you don't want to unionize, those unions are nothing but trouble and...

And so the union reps disappear, usually with a smirk on their faces.

(In fairness, in one or two cases the situation was so bad the employees voted to unionize anyway, and Wal Mart went nuclear and killed the store, but threats to close the stores aren't usually part of the initial pitch - after all, if you're trying to say what good employers you are, saying "We'll fucking fire you if you unionize" isn't going to help.)

There are good, bad, and means-well-but-sucks unions much as there are organizations in any sphere.

My advice to Musk? If employees are considering unionizing, find out why, and fix the problems. It's a lot easier to give your more vulnerable staff raises and reduce the raises for your management layers, for example, than to deal with a strike.

Re: Unions

[CrimsonAvenger]

Companies certainly had their time and place in history, but these days it seems to be less about making a quality product for the consumer and more about making as much profit for the shareholders as possible.

And how, pray tell, does one make as much profit for the owners (or, if you prefer, shareholders) without, well, selling a product people want to buy for a price they are willing to pay?

It's not like competition is illegal (unless you're a taxidriver, or government employee, of course), so if your product isn't quite up to snuff, someone else can start a competing business with a better product and take all your customers....

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

If Musk doesn't want his employees getting seduced by the Union, he should probably consider bumping the pay of his workers to near what the national average is and address any concerns they may have ( like excessive mandatory overtime per the article ).

Elon Musk has nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of his factory. That sort of this is for underlings. He's too rich and important for such menial things. And you can bet that his lackies are telling him everything is fine and it's just those evil union guys trying to stir up trouble.

The fact is, low wages, poor working conditions, massive amounts of forced overtime and generally being treated like shit is the standard practice for all non-union facilities.

There's nothing that a dictator (or in this case, a wannabe dictator) hates more than the average person having elected representatives working on their behalf.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like your union sucks, therefore all unions suck? Maybe you should get more involved in your union.

If unions are great (and some maybe not), the solution is astoundingly simple: MAKE ... THEM ... OPTIONAL ... aka "Right to Work" laws.

I live in Texas. We're right to work, exactly as it should be. I used to live in another state, where I quite literally watched the UAW destroy the town. Family members out of work PERMANENTLY because the union couldn't "negotiate" a "sensible" contract. That auto manufacturer now CEASES TO EXIST. The manufacturer that came in and bought the plants hired many of the workers back, new union contract, things were tough but they too were forced out of town when the "contract negotiations" failed. 100% of those "union protected" jobs are now *gone*. Unions are nothing but self-serving parasites.

Re:Unions

[usuallylost]

I am not going to say all unions are bad. If done properly a union should be a huge benefit to workers. Unfortunately, in the US many of them are basically scams designed to enrich the union officers as much as possible.

My brother works for a union company and is a member of the union. He has observed over the years that many of the union's actions are much better for the union and the union officers than they are for the union membership. The problem in his view isn't the idea of the union, so much as the fact that many of the union members really don't understand these contracts being negotiated on their behalf. What most of the members know of the union's actions is from the union newspaper which only ever reports glowing successes. So you have an employee base most of whom don't understand the deals negotiated on their behalf and whose only information to judge their leadership is from a newspaper written by that leadership. So when election time comes around they invariably pick the guy that the leadership nominated for the job. Other people run but the pretty much never win. As long as that is the case US unions will continue to be extremely corrupt.

As far as Tesla and Mr. Musk go if they don't want to be unionized they only have two real options. One is to pay enough that the union can't really promise their employees enough to make them vote for a union. The other option is to move to a right to work state. As far as the union sending in a guy to stir up trouble he is going to have to understand that is how they operate and that will continue. He's just going to have to accept that and take measures to make people not want to vote for a union.

Re: Unions

[radl33t]

mainly the erection of market barriers via regulation, lobbying, scale, and duplicitous behaviors including bribery, collusion, nepotism, and other forms of corruption.

Re: Unions

[oh_my_080980980]

You assume there is competition and you assume when their is competition that companies are forced to make a better product. Go buy a appliance sometime asshole.

Re:Unions

[whoever57]

The factory wasn't built by Tesla.

The building was formerly a joint venture between GM and Toyota (NUMMI). GM pulled out of the site as part of its bankruptcy. Toyota invested $50M in Tesla and then Tesla bought the site from Toyota for $50M.

Re:Unions

[ReeceTarbert]

They chose to build their factory in Fremont apparently because those are the people they really wish to hire, so it's time to pay them for their apparent specialness.

No, the only reason the factory is in Fremont is because it used to be the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), which closed in 2010 just to reopen a few months later as a 100% Tesla Motors-owned production facility (link to Wikipedia entry is in the summary). Besides, I guess Tesla got the plant for cheap, therefore Musk really has not reason to blame the UAW for "killing" NUMMI -- quite the opposite, in fact!

RT.

Re:Unions

[arensb]

If Musk doesn't want his employees getting seduced by the Union, he should probably consider bumping the pay of his workers

If only there were some kind of mechanism by which employers and employees (or their representatives) could sit down and hammer out a deal that's fair to all sides.

Re: Unions

[CrimsonAvenger]

You assume there is competition and you assume when their is competition that companies are forced to make a better product. Go buy a appliance sometime asshole.

Oddly enoiugh, I did that this past December. And oddly enough, there were multiple choices, from cheap junk to quite expensive (and high quality) appliances.

Which means a range of choices for everyone who wants a dishwasher, for instance. Pick what's in your budget and fits your needs.

Now, alternately, we can go with the "one model fits all" theory. It has, after all, worked so well in the past. Oh, wait, it hasn't.l...

I'm curious, where do you live that there are no choices in appliances?

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

between $17 and $21 hourly, compared with the national average of $25.58 hourly for most autoworkers in the U.S.

So out of that $25.58 how much of it immediately gets eaten up by union dues?

$8.58

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'll take his assessment as an actual union member over someone who has no experience with such things. No one needs more theoretical defenses of things they know nothing about. Try mixing with working people for awhile.

Re:Unions

[AmiMoJo]

There seems to be an assumption that the union and the employer will be at odds. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

"That said, $21 an hour is a rather laughable wage in a State with a high cost of living like California. Hell, a wage of $80k is laughable in a State where housing starts at $500k and goes right off the scale."

Really the 2 high cost of living areas are Bay and LA..other then that you can get by on 12-14 an hour and buy a home (3 bed 1 bath, in a decent neighborhood in Sacramento for 185k...Dont lump all of the state into LA/SF price gouging

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like your buddy is Lazy..There is a ton of Union Electrical work to do in California right now all over the state

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California

Can he? He started this operation in a vacuum without any entanglements or commitments on his part?

No. That's not what happened. Musk makes use of every bit of regulatory relief, subsidy and tax break he can squeeze out of whatever jurisdiction he bets on, and those jurisdictions expect things from him as well. Everything he has done since zip2 and paypal has been highly entangled with government, Tesla being not the least of these.

I don't know what commitments he made to spin up this CA plant, but I'm betting he doesn't have the option to simply walk away. I know he'd take a big PR hit if he did; Tesla fanbois throughout CA would be rather unhappy with him.

Re: Unions

[fluffernutter]

The problem is that there aren't any standouts and everything is rank and file on that pricepoint. You can get a minimum featured dishwasher for $100 and a full featured one for $1000 for sure, but what isn't there is the $150 dishwasher with all the features because the company just wants to sell you a good dishwasher and mark it up 10% instead of 100%. Look at all the patent wars that happen to force out the lower cost alternative that the big fish don't want on the market. Where is WebOS? Where is the phone with a bigger battery? Where are the competitive products that are made locally? Where are upgradable laptops and phones? There are great glaring gaps in the market if you look out of your box enough to see them.

Re: Unions

[fluffernutter]

Oh, another one, why does Netflix get their hands tied by all kinds of contractual agreements when that is the type of TV that everyone really wants? I can't say I know anyone who doesn't want TV shows on demand on their schedule with no ads. If capitalism really provided products that people wanted, then all TV would be streaming by now. The consumer is hurt by barriers to the market that have been set up by the entrenched players that don't give customers what they want.

Re:Unions

[fluffernutter]

The only case where a union and an employer see eye to eye is a situation where the employer is willing to give more than the bare minimum to the employee for that type of work in order to achieve a higher morale and satisfaction working there. This seems to be less and less common as time goes on so they are automatically at odds.

Re:Unions

[fluffernutter]

I don't know the area, but is Sacramento 1/2 hour away from the factory? If there is no inexpensive housing within a reasonable commute to your job (45 minutes max) then what you say is beside the point.

Re:Unions

[omnichad]

Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California and into another State where the cost of doing business is much lower.

I don't know why he set up manufacturing in CA in the first place. If you have your pick of the whole country, you save a lot more on employees AND facilities by being anywhere else. I hear Detroit has a lot of space free right now.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, let the union demand $25/hr for the jobs. And then watch as Musk ships those jobs elsewhere for 1/4 the money. Thats business. Stop taxing the fuck out of them and then maybe they could pay their employees more. Which, ironically, is what Trump is trying to actually do.

Re:Unions

[swb]

Usually the mob/union/business narrative is more like extortion, where they threaten the business with mafia tactics and cut some deal with the employer that results in a payoff to them and little or no benefit to the employees.

Obviously there are variations, and probably historically there was more value in giving the workers something (otherwise they lose support or risk subversion) and probably smarter guys with more long term vision figured controlling the union and access to its funds was the smart play, so jacking worker salaries meant more slush fund money vs. getting paid off by the owner to allow them to do nothing.

My question here is -- what value to the mob is muscling the employer to get improved wages and working conditions (which cost Wal Mart something) without actually successfully unionizing? Wal Mart doesn't strike me as the kind of organization that pays extortion to the mob, so the only real value to the mob would be unionization resulting in dues.

I agree with your assessment of how to prevent unionization, though -- co-opt the employees by addressing enough of their issues that it makes more sense to accept the company's generosity now vs. risking a failed unionizing effort. And for Tesla it would cost them much less to be generous up front than the accept unions long term, and they could probably quietly back-track for new hires on a lot of stuff, too, although that has its own risk/reward calculus.

Re:Unions

[Sugadadee]

No Wal-Mart hasn't unionised because Wal-Mart would not stand for it. They will close a store rather than have it unionise. Look at the Wal-Mart in Quebec example as a reference. Yeah it went court and they may have to pay a small 'fine', but it wont be as large as potential union related expenses over the long term. Tesla, could threaten that as well technically. Cost of moving would have to outweigh the long term additional unionisation expenses.

Re:Unions

[omnichad]

They also used the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force to prevent a strike. And they also have their own team that flies in at the first sign of an attempt at unionization with propaganda and threats of firing.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea, don't go to work for them if they can't pay what you feel you are worth. If the jobs you can get with your skill level doesn't make enough to afford housing in that area, then move.

Re:Unions

[omnichad]

What we need is new labor unions that operate much the same way as credit unions typically do.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Tesla built their kingdom on top of a swamp because the price per square foot was low.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -Albert Einstein

Sounds like Toyota was more than happy to gift this white elephant to their enemy at a loss.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was a GM plant that closed for 2 years in 82 and was retooled in to the joint venture of GM and Toyota.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have stopped with, "I don't know the area". You are looking at 2 hours or more depending on traffic, which there will be lots. Stockton is closer, but that is cruel and unusual punishment to make someone live in Stockton.

Re:Unions

[alvinrod]

The problem is that the union can argue for a $40/hour wage until their blue in the face, but they can't change economic reality. Say that the company gives into the union and their employees are now making $80k/year, which is great until they company goes under within a few years because its incapable of being competitive with other local or even foreign companies. So now the union has to argue for protectionist tariffs in order to support their workers, which is basically arguing that I'm forced to restrict my purchasing choices because they think that they somehow deserve to be the only game in town. At that point, why don't they just deserve $80/hour wages because its no like anyone has a choice.

Rather the union should argue that it makes more sense for the company to relocate. There are plenty of parts of the country were $40/year is enough to own a home. Too many unions labor under the delusion that if they believe strongly enough, or fight with the company enough that two and two can be made to come out five.

Re:Unions

[Gnomaana]

Sounds like your union sucks, therefore all unions suck? Maybe you should get more involved in your union.

If unions are great (and some maybe not), the solution is astoundingly simple: MAKE ... THEM ... OPTIONAL ... aka "Right to Work" laws.

