Tesla Broke US Labor Law With Anti-Union Efforts (theregister.com) 112
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: In a ruling issued on Thursday, the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concluded that Tesla violated federal labor law in its efforts to discourage workers from unionizing. It directed the company to cease various anti-union actions and policies like claiming workers would lose benefits if they vote for union representation. The NLRB found that Tesla violated labor law by coercively interrogating employees, threatening them with the loss of stock options if they supported unionization, and enacting unlawful policies like a confidentiality agreement that banned speaking to the press.
The ruling directs the vehicle maker to offer to rehire plaintiff and former employee Richard Ortiz and pay him lost wages, and to strike unlawful disciplinary information from the record of both Ortiz and another employee, Jose Moran. It further requires Tesla to rescind portions of its 2016 confidentiality agreement that disallow lawful union-related activity under Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, which the NLRB acknowledged "protects employees when they speak with the media about working conditions, labor disputes, or other terms and conditions of employment." The decision also directs self-styled "Technoking" Musk to delete a May 20, 2018, tweet because it implies workers must give up their stock options if they unionize. Finally, the NLRB is requiring Tesla to post a notice at its Fremont, Calif., facility explaining that workers have the right to organize under the law and stating that the company will not enact rules that interfere with protected union activity.
The ruling directs the vehicle maker to offer to rehire plaintiff and former employee Richard Ortiz and pay him lost wages, and to strike unlawful disciplinary information from the record of both Ortiz and another employee, Jose Moran. It further requires Tesla to rescind portions of its 2016 confidentiality agreement that disallow lawful union-related activity under Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, which the NLRB acknowledged "protects employees when they speak with the media about working conditions, labor disputes, or other terms and conditions of employment." The decision also directs self-styled "Technoking" Musk to delete a May 20, 2018, tweet because it implies workers must give up their stock options if they unionize. Finally, the NLRB is requiring Tesla to post a notice at its Fremont, Calif., facility explaining that workers have the right to organize under the law and stating that the company will not enact rules that interfere with protected union activity.
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla violated union laws, OSHA laws, COIVD-lockdown laws, state dealership laws, state lemon laws, SEC regulations, UK autonomous vehicle laws, Chinese and EU laws about advertised but not delivered self-driving capabilties, and NHTSA regulations which required them to recall a large number of cars.
Tesla is a pretty bad corporate actor. Even if you dislike dealerships and therefore want to start a fight over that one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have a source for that. My understanding is they make quite a bit of margin per car. Or did you mean the credits are the only way to offset their huge capital cost to be in profit in total. Because that's not what I hear when you say "sells every car at a loss".
Re: (Score:2)
margin does not mean profit. Profit is after all expenses are subtracted from sales. This is basic accounting 101.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Where to start with "basic accounting 101"?
1) Credits are pre-tax. Net income is post-tax. You don't compare pre-tax figures with post-tax figures. This is "basic accounting 101".
2) The credits (primarily from Europe) benefit ICE manufacturers far more ("supercredits"), but I don't see anyone in a rush to subtract them from their books.
3) The US - Tesla's largest market has a $7,5k anti-incentive against them, dwarfing all other incentives, but I don't see anyone rushing to compensate for that.
4) Tesla in 2020 was hit by a huge amount of GAAP expenses due to stock compensation, caused by the surging stock price - obviously a one-time event - yet I don't see in a rush for anyone to add that back into Tesla's profits.
5) GAAP does not reflect steady-state operations, and consequently heavily penalizes rapidly growing companies. For this reason, other metrics - Non-GAAP net income and EBITDA - exist, to reflect the steady-state. Tesla's Non-GAAP income and EBITDA are superb. And note that even they can play down growth companies (e.g. growth companies often use loss leaders to boost their growth).
6) The argument for "removing credits" is to argue that they'll go away. While the trend over the next several years may be to phase down manufacturer credits, the outlook for individual credits is highly positive (and it's the same net effect to the manufacturer - they can charge more for a vehicle if the buyer gets a credit)
7) Tesla is incentivized to minimize GAAP net income, as GAAP net income means paying taxes.
