Tesla Factory Workers Pushing For a Union Send Letter of Requests To Company's Board Members (phys.org) 317
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.
UAW again (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:UAW again (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a UAW member. In my experience, they are responsive, helpful, and quite valuable. Having serious lawyers around when your (large) employer inevitably decides to violate your contract has been great. The dues are small, the management democratic, and the primary interest in the well-being of employees. I don't get the hate here.
In terms of why people usually form unions as local within larger organizations, it's basically the same reason that anyone forms a union in the first place: you want to be part of a large, well-financed organization that can afford big lawyers and has institutional expertise in dealing with other large, well-financed organizations (companies). The whole point of unionization is to have the same kind of scale, and thus bargaining power, on both sides of the table. If you try to make a totally independent fresh union of a few employees to negotiate with some giant company like GM, they will wipe the floor with you. A little less than if it were just you, of course, but you still aren't at parity.
Re: (Score:2)
So unions are bad because if you decide to ignore the union and do your own thing they don't allow it? You might want to heed your own advice.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
UAW pays people to work for companies like Tesla for a period of time to rock the boat and stir up shit. Including "accidents".
Possibly. I'm not saying you are wrong, however a citation would be nice since I can't see any evidence on Google and I rather suspect that you are misrepresenting.
More of the like.. (Score:3)
I keep seeing the same story replayed over and over the last few weeks.
Poor workers paid unfair wages at giant tech companies while living in the highest cost of living areas of the country.
They would be forced to pay better wages if you guys stopped taking the jobs at low pay!
You being employed means you have a skill. Leave CA or NY or WA, or suck it up and get papered for the better jobs and crushing debt.
It sucks. I don't want to leave home anymore than you do, but the companies don't owe you better wages *because*, anymore than you owe more on your grocery bill *because*
Form your union, demand your raises, and drive the hell on.... but keep in mind that you don't HAVE to be spending 75% of your take-home on rent (or living out of your S10 and showering at the Y) just to have a tech job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Form your union, demand your raises, and drive the hell on.... but keep in mind that you don't HAVE to be spending 75% of your take-home on rent (or living out of your S10 and showering at the Y) just to have a tech job.
Where are the majority of the tech jobs? Oh yeah, in places with high costs of living. Clearly some people can follow your advice, because there are some jobs in places with lower costs of living. And if "everyone" were to pack up and move someplace cheaper, then some tech jobs would probably start to appear there, because there was talent there. But businesses tend to site themselves in specific locations for specific reasons. They're either near a physical resource, near another business they're working w
"and it's of course traumatizing" (Score:2)
I was vaguely sympathetic until I read that.
Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why. [dictionary.com]
Here we go again....... (Score:4, Interesting)
Living_Wage = Income * 1.5; (Score:3, Insightful)
The minimum wage activists tell us that anything below $15/hr is not a "living wage."
Now we learn that people who already make a good deal more than that still declare it to be far below a "living wage."
This cycle quickly gets old to those of us who choose to live within our means rather than to constantly whine and try to bully our way into a higher income.
Re:Living_Wage = Income * 1.5; (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As we should all know, having been through the dot-com boom, stock is not a substitute for wages.
Not only that, but when a corporation has a bunch of stock in something they might borrow against it, but when a person has a handful of unvested stock in something, nobody is likely to give them a loan on it. So it's really not a substitute for anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And I love how every single one of your past dozen or so comments was immediately modded up (and how, equally mysteriously, my reply was immediately modded down). The fact that you're resorting to sock puppet accounts to amplify your voice just further proves you don't have anything cogent to say.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have no clue how expensive Alameda County is to live in. Where else are you going to find borderline condemn-able victorians selling for $1.5+M.
And you're obviously just another ill-informed whiner. There are plenty of active listings in the $100k range right here [realtor.com]. And if you start crying that they're not Victorian mansions, you'll simply prove my point that people find their incomes inadequate simply because they want to live outside them.
It's always laughable to see someone talk about it being responsibility rather than where they live.
See above. Where you choose to live is part of being responsible and living within your means, Mr(s). Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Says the tool who needs to quit his job and work at Taco Bell at minimum wage to see if it pays all his troll bills.
What Unions Did For You (Score:5, Informative)
According to IBEW grandfather, they don't anymore (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:According to IBEW grandfather, they don't anymo (Score:5, Interesting)
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... [nytimes.com]
""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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, and yes - you're handwaving. Working retail you are likely to have to work on weekends -but then you have other days off during the week.
I'm handwaving? When most people are presented with the notion of working on the "weekend" they are presuming the typical scenario where they already worked the "work week". And you are now claiming that if your 5-day workweek includes the weekend, if your two days off are not on the weekend, we have a big issue? Seriously, that is your crisis? Sorry, the semantic games are being played by you. And yes, I have worked in retail and have worked weekends, holidays, etc. 1.5x overtime in excess of 8 hours in a
Re: (Score:2)
Thus begins every warmed over piece of anti-union bullshit - my brother's wife's cousin's best friend says unions protect laaaazy people.
They really do, but those lazy people aren't workers. They're union executives. They get paid whether the workers get what they need or not, and it's difficult to remove them because most workers expect to be fucked over and are apathetic.
If you oppose unions being able to pool their labor, then you must also oppose capitalists being able to pool their capital. If not, you're a corporatist hack.
I, for one, am not completely anti-union, and I think that the right to unionize is completely valid. But I am also not pro-union, because there are drawbacks to the existence of unions. There are two main drawbacks to their existence. In government including education, un
What competitive labor markets did for you (Score:2)
Unions helped somewhat with shifting employment in those directions, but increasing competition between firms for workers and increasing worker mobility played a large role in making those changes too -- and these, not unions, are the reason the benefits persisted.
From the early Industrial Revolution until the New Deal, labor monopsonies (only one purchaser of labor) were common. Barriers to changing employers were high in the day of "company towns," horse and buggy travel, limited access to education, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, now, take this pro-union propaganda with a grain of salt. There were a lots of factors that led to a shorter American work week, and while unions were in fact one force, another major factor was that labor market conditions were much tighter. Manufacturing was expanding. Immigration was falling. Technological changes improved worker productivity. There were gross population shifts from rural areas to urban areas. The
Re: (Score:2)
eight hour work day
Ford was one of the first companies to switch to an eight-hour work day, way back in 1914. They didn't become unionized until 1941.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone? Okay, fine, I will. [greencarreports.com]
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 [bgr.com] at the factory, and has pledged (and at least so far, upheld) to work on any line [electrek.co] where any employee gets injured.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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,
It's his company, he can work if he wants to. What he doesn't have the right to do is demand that people waste away their lives for him. Hire enough people to do the work.
and has pledged (and at least so far, upheld) to work on any line where any employee gets injured.
What purpose does that serve? It certainly doesn't un-injure anyone.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because he's pointing a gun at their heads and making them work for Tesla.
Musk's companies generally have people lining up to work at them. If you don't like the culture or environment there, there's plenty more who would like your job, so move aside. And so far, almost all of the criticism of Tesla is coming from UAW and the random couple UAW supporters at Tesla that they trot out every time.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Better yet, Tesla should move to another state. Arizona and Idaho are close.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tech workers still think they have some magic powers that make outsourcing to the lowest bidder a terrible mistake in their case but not for anyone else because reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk's companies generally have people lining up to work at them.
In this environment, so do all companies. If you get near a point, I'll be interested.
Re: (Score:3)
Just how stupid is that kind of argumentation? Everybody has a freedom of association, so the workers have a right to join a union. Going by your logic, if Musk does not like it, he can just close his company - after all a company is also derived from the freedom of association, amongst other.
Re: (Score:2)
if Musk does not like it, he can just close his company
What a coincidence, that's exactly what happened to this factory under GM/Toyota ownership.
Re: Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:2)
The problem starts when the union becomes a monopoly on work force.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:4, Informative)
Why would he have the right to refuse to hire union works? Does he have the right to refuse to hire Catholics or Jews? Personally I really don't care if he has hiring biases, but when we start talking about freedom it gets a little tricky. He certainly has a right to refuse to negotiate.
Re: (Score:3)
Participating in a union is not the same as a protected class (religion). It's just like seeing construction workers protesting a contract that hired non-union workers. I see them all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
What he doesn't have the right to do is demand that people waste away their lives for him.
No, he doesn't, and no, he has no power to do so. This is America; people can quit working for Tesla at any time.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:5, Informative)
This is America; people can quit working for Tesla at any time.
This is America; people who do not have savings or family they can fall back on will become homeless criminals in a hot second if they quit their job without some other job to go to. Now if you really want to feel the clammy hand of the future rove around in your guts, check out how much money the average American has saved up. We're one really good financial crisis away from catastrophe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate it when leaders do this. "Here, I will go do this job to show whatever." It is shallow showmanship. A job is something that someone might do for many years; How safe is the job if you do it for 1000s of days? What repetitive injuries can be expected, how many times has the 1% chances of getting crushed by machinery been actualized. This type of showmanship is offensive to the people who do the actual work.
There are professionals out there that can audit these types of safety problems. I hope they are
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you're serious, but if you are, more readable title would be:
"Tesla factory workers pushing for a union have sent a letter of requests to company's board members"
Re: (Score:2)
In most if not all states requiring employees to work overtime is not illegal, however the employer is required to pay the employee at a higher rate for these hours. There are some state laws that prohibit mandatory overtime for certain industries but for most employees this does not apply. As far as overtime laws go, you are better off in California than in most states. For example, if you work more than 8 hours in a day OR more than 7 consecutive days OR 40 hours in a week you are eligible for overtime
Stock prices are meaningless (Score:2, Insightful)
Join a Union. If you don't you'll just get picked apart by the companies expert lawyers. You can't compete with them with
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"They" being the union, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
You're embarrassing yourself with every post like this. For your own sake, please stop.
Re: Stock prices are meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you want production moved to Mexico? Because this is how you get production moved to Mexico.
Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Safety? Same thing, except OSHA is rooting for you, too.
Short form, paraphrased from Ann Landers and John Prine: "STFU, You have no complaints, you is what you is, you ain't what you ain't."
Re: (Score:2)
Not paid enough? Quit, because you can obviously get a better job. Safety? Same thing, except OSHA is rooting for you, too. Short form, paraphrased from Ann Landers and John Prine: "STFU, You have no complaints, you is what you is, you ain't what you ain't."
Well, let's be realistic. Pay and safety usually aren't the cause for unionization these days. I've seen my and other groups try and unionize. I've known people who have worked in the unions to help people unionize. The number one reason for people trying to unionize is bad management. Like in my group, you just need a time or two of vacations being canceled because the boss wants you to work extra shifts of the person they just fired to have Rush Limbaugh listening retired ex-military guys lead the way to
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [bgr.com] at the factory, and has pledged (and at least so far, upheld) to work on any line [electrek.co] where any employee gets injured.
Who cares?
Who cares if Musk chooses to sleep in the factory? That doesn't mean the workers aren't being overworked. Musk owns Tesla and is free to set any standard for himself he likes, the workers don't and can't.
Who cares if Musk takes over on the factory line for an injured worker? 1. It's not his job, he shouldn't be there. Solidarity is nice, but he's got to run the company. 2. There. Should. Not. Be. Injuries. On. The. Line. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. The only acceptable target is zero, and the boss stepping in to fill a spot doesn't achieve that.
Your arguments aren't refutations of UAW's points. They highlight them.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Absolute safety is impossible.
2. There are dollar tradeoffs for safety, and those tradeoffs imply reasonable limits. Ask any engineer whose primary career is safety; ask any highway engineer. You don't spend $100 million to save one life because $100 million represents the efforts of (somewhere in the area of) 50 lifetimes. You shouldn't expend 50 lives to save one life.
The leaders of the UAW want unearned money and power, and have no concerns for anything that doesn't preserve that money and power. They are fully morally equivalent to Al Sharpton.
Re: (Score:2)
1. That "absolute" safety may be impossible doesn't change the fact that the only acceptable target is zero.
2. There are dollar trade-offs for implementing safety systems, for sure. There are dollar trade-offs for injuries, too. There are production trade-offs for injuries. There are morale trade-offs for injuries. There are reputation trade-offs for injuries. There are many, many trade-offs for putting your bottom line above your workers.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why on earth do you think that Tesla Motors' target is anything _other_ than zero?
Because that leftist dipshit doesnt realize that he is suggesting that the evil Elon Musk will suicidally work on his own dangerous assembly line.