I live in Texas. We're right to work, exactly as it should be. I used to live in another state, where I quite literally watched the UAW destroy the town. Family members out of work PERMANENTLY because the union couldn't "negotiate" a "sensible" contract. That auto manufacturer now CEASES TO EXIST. The manufacturer that came in and bought the plants hired many of the workers back, new union contract, things were tough but they too were forced out of town when the "contract negotiations" failed. 100% of those "union protected" jobs are now *gone*. Unions are nothing but self-serving parasites.

Then get rid of the law that says the union has to negotiate for all employees and not just the ones willing to pay the dues. Why should you get the benefits my union dues paid for?

Re: Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so did you actually verify that your differently-branded and -priced dishwashers were indeed actually different and produced by different companies?

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more to your story than you're telling us. Maybe you don't know it, either, and you should find out what it is you don't know about the situation.

How appropriate. The captcha is "insipid".

Re:Unions

[RKThoadan]

It's my understanding that unions outside the US have a very different mindset and relationships with the employers than US unions do and could often be said to see eye to eye there.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the choice between earning a living and slowly bleeding out, I'd pick the former any day.

Where was the latter? "Earning a living and slowly bleeding out" is exactly where most electricians would be without unions.

Yep, unions are terrible- it was in fact our failure to completely extinguish them in 1970 that led to stagnant real wages across the following half decade. Those pesky fucking unions- we cut their membership by at least two thirds over that period, and they're still holding the average worker back as if it were 1970, even though only 10% of the workforce is still unionized.

Re: Unions

[fluffernutter]

Also it seems these days you can't buy a product without some sort of planned obsolescence built in. I had the blower motor for my central air conditioning die on me two years in a row, but off warranty of course. So I asked the repair guy 'how do I pay more to get a better quality motor that won't die on me?' The answer was that I couldn't. I had to take what they gave me and had no choice.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize you just used your anecdote of one union, with no reference to actual corruption, and used it as evidence that "US unions will continue to be extremely corrupt."

So your complaint really is that people that can't bother to educate themselves on the content of their union contract would be much more likely to negotiate a better contract individually? You may not understand the mandatory-arbitration clause in your cell phone contract, but it isn't good for you, and I dare you to negotiate yourself out of it on your own. The more likely outcome is that your business gets "referred" to any of the other providers, who all also have such clauses in their contracts.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

What could possibly be the function of a union that's on the side of management?

Re:Unions

[Cederic]

Given the costs of staff turnover and the productivity implications most employers do want content and motivated staff.

Unionisation is not a prerequisite to achieving this.

Re:Unions

[fluffernutter]

Yet we have companies like Amazon with their employees feeling the need to camp in the parking lot. It seems things are going the other way in reality. They only want staff content and motivated enough to not go to another job.

Re:Unions

[Cederic]

There are several. Musk is probably open to some of them. Tesla may already have implemented one or more of them.

a deal that's fair to all sides

UAW is not one of those mechanisms.

Re:Unions

[fluffernutter]

Ok so no one can realistically drive 2 hours back and forth to a job every day. That's all you would be doing.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you say China?

Re:Unions

[thomst]

nehumanuscrede opined:

If Musk doesn't want his employees getting seduced by the Union, he should probably consider bumping the pay of his workers to near what the national average is and address any concerns they may have ( like excessive mandatory overtime per the article ). As long as he keeps his workforce happy, they'll have no reason to Unionize and Musk will have nothing to worry about.

Of course, there is the flip side.

Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California and into another State where the cost of doing business is much lower.

"For every complex human problem, there is one and only one simple solution - and it is always wrong." - H. L. Menchken

First of all, Musk really can't increase Tesla workers' wages significantly. Tesla is still only marginally profitable, and, despite probably the most extensive use of industrial robots in the auto industry, it has a workforce of approximately 5,000 at the former NUMMI plant. A $10/hour raise for that many people (and this is assuming a 40-hour workweek with 10 holidays per year) would amount to an additional $10 million in wage costs per annum, plus additional payments to California and the U.S. for social security and other taxes. That's not peanuts. High wages for production line workers is one of the things that nearly killed the domestic auto industry by opening the door for less-expensive foreign imports from countries with lower labor costs (or more extensive automation - i.e.: Japan).

Secondly - and more cogently - Musk really can't move Tesla's manufacturing to another state. The deal he made to take over the NUMMI plant in Fremont is incredibly favorable to Tesla. He'd be really hard-pressed to find lower per-square-foot costs elsewhere, plus he'd have the expense of moving, re-installing, and troubleshooting the industrial robot army that produces and assembles most of each car. (Those 5,000 workers mostly do stuff like hook up wiring harnesses and so forth. There's essentially zero heavy lifiting involved in their jobs.) And then there'd be the six-to-twelve month halt in production while the changeover in facilities took place, just as Tesla is getting ready to roll out its first truly mass-production car, the Model 3. It's simply not a financiallyt realistic option.

In the parent article, Musk clearly states that Tesla has always been "union neutral". He's not anti-union. Nor is he pro-union. What he's against is the underhandedness of Jose Moran, who is essentially a union mole who took a job at Tesla specifically to agitate for a union vote. Apparently his mission was unsuccessful - Tesla's workforce was unreceptive to his message - so he quit his job (again, from the actual article, there is no current Tesla employee by that name) and has taken to tha Innerwebs to propagandize against Musk.

It's worth noting exactly why Tesla got such a sweetheart deal on the NUMMI plant: it's because astronomical labor costs made producinhg cars at the factory (which is ENORMOUS - Tesla occupies only a portion of the complex) unprofitable for GM and Toyota, the joint owners of NUMMI, so they SHUT IT DOWN in 2010, eliminating 4,700 jobs altogether.

That, I suspect, is why the UAW's mole found so little support among Tesla workers. Many of them are former NUMMI employees. They remember the good times and relatively high wages - but they also remember what happened to those good times and good wages when their former employer decided to shutter the plant because of those high wages ...

Re:Unions

[kellymcdonald78]

The biggest issue is that some of the unions have become so large and represent workers across so many industries and employers such that they are insulated from the historic symbiotic relationship between employee and employer. In this case for example, lets say UAW succeeds, unionizes Tesla and as a result of higher costs, forces it out of business. That's 5000 workers on the street, less than 2% of UAW 390,000 total members. UAW leadership isn't out anything and they continue on their merry way. Historically unions had to work in a framework that left the business they worked for to be viable, now there is no need for that

Re:Unions

[kellymcdonald78]

Tesla got an incredible deal buying up the shuttered plant they operate out of

Re:Unions

[omnichad]

I get that - so why are they complaining about the cost of living for employees there? Just pay more and accept that this is the price of your cheap deal on your manufacturing plant. If it's still better for them in the long run, then it was the right choice. But treating it like they built it in the midwest and paying those wages just isn't respectable. And since they're still somewhat a luxury brand, they should care as much about their image as their costs.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota invested $50M in Tesla and then Tesla bought the site from Toyota for $50M.

Musk is almost right up there with Jobs. Jobs was able to by Apple for NeXT for -$400 million. Getting the owner of a factory to give you money, and then use that money to buy a factory from them isn't half bad.

Re: Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. Where I live I can pay $200 for a dishwasher or $1500. I never thought I'd say I love doing dishes and think $1500 is a good price. Miele changed my mind. I don't even have to rinse the dishes, and they sparkle every time. Even when I overload the thing. It's amazing. But when I was poor, I just needed something to sterilize them. I had time to spend scrubbing dishes back then... Lots of choices here in CA for appliances.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop capitalizing the word state.

Re:Unions

[Khyber]

"That said, $21 an hour is a rather laughable wage in a State with a high cost of living like California."

Yea, if you choose to live in the shitty congested metro areas. That's before taxes 3,360/mo, or roughly 2,240 after taxes . Rent for a 2-bed 2-bath apartment around my area runs about $1,100mo, if you're smart and run LED everything and laptops your utility bills are sub-$100 (and water/sewage/trash is paid for in pretty much any apartment complex) and your internet/phone/TV is at worst $150/mo total without some special offer. So we're looking at $1,350-ish a month. Food isn't taxed and you're far better off shopping at the ethnic markets, where you can get an entire month of meat, veg, grain, bread, and dairy for $175. Okay, we're at $1,525-ish. Let's assume you drive an economic 4-cylinder. Gas is hovering around $2.50/gal right now, you'll probably burn $250/mo in gas if you're really busy. $1,775-ish. Hey, weed's legal here, I'm a fairly hefty smoker and spend maybe $150/mo on good stuff. $1,925-ish. Hey, I can still knock a couple hundred into my bank account every month.

And all it takes is living an hour outside of Los Angeles.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

we had a lot of those:
anti-union union guys who bitch constantly about the union, but never ever took a role in any way.
they never showed up to any meeting, never gave any input on anything, never made suggestions for negotiations, and would even actively work agianst the union.....the same one that negotiated their wages and benefits that were above norm for the industry.

and then if anything goes wrong...ITS ALL THE UNIONS FAULT for not reading their mind when they never showed up or contributed to anything.

problem is that so severly weakens the unionk, eventually the company figures out they can stop negotiating or dealing with the union entirely, disregard the CBA and get away with it, and cut wages. I know, cause thats what old company just did. and the Labor Board arbitrator actually sided with the company. and now, there's a good likelyhood those 33/hr wages are about to drop to 23/hr, and those too broke or rooted to move away are gonna have no choice but to bend over and take it.

(but not me, i just got a new, better job elsewhere....with a better union that has more involved people who understand whats needed to succeed)

Re: Unions

[fluffernutter]

This really means very little. The real question is, could someone be in the market that sells a dishwasher with the same features and works just as well and take less of a markup thereby selling it at a price equal to lesser dishwashers, or is it priced at $1500 because "people will pay for it".

Re: Unions

[modrzej]

The claim about low wage misrepresents the reality. "Tesla also offers equity to all employees from the ground up through their stock program." The guy failed to mention that. See https://electrek.co/2017/02/09...

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions certainly had their time and place in history, but these days it seems to be less about standing up for the little guy....

If there were no unions, you think companies wouldn't race to the bottom in terms of pay and working conditions? What market force or other force would prevent them from doing so?

Between owning a house, health insurance, etc.. people are way less mobile than you think. Employers have way more power than workers, and there are no forces "holding the floor up" besides unions. Well, certainly there are more laws protecting workers now than there used to be before unions... but that is because unions lobbied for them. Without unions, businesses would lobby away your worker protections so fast, it would make your head spin.

Re:Unions

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Maybe you should get more involved in your union.

That would be like telling him "if he thinks government is doing a bad job, he should get involved". No, it's easier just to say 'something bad is happening, therefore it has to go." After all, fixing things is hard, and he cannot remember/imagine what it would be like if the broken thing were gone.

Re:Unions

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California and into another State where the cost of doing business is much lower.

He won't though. He lives in California. He's not going to fly to Texas to manage one of his three companies if he can just make his shareholders pay to keep his commute short.

Re:Unions

[ebvwfbw]

I've seen this before. He'll move it. Just as they moved all kinds of industry out of New England south. Then, off shore. Unions are the scourge of the country for the most part. They are still useful in a few industries like electricians I understand.

I too was robbed by the Union. All it was for is to pay a bunch of freeloaders to do nothing.

Re:Unions

[wallsg]

Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California and into another State where the cost of doing business is much lower.

The only other state even nearly as liberal as California is New York which wouldn't solve any of the cost and union problems. If he moved to a conservative state (say, Texas or Arizona) he'd get boycotted by angry liberals who would say he's selling out The Cause (whatever they think it is) for money.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of parts of the country were $40/year is enough to own a home.

Holy crap, I'm living in the wrong part of the country! I could have paid off my student loans and car by now...

This is how Skynet starts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone really want to push Elon to replace humans with machines? Really?

This title is 'Morally Outrageous'

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, it gives a completely different impression than the title implies. But I guess the truth isn't as good as manipulating it to spread fud.

Something is fishy in Denmark

[darthsilun]

Moran claims he's worked there for four years.

Tesla/Musk claim Moran was paid to join Tesla to agitate for unionizing.

So he joined four years ago, and was silent for four years.

And only after four years of silence, four years of mandatory overtime, etc., etc., he starts to speak out.

At which point he's suddenly a shill for the UAW?. Dunno, whether he is or isn't a shill, that doesn't make it magically wrong, per se, to argue for a union.

(And perhaps it need not be the UAW, but if not them, then who?)

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Mashiki]

Not fishy at all. The Toyota plants in Woodstock, Ontario and Cambridge, Ontario have had multiple cases of this. People would get hired on usually by having a sterling resume, or qualifications that put them above the average worker to get hired on. Then after several years start agitating for unionization and so on. It's why the unionization vote at the Woodstock plant has failed at least 4 times that I know of.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

If this guy really instigated Union there's no way he was quiet until just recently. Just that Musk and media finally caught wind of it.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[drinkypoo]

People would get hired on usually by having a sterling resume, or qualifications that put them above the average worker to get hired on. Then after several years start agitating for unionization and so on.

