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."
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.
My dick
So.. nothing substantial?
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.
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 better yet, just skip straight to the developing world so you can even more fully exploit people.
This space intentionally left blank
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
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.
-Styopa
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.
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
>> 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
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
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?
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?
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.
> 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.