No... their thinking and arguments dont make sense when you put their long string of claims together. its because they dont actually know what they are talking about. They just feel what they are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
He just wants to be right. Let him do his thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The most respectable bosses are the ones who aren't afraid to do your job and get their hands dirty.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:4)
It seems like Tesla has a choice. Set up their own "union" in the form of a worker's council or similar, with real power and funding. Seat on the board, ability to get things sorted out and hold the management to account.
Or accept that the workers will form their own union and deal with that.
Re: Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:2)
So when we get actual data that shows that the injury rate is below the industry average, we should just blindly trust the industry union that is wailing on about safety? Sounds like union shops have more safety concerns, and they should be talking to the companies they already do business with...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real scenario here is the union is utterly terrified of Tesla becoming the first major, successful automaker without a union. Such an example could plausibly lead to reduction in union influence at Ford, GM, etc. The UAW is concerned about preserving itself far more than it's concerned about what's going on inside Tesla. Any fool can see this is what's going on since Tesla is successful, the majority of the workers are happy, the injury rate is significantly below industry norms, and the only group t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.. well of course Musk should be willing to sleep in a sleeping bag at his own freaking company. He's the billionaire. People being paid much less than beeelyuns should not be expected to sleep over at work. That implies they're getting extreme compensation.
The old tired lines about stock options making up for bad pay is just as BS as it always was. Show me the money is what these workers should all be saying. Are they founding options? No, they have to wait some number of months/years before they can cash
Re: Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:2)
I see your anecdote, and raise you mine: I bought my house with the proceeds of exercising stock options and selling restricted shares.
Don't work for a failing company, and the stock actually has value.
Re: Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you won the lottery and now you think it was more than a strike of luck? Well, think again [greaterfool.ca].
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see. Working for a 100-year old company with a proven ability to survive, and isn't a massive risk taker is all of a sudden akin to winning the lottery.
Do yourself a favor: get out of the Bay Area. There are lots of stable companies out there that offer fair wages and compensation for fair work.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe we could try to build a workable system that doesn't rely on pure situational chance to allow people a way to plan their future? Most of the people that get hired for these positions never wanted a risk position in the first place and only took it because of other job factors. I have a hard time believing the majority of factory workers are in it for the options. After talking with most people who are even professionals, few people actually even know how stocks work.
Re:Anyone care to post Tesla's side of the story? (Score:4)
hose points proclaim a 52-percent reduction in âoelost time incidentsâ and 30-percent reduction in âoerecordable incidentsâ during the first quarter.
That sounds like an admission that things were bad and they were forced to improve when people started complaining and looking to unionize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 te
Re:Paths to promotion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unions and you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up
Re: (Score:2)
You are promoting fictitious similarities and completely ignoring fundamental differences.
A corporation is capitalized by the voluntary trade of money for ownership shares. The UAW and most unions push for union shops, where every worker of certain categories must belong to the union and pay union dues, it is not a voluntary relation. For-profit corporations and for-profit companies in general earn money by providing goods and services; unions get money through extortion.
If the legal protections that allow
Re:Unions and you (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Re: Unions and you (Score:2)
And when they go get that work in a non-union shop, and the union goes after that shop to unionize?
If a shop wants to toss the union under the decertification clause of the NLRA, or the state votes to become a right-to-work state busting the monopoly power of unions, you are good with that too?
Re: (Score:3)
You understand that unions don't just "take over" shops, right? They're voted in by the workers.
You make it sound like the union marches in and nobody gets a say.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a union out is an election, just like getting a union in. The process is called "decertifying". The reason you are buying into the notion that they are "impossible to get out" is because the discussion has been controlled for the most part by ownership.
An shop doesn't become unionized unless th
Re: (Score:3)
They have the choice to find a job at a non-union shop.
That's a disingenuous response. We can't tell people that they can just go somewhere else and find a job if they don't want to work in a union shop if it's not valid to tell people that they can just go work somewhere else because there is a hostile work environment for any other reason. (I'm not suggesting that a union necessarily makes for a hostile work environment, only that it can.)
Re: (Score:3)
Why should a dress code be a condition of employment? Why should drug testing be a condition of mandatory employment?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a dress code be a condition of employment?
There are lots of valid reasons to have a dress code. Some of them are customer-facing reasons, some of them are safety reasons, some of them are developed from statistic analysis of the results of court cases.