So they work for years and then they want to be treated better and therefore they are a UAW plant who is evil and must be destroyed? I'm going to need more than that.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Lumpy]

If the employees are happy and feel they are paid fairly then any attempts to unionize will fail, the workers will just not have any desire to do so. Only when they feel that working conditions are bad or they are being treated unfairly or underpaid is when a place is ripe for unionization.

I have been hearing that tesla employees complain about working conditions and expectations, that can be a catalyst for one of these plants to get a union in place.
But if management has any brains at all it's easy to squash. you simply roll out better working conditions and things are are pretty much free to employees. Give them free sodas and snacks in the break room, give them longer breaks, increase their pay and have more open communication. Suddenly employee happiness shoots up and attempts to unionize drop to the floor. Paying $10 a day per employee in "free perks" is absolutely nothing at all compared to the costs of running a business.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't Mashiki, I'd say that it was a Poe's Law performance. But that guy's posting history reveals such a delusional state of mind that there can be no doubt that he truly believes that was a persuasive argument. Maybe even the most persuasive possible argument.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[AndyMoney]

Or Moran was a regular employee for 4 years and was recently offered a referral bonus from UAW for convincing workers to unionize? That seems more likely than Moran being a plant for 4 years in my opinion.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Altus]

Or he just think the working conditions aren't very good and things he and his fellow workers should engage in collective bargaining.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[DickBreath]

Referral Bonus is a nice euphemism for it.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[DickBreath]

He could be an ordinary employee, suddenly approached by union and bribed to start complaining. That hypothesis could explain the behavior.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Moran was a regular employee for 4 years and was recently offered a referral bonus from UAW for convincing workers to unionize?

On what basis have you made the determination that the UAW offered the guy anything more than the benefits of union representation?

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[ooloorie]

So he joined four years ago, and was silent for four years.

Well, it presumably takes a few years to build the kind of social network and connections that you need in order to rally workers around your cause.

whether he is or isn't a shill

He isn't a "shill"; a "shill" means something very different.

He may well have joined the company with the intent of organizing a union, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[fluffernutter]

Personally I'm wondering how the hell else unions ever get started. Basically Musk is just whining and bitching about the threat of a union here, let's be frank.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

. It's why the unionization vote at the Woodstock plant has failed at least 4 times that I know of.

Perhaps unionization failed in the Toyota Ontario plants because the employees feel that they are treated well and paid fairly? Whereas the folks at the GM plant/s up the proverbial road (Highway 401) feel they need to have some fighting for them:

Although Toyota told workers the union is not needed, Unifor credited the automaker with waging a fair and reasonable campaign against certification.

* http://www.lfpress.com/2016/07/01/close-vote-derails-drive-for-union-at-toyota-plants

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Grishnakh]

"Several years" is a LONG time to plant a mole for something like unionization. For a government doing really serious spying, sure. But a union mole? That defies all reason. Someone would need to be getting paid pretty well by the union to be a mole for that long.

It's much more reasonable to believe that someone who's idealistic and a top worker (because what union wants a bottom-of-the-barrel employee agitating for them?) worked for several years, and was then recruited by a union (after getting annoyed by the working conditions) to try to push for unionization.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. A new employee is easily dismissed, so a few years are necessary in order to have credibility with other employees. They also need to scope out the feel of the place. We had an agitator who didn't get anywhere and eventually was laid off in '08 with about 20% of the company.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just not credible. It is entirely credible that plant ownership/management would make up a story to inhibit unionizing efforts. But to believe that a person would spend four years just waiting to "spring the trap" is absurd. It is much more in the realm of reality that management has found a lie that sows distrust and blackens reputations when faced with unionization. For the record I don't think much of unions but this allegation is a whopper.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

If the employees are happy and feel they are paid fairly then any attempts to unionize will fail

Wrong. You forget that it is 2017. We are in the era where being a """"""victim"""""" is the new cool. If you tell people they are downtrodden by the eeeevil corporation, they'll believe it whether it is true or not.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

He may well have joined the company with the intent of organizing a union, and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is a lot wrong with that.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

But Musky says he's a victim of eeeevil UAW! I don't know what to do!

I think I'm the victim here!

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case, they hired a moran.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Mashiki]

So they work for years and then they want to be treated better and therefore they are a UAW plant who is evil and must be destroyed? I'm going to need more than that.

You mean when people dig into their past and find out that they were hired on to directly agitate? I can think of two cases that were reported in the Globe and Mail of people who directly worked for the Teamsters, suddenly left their cushy jobs and went to work on the floor at a brand new manufacturing plant.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Mashiki]

Or he just think the working conditions aren't very good and things he and his fellow workers should engage in collective bargaining.

From personal experience at a light-medium manufacturing plant and having seen those "referral bonuses" in action? I'm sure they're just doing a great job in pushing for working conditions. This is going way back to the early 00's, but when two people suddenly have high-end sedans and pay off their houses which they're very publicly open about? There's some kind of fuckery going on. Especially when both people were making $14/hr and spent every weekend partying their face off. It happens, and more then people realize. It's also a shitty way of doing things, especially for someone like me who's been union most of their employed life.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Mashiki]

If it weren't Mashiki, I'd say that it was a Poe's Law performance. But that guy's posting history reveals such a delusional state of mind that there can be no doubt that he truly believes that was a persuasive argument. Maybe even the most persuasive possible argument.

Don't worry. I'm sure you also believe members bill 103 isn't going to be used as a blasphemy law here in Canada, and used to silence dissenting view points and speech either. What? You haven't heard about that. Well I'm not surprised, the media is very silent on it. Especially after Trudeau Jr., came out saying that restrictions on speech are necessary.

Re:Something is fishy in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds as if he was a "sleeper" agent for the UAW - like the government employed Commies of the past. (Now, most gov-mint employees are.)

This is where government standards SHOULD come in

[jenningsthecat]

There should be no need and no place for a dispute over "not ergonomically compatible" and "excessive mandatory overtime". Legislated workplace standards, (and people of integrity to investigate complaints and enforce relevant legislation), should be in place to prevent this kind of dispute from being fought in the press. As for unions, they are an evil made necessary only by the fact that so much of government is in the pockets of corporations. Just my two cents worth.

They're magically delicious!

[turkeydance]

or morally outrageous, depending upon who i talk to while eating Lucky Charms.

Houston, we have a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters love the kind of forced conformity that unions strive for, but they also love Elon Musk. The result of this will be an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.

It's Fremont, not Freemont

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Fremont, not Freemont; it's named for the Pathfinder.

Re:It's Fremont, not Freemont

[TrumpShaker]

from Nissan? ;-)

Re:It's Fremont, not Freemont

[DickBreath]

No, the one sent to Mars.

Dear Muskrat, the honeymoon is over

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, your character will shine through, especially now that you've run out of shiny new things to distract people with.

Re:This is where government standards SHOULD come

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea. Let's get the Trump administration to sign off on these regulations right away. I'm sure everyone will agree that you're right.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Yah, and then basic income.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I'm so suspicious to see those rich bags babbling about basic income. When it comes to pay their people well (or even *gasp* treat them with dignity!) they get their panties tied up in a knot.

So their idea is: let the state pick up the costs. Paying more taxes? GAAAH!. "But we need the consumers!" "State's going to pay for that!"

We know that patten. At the end you are but the same old, greedy assholes.

I'd delighted to be proven wrong!

Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[alphad0g]

Sorry, this guy should quit and find another job.
Assembling a car is unskilled labor. Unionization just drives the cost of production up. If the work is to hard, then quit.

Is framing a house, pouring/finishing concrete or laying brick/tile ergonomic? People do it every day in bad weather.

Unions served a purpose when workers were exploited. There was a large pool of unskilled workers, and if one got hurt, you just got another one because the job required little skill. But the unions also artificially inflated wages for many of these jobs. OSHA and many local and federal laws now exist to protect workers that didn't exist many years ago.

All this guy is doing is highlighting why a company will eventually get rid of his job an use a robot to do the same repetitive task.

Re:Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't go bankrupt from unions first.. >All this guy is doing is highlighting why a company will eventually get rid of his job an use a robot to do the same repetitive task.

Re:Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[Lumpy]

Guarantee YOU cant do it, so you are even more unskilled.

Come on back when you actually understand how a car works and tell me it's unskilled. Assembly of the drivetrain on a ancient ICE car is not for the drool and stare crowd, an all electric setup can be far more difficult and you need to understand how to run each of the testing systems at each stage.

Re:Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

OSHA and many local and federal laws now exist to protect workers that didn't exist many years ago.

Those laws only exist because unions fought to get them. Depending on which politicians are in office, the enforcement of those laws ranges from mediocre to non-existant. And with the current bunch of morons in power, there will be an ever bigger push to eliminate all those terrible regulations that are hurting businesses.

Re:Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[Pascoea]

Watch a few episodes of "How its made" about anything related to automobiles. There is nothing particularly difficult about anything the majority of these workers are doing. (I realize this is a TV show, and not a substitute for experience. But I did spend a few years as a test technician in an electronics contract manufacturer, so I have some first hand manufacturing/assembly experience that I assume translates.)

Assembly steps are made idiot proof, documented to a T, and each person has exactly 1 job they need to get good at. Everything has a jig: Put the jig in place, add the part, use the automated tool to fasten, send to the next station. All of the tests are automated: Plug the car in, follow the on-screen prompts. If any of these steps don't go as planned an assembly/test technician is called in to troubleshoot.

I'm not saying people that assemble things for a living are dumb. I'm saying that there are people who assemble things for a living that are dumb (just like every other occupation on earth). As a manufacturer you have to assume these people are on your line, so you build your process to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Make everything as idiot proof as possible, and have a few higher paid good people around to keep things moving.

Re:Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Framing, pouring concrete, etc are not repetitive tasks because you're working in different conditions, positions, etc all the time.

Being on an assembly line and doing the same motion 1000's of times, if not ergonomically correct, will destroy your body.

Re:Unionization worked in the past, kill it now.

[omnichad]

Is framing a house, pouring/finishing concrete or laying brick/tile ergonomic? People do it every day in bad weather.

Also doesn't qualify as repetitive motion. These jobs are ripe for robotic automation - and that means severe body stress if you're not given the right conditions. Unless you think that they should all be paid well enough to retire at 40, disabled, then this is a real problem.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous Coward]

So labor costs need to be "reasonable" in order to assure you can have nice things? Spoken like a true slaver.

Healthcare is a simple one to solve; force everyone to post prices nightly and no more violating Robinson Patman. Everything else, including liability for goofups, is handled by insurance.

Here's the reality of the situation.

Engaging in wage arbitrage by using foreign labor; bringing in H1B's, engaging in visa fraud, offshoring work that still happens on-shore, and so forth; is literally taking bribes, because the money you get is from a foreign government providing you with slave labor to do work in a foreign country at domesitc rates. The foreign governement's benefit is the ability to steal the domestic technology, subjugate the domestic population and influence domestic policy, otherwise there's no benefit. India has recieved a technology market by indenturing what, less than 1\10th of 1% of it's population? What have Americans gotten for this? That's a pretty good trade, for them.

If we had never outsourced H1B's and we had never off-shored our industrial and electronics manufacturing companies, we'd be so far ahead of where we are today. If China or India were innovating we'd see it. What has happened is we've severely damaged our education and economic infrastructure so asshats like Musk can pocket a some change from backassward 3rd world countries that have never and will never pull themselves out of poverty, and in doing so, we've destroyed ourselves to the point we're no better than they are. Used to be America was an example, nowadays North Korea is the example. Frankly, the world doesn't need bat-shit crazy robber-baron figureheads or bullshit buzz words like "giga factory" to innovate. It's a distraction.

Oh dear

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Tesla Employee Calls For Unionization, Musk Says That's 'Morally Outrageous'

Anytime a billionaire objects to something on "moral" grounds, be suspicious.

If it involves unionizing one of the factories that made him a billionaire, be doubly suspicious.

But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we are in the post-Luddite 3D printed asteroid mined future? What is all this "factory" and "worker" stuff?

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to my 3D printed living room in my Mars condo and downloading a car.

UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I'm not a fan of Elon Musk's approach to things, but i have to agree with him on this. Of course the UAW would be after him once he gets enough momentum for Tesla, it's what the UAW does. And frankly it's the UAW's policies that have crushed the old car manufacturers in the US; their ability to redesign production processes is severely hampered by union rules.