8) Most of the auto industry had a terrible 2020 (and 2021 isn't off to a great start).
As for the OP, point by point:
Tesla has, in its entire history, only once been found to be in violation of unionization laws (this case is a rehash of a case reported on nearly two years ago). All due to an idiotic reading of this thread as being a threat, rather than a (true!) statement of fact:
---
Elon Musk: "Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare."
Eric Brown (union activist): "Hi Elon, why would they lose stock options? Are you threatening to take away benefits from unionized workers?"
Elon Musk: "No, UAW does that. They want divisiveness & enforcement of 2 class “lords & commoners” system. That sucks. US fought War of Independence to get *rid* of a 2 class system! Managers & workers shd be equal w easy movement either way. Managing sucks btw. Hate doing it so much."
---
ALL automakers have OSHA violations. The number however depends on which OSHA regime you're under, as states can implement stricter OSHA standards than the federal mandate. California (CalOSHA) has by far the strictest OSHA standards in the US. The most common types of citations handed out (PSM) don't even exist in other states. Seriously, read [blr.com].
Tesla was the LAST automaker in the US to announce reopening plans. By the federal governments' standards, they never should have been shut down in the first place. Both the city and the state wanted them reopened as well.
Tesla is not in violation of state dealership laws, it's battling said protectionist laws in court, and should be cheered on for this fact.
How can a company as a whole be in "violation of lemon laws"? Lemon laws give a buyer a right to return a vehicle, and apply to (and are invoked ag
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Tesla made a profit of $270 million in the fourth quarter of 2020, bringing the year's profits to $721 million...Tesla's profits were made possible by $1.58 billion in regulatory credits it earned in 2020.
Without selling carbon credits (i.e. electric car subsidies) Tesla loses almost a billion dollars last year [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How much money did Tesla spend expanding their manufacturing in 2020? I bet it was more than $860 million.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and? They still make money on each car. Whether they make a profit is irrelevant to whether they make money on each car.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have a source for that.
Yes. Yes we do. A news source [cnn.com] and a financial source [fool.com]. You will note the financial source starts out saying Tesla has never turned a profit selling cars.
My understanding is they make quite a bit of margin per car.
See above. Your understanding is wrong.
Or did you mean the credits are the only way to offset their huge capital cost to be in profit in total.
No, what the OP meant is Tesla does not make money selling cars. They only "make" money by selling emission credits. If th
Re: Duh (Score:1)
To the OP: really? Youâ(TM)re going as far as dealership laws? Not all laws are just.
Re: (Score:2)
I specifically called out that some people disagree on dealership laws. Anyway, longer response here [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they started making a profit per unit sold in 2020 or 2019. But they used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's profits were made possible by $1.58 billion in regulatory credits it earned in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. [arstechnica.com]
Tesla's profits were made possible by $1.58 billion in regulatory credits it earned in 2020.
So tax breaks doesn't count towards profit now???
PALES to GMs efforts to stop EV cars in 80s (Score:4, Interesting)
GM spends 1 billion making a great EV that worked.
There is great demand.
Then kills the project, destroys every EV car they made for trials. (insane fuckshits)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They did it to 'grab all EV talent' see how to compete with it, then kill it, so no competitor can start ever again.
And to make sure no talent exists afterword, all hopes crushed.
Re: (Score:3)
EVs as we know them weren't possible without affordable Li-Ion batteries. Those didn't exist in the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
NiMH was initially a more promising technology for electric vehicles, and in fact GM's second gen EV-1 witched from lead acid to NiMH, which upped its range from 55 miles to 105.
What held back the adoption of NiMH for automotive applications was that large format NiMH batteries were encumbered by patents aquired by Chevron -- an oil company. They put potential licensees of the patents in a Catch-22 -- Chevron would only license the patent for high volume production, making it impossible to do smaller produ
Re: (Score:2)
The NiMH EV-1 in the 1980s required a 8-12 hour charge time and a charger the size of a gas pump, as well as the equivalent of a new car in installation costs. But yes, it had a reasonable range. It's possible they could have taken off as a commuter option from suburbs (with garages) to cities and back, but with a very high cost.
