Slashdot Mirror
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."
But, what does our dear leader have to say about it?
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.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
He should quit. Or move to where the Cost of Living/Wage for His Expertise ratio is friendlier.
Please note that Ars changed the title to reflect the fact that Musk was not referring to unionization.
Is beginning to sound more and more like Trump.
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.
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.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
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.
Does anyone really want to push Elon to replace humans with machines? Really?
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?)
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.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
or morally outrageous, depending upon who i talk to while eating Lucky Charms.
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
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.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
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.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
from Nissan? ;-)
>> 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.
aaaaaaa
...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?
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.
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.
Rick B.
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.
"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.
Since when does Tesla have massive profits?
If they want to become unionized implies that they're currently ionized. That can't be healthy.
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.
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'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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 :)
No, the one sent to Mars.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
Plenty of people in WV or KY who would be happy to work for less than $21/hr.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
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!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
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!
It all starts at 0
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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...
Everyone should have to negotiate on their own without help from a position of weakness.
Is that what you are trying to say?
With all those Litium Ion batteeries, the factory would be Ionized, not unionized
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.
Can I join a different union? Or is a union a monopoly?
> 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.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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.
Tesla's CEO salary has always been reasonable. And even as a shareholder he doesn't make a whole lot.
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
**Life is too short to be serious**
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
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
how can we mark musk a a BS and coward when you are an AC that is doing nothing but lying.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Michigan is now a GOP state that hates to work. So, no, it makes little sense.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
> 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.
The UAW says they fight automation, and they take credit for deals that reduce automation. Are they lying?
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
... remember that unions and businesses are people, too, you insensitive clods.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Karma is a bitch - no pun intended...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and absolutely everything Thatcher did was wrong...
Now you're learning.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Bullshit.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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.
Yet you still believe they have the resources to plant sleeper agents for 4 years?
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.
Only boring people are ever bored.
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.