The reason I support Musk though on this is because if the things that this guy claims is true of Tesla's plant, then frankly they don't need to unionize to improve conditions because the plant would be illegal under California labor law. I've worked in manufacturing facilities in California nearly my entire life. So either Tesla is operating illegally, or this guy is making a lot of false claims to cause agitation. I doubt the California Labor Commission (CLC) would have not inspected a 5,000 employee plant by now, so the more likely scenario is this guy is making stuff up.

From his post:

"Most of my 5,000-plus coworkers work well over 40 hours a week, including excessive mandatory overtime. "

This is extremely illegal under California state law; then penalties for companies for this are really harsh. Musk can't even get away with it by making his employees salaried exempt, the CLC takes a very hard stance on classifying employees of a particular job differently than another company. And they do inspect.

"The hard, manual labor we put in to make Tesla successful is done at great risk to our bodies."

Tesla's plant is heavily automated so I find this unlikely. I also find it unlikely that OSHA has not inspected a 5,000 employee plant for safety and health hazardous issues given how OSHA operates, so this is a questionable statement.

"There is too much twisting and turning and extra physical movement to do jobs that could be simplified if workers’ input were welcomed. Add a shortage of manpower and a constant push to work faster to meet production goals, and injuries are bound to happen."

I could see ergonomics to be a problem, and Tesla is under a crunch to deliver vehicles and meet performance measurements. And given how fast Tesla has grown, I could see their production lines being made in a haphazard and inefficient and not ergonomic way. But again, I doubt it. Tesla took a lot of influence from Toyota (including investment) on this plant, and frankly Toyota's lines are far and above the best in the business when it comes to efficiency and worker safety. So it's possible, but again unlikely.

"Most Tesla production workers earn between $17 and $21 hourly. The average auto worker in the nation earns $25.58 an hour, and lives in a much less expensive region. The living wage in Alameda county, where we work, is more than $28 an hour for an adult and one child (I have two)."

I'm sorry buddy, but labor is a market. If you don't like your rate go find another job that pays better, it's that simple. You signed up for the job at this rate, you can always leave and find another. It' unethical to go into a job with a pay rate you knew was low when you signed up, and then threaten unionization to increase the pay rate; that's you threatening trying to break an employment contract you signed.

"A few months ago, six out of eight people in my work team were out on medical leave at the same time due to various work-related injuries."

This is extremely unlikely. Work related injuries must be reported to OSHA on an ongoing basis. If a whole team is down due to people out due to medical injuries, even if the management is a cold-hearted I would think they'd be concerned about the efficiency of this team and try to make fixes, because this would shut down an entire functional group in the plant. Not only that, if 6 out of 8 on a team were out and those were reported to OSHA, then OSHA would be sending inspectors in almost next day. So for this to be true, Tesla would have to be breaking Federal employment law by not reporting injuries to OSHA, so he's either claiming that Tes

Re: UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it adorable that you believe just because something is illegal or supposed to be checked against that means it isn't happening.

Re: UAW scam job

[fluffernutter]

I'm surprised you didn't laugh out loud at the concept that labor law can protect workers interests adequately. I have known so many people working unpaid hours that just put up with it because they know complaining to a labor board about a huge corporation with infinite resources will probably just make things worse for them.

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I'm not a fan of Elon Musk's approach to things, but i have to agree with him on this. Of course the UAW would be after him once he gets enough momentum for Tesla, it's what the UAW does. And frankly it's the UAW's policies that have crushed the old car manufacturers in the US; their ability to redesign production processes is severely hampered by union rules.

Then perhaps Musk should look at Toyota when it comes to company culture: in Ontario there have multiple attempts to unionize over quite a number of years, and all have failed to get enough votes (so far).

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

Then perhaps Musk should look at Toyota when it comes to company culture: in Ontario there have multiple attempts to unionize over quite a number of years, and all have failed to get enough votes (so far).

Right. Because the factories are run well enough that the employees don't want to pay UAW fees for no reason. Just because the union has failed to materialize doesn't mean the factories are bad; your argument is a logical fallacy.

Re: UAW scam job

[omnichad]

Yeah - like wage theft from tipped employees. It's endemic. If you live in an area with a lower minimum wage for tipped employees and that employee doesn't make it to minimum wage through tips, the employer has to cover the difference. Instead, they estimate tips based on what they think the employee should have made and even try to get income taxes levied on those non-existent tips rather than pay the gap.

Re:UAW scam job

[nbauman]

"The hard, manual labor we put in to make Tesla successful is done at great risk to our bodies."

Tesla's plant is heavily automated so I find this unlikely. I also find it unlikely that OSHA has not inspected a 5,000 employee plant for safety and health hazardous issues given how OSHA operates, so this is a questionable statement.

Actually Tesla has failed inspections.

http://insideevs.com/tesla-mot...
Tesla Motors Fined $89,000 For 7 Safety Violations Linked To Fremont Factory Incident

        “Tesla employees Jesus Navarro, Kevin Carter and Jorge Terrazas were taken to Valley Medical Center in San Jose with second- and third-degree burns. Carter and Terrazas have returned to work. Navarro, who had burns on his hands, stomach, hip, lower back and ankles, was hospitalized for 20 days and continues to recuperate at home.”

        “Cal-OSHA’s investigation found that Tesla failed to ensure that the low-pressure die casting machine was maintained in a safe operating condition and allowed its employees to operate the machine while the safety interlock was broken. It also found that the employees had not been properly trained regarding the hazards of the machine, and were not wearing the required eye and face protection.”

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/cit...

4/25/2014 Tesla Motors, Inc. Fremont Fremont District Office
Serious – 6
General – 1
Total
Violations - 7

  Citations were issued to Tesla Motors, Inc. for six Serious and one General violation. The employer did not conduct periodic inspections of use of a low pressure die casting machine, and allowed employees to continue using the machine after a safety interlock had been damaged, which resulted in injuries to three employees who were sprayed with molten metal. The employer failed to release the air pressure used to inject molten aluminum into molds before servicing, did not maintain the machine in safe operating condition and did not use a protective shield. The employer did not ensure that employees were trained in the hazards of using the machine, and did not ensure that employees used eye and face protection.

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey pal. You assert agency oversight that really does not exist. Federally these were gutted in the 1980's. California competed with other states for the plant so it isn't going to kick up a fuss. The US is not some worker's paradise so I believe your doubts about this guy's honesty are not well founded by you argument. I don't like unions but there really is no need to assault this guys character.

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey pal. You assert agency oversight that really does not exist. Federally these were gutted in the 1980's. California competed with other states for the plant so it isn't going to kick up a fuss. The US is not some worker's paradise so I believe your doubts about this guy's honesty are not well founded by you argument. I don't like unions but there really is no need to assault this guys character.

My personal experience for the last 10 years in 3 different manufacturing companies says differently. So I suspect you're running a liberal party line and not speaking from true experience in manufacturing.

But again, stop trying to spin my words into something else. I never said this was worker's paradise; again I've worked in manufacturing in California and I do know the issues. My entire point was that his claims are highly unlikely given what he's claiming and what the labor commissions actually look for and do inspect on. In fact the guy above you posted facts showing Tesla has been reviewed and has failed their inspections, so your whole point is invalid.

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

Where to start?

"Most of my 5,000-plus coworkers work well over 40 hours a week, including excessive mandatory overtime." This is extremely illegal under California state law; then penalties for companies for this are really harsh. Musk can't even get away with it by making his employees salaried exempt, the CLC takes a very hard stance on classifying employees of a particular job differently than another company. And they do inspect.

From the State of California's Department of Industrial Relations: "Q. Can an employer require an employee to work overtime? A. Yes, an employer may dictate the employee's work schedule and hours. Additionally, under most circumstances the employer may discipline an employee, up to and including termination, if the employee refuses to work scheduled overtime."

(your disbelief that the work is risky)

I'm sure your opinion of whether the work is prone to injury at a place you've never been on a job you've never held, as well as your idea of how much risk that worker should willingly bear, is very much valued. Please give me details of your work situation so that I may tell you what it's really like.

I'm sorry buddy, but labor is a market.

You're clearly not sorry, and you're ignoring what is a fundamental justification of unionizing. If there were 30,000 employers involved in making a car, I'd say the 30,000 employees of Tesla should indeed go out and negotiate on their own.

Work related injuries must be reported to OSHA on an ongoing basis. If a whole team is down due to people out due to medical injuries, even if the management is a cold-hearted I would think they'd be concerned about the efficiency of this team and try to make fixes, because this would shut down an entire functional group in the plant. Not only that, if 6 out of 8 on a team were out and those were reported to OSHA, then OSHA would be sending inspectors in almost next day. So for this to be true, Tesla would have to be breaking Federal employment law by not reporting injuries to OSHA, so he's either claiming that Tesla is acting in an extremely illegal way by not reporting injuries, or he's lying.

Yes, whenever an employee is killed on the job or suffers a work-related hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye, that must be reported. He's neither lying, nor is Tesla operating illegally- it's that you're wrong about the law.

Nevermind, I'm tired of typing. Do I need to bother to tell you there's a difference between whistleblowing and speaking? To question whether "the last 30 years" is a relevant time period to measure unionized vs. non-unionized efficiency when the power of unions has been declining during that entire period, and wasn't particularly strong at the start of that period? You've made up your mind- there's simply no other reason you'd make claims about stuff you're clearly legally wrong about if you hadn't already decided you hate unions.

Re:UAW scam job

[galabar]

Is that it? For having run for a fair amount of time, it seems like a small list.

Re:UAW scam job

[nbauman]

No, that's not it. My point was in response to the AC.

He didn't believe the union organizer's complaint that there were safety problems at Tesla, because OSHA inspected the plant.

If your complaint is safety in the workplace, it helps to have OSHA inspectors. It also helps to have a union that is concerned about workplace safety.

I've never looked up Tesla's safety record, and I don't know whether they're acceptable, or whether they're better or worse than the rest of the industry. I only know that the AC's assumption was unwarranted.

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

It' unethical to go into a job with a pay rate you knew was low when you signed up, and then threaten unionization to increase the pay rate; that's you threatening trying to break an employment contract you signed.

WTF is this garbage? Are you telling me Tesla employees actually have contracts as opposed to the usual at-will arrangement that most US businesses use? If not then there is no contract and there is then obviously no threat to break said imaginary contract they never signed.

capcha: curtness

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

UAW is plenty strong. The trades at union shops are rife with friends clocking in/out friends, drunkenness, etc. yet management can't stop it. Guess where all that extra expense goes? Into the sale price.

Re:UAW scam job

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It' unethical to go into a job with a pay rate you knew was low when you signed up, and then threaten unionization to increase the pay rate; that's you threatening trying to break an employment contract you signed.

I take it you've never asked for a raise then?

Re:UAW scam job

[Anonymous Coward]

" It' unethical to go into a job with a pay rate you knew was low when you signed up, and then threaten unionization to increase the pay rate; that's you threatening trying to break an employment contract you signed." I really doubt most production workers sign "an employment contract". I would guess all the production workers are "At Will" employees, meaning the company can fire them for any or no reason at all. That is one area unions do help, the company cannot just fire you for no reason.

Re:UAW scam job

[interstellarsurfer]

It also helps to have employees who aren't total morons. The UAW isn't necessarily needed. Most intelligent people would have razed hell after their first co-worker was injured. It never hurts to have OSHA on speed-dial, and any employer that disagrees with that statement is welcome to pay-me-unemployment-long-time.

Re:UAW scam job

[nbauman]

It also helps to have employees who aren't total morons. The UAW isn't necessarily needed. Most intelligent people would have razed hell after their first co-worker was injured. It never hurts to have OSHA on speed-dial, and any employer that disagrees with that statement is welcome to pay-me-unemployment-long-time.

Do you know more about workplace safety than I do? Have you ever called OSHA about a safety issue?

First, there are only 2,200 inspectors for 8 million worksites and 130 million workers, so -- to put it one way -- each inspector would have to visit 10 workplaces a day to have one inspection a year. https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/...

You can call OSHA, but that doesn't mean they'll show up that day -- or that year. It's simple arithmetic. They don't have the staff to investigate every complaint. They can only investigate the worst complaints, and the ones they can do something about.

That's due in part to cutbacks in conservative, usually Republican, federal and state administrations. I once read some studies by California OSHA on workplace fatalities, and talked to a California OSHA inspector. The studies were very good, and they identified the major causes of electrocutions, which weren't obvious. They saved lives. Then the series was discontinued, and I asked the inspector why. He said, "Ronald Reagan."

There are some industries, and some companies, with good safety records, and some with bad safety records.