Re: (Score:3)
The killer advantages of li-ion over NiMH is that lithium is lighter for given capacity, charges faster, and has less self-discharge. So I don't see many cars using them in ten years.
But NiMH might very reasonably be used for storing solar power for nighttime use. It's cheaper, safer, and its disadvantages only have limited impact in that application.
Re: (Score:2)
Back on topic.
Tesla vehicles for the elite, workers need not apply, the backdoor only for you, the servants entrance, the non union labour only service entrance. For union labour, apply at Ford, GM, any European manufacturer.
Tesla the anti-labour corporation buy one and you support union busting, buy one and you deny collectively bargaining, buy one and you support the loss of workers rights.
Right now Tesla is heading right into a mass of competition, unionised competition, this will play out extremely bad
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that auto makers need cell production to be high, so as to lower their costs.
Re: (Score:1)
GM spends 1 billion making a great EV that worked. There is great demand. Then kills the project, destroys every EV car they made for trials. (insane fuckshits)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They did it to 'grab all EV talent' see how to compete with it, then kill it, so no competitor can start ever again. And to make sure no talent exists afterword, all hopes crushed.
Your evidence is some video from 2009? GM has a very large EV and autonomous driving program.
Young or forgetful? (Score:2)
Just curious - are you under 30, or forgetful?
I still HAVE some nicad batteries, a nicad powered drill.
The battery is 2X the size and about 1/2 the power. You could build a Tesla with old battery tech, but it would be literally full of batteries - there would be nowhere to sit.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit. GM built a car and found out it didn't work. Crappy range (50 miles for the first version, maybe 100 for the second one), space for two only, sky-high cost. Who knows what other skeletons surfaced in their test data.
Then they took the only sensible course to minimize the loss: they took back the cars they leased, and destroyed those albatrosses (instead of being on the hook for maintaining them for the next 20 years).
You can't "make sure no talent exists afterword", short of killing every designer
Re: (Score:2)
Your bullshit.
Which is plenty for the daily commuting needs of most Americans.
Yeah, so did the first Tesla roadster. But that's just the SSDD: early adopters pay a high price, which lets the manufacturer ramp up production and increase quality while lowering prices. Electric cards, HDTV's, Blu Ray, etc etc etc.
Yeah, no connection between those dots. There was zero
Re: (Score:2)
There was zero reason for GM to destroy all the cars once leases were up and they were back in the company's poession.
Destroying prototypes when their useful life is up is SOP. Every manufacturer does this with their prototypes and preproduction cars. They don't want to be on the hook for customer support and liability if they sell them. Especially in litigation-happy America, no manufacturer is going to allow prototypes out the door.
Patents, NDA's.
Electric drivetrains aren't rocket science, especially when you use a battery as basic as the lead-acid cells used in the EV1.
The patentable technology would have been in the construction of t
Re: (Score:2)
A car produced for four years isn't a "prototype".
Every single product in the history of mankind was sold at a loss until investments and R&D costs were recouped. Microsoft lost up to $7 biiilliooon dollars [venturebeat.com] on the first XBox, to get a foot in the console game market. GM's first electric Hummers will be sold at a loss, right along with the
Re: (Score:2)
GM built only 1117 EV1s, and they leased them instead of selling them. The entire EV1 program was an experiment.
The program followed the same pattern other public experiments by car makers did, e.g. the gas turbine car experiments in the 1960. All bought back/lease ended by manufacturers at the end of the experiment, cars destroyed.
You're confusing production cost with recouping R&D. I'm saying each individual car cost them $80-100k to build. With the small numbers GM expected to sell, there was no way
Re: (Score:2)
So pretty close to the number of Ford GT's [motortrend.com] that have been built. Guess how many of those have been forcibly recalled and destroyed.
Hollywood Accounting? The first XBox didn't cost that much to make per unit, but Microsoft lost billions establishing themselves in the console market. That old line about 'yeah we're losing money per unit, but we'll make it up on volume' is supposed to be sarcastic...