Why should drug testing be a condition of mandatory employment?
That depends on the drug, and comes back to statistics. Nobody is testing for caffeine, so clearly society accepts that there is a line and that some substances are on the acceptable side of it. It's reasonable to expect people not to come to work under the influence of drugs which are known to be lik
Re: (Score:2)
Just as there are lots of valid reasons to have a union. Once again, the union doesn't just march in and take over. A shop becomes unionized when the employees vote it in.
Why should management have all the power when it comes to how a workplace is run? Remember, labor precedes capital.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should management have all the power when it comes to how a workplace is run? Remember, labor precedes capital.
As I have repeatedly stated here, what's needed is protections for all workers. Doing it over and over and over (and over) again for each different business is insanity. It just means that someone is always falling through the cracks. And that's the problem with unions. They lobby for things for their members first, and everything else second. They were an absolutely necessary stage in securing rights for workers, and I am absolutely not in favor of banning them, but they have served their purpose and run t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tesla sold about 76,000 vehicles in 2016. Ford sold 17.55 million vehicles in 2016.
Please, let's all remember that shops only go union when the employees vote to go union. If the employees want it, that's when it happens.
Re: Unions and you (Score:2, Interesting)
The UAW and most unions push for union shops, where every worker of certain categories must belong to the union and pay union dues, it is not a voluntary relation.
I have always found unionisation in the US very strange. In most (if not all) other countries, neither employers nor unions have any say in whether an employee becomes a member of a union. It's entirely up to the employee there are usually multiple unions to choose from. The monopoly of US unions is a bad thing. It makes them too powerful against both the employers and the employees, without sufficient accountability. It leads to an all-or-nothing situation that's unhealthy at both extremes.
I also have the
Re: (Score:3)
All coming from the union that's trying to unionize them, and a tiny number of workers supporting the unionization. Funny that.
Where's your actual statistics that Tesla's rate of accidents is higher than average? Because Tesla cites OSHA data [greencarreports.com] saying that their accident rate is a little over 2/3rds that of the industry average.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla are doing great things, but they're not perfect. There. Now you no longer have to be amused when you see some people liking some things a company does and not others.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it all makes sense... Musk being on Trump's committee.... his investment in boring machines.... he's planning to tunnel underneath the wall!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The union will then protect them over everyone else based on their superior seniority.
Its just selfish. It isnt about communism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Communist (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Communist (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't ever do a trade show at a hall with a union contract - you won't be allowed to plug in your power strip. You have to hire two (buddy system, apparently) union electricians to do it for you, because safety.
Because apparently when you walk through the doors of the Javitz Center in New York City, you forget how to plug a household lamp in without killing yourself and setting fire to the place.
Re: (Score:2)
on't ever do a trade show at a hall with a union contract - you won't be allowed to plug in your power strip. You have to hire two (buddy system, apparently) union electricians to do it for you, because safety.
Don't forget that you suddenly became too feeble to push a cart or carry your own gear in, got to wait for a couple of teamsters to come do that for you as well.
Seems to me like the solution is to make the booth a robot (or fleet of robots) that come in and self-deploy. Neither you nor the teamsters has to plug anything in. Of course, they'll lobby against self-charging robots next, setting up the world for the union meatbags v robots wars of 2088
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why would anybody want to own a fuckwit? It's not like they are paying assets, money pits.
Re: (Score:2)
Like agreeing to take pay and benefit cuts to keep companies afloat after disastrous decisions by company management? Or maybe that's your boilerplate anti-union dumbfuckery. If we applied the standards held to unions (who are capitalist by nature) to non-union enterprises, everything from car dealerships to lawn care businesses would be banned, because Enron, because reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
The hell you did. This tired anti-union trope is based on the premise that Steve is just dying to step in and do Bob's work if Bob starts to slack off. Which of course is complete batshit nonsense. If you are Steve would you want to do your own work plus Bobs at a non-union company? Of course not. Would joining a union make you want to do your own work plus Bob's? Of course not. Which means you are engaging in willful dumbfucerky, same as every other toolbag in this story.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Anti-union dumbfuckery. Unions weren't responsible for the management decisions that drove the big three into the ground - unreliable gas guzzlers when gas prices were at all time highs - management was.