The ones with good safety records, like the aircraft industry, or the nuclear power industry, had cooperation between government agencies, private employers, and unions. If you take one leg off that tripod, then you can't do as good a job.

Particularly in the coal mining industry, there were some employers who were just assholes and didn't care about employee safety. They get OSHA fines, they treat the fines as the cost of doing business, and they do a better job of concealing their safety violations. In those outfits, you need all the help you can get, including government agencies and unions, and even so, you'll have needless fatalities.

There are some people who just have an ideological opposition to unions. I can never convince them otherwise.

Problem with some unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions were created to stop abuses. Unfortunately, some unions have become abusive. There needs to be a reasonable balance.

Re:Problem with some unions

[DickBreath]

It all depends on whether the unions or the employers are the biggest abusers at any given time. How do you write regulations for that?

But then there is the siren call of deregulate everything! Corporations should be able to do absolutely anything they can imagine to fulfill their shareholders' dreams without any kind of restraints whatsoever!

Re:Problem with some unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...you represent a rather dystopian view of a 'free market economy'. Not surprising since most people take 'no regulations' as 'no controls on companies', that's simply not true. Especially as 'no regulations' at the federal level do NOT imply the same at a State, City or County (note NOT 'country' with an extra 'r') level. But the dynamics of this problem go FAR deeper than simply regulations on companies or rules for unionization.

The problem you set up eg. 'unions or the employers are the biggest abusers as any given time so how you you write regulations?' is that you DON'T. That doesn't mean unions won't exist or that unions & companies will be free to do whatever they please. The basic idea that people can collectively negotiate a contract for services (e.g. 'unionize') would already be well handled by contract law and if a company feels the demands of that collective are out of bounds they can negotiate with others to supply those services (in this case labor). The problem of a company taking advantage of their workers or unions trying to impose their demands on a company, or more likely a union trying to impose its demands on 3rd parties NOT subject to the contract (e.g. 'scabs'/replacement workers) is & always will be a 'temporary mis allocation of resources'. Which is a fluid dynamic that can't be managed by regulation. At any given time a company may have the 'upper hand' e.g. 'there are more skilled workers that can do the jobs and will accept the pay & working conditions the company offers' & at other times the workers will have the upper hand, e.g. 'there are insufficient skilled workers for the jobs so the workers either collectively or individually can negotiate pay & working conditions the company has to accept'.

By & large we aren't discussing 'entirely unskilled labor', e.g. simply being able to use a shovel or swing a pick-axe, carry a 100 lb load off a ship etc. While I don't work for Tesla and have never been to their factory to see how a Tesla is made I am reasonably well educated enough to presume that the workers can't simply or easily be replaced by anyone off the street. There is an 'opportunity cost' in the training of those workers to do the job needed. So its not just a question of shipping the jobs off to Mexico or another country or even a different state with lower standards of living & ready/willing workers though of course there is that consideration for a company if the workers in a given area demand too much.

Push comes to shove if a given job needs 'x amount of education' to do and there are sufficient workers anywhere in the world with that level of education (or could easily obtain it) than a company is going to manufacture their product in that area of the world where the pay & other costs of labor (even 'replacement costs for those that are injured or die because of the working conditions) are the lowest. This is of course only ONE of the cost inputs, there are many others. But since we're talking about labor this is the only consideration that matters to this discussion. The goal of any given job seeker than is to not just obtain an education level of 'x' but always try to be well above 'x' so as to be able to do those jobs that demand the highest of education & are the hardest to replace. I'm not assuming that is easy, but the days of simply getting a job & working it until you die without any expectation to continue developing your education/skills are LONG gone. GET OVER IT. O, and of course workers have to be willing to RELOCATE to those places where they can be paid sufficiently to meet their needs. Again, expecting the world to be the way you want it to be so you can have your house with a white picket fence a wife (or husband) that stays at home to cook meals & take care of the household are LONG gone. And even if people are more attuned to that & are just wanting a 'decent standard of living so I can cloth, feed and shelter myself while going out for a few drinks with friends once in a while' they ST

Headline

[mhkohne]

Ars Technica DID fix the headline at some point. It no longer implies that Musk said Unions were morally outrageous. The fact that they originally ran with that headline is...not a good thing.

Is there any evidence aside from Moran's statement that he's been with Tesla 4 years? Because if he has, it SERIOUSLY undermines Musk's contention that he's paid by the UAW to organize. I'd like to see Musk's evidence of that assertion, if any way.

Also: IF the UAW did pay someone to go to work somewhere else just to try to get the workers their to unionize, I would consider that a pretty reprehensible thing to do. Such a person is lying about why they are on the job, and are taking a job away from someone else, so no that's not OK.

But presently I don't think there's any evidence that's happened here, and baring actual evidence, I think Musk should probably shut up.

I would encourage the UAW to advertise where these workers are likely to see it, and try to make contact with as many of them as they can. These people could probably use the support of a union, and there's no reason it shouldn't be the UAW.

Competition for employees seems to work

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the answer was for employees to switch companies for better treatment, higher pay, etc. With h-1bs, it seems like Silicon Valley has rediscovered the plutocracy.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things.

[CodeArtisan]

Tesla is making cool cars that are good for the environment along with all kinds of other cool things. And now somebody wants to screw it all up by bringing in unions and making labor costs skyrocket. Trump needs to understand this is a two-way street - the reason companies send jobs overseas is because of sky-high labor costs in the USA. The only way that will ever change in the long run is to keep labor costs reasonable - which means reining in the unions. Same thing with health care - they can mess around with the insurance schemes and subsidies all they want, but in the end the only thing that is going to help is to address the root cause of the problem, which is out of control medical costs at the provider level.

The reason companies send jobs overseas is because paying a living wage eats into their massive profits. The CEOs don't want to scrape by on $50 million a year when they can live it up on $75 million a year. If that means some kid in India has to suffer, then that's the cost of doing business. As for health care, you know, the rest of the civilized world addressed it decades ago with a government run single payer system.

And this is where Musk loses his hero tag...

[Lumpy]

They are calling for a union because they are being mistreated. Therefore he prefers the mistreatment and not being Morally fair to the employees.

Re:And this is where Musk loses his hero tag...

[Anonymous Coward]

What evidence do you have, other than anecdote, that anyone is being mistreated?

I found the article misleading

[Chrisq]

Elon Musk didn't say that a call for unionisation was morally outrageous. He said that for someone to be "paid by the UAW to join Tesla and agitate for a union" was morally outrageous. There's quite a difference

Re:I found the article misleading

[oh_my_080980980]

No Musk said complaints against Telsa are morally outrageous.

Quote: "“Frankly, I find this attack to be morally outrageous."

Deal with it asshole.

Re:I found the article misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, nice job (purposefully?) misquoting.

Quote: "Our understanding is that this guy was paid by the UAW to join Tesla and agitate for a union. Frankly, I find this attack to be morally outrageous."

Read the first sentence of the quote. Its exactly what the OP said it was.

Re:I found the article misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Article was updated.

Update 10/2/17 9:20am EST: In a statement this morning UAW categorically denied that Moran had ever been paid by their organization. “Mr. Moran is not and has not been paid by the UAW,” the statement claims. “We would hope that Tesla would apologize to their employee.” UAW goes on to confirm reporting done by Bloomberg yesterday that “Mr. Moran and others at Tesla, have approached the UAW.”

Re:I found the article misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Without any evidence backing Elon Musk's claim, there is no difference at all.

Re:I found the article misleading

[WindBourne]

the article was fine. It was the title that the anti-musk /. poster put on it.

Re:I found the article misleading

[WindBourne]

and you think that UAW will tell the truth? LOL.

That like comparing Teslas and Edisons

[Anonymous Coward]

First off - I don't think that Walmart employees earn between $17 and $21 hourly.

And as far as mandatory UNPAID overtime, Wally is king in that neighborhood.

You're fired!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed with the current administration in power, watch out for shrinking employees rights and benefits, and growing employers powers and abuses.

Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

So I agree with you that unions should only have to represent members in good standing who pay their union dues, its the laws requiring or allowing 100% union shops against individual employees wishes that need to be gotten rid of.

Hhhm, you are arguing that the government should meddle in the contracts that a company makes with its suppliers. The idea that a company is legally forbidden from signing an exclusive contract with a supplier is about as anti-free market as it gets.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Richard_at_work]

The government already meddles to allow this - its called the National Labor Relations Act, and the Taft-Hartly act to basically overturn previous court rulings that closed union shops were illegal. They no longer call them "closed shops", but rather "union security agreements" but they are basically the same thing - the union gets dues from *all* workers, even those who do not want to join.

If a union vote doesnt pass with 100% of the workforces approval, why should it be the exclusive supplier? Because, the union will argue, its influence is diminished if it isn't - and so the rights of individual workers are trampled on because they are forced to pay dues to an entity they want nothing to do with.

It is not right, and its a setup you will find illegal in most of the rest of the world, where individual employee rights are respected. The UK made closed shops illegal in 1990.

An employee should be legally free to engage in his or her job without outside interference from a third party, even if that third party has contracts with other people in the workplace.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

> The government already meddles to allow this - its called the National Labor Relations Act,

Irrelevant to your argument that it should be illegal to allow 100% union shops.

> If a union vote doesnt pass with 100% of the workforces approval, why should it be the exclusive supplier?

Because business is not a democracy. When a company purchases components and raw materials nobody gets a vote on the contract. If they don't want to be a supplier under the terms the company offers then they are free to take their business elsewhere.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Richard_at_work]

It should be illegal for unions to require memberships and dues - its interference in a contract you have with your employer.

Bear in mind here that Im talking about shops unionising, not a worker joining a unionised shop - the two have different arguments to be made. An employee could be working somewhere for 10 years and is forced out because the union has required 100% membership - I don't get why that is legal and ethical in the US?!

Oh, and lets not forget here that we aren't talking about the employer shopping around for labour contracts - its a given group of their workers saying "we now want to be represented by this union leadership", which is fine, they are individually handing their contracts over to the union to manage. Its then the union saying "ok, we require you to fire anyone who doesn't pay us dues" that is the disgusting part.

In any sane, ethical setup, an employee should be able to say "you don't represent me, I want nothing to do with you" and still be safe in their job. Which they can't do because of union bullying.

So no, its not equal to when a company purchases components or raw materials - the union is bullying their way in on all the employees, whether they like it or not.

And lets not pretend that its the company offering terms, the company has no choice in this at all - the union, the NLRA and the Taft-Hartly Act force the employer to accept the union terms. The company can't reject the union - thats also illegal, the union has protections in most states against anti-union activities by the company.

The NLRA isn't irrelevant at all - its the thing which over rules prior court rulings to specifically allow the union to force the company to do something. Without it, union shops and union security agreements (woah, sounds like protection money...) would be illegal because they interfere with individual employee rights. The NLRA and the Taft-Hartly Act basically allows the union to interfere in the contracts of people who want nothing to do with the union.

So yeah, the union shop or union security agreement setup in the US is fucking disgusting and should be illegal.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be illegal for unions to require memberships and dues - its interference in a contract you have with your employer.

Nope. The employee agrees to those dues as part of the contract with the employer.

ts then the union saying "ok, we require you to fire anyone who doesn't pay us dues" that is the disgusting part.

At-will employment is the law of the land. You can be fired for nearly any reason or no reason at all. Just like you can quit for any reason without penalty.

Everything else you wrote is just more of the same "contracts are only OK when they benefit the employer" sophistry.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Richard_at_work]

You are simply demonstrating that you cant discuss anything rationally.

The employee in this case has already agreed a contract with their employer, one which doesn't involve the union. You seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.

The union is *forcing* the employer to alter that contract, to the benefit of the union, without the employees agreement. You also seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.

The union is interfering in the contracts between two other parties. Another thing you seem to be blatantly ignoring.

That interference should be illegal.

And you also seem to think that the only fair contract is one a union comes up with - an employee could never negotiate for themselves a decent contract...

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

The employee in this case has already agreed a contract with their employer, one which doesn't involve the union. You seem to be blatantly ignoring that fact.

None of those employment contracts contain a provision giving them better than at-will employment status.
Therefore the union is not interfering at all.

You are simply demonstrating that you cant discuss anything rationally.

Considering that you have to rely on lying by omission to defend your position, its clear you are projecting.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Richard_at_work]

Of course its interfering - if the union didnt force the change to the contract, the company wouldn't change the contract. Thats the very definition of interference. The union requires the company to do something that neither the company nor the employee would have done voluntarily. Interference.

