So tired of Stories about Tesla Workers - from anti Tesla folks.

[Garlan Garner]

Maybe this question might explain my position.

Who can point to a company that has a unionized robot?

If anyone owns a company such as I do...it would be advantageous for all who want to support that Company and its "human" workers to talk about good things concerning that company and dispel any illegitimate news / activity.

 

[Garlan Garner]

What proof? Musk claiming something doesn't amount to anything. His personal credibility is questionable and even electrek - which is very sympathetic to Tesla's cause - questions the plausibility of Musk's claim.

Ok then lets go with robots and let all of those workers go. Sounds good to me

Let the workers complain. I don't hear that happening anywhere. Give the workers a chance to work and earn their paycheck before they replace them with robots.

His personal credibility is questionable? Link please. He and is company have paid humans millions upon millions of dollars so far in salary. Assisting thousands of families. He is one of the few people that have ever been born to contribute to killing pollution through sustainable energy. None of that may mean anything to you which would explain your premise.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I suspect the injury rate reports are real. I did a tour of the factory last week, and the one thing I noticed (coming from an aircraft manufacturing plant) was how fast the transportation workers hustled around with loaded forklifts in close proximity to pedestrians. It seemed like a safety hazard to my eyes. Also, the main line is not as ergonomic as our aircraft line is. We minimize reaching overhead by having the aircraft sub assemblies in rotating or vertically oriented fixtures with moveable height platforms. Granted, we don't make as many planes a year as Tesla does cars in a month, but I would think that would make the ergonomics issue more critical for Tesla, not less.

And, while supercharging at 11PM at the factory the night before our tour, paramedics came and hauled out a worker in a neck brace.

Ok then lets go with robots and let all of those workers go. Sounds good to me. Robots don't have necks.

 

[bonnie]

I have no idea as to the veracity of the claims, but I do know this: Replacing people (whether on an assembly line or an engineering team) is an expensive proposition. Much more expensive than ensuring employees are healthy and enjoy their job. Dismissing any complaints as 'oh then we'll just go with robots' is completely missing the point. Everyone at a company contributes to the overall success. And each person should know that.

Have there been injuries due to ergonomic issues and overwork? Undoubtedly. Does it appear (to someone from the outside) that Tesla (instead of threatening that all jobs can be automated so shut up and be happy you have a job) has been paying attention? Yes. Over the last few years I've seen improvements in the break areas, notices about employee events, notices re health & wellness benefits, etc. Obviously Tesla is putting in some effort. I don't know if it's enough or not. And I've seen union shenanigans in my life, so I'm not buying that it's a widespread problem. Just don't have enough data.

Manufacturing lines should be valued. And I'm sorry for any employee in any job who is threatened with 'we can just replace you with a robot'. Kind of hard to take pride in your work with that attitude.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I have no idea as to the veracity of the claims, but I do know this: Replacing people (whether on an assembly line or an engineering team) is an expensive proposition. Much more expensive than ensuring employees are healthy and enjoy their job. Dismissing any complaints as 'oh then we'll just go with robots' is completely missing the point. Everyone at a company contributes to the overall success. And each person should know that.

Have there been injuries due to ergonomic issues and overwork? Undoubtedly. Does it appear (to someone from the outside) that Tesla (instead of threatening that all jobs can be automated so shut up and be happy you have a job) has been paying attention? Yes. Over the last few years I've seen improvements in the break areas, notices about employee events, notices re health & wellness benefits, etc. Obviously Tesla is putting in some effort. I don't know if it's enough or not. And I've seen union shenanigans in my life, so I'm not buying that it's a widespread problem. Just don't have enough data.

Manufacturing lines should be valued. And I'm sorry for any employee in any job who is threatened with 'we can just replace you with a robot'. Kind of hard to take pride in your work with that attitude.

I would have to disagree. Over the long haul it would be MUCH cheaper to replace humans with robots. The upfront cost is expensive, but it is becoming MUCH cheaper.
That's why I would hope we could do all we can to keep "humans" working. Tesla employs approx. 50,000 people right now. I don't want to see any of them lose their jobs to robots, however if these outside groups don't stop what they are doing or if no one steps up and defends these people.....then they just might lose their jobs. Can you imagine if 25K people lose their jobs...what that would do to all of the families affected?

Check out my link above as to how its going to be cheaper to replace the battery module folks with robots - concerning how fast a robot can produce vs a human.

Tesla replacing battery operators with robots. .

 

[bonnie]

I would have to disagree. Over the long haul it would be MUCH cheaper to replace humans with robots. The upfront cