Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Factory Workers Pushing For a Union Send Letter of Requests To Company's Board Members (phys.org)
One of the many challenges facing Tesla right now is the escalating worker complaints about pay and safety. At its California factory, a move to unionize is gaining steam. Workers recently sent a letter to Tesla's independent board members requesting access to the automaker's safety plan as well as clarity on compensation and a promise of no retaliation against employees as they try to form a union. From a report via Phys.Org: The United Auto Workers is in the process of trying to unionize the 10,000 Tesla workers at the Fremont plant, alleging the company has a poor safety record -- a charge it vehemently denies.
"We're tired of suffering preventable injury after preventable injury. It impacts morale, it slows down production and it's of course traumatizing," said Michael Catura, a Tesla production worker who signed the letter. Starting pay for production associates in the Fremont facility is $18 an hour, far below the national average for auto workers of $25.58 and even farther below the living wage in Alameda County, California, where the average wage is $28.10, according to the letter sent by workers. In addition, the letter said the paths to promotion are not clear. "Many of us have worked for years with the vague promise of a raise, with nothing to show for it," said Richard Ortiz, who works in the paint shop. "We have no idea what the criteria is to move forward, and no idea of what defines success. We've raised these issues repeatedly, and have gotten no response," he added.
I think that people should be free to unionize if they like, but I can't help but feel like UAW has grown hungry and needs fresh prey.
UAW has been a millstone around the neck of Detroit auto workers, while auto workers outside of Detroit are in need of protection.
Many of the people objecting aren't against unionizing, they're just against UAW. Why doesn't anyone attempt to unionize WITHOUT UAW?
Anyone? Okay, fine, I will.
And, concerning pay:
Both sides claims should of course be taken with a big grain of salt. For example, Tesla's argument of stock options is great, and yes, the workers could end up quite well off if Tesla does well. But they don't pay the rent until they vest, and UAW is right that local housing prices are killer. On the other hand, UAW doesn't bother to mention in their overwork claims that during crunch times Musk has been known to sleep in a sleeping bag at the factory, and has pledged (and at least so far, upheld) to work on any line where any employee gets injured.
So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
if you unionize, what promotion is there? Isn't the idea behind the union that everyone's equal? Also, why would you work for years without a raise? Is it possibly because you can't find another job that pays more than Tesla?
Companies want people off the union. Ergo, in union shops people get promoted faster into non-union management.
The idea behind a union is for a fair bargaining position between workers and companies instead of one person against a behemoth.
People work without raises because of promises and fear. People sometimes forego the greedy option of quitting as soon as better pay is found elsewhere because companies in nearly every industry heavily look down on people that switch jobs more often than every five to ten years. People often hang on to those promises. They actually believe their employers.
My goodness, you don't know the first thing about labor unions, do you? They do not seek "equality", they seek the best wage for their members. They seek seniority rules, benefits guarantees and worker safety. And they've got an amazing record of success in these areas.
A union seeks to aggregate labor for leverage in the workplace the same way corporations aggregate capital in the marketplace. .
Anyone who believes that unions are the cause of the problems in the US auto industry over the past 50 years just doesn't know much about unions or the auto industry.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So is this going to be like other locations, where the companies said "yeah, go ahead and vote". The vote failed - so the union had another. And another. Then tried to publish all the individual votes that were suppose to be secret so they could force and intimidate folks? Then that failed. So they sued. And that failed. So they had another vote. Ad Nauseum. The UAW isn't a millstone. It's a cancer. They are a gateway to fraud, kickbacks, nepotism, favoritism, and popularism.
I see a lot of apathy for Unions. Very sad. They gave you: Weekends off, eight hour work day, Holidays off. And a safer workplace. People died in the fight to start unions for you. If you like working 60 hours a week on a regular basis; keep on disliking unions.. Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/1886...
It's the same way a CEO works to raise the share price of his corporation. Not because he cares deeply about each and every shareholder, but because his success leads directly to an increase in his compensation. Same thing with the entire board of directors.
I'm telling you, corporations and unions are two sides of the same coin. If you want to talk about getting rid of both, then we have a discussion. If you want to talk about getting rid of only one, then you are being hypocritical. As I said, one is the aggregate of labor, the other is the aggregate of capital. It's a natural situation of balance of power.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I see a lot of apathy for Unions. Very sad. They gave you: Weekends off, eight hour work day, Holidays off.
No, no, and no. Unions got you payed overtime for such things. You can still be expected to work on a weekend, on a holiday or more than 8 hours. Pre-union it might be part of your daily/weekly salary, you might not even be getting an hourly rate, not a penny extra. Post-union you got 1.5 to 2 times your normal hourly rate, in general.
And a safer workplace. People died in the fight to start unions for you. If you like working 60 hours a week on a regular basis; keep on disliking unions.
You got that half-right. As my 40-year IBEW member grandfather explained that was all true and unions were a godsend back in those early decades. However he said that in the 1960s-70s timeframe they became a useless bureaucracy working to perpetuate their own existence and the salaries and perks of the union staff/leadership, not the members. That all the important stuff (those fights you refer to) was not contract, but law. And that now the union fights over BS stuff and rarely does anything to help a worker against management. He said management and union had this working symbiotic relationship perpetuating their interests, neither of them thinking much about the workers interests. In summary, he said the unions were once important and greatly needed, but now they are just a racket doing little beyond skimming some percentage of the money, not unlike the mob.