And the employee may continue to work unhindered for another 10 years under their existing contract - don't act like the company was about to fire the worker at any moment and the union is swooping in like a super hero to save the workers position at the very last moment.

Considering that you have to rely on lying by omission to defend your position, its clear you are projecting.

"Lying by omission" - oh yay, we have another alt-fact twat trying to change the topic of the discussion...

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course its interfering - if the union didnt force the change to the contract, the company wouldn't change the contract. Thats the very definition of interference

No its not. Well, maybe it is in layman's terms. But its not the legal definition.
Its the equivalent of saying if a new supplier offers a company a better deal to switch then that's interfering with the previous supplier's contract.

And if all you've got is a layman's argument, don't try to use legal terms to defend it.

"Lying by omission" - oh yay, we have another alt-fact twat trying to change the topic of the discussion...

Keep on projecting...

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not right, and its a setup you will find illegal in most of the rest of the world, where individual employee rights are respected. The UK made closed shops illegal in 1990.

Wow. You know you've gone down the rabbit hole when you cite Thatcherism's triumph over labor as some kind of human rights victory.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Richard_at_work]

Its *not* the equivalent of a supplier offering a company a better deal, its the equivalent of a brand new supplier *requiring* the company to switch WHETHER IT WANTS TO OR NOT. And and the same time, requiring the company to alter the old suppliers contracts so the old supplier now has to supply through the new supplier.

You have to be one dumb shit to not understand that. Or a union leader. Same thing really.

And please do continue with the "projecting" crap, its quite entertaining.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Richard_at_work]

Yes, because being forced into union membership is a human right you simply *must* have foisted on you, and absolutely everything Thatcher did was wrong...

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

its the equivalent of a brand new supplier *requiring* the company to switch WHETHER IT WANTS TO OR NOT.

Nope. There is no such requirement. The union can go on strike and the company is free to hire scabs.
Surely, you wouldn't argue against the ability of a party to a contract to negotiate. Right?
Oh yeah, negotiation is only valid for capital owners...

And please do continue with the "projecting" crap, its quite entertaining.

Its good to be able to laugh at yourself. Its good you are starting. You need to do it more often.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[dbIII]

Everyone should have to negotiate on their own without help from a position of weakness.
Is that what you are trying to say?

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[omnichad]

It should be illegal for unions to require memberships and dues - its interference in a contract you have with your employer.

Which is why most union employer contracts are between the union and the employer directly. You can either work under that contract or not at all. At least in at-will employment states you can be fired for any cause. Not accepting the other contract is included in that.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[MobyDisk]

Can I join a different union? Or is a union a monopoly?

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because being forced into union membership is a human right you simply *must* have foisted on you

You sound like one of those faux libertarians. The kind that are happy to embrace all that keeping government out of business until the consequences personally offend you and then you are all for government interference.

People literally died at the hands of factory owners for the right to organize.
You are “As ignorant of the world as of the subject.”

and absolutely everything Thatcher did was wrong...

Interesting deflection. The one thing nobody can realistically argue is that thatcher was a friend to the workingman.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Cederic]

As an employer, my contracts are with my staff. I do not contract a union to provide staff for me. That's an outsourcing relationship and I'm legally allowed to switch outsourcers at will. Yes, I can stop paying for your unionised arse because you don't work for me if you're telling me a union is a supplier.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Cederic]

Nope. The employee agrees to those dues as part of the contract with the employer.

Not if the employee is working there prior to unionisation.

Also, why the fuck should I pay some cunt a cut of my salary to interfere negatively in my relationship with my employer? Fuck that.

Closed shops are a fucking travesty and horrifically anti-employee.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Cederic]

Therefore the union is not interfering at all.

Removing my right to negotiate my own terms with the employer is interference.
Extorting money from me is pretty fucking serious interference.
Destroying my working environment is interference.
Destroying my employer is interference.

The union and its officials can go take an acid bath.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Cederic]

the company is free to hire scabs.

Oh, anybody that doesn't toe the union line is a scab? Even if they're not in the union? Shit, that's prima facie justification for violence.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems to be an interpretation that you brought to the conversation.
Its one of those unintentionally revealing statements.
Keep it up! Those are the best kind of statements.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, you aren't an employer of anybody.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[dywolf]

So when a union is required to represent everyone in a bargaining unit, which they are, including non members, you think its right that the non members dont have to shoulder their share of the cost of representation, such as the CBA negotiation or lawyers involved in labor disputes an grievances? that shit has costs.

Right to Work is the biggest con employers ever pulled on employees.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[dywolf]

thats straight up ignorant bullshit.
the company absolutely can reject the union and ignore CBAs.
my own literally did just that.

you do not know what you are fucking talking about.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[dywolf]

and absolutely everything Thatcher did was wrong...

Now you're learning.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[dywolf]

Bullshit.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[roman_mir]

Closed shows are anti-employee. Unions are racketeering. Collectivism is oppression.

It's interesting to observe the USA go down the drain due to all of the collectivization it engaged in since the Sherman's act was first used to destroy individual rights. Everything that came after that was pre-ordained, the wars, the depressions, the dollar destruction, all of the business and labour regulations, theft of property and of income, anti-individualism (thus anti-humanism), all of the self destruction started with theft.

Re:Right to Work for Peanuts is Anti-Free Market

[Shane_Optima]

If a union vote doesnt pass with 100% of the workforces approval, why should it be the exclusive supplier? Because, the union will argue, its influence is diminished if it isn't - and so the rights of individual workers are trampled on because they are forced to pay dues to an entity they want nothing to do with. It is not right, and its a setup you will find illegal in most of the rest of the world, where individual employee rights are respected.

The real question here is why unions are treated so differently. If Best Buy wants to hire Acme Janitorial Services (a for-profit company not owned by the janitors themselves) for their maintenance, no one bats an eye. I mean, I couldn't walk in, as a freelance janitor, and expect Best Buy to hire me no matter how good my resume looked.

Why is *that* not a horrendous abuse of my rights, but the same exact setup with in-house janitors who belong to a union somehow is?

It's more than just disordered thinking; the whole thing smacks of stale anti-communist/socialist propaganda. Literally the only in-principle difference of importance between the two scenarios is that workers have some measure of control over the union, and that the union has a free market motivation to keep wages high. (In practice, there are some other important differences but your argument was an in-principle ideological one.)

An employee should be legally free to engage in his or her job without outside interference from a third party, even if that third party has contracts with other people in the workplace.

Again, try pulling your head outside of that rotting "better dead than red" echo chamber for a moment and mulling over what that sentence literally means.

If you want to abolish the ability for all corporate entities to sign any exclusivity agreement with another corporate entities... that would be interesting to see. But it's going to affect a hell of a lot more than just unions.

What does Musk say about Boeing

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Musk on the liberal side against Boeing? Did he follow the liberal agenda for everything else?
Was he a hard core left winger up until it hit HIS WALLET? Typical.
I don't like unions, but I dislike hypocrites more.

Joining a job?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our understanding is that this guy was paid by the UAW to join Tesla and agitate for a union.

People don't 'join' companies; they're not voluntary associations or social clubs that take any members. People apply for a job, and the company hires them. Musk, Tesla hired this guy you don't like to do a job.

Don't like it? Move somewhere else

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like making $21 in the SF Bay area, move and get a new job.

Now this plant will build the robots

[Provocateur]

Musk was wondering where to build the plant that will eventually build robots that will soon populate his plants with the prototypes with production programmed into their protons.

Now he knows where to start. Note to self: No man will ever have to train his replacement. Ever. Not on my watch.

My question is: CEO salaries????

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the productivity level of Tesla and what is the ratio between what the average worker at Tesla takes in vs what Musk takes in as CEO. That never seems to be discussed in these exchanges. Everyone always wants to argue about whether the factory worker is worth $21 or $25 per hour in these discussions but no one ever seems to get around to discussing whether the CEO and officers of the company are worth their salaries and benefits. Is organized labor really to blame for making the cost of factories in in America too high or is corporate greed to blame because while you can certainly find cheaper labor (vs. America) in a country like Bangladesh, you can also find cheaper management in most countries in the world. I don't think Japanese, Korean, or European CEOs make as much or have the kind of Golden Parachutes that American CEOs have.

If we're talking about doing business in America, shouldn't this ALSO be a part of the discussion?

Re:My question is: CEO salaries????

[omnichad]

Tesla's CEO salary has always been reasonable. And even as a shareholder he doesn't make a whole lot.

Re: This is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk is a smart guy. And yet he bought a factory in the People's Republic of California that had been put out of business to produce the same class of product in the same environment. And he didn't see this coming?
This is partly to be blamed on the system of other people's money being almost free, instead of having to make a case for a business loan based on the viability of the product you want to produce.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Tech corporations are the same corporate slime as other corporations. I don't jnow what msde you kids believe otherwise. Hopefully you are noe beginning to wake up. Additionally it be known that Jose in the story is very likely Mexican, H1-B concerns, my ass. Theses companies want cheap labor, period (so as to garner more of their profit for themselves) whrn they claim Americans don't want the jobs, they are referring to thdmselves, not us. Heaven forbid they pay American workers fairly and give them benefitS.

Elon shouldn't quit.

[stooo]

>> He should quit.
No, I don't think Elon Musk should quit. He has to learn a thing or two on series production.
I'll suggest him to take a tour of the Volvo plant in Torslanda.
They can give him a lot of useful advice on how to design things to be easy to assemble, and how to rotate workers around on different tasks.
Tesla has a lot of lessons to learn that the auto industry had 30 Years ago.

Re:Elon shouldn't quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise! It's hard to make a good car for a good price. A lot harder than writing an app that looks like a bank but doesn't have to follow banking laws.

Re:Elon shouldn't quit.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm quite sure the point of Tesla is to make a lot of that advice obsolete. Partly because of conquering new grounds, obviously. Can Volvo give Tesla useful advice as to how to build a large-scale battery factory, for example?

Re:Elon shouldn't quit.

[ArmoredDragon]

I wouldn't want him to take advice from Volvo mainly because Volvo as a brand is close to the bottom when it comes to reliability, which means their quality control is likely crap. I'd say they Toyota would be a better bet because they've been consistently at the top for years.

Furthermore, I think he's right to not want anything to do with UAW; they have a looooooooooong history of corruption, even making shady deals at the expense of their own dues-paying members.

Re:Elon shouldn't quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> He should quit.

Re: "Tesla has a lot of lessons to learn that the auto industry had 30 Years ago."

Trouble is the auto industry has not learned their lessons, soon enough to help, since the end of the Second World War - both labor and management.

It was bound to happen...

[avm]

...sooner or later. Let's face it, Tesla is doing much better than you might think, given the short amount of time they've been in existence. They're very high profile, and Musk has a lot of money. That alone is enough to attract the inevitable parasites.

As to the claims that this worker is a UAW shill, he may be, or he may not. UAW certainly is not going to own it, nor will he, if this is true. He could simply be a disgruntled worker upset over X condition, and failing to make headway with local management, he is proceeding along his legally available options (rather than doing the easier thing and voting with his feet). HOWEVER, that's giving him and the UAW both a great deal of benefit of the doubt. It is entirely within the scope of union practises to use shills and other underhanded dealings (political donations, anyone?) to get what their leadership wants. It is completely plausible that he is, in fact, on the UAW's payroll. This has been the case longer than most of you posters have been alive.

Unions may have had their time and place once, but it sure as hell has passed them by. Nowadays, they exist to enrich their leadership, and keep their mediocre to piss-poor members employed, at the expense and on the backs of their members who actually give a shit about their job and perform well. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and thanks to crooked leadership raiding the pension fund for personal gain, that's all I'll get for time served.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, anyway. Popcorn anyone?

Re:It was bound to happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is entirely within the scope of union practises to use shills and other underhanded dealings (political donations, anyone?) to get what their leadership wants.

underhanded dealings (political donations, anyone?): Oh you mean legally LOBBYing politicians..Except now its not membership money that used in that way, its money given to the union for political action...

It must be a shock to this megalomaniac

[Anonymous Coward]

His employees actually want a piece of the action.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Only rich people are allowed to form legal entities to manipulate the supply of their product to maximize prices. When peons do that it's an outrage.

Apparently..