Re: (Score:2)
You're misunderstanding me, there's no Hollywood accounting going on.
The price of a car consists of several items:
1. the unit cost: the total cost of the raw materials, purchased parts, factory time etc. required to produce 1 car. For the EV1 this was reported to be 80-100k.
2. an amount that goes towards recouping the R&D cost.
3. an amount that goes towards recouping the company's overhead.
4. profit.
The lease price was not enough to pay for item 1, let alone the other 3. GM made gigantic losses on the p
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The dealership laws are bullshit. There is no reason buy I should be forced to buy a car from a middle man. How does that benefit the consumer?
Re:Duh (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, as I pointed out, the point stands even with dealership laws. Digression because you asked: The origins of the dealership laws had good aims to benefit the custmer. To ensure that if you sell a car in a state you need to have a presence for lawsuits/recalls/warrantee work/lemon laws, local service options existed, purchasers complied with local laws and so the state could more easily regulate other things. At the time they even claimed to lower prices by making it so companies competed for your business to sell you a Ford.
But, that's irrelevant, as is whether they've outgrown their usefulness.
I included that because it's part of a pattern, not a stance. If you violate a prohibition on, I dunno, serving food to black people at same counter as white people, that's a moral stand and you should be commended for it. If you violate that law as well as health codes for cooking, electrical compliance laws for the wiring, minimum occupancy laws for fire safety and source your meat from a guy who proudly has low prices due to meat fraud, then you weren't taking a moral stand. You were undercutting every law you could to make more money. And it doesn't matter if one law you violate happens to be bad, at that point it's evidence that you're just a colossal dick.
Re: (Score:2)
> The dealership laws are bullshit. There is no reason buy I should be forced to buy a car from a middle man. How does that benefit the consumer?
It's meant to benefit the cartel in exchange for campaign donations. Money gains power, power gains money - always.
> Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Oh, you were teasing!
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
why can't we put them in jail? Corporations are people you know.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The two richest people in the world are now famous for union-busting and dangerous workplaces...can we officially declare this the second Gilded Age yet?
Re: (Score:2)
> can we officially declare this the second Gilded Age yet?
No way - the standard of living and the value of the US Dollar rose dramatically during the Gilded Age. Both are falling precipitously now.
Corporations and politicians are in bed but fucking everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
updated my journal
there goes my "ill clean the dustbins on the ship to mars"-idea
Robo-unions. (Score:2)
Maybe invest in automation. When was the last time you heard of robots unionizing?
Re:Robo-unions. (Score:4, Funny)
The last time I heard about it was in 2001 [wikipedia.org]. Or more accurately was published in 2001 but about an incident in 3001.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's real innovation is NOT the EV, but it is the manufacturing lines.
Re: (Score:2)
things have changed. Look at their new production line for cells. A single line makes 10GW/year, is a fraction of the space of current tech, and is in a lights-out factory.
Making cells is a slightly different and simpler problem to making EVs. We have had lights out factories for specific tasks/goods for years, the more controlled and regimented the task the better. It really depends what you are making, what materials and what processes you need to apply. I am not going to deny there have been breakthroughs here, but it is still not the solution to every problem.
Long term I can see someone like Tesla pushing the boundaries of what is possible with lights out manufacturing bu
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually, sure. But the technology isn't flexible enough yet, robots are still mainly a people-augmenting tech. Some day it's going to happen, but for now being replaced by a robot is just a bogeyman used to scare workers.
Robots appeared in a local supermarket chain after they had a strike. The robots slowly, slowly patrol the aisles looking for spills and other obstacles on the floor. So slowly, in fact, that if there were a spill it usually takes them longer to find than it would for a customer to re
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing so crude as that. There are more sophisticated ways. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't been following the Tesla story I see. Musk's initial vision was a (nearly) all robot factory. Problem was all that automation failed to build cars fast and acceptably defect free. He had to bring in a lot of human assembly to get his cars produced.
Tesla but not Amazon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> I am surprised that Tesla gets every book thrown at it while Amazon skates by every time.