... its not part of the union contract. When they said they are taking home less money ... I warned you not to trust the union organizer. The workers were now eagerly looking forward to the passage of two years (?) so they could vote to leave the union. But it never got there, the owner decided to retire, sold the company to a larger company. About a year later they shut it down and moved it offshore.
A friend was an assistant manager at a small local manufacturer back in the 1990s. The owner was once a worker in a larger plant, went out on his own, grew a business. He was a pretty good boss, his shop was clean and safe and well equipped. When things were going really well and profits way up, he gave bonuses to everyone. Something comes up, someone needs the flexibility to take some time off without using vacation or sick time, sure we'll juggle some hours around. He was genuinely concerned about his workers and treated them like extended family. Then a union organizer came around with lots of promises. The employees voted in favor of unionizing, they didn't have any grievances but like the idea of more money in their pocket. When no more bonuses showed up, they asked why not. The reply, its not part of the union contract. When there was less scheduling flexibility
Voting to unionize is not necessarily some panacea. In the distant past it might have been, but not any more.
They have the choice to find a job at a non-union shop.
Let me share with you the words of that famous socialist, Abraham Lincoln:
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nah, its not about incompetence.
When you've been working the same job for 15 years, you start getting worried that if you had to get a new job that its going to suck in comparison in some major way (more work, less pay, what-have-you.)
Sometimes times are good. Sometimes times are bad. Sometimes the company hires. Sometimes the company lays off.
The most senior people are worried about the layoffs. They dont care who gets hurt so long as they don't. Its really is extremely selfish.
I am a member of a union at a business that wasn't unionized before I started and later unionized under an existing union. I watched the whole process, from the stirring up of discontent, to the empty promises about what unionization will mean, to the eventual negotiated union contract that doesnt live up to the hype, to the contractual protection of seniority above all else.
The union does negotiate raises whenever the contract is up. Its the only time anyone gets a raise. The amount of raises they have negotiated so far is less than what the company was giving out automatically before unionization. The union also really screwed up the health insurance, allowing the company to pull coverage for non-generic drugs (not all drugs have a generic alternative) because the union bargaining committee is a bunch of rubes.
Non-union positions at the same company dont have any of the issues that the union positions have. But those senior employees... they got their protection.
"His name was James Damore."
Tesla is a public company. Any options vested can be exercised and sold immediately, so I completely don't get how on earth you think their lawyers would take them away from employees. You heard something somewhere, maybe about startups where employee stock options are not liquid and often end up being worth nothing, but that doesn't apply to large publicly traded companies. So either you are majorly confused or are just spreading FUD.
There is nothing contradictory about those statements.
The living wage varies from place to place, because it costs more to live in some places. It is the amount someone needs to earn to live comfortably while supporting a modest family in a modest home with healthcare, a pension and some savings for emergencies.
If $15/hr is not a living wage, that doesn't mean that $15.01 is. There is nothing contradictory about what Tesla pays also not being adequate to meet the conditions above.
Tesla claims that its pay is good because it includes valuable stock. Problem is, you can't by groceries or pay the rent with stock, you have to wait until it matures and then sell it. As we should all know, having been through the dot-com boom, stock is not a substitute for wages.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Be careful what you take in your mind. They are tying to convince you that Unions are the enemy and Unions must go. You took part of the bait. I'm glad you were lucky and had your grandfather to talk to you.
The theory of unions is just fine. The history of unions is important, their achievements great. However do not confuse these things with the state of unions *today*. Today many unions are corrupt and work for the interests of the union itself, not for the workers they represent. Today many do not uphold the standards of the industry, the craft, making sure members live up to the standards of quality of the industry. Do not confuse the unions of the "golden era" with those of today. They have little in common. Many of the rights and benefits workers receive today are due to law, not union membership or contract. Yes, laws brought about by the unions of that "golden era", but law never the less.
You have no idea of how hard Washington and Corporations want to kill unions. That way you will have absolutely no defence against what they pay you, treat you, or anything they want to do to you.
Other than the law of the land?
For instance: Take having "The right to work.in your State. The true statement is "The right to work for less pay". People find out about it later..much too late. What you said about Unions in the 70's is true. They got too greedy and made a lot of idiot mistakes. (So do politicians to this day). I think Unions realized their mistakes and have changed for the better. But today you can be part of a Union and not pay dues! This is their way of crippling Unions.
The first hand accounts I've heard from the late 1990s show little difference from the 1970s.
The United States Post Office is one of the biggest Unions to exist. Why do you think they wanted them to pay retirement benefits 75 years into the future?? They want to kill the post office and it's Union. They are also under the illusion that privatizing the post office will bring a profit to them. It will in the city, but be a huge loss in the rural areas.
Government employee unions are a separate topic, and a trouble idea to begin with.
"“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd."
"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...
""All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management." Roosevelt didn’t stop there. "The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind. "The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, pro