[Anonymous Coward]

this moron fails to understand the basic laws of supply and demand. As do many of you apparently. That plant has 5000 workers.. working for the current wages, those wages are based upon the simple fact that 5000 people will work for them because there is an EXCESS of labor capable of that skill-set. The other issue is that being the only car company left in Calfornia (something I noticed most of you conveniently left out of your replies) means there is much less DEMAND for people capable of that skill-set. Its a buyers market for this particular industry and it will only get worse at automation slowly weeds more of these jobs. This guy CHOOSES to work for those wages, he CHOOSES to live in one of the most expensive places in California and he CHOOSES to live in a state the strangles its businesses with excessive regulations and taxes.. forcing many to leave for greener pastures. Corporations are NOT charities.. they are entities that exist to make and sell a product for a profit. Everything they do.. exists to further that purpose.. they are neither good nor evil and are nothing but a product of the environment that WE create through our idiotic voting practices.. with California being a PRIME example.

Re:Apparently..

[fluffernutter]

The question is, should a person be paid based on the value the company enjoys from their employment or should they be paid relative to what others in the area are paying. If those 5000 workers make up 95% of a company that makes $100 million a year, and if those workers disappear and the company makes $0, shouldn't those workers get much of a share of the profits? To pay someone the minimum you can get away with in any given area is just a race to minimum wage and isn't in the workers best interest. Unions are the only mechanism I know of to equalize this imbalance somewhat.

A 6 figure salary

[Grand Facade]

Is what is needed in the bay area for a single income to support a family.
Actually 2 incomes are needed almost anywhere to support a family unless one is an upper level corporate income.
That whole single income concept is a fallacy for folks who believe the Cinderella story and play with Barbie's.

5000 people are not entitled to 6 figure salary's, nor will a union get them that salary, it will only raise the cost of building the cars and further enrich the union.
Rule one about unions, they take care of themselves first, then the workers who they are employed to represent.

That plant I'm pretty sure is located in the old Ford plant, and that location was chosen because all of the infrastructure was already in place.
If that was my plant I would shut it down if it tried to unionize, and move it to a more right minded state (not right leaning).

I have had 4 union membership experiences and all 4 screwed me, I can't imagine what it is like from the other side.
My sympathies lie with Mr Musk in this situation.

Re:A 6 figure salary

[WindBourne]

it was never Ford. GM built it in 62, and then in the 80s or 90s, toyota bought in for half. Now, Tesla is doubling the size, increasing production to 3x what the plant used to do, and will grow the workers count just a bit.

Re:A 6 figure salary

[Anonymous Coward]

That whole single income concept is a fallacy for folks who believe the Cinderella story and play with Barbie's.

These days, yes, yes it is.

My father didn't have a college degree. He'd gone to a vocational school. He was able to support a family of 4.

It wasn't a union job. But there is something very rotten that in 1970 it was possible to raise a family of 4 on a single middle-class income and in 2017 that same lifestyle has become a fairy story.

Where did the money go?

Question, is it deception?

[mpercy]

"then seeking employment specifically for the purpose of promoting unionization has the following moral components: deceiving the owner[s] of the business (or by proxy, their agents) "

My first question is this "Did the employee in question in all other respects do the job he was hired for?" If so, then I wonder if the ulterior motive is immaterial. He did an honest day's work for the agreed upon wages and benefits, as he would be indistinguishable from an employee who had no ulterior motive but decided the day after he was hired to become union devotee.

OTOH, if all he did was get hired so as to have a way to spend time agitating for a union and didn't do the job he was hired for, then his motives are material.

We've seen similar cases where people got themselves at slaughterhouses just so they could report on violations and film animal abuse. It's interesting to see who is defending whom in both cases.

Re:Question, is it deception?

[Dread_ed]

Totally different and obviously so.

Getting a job to expose violations is a morally defensible act. Violations are happening, laws are broken, they need to be brought out into the open. Disclosure is the objective. Openness and resolution is the result.

Getting a job specifically to influence people to do something that might or might not be in their best interests, while secretly being paid to do so, is not a morally defensible act. Someone telling you how they feel and someone delivering a paid speech are two different things, even if the message is exactly the same.

In the first example the mole is there to expose corruption. In the second, the mole is there as an agent of corruption.

How you can equate the two things is really beyond me.

Re:Question, is it deception?

[drinkypoo]

We've seen similar cases where people got themselves at slaughterhouses just so they could report on violations and film animal abuse. It's interesting to see who is defending whom in both cases.

Well, I eat meat, but I fully support that sort of thing, too. If there's no other way for the people to get the information, then all I can see is justice being served.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things.

[michelcolman]

Since when does Tesla have massive profits?

Good place to put this bitching

[damn_registrars]

Musk will get many sympathetic ears here on the conservative cesspool known as slashdot. Around here unions are admired about as much as the Ebola virus. Too bad there aren't many people in general on slashdot to help Musk propagate his anti-labor / anti-worker message.

Meanwhile I - one of the last 3 or 4 liberals on slashdot - will keep Mr. Musk's attitudes in mind the next time I'm in the market for a new car.

Re:Good place to put this bitching

[WindBourne]

why? What was his attitude that was bad? The fact that UAW sends in a stooge and he opposes it? Or the fact that Moran's claiming that his job is one of the lowest paying, while disregarding the benefit of STOCK OPTIONS?

What's the problem?

[arensb]

If they want to become unionized implies that they're currently ionized. That can't be healthy.

Re:What's the problem?

[ghoul]

Thats hardly a neutral comment

Re:What's the problem?

[WindBourne]

so what? What are you bi-polar on this?

Re:What's the problem?

[ghoul]

Well I can see both the positive and negative sides of the issue.

Heh - Musk thought he could avoid the unions

[zerofoo]

I was always surprised at how the valley avoided the unions. The land of fruits and nuts isn't exactly union unfriendly.

I guess Elon thought that since his companies are modeled after silicon valley startup type companies he too could avoid the unions.

Good luck to him. I suspect, eventually, not only will Elon's labor force become unionized, the valley will too.

Morally Outrageous

[DickBreath]

Which is relatively more morally outrageous:
(A) exploitation of workers. (As an employee benefit install nets around building exterior to prevent employee suicide by jumping off building)
(B) paying someone in a ruse to pose as an employee and get hired in order to agitate workers into starting a union
(C) paying lobbyists and bribing legislators / governors / presidents to force unions
(D) paying lobbyists and bribing legislators / governors / presidents to outlaw unions
(E) Windows 10

It seems that unions are the good or bad guys depending upon the circumstances of the time. When employers are exploiting workers, unions are the good guys who stand up for the little guy, and rightly so. When unions grow in power and influence their purpose becomes all about their own greatness (any resemblance to a current or future president unintentional and purely coincidental). And about maximizing union dues. Then the unions are the bad guys putting employers out of business or forcing jobs to move elsewhere or become more automated.

I remember years ago in an online discussion, possibly here on slashdot, and definitely about a Honda plant, where a worker said it was better to have a job at $18 / hour that they could get versus a union job at $25 / hour that they could not get.

I agree with another poster who said that if Elon takes good care of his employees that they will have little incentive to form a union.

I'm all for private unions; just not Public.

[lkroll4565]

FDR was against public unions as well (for those that didn't know). Since I'm no fan of Musk, I think this is poetic justice. lol :)

Move the plant

[gatkinso]

Plenty of people in WV or KY who would be happy to work for less than $21/hr.

Not that such a thing is better - it's worse

[dbIII]

Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.

Isn't he lucky then that real life is very rarely like that and it's either his own conspiracy theory bullshit or (far less likely) a delusion.
Here's a tip guys - if it sounds like a very badly plotted spy movie and the situation is something as mundane as a factory then it's time to start sniffing for the bullshit.

I've never been in a union, but I have worked in a place where a few months after I left everyone joined up on the same day in response to a stupid decision by one manager. That sort of stuff is far more likely than spy movie bullshit.

Just to underscore the point

[drinkypoo]

I've had two Overrated mods in this conversation, and they were both applied to comments which don't suck union cock. Only cowards use the overrated mod, because it's most likely to sneak through metamod. Even union members know they're overrated, and that's the only commentary they have available.

We should protect worker's rights. Unions were how we got to where we are now. But they spend trivial amounts of money on increasing the minimum wage, and that only because raising the minimum wage bolsters their arguments for raising their own wages.

We should not be trying to unionize every industry piecemeal, fighting the same fight over and over again for each class of job, to secure rights for all workers. Rather, all workers should unite, not in a union but in common cause to at least raise the minimum wage if not replace it with MGI. The latter would serve the needs of all people, which would be a much nobler goal than all workers, but perhaps it's not time for that, yet. I don't know how much longer it makes sense to wait, and have a suspicion that the answer is a negative value, but perhaps we should save that argument for a different conversation.

Here come the robots

[zerosomething]

When problems are found solutions will be provided. If human workers are seen as a problem then a solution will be found to replace them if possible. After all this company is trying to build self driving cars to eliminate the need for a human to drive the frigin car. If they can do that they will eventually build a self assembling car! Call the legislators! and require Tesla to employ only Buggy Whip Union members, that'll fix em!

Time to announce a line in EU/China/India

[WindBourne]

Let that sink in to these ppl. Musk should also allow a union, as long as it is its own, and not with any of the current corrupt ones. If they do join, then stop with the stock options to them.

Musk should live by his own politics

[ooloorie]

Elon Musk told Gizmodo via Twitter Direct Messages: "Our understanding is that this guy was paid by the UAW to join Tesla and agitate for a union. Frankly, I find this attack to be morally outrageous.

Well, you supported the Democrats big time last election. Did you think they were kidding when they said that they support unions? Or were you hoping to buy special exemptions and become their favorite crony with your massive donations?

At least have the decency to live by the political system and values that you tried to impose on the rest of us. If Ford and GM have to put up with unions and their organizers, what possible reason is there that your companies should be exempt? Unions shouldn't have to fight you to organize at your plants, you should welcome them and encourage them.

2 Stories I've heard

[bussdriver]

I am in a union which does work for me; good management is what matters most not the system itself.

I have heard of 2 other unions from active members where the union was corrupted-- but what people leave out is that management can corrupt the union leadership. Both the two I heard about made deals long ago with management which set the system to promote corrupt ineffective union management. I wouldn't be surprised if there were not manuals available on how to weaken and destroy unions because both stories I heard sounded the same. Letting union leadership get money from management and then alter the process under which management is selected and compensated... is a bad sign; they try to make sure no reformers get in charge of the union again.

Of course

[rossdee]

With all those Litium Ion batteeries, the factory would be Ionized, not unionized

Get a brain!

[Anonymous Coward]

Morans.

Its almost like its supply and demand, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hows the weather over there comrade?

Yes, actually they did

[raymorris]

> So unions decided not to re-tool and just keep on rolling the same sort of crap down decaying production lines

Yes. Modern tooling replaces some (union) jobs that (union) humans did in the 1960s with machines that do the same job, better. That scared the crap out of the unions. Understandably, they fought tooth and nail against modernization, insisting on contracts that retained outdated jobs.

Other countries used the machines to produce more, better cars, faster, thereby growing their automotive sector and increasing overall employment in the automotive industry, while reducing the *per car* head count.

It's totally understandable why the unions did this, but as it turned out, they shot themselves in the foot.

Re:Yes, actually they did

[dbIII]

The unions in the USA are incredibly weak compared with those in Germany and do not have anything like the power you suggest to stop modernization.
Those other countries that produce more, better cars, faster have unions with more of a say in workplace than in the USA, so I really don't get why you push that line unless it's to say what The Party says you should say in Amerika. Nyet?

Re:Yes, actually they did

[JaredOfEuropa]

Is that really the case? Not sure about Germany, but here in the Netherlands workers at any particular plant can join any union they like or none at all. In some cases, the unions jointly (depending how active they are in a given industry sector) negotiate with industry groups about wages, in other cases they negotiate with individual companies, assist Works Councils, organize strikes, etc. But we have no such thing as "unionizing" or "union shops". It seems like some US unions (the UAW in particular) are a lot more powerful than any of our unions or even all of them combined, in terms of influence they wield over workers and management.

Re:Yes, actually they did

[thegarbz]

Comparing the works councils in Germany to an American union will not be met with any praise from the works council. Having seen both sides of the pond and both sides of the table the former is a constructive member of a company while the latter is a destructive leech that exists solely to expand itself.

Re:Yes, actually they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany is stopping modernization? Excuse me? Wat? Wat?

Re:Yes, actually they did

[dbIII]

If that is true it's still an almost powerless thing, destructive leech or not.
All this shit about the union planting a sleeper agent for 4 years, seriously, what does Musk take us for?

Sounds like a terrible place to work

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the union side, Tesla provides pay that is insufficient to live on, endangers the health of their employees and is overall a terrible work environment that needs a strong union to bring into the light. The question that I have, though, is why on God's green earth would any self-respecting person work for such a terrible, backward company when there are plenty of nice union shops that they could be working at?