One boss felates the politcians in power at every opportunity and the other regularly tells them to go fuck themselves on Twitter.
I know which I'd rather be friends with, but my personality type is high in disagreeableness.
PS I didn't say which was which - is it ambiguous?
No Penalty For Breaking The Law (Score:3)
The legal framework has been heavily stacked in favor of companies and corporations and against unions and workers for decades now. Notice that the only "penalty" for having illegally fired a worker seeking to unionize was to rehire him and pay back wages (with no interest), there is no penalty for having broken the law at all. So Musk has every incentive to keep disrupting unionization in this same manner, since the cost to him when caught and prosecuted is nothing, and the disruption of having the organizers removed from the workplace who was fired four years ago is extremely effective.
Unless real penalties, like a $100 million fine for such activities, or legally enforced union presence in the workplace, are enacted Musk will lather-rinse-repeat forever.
Re:No Penalty For Breaking The Law (Score:4, Insightful)
well that worker may now be can't be fired & s (Score:2)
well that worker may now be can't be fired & be shift locked to THERE CHOICE OF shift. They can't force them to take an poor one just to make them quit.
No they didnt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Union busting is perfectly legal in the US. So many US companies depend on labor bases around the world with no power structure.
I was thinking with the story summary that maybe it was illegal, but just only selectively enforced? I wouldn't put it past some US states.
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
After having been immersed in union labor issues as the child of a union member, then as an engineer surrounded by union labor issues in manufacturing, I am firmly of the opinion that labor unions are the soul sucking death of an industry.
Why should anyone have to 'join' a union, pay dues, and follow their arcane rules? Should'nt our labor laws apply to everyone and be enforced equally and fairly, regardless of the industry? That's the ideal I'd rather shoot for, rather than than supporting the Mob that u
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that countering stupid with more stupid isn't working out so well? Agreed.
Re: (Score:1)
That's the problem with a lot of liberal ideas. Sometimes there's a genuine need for things, but those things often have a shelf life and become an anchor on society once their day has come. Unions were needed. They did improve things for every working person. The thing is, they did their job. The needed protections are now enshrined in federal and state law. Now all the unions do is is suck productivity, take part of worker's wages, and use those wages to bribe politicians in to protecting said unions
Re: (Score:2)
Remove that ability of the executive, and instead, return their success being tied to the COMPANY's success, i.e. profits, and then you will see decent companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Unions have their places. They are NOT the issue. The issue is that Executives went from making successful companies, to making their $ off manipulated stock. Remove that ability of the executive, and instead, return their success being tied to the COMPANY's success, i.e. profits, and then you will see decent companies.
Then you will see all the best executives more to other countries to run their companies.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if that's good or bad...
Elon is a religious figure, he should use that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let’s fuck up another automotive company...
If it's Tesla, I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really curious as to why this place hates Tesla so much. Do you get a discount at the Chevy dealer with your AARP card?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you care, afraid it will effect your portfolio?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This site is billed as "news for nerds" and a fully electric car that runs Linux for the user interface sounds like a good match. But really every mention of Tesla is met with nothing but complaints. You'd think Tesla is the Microsoft of the car world.
Re:F’king unions (Score:4, Interesting)
I can tell you my reason. I personally couldn't wait to get an electric car and I fully support that endeavour.
But I have come to hate Elon. He is basically an "influencer" who uses his public musings to cheat his fans. That billion-dollar profit from Bitcoin came from people who follow Elon's twitter. That's a billion-dollar sucked out of technically illterate people into the pockets of one of the richest person in the world. That should be criminal (and would be looked at it that way if it were in middle-eastern or east european country). Forcing people to come to a factory during a pandemic, firing them for promoting unionization, suppressing data of how many people got sick because Elon wants to violate government mandated lockdown? When demand of cars has already slumped during a lockdown... and getting away with it because he is rich and the small business owners aren't.
His success is literally because he does what he preaches others not to do. And all the people I know who are his fans are exactly like him. His success is a symptomatic of a system that rewards rich people and punishes poor people. It might be legal but it is not something to be cheared.