Ps look at the union web sites still today

[raymorris]

If you're not surw whether I'm right, look at the positions taken by UAW and other large unions still today. They are still against updating tooling, which would results in higher-paying, but fewer jobs. (Aka automation)?

They still don't seem to understand that it's not a choice between automated US factories and non-automated US factories. It's a choice between automated US factories amd automated Japanese factories.

Elon Musk is a con artist and a bullshitter

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point reality is going to become apparent even to those of you who
would love to give Musk a rim job. Musk is a scumbag of the first order and he
has made money doing things that don't make the world actually better -- he is just
selling stuff people want to believe in whether it is actually of value or not. A car
packed with a bunch of laptop batteries is not an actual advance, it's just a clever
way to make something look worthwhile when it is not.

Those of you who are intelligent enough to think for yourselves : mark my words.

Re:Elon Musk is a con artist and a bullshitter

[WindBourne]

how can we mark musk a a BS and coward when you are an AC that is doing nothing but lying.

Re:Elon Musk is a con artist and a bullshitter

[Anonymous Coward]

how can we mark musk a a BS and coward when you are an AC that is doing nothing but lying.

I am quite certain you don't have the courage to say the above words to my face.

If I am incorrect, post your real name and address. Of course we both know you will
never do that, you pathetic cock-gobbling faggot piece of subhuman waste.

Re:Elon Musk is a con artist and a bullshitter

[Anonymous Coward]

now, you are the coward who is posting nothing. Post your name and address.

Mine is Michael Sweeney
9800 Savage Rd., Suite 6272
Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755

Now, I doubt th at you will give your information because trash like you are still busy sucking on the kock bros.

Re:This is where government standards SHOULD come

[ghoul]

So you want govt to deal with it as the Union has higher overheads. The govt also has overheads. They are not local to the factory so they probably will have to have more employees in order to ensure the regulations are followed. Also they cannot be flexible like a Union can and make exceptions for a factory/business in trouble. Small govt advocates should support Unions as it avoids the need for govt to hire thousands of inspectors and labor advocates to enforce the labor laws. Maybe Unions can be funded by the govt instead of through dues as they are saving Govt money but Govt lobbyists would have an heart attack

Headline is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow slashdot. Taking a queue from "fake news" sites with your headlines?

Musk said that UAW sending a paid under-cover agitator is morally outrageous.

He did NOT say unionizing is morally outrageous.
Headline is bald-faced lie.

Tesla's position on unionisation is and always has been "neutral" they do not overtly oppose it.

Re:Headline is a lie

[WindBourne]

yeah, but there is a on-going war against Musk by the GOP and top conservatives like the kock bros. They all want to stop him because he is about to cut America's oil needs IN HALF (i.e. we will no longer import in 2-3 years due to Tesla and O's efforts).
What is interesting is that this came up when Tesla stock grew within a week such that the shorters are losing 2.7 BILLION and if it climbs higher on Feb 20, then they stand to lose as much as 5B. That will poinpoint out all of those that are working on destroying Musk.

Re:This is where government standards SHOULD come

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how much truth and insight you've managed to pack into such a short comment.

Elon Musk is out of touch

[Anonymous Coward]

He is insular and out of touch. He does not believe that anyone deserves a raise. Especially if you live in the ridiculously outrageous cost of living area known as Silicon Valley.

Best laid plans of 'geniuses'

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the real world Mr. Musk. Move your factory to Detroit, apparently there are TONNES of unemployed people out there....

Re:Best laid plans of 'geniuses'

[WindBourne]

Michigan is now a GOP state that hates to work. So, no, it makes little sense.

Logic!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

People would get hired on usually by having a sterling resume, or qualifications that put them above the average worker to get hired on. Then after several years start agitating for unionization and so on. It's why the unionization vote at the Woodstock plant has failed at least 4 times that I know of.

lolwut?

Being a top-notch worker with plenty of experience at the plant causes unionization votes to fail?
How does that work, exactly?
By that logic being an incompetent new hire would help unionization.
Logic!!!

Tesla is actually HIGH pay

[WindBourne]

Compare these Production Associate (which is what jose is ) to the average. He is getting MORE than average pay. That does not include the fact that Tesla has better benefits, treats employees well WRT lunch, offices, etc. and gives them stock options that are worth BOOKOO BUCKS

SPLIT THOUGHTS

[JimSadler]

First all workers need unions. Unions are at times the only protection for workers as government agencies have been crippled by right wing politics. However when it comes to assembly line workers $25 per hour seems like too much pay. I do not feel that mandatory over time should be allowed by law. Further these auto workers need to think for a bit. They may notice that companies often leave the US due to excessive costs of labor. And then we have the fact that Mr. Musk understands automation and efficiency and that given a motive a lot of jobs could vanish if his factories automate a bit more. We are entering an era in which human employment is vanishing. It is a foolish time to push for higher wages.

The UAW recently laid off four of their senators

[raymorris]

> It seems like some US unions (the UAW in particular) are a lot more powerful than any of our unions or even all of them combined

Perhaps so. The joke is that the UAW isn't doing as well as it once was, they had a layoff and laid off four the senators who work for them.

The most powerful unions are probably some public-sector unions, like teachers' unions, because they literally pay the people they are nominally negotiating against. It goes a bit like this:

The teachers' union donates $250,000 to a certain candidate for governor.

Two months later, they sit down with the new governor and demand that he give them $2 million of taxpayers' money.

A couple years later, the governor is up for re-election.

The teachers' union meets with the governor again and says:
We'd like to discuss two things with you. First, you remember we gave you $250,00 for your last election - we're considering giving you $250,000 again for this election. Secondly, we'd like you to give us $3 million of taxpayer money.

The negotiation is between a union who wants taxpayer money and a politician who is being paid by the union. Nobody in that negotiation represents the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers.

Also, the teachers and firefighters hold a very powerful endorsement. "Think of the children", they can easily say, "Your childrens' education and future depend on you voting for candidate Greenbacks", and many, many voterd are influenced by that endorsement. The fact is, whoever is elected will help decide how money the members of the teachers' union get, and how much the union itself gets. Their self-interest is very much affexted. One should fully expect that that effect on their pay will influence their endorsement.

So the UAW is lying when they claim that?

[raymorris]

The UAW says they fight automation, and they take credit for deals that reduce automation. Are they lying?

Musk vs. Socialism

[mi]

Musk did not say or imply that unionization was morally outrageous

Had he been in favor of unions, Tesla factories (and Musk's other operations) would've been unionized long ago. Discussing, what exactly his opinion is on the subject is irrelevant — the opinion is negative.

Would the Left now fall out of love with Elon Musk and Tesla? Would they go back to burning oil in sympathy for that well-unionized industry? Or will they just downmod this post to make it hurt less?

I have the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If the conditions are so bad, quit and let Musk make his own cars. I mean seriously, you don't need a union. All people need to do is walk and find something better. And if there is nothing better, then create something better. Unions are just one more overlord with their hand in your pocket.

Craft your comments carefully ...

[CaptainDork]

... remember that unions and businesses are people, too, you insensitive clods.

Re:This is where government standards SHOULD come

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if the government is in the pocket of corporations, then unions are in the pocket of organized crime. Either way, wherever money flows, corruption ensures.

Not paying enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Jose Moran, tomorrow you'll have all the time in the world to look for a better paying job.

Uh, what?

[junkgoof]

Funny, right to work states tend to be poor. Not sure making all states right to work would be good for anyone, really. Putting in a negotiation structure so that companies and unions can negotiate in good faith to get something everyone can be happy with instead of trying to crush the other side would be a good move. The constitutions the US imposed on Germany and Japan do a good job, and they are way more adapted to the 20th century than the 18th century one the US uses for itself.

Karma

[Bodhammer]

Karma is a bitch - no pun intended...

Management needs to pay

[pjv936]

attention to the ergonomic concerns especially with so many workers out due to injuries.

Good on you Elon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk is colloquially correct. Unions are wrong.

No Need to Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas believes in capitalism - unless it interferes with the dealership monopolies.

Foreign workers want to be paid more than once.

Stay in California. Automation will replace most of the workers. An added benefit would be the lack of shipping to most Tesla customers.

Re: The UAW recently laid off four of their senato

[Anonymous Coward]

All unions are horrible, terrible things, except for police, prison and LE unions which are somehow totally different and awesome...
Says nearly every Republican, one way or another.

Boredom.

[Anonymous Coward]

The days of Bosses giving out jobs only to become bored once again may be over!

Move to the South

[Silvergoat]

Easiest action is to move the entire production facility to SC/Ga/AL/TX and bypass the craziness of the west coast. Living expenses are much less, and the fears of union activists diminish greatly. So join BMW, Toyota, Volkswagon and all the subcontractors, abandon the West Coast.

Re:This is where government standards SHOULD come

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about car manufacturing, but in the electricity industry OSHA will kick your ass for infractions. Is this some legitimate difference in industry regulations? If not, how are their OSHA reportable incidents and are they being reported accurately?

Re:The UAW recently laid off four of their senator

[dbIII]

Perhaps so. The joke is that the UAW isn't doing as well as it once was

Yet you still believe they have the resources to plant sleeper agents for 4 years?

Sabotage...

[LinuxLuver]

This could be how the old car companies, in concert with their unions, screw Tesla over. They can't compete on product, so it's dirty tricks time. True American gangster capitalism.

Sounds like ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Tesla is going to be pushing to expand the H-1B program.

Clearly, it is getting too difficult to find skilled auto workers in this country. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

Dang

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are only paying ~$20 per hour to their workers, you gotta wonder what their total COGS are. Their margins must be yugely big league.

No wonder Musk wants to work so closely with The Donald -- he's hoping he can get some pointers on how to better manipulate and take adcantage of people.

Nobody is hired at gunpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

When you respond to a "help wanted" sign, you are saying you will perform the required work for the offered pay and benefits. Not necessarily what's on the sign, ad posting, etc, but certainly what is negotiated in the meeting that is concluded with a phrase like "you're hired".

It should come as no surprise that an employer who makes such a contract with an employee is annoyed to later find that the employee has decided to break the contract. When the employee joins a union and then starts to demand better pay and benefits for the same (or less) work that's one party to the employment deal unilaterally breaking the deal. Unions and workers get [rightfully] outraged when an employer suddenly violates a deal and starts demanding lower wages or longer hours etc, but they never seem to consider that what they often do is just the mirror-image and no less outrageous.

If you agree to do a certain job in exchange for a certain package of pay and benefits and then you later decide you do not like the deal and want more money and/or benefits, that's your problem. No employer forces you to take the job at gunpoint, and you are perfectly free to quit and go get a better paying job elsewhere if you can find one where they can use your talents and can withstand your attitude.

correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all unions are wrong.

Unions of government workers are fundamentally wrong and used to be opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in America. It's only historically recent that govt workers in the US were allowed to unionize and it's been a disaster for the taxpayers. The are 2 reasons unions in govt are bad: [1] the unions fund the politicians who then become the union members' employers... so the unions end up on both sides of the table at negotiating time and the taxpayers are not at that table, so you end up with trillions of dollars in pension promises and incompetent/unproductive employees who can never be fired (see: unionized school teachers), and [2] the unions tend to align with one political party and thus all the government employees tend to become political and then hostile to half the population they are supposed to serve and in doing so they convince half the population that govt is their arch enemy (see: IRS targeting TEA Party)

Unions in the private sector are just fine.... as long as they are truly in the private sector. If a union gets government to make it so people must be in the union in order to have their job, then that's bad; it's unions using the power of government to distort the marketplace and it produces lazy/inefficient employees who cannot be fired (see: UAW). If a union is completely voluntary, it's a good thing. When a union without compulsion exists, then its members obviously find it sufficiently beneficial to willingly join it and support it. There's no reason to be hostile to a non-violent and non-coercive union, if you can find one.

Of course, the big problem with unions is that they typically, like nearly all left-leaning political operations, rely upon mob violence or the threat of mob violence. If somebody opposes them or crosses their picket lines he is threatened or actually beaten up. Companies are threatened with business destruction, sabotage, vandalism etc. People unwilling to join find their car tires slashed (happened to a family member of mine), windows broken, etc. If an employer beat up union people or slashed the tires of their cars and so-on the union people would be apoplectic.

Fuck Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk is a psychopath who kills without remorse, of course he doesn't care about the workers!

Re:This is where government standards SHOULD come

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like he may need an OSHA inspector, rather than a union.

If $21/hr isn't a living wage in the Bay Area...

[interstellarsurfer]

Elon Musk's factory is always welcome here in East Tennessee. P.S. - The state of Tennessee is flagrantly anti-union, and we're OK with that.