He is The Kardashian of techies.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking people to buy bitcoin is criminal? Following that logic every advertisement is criminal because it does the same thing. Tells a person to buy something. So it really comes down to you not liking Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't ask people to buy bitcoin. He bought bitcoin, asked people to buy it and sold his own inventory. Unless you didn't know that, what you are doing is defending an indefensible act.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. That 1 billion dollar he encashed was growing on a tree.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Tesla couples some brilliant decisions with moments that make you go 'WTF were they thinking?".
Yes, they were the first to build electric cars with a performance level that made them desirable. But their products are let down by poor build quality, by a "stick all of the controls on a touchscreen" usability nightmare, with an "autopilot" that sometimes decides to plow the car into a concrete wall, and by a director who thinks it's a good idea to plow $1B into a pyramid scheme that costs more
Re: (Score:2)
People run themselves into walls with autopilot because they don't follow the instructions. It makes you acknowledge several warnings and even says to always keep your hands on the wheel. Autopilot on an airplane will just as easily allow you to crash into a mountain.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm really curious as to why this place hates Tesla so much. Do you get a discount at the Chevy dealer with your AARP card?
No, it is because Musk is an arsehole.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:F’king unions (Score:4, Informative)
All the European and Japanese manufacturers have unionized workforces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:F’king unions (Score:4, Insightful)
Let’s fuck up another automotive company.../quote:
Wait, are you telling us that paying fair wages, having sane working hours, and providing the same set of humane benefits everyone else in other first world countries has, is enough to fuck up powerful, traditional, rich, and well-connected American companies?
Well, maybe they deserved being fucked up then.
Seriously, who were the morons who "led" these companies so incompetently that something as inane as workers rights was enough to destroy them?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, who were the morons who "led" these companies so incompetently that something as inane as workers rights was enough to destroy them?
This. So much this!. I often hear the argument, if you raise minimum wage then businesses will close. Well if your business relies on modern day slavery then it deserves to close. Maybe a better business will open in its place.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's referring to the 1980s and even 2000s, where unions demanded auto-workers keep their middle-class wages for performing manual labour, causing the manufacturers to shut plants.
Too often, the capitalist ideal of 'comparative advantage' means 'cheaper workers', which is troublesome because rich countries with their higher cost of living can't compete. But sometimes the issue is, mechanization and robotization means semi-skilled labour becomes grunt-work and wages should drop as a consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
sometimes the issue is, mechanization and robotization means semi-skilled labour becomes grunt-work and wages should drop as a consequence.
Nah, mechanization and robotization have two possible outcomes:
a) They replace workers, meaning they now must find new jobs, frequently seeing their wages collapse as a result, with rent rent optimization flowing to shareholders;
b) They replace workers' hours, meaning they now have to work less hours for the same wages, which frees them to pursue other interests, the resulting rent optimization flowing to stakeholders (all of them).
Nothing actually demands alternative "a". Sure, the way things are currently
Re: (Score:2)
Unions have not been the ones making things happen.
What is needed is a reform on companies, to turn them into ESOPs, so that there is publicly traded stock owned by those that invested into the company, as well as a privately stock that is owned by the employees, INCLUDING the executives. And no executive is allowed to buy publicly trade stock in that company OR competitor. The Board of Directors should be odd numbered, with executive appointing 1 member, while employees and stock owners appoin
Re: (Score:2)
WHat is needed is for companies to be an ESOP, BUT, require the employee AND executive stock to not be traded on the open market, and executives are not allowed to own any of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> NAFTA killed the US auto industry's domestic manufacturing capabilities.
Don't worry - DC is trying to kill Tesla so we go back to imported ICE vehicles.
Americans seem to slightly support this policy.
Re: (Score:1)
The reason why NAFTA moved jobs was because union labor was way too expensive and unproductive. Yes, NAFTA played a significant role (and was a really bad agreement), but the labor unions gave a big helping hand. As NAFTA opened up other labor markets, the unions were simultaneously making outrageous demands on the big 3 while they were already hurting and under siege by the Japanese auto makers.
Rather than realizing that there's a symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, the unions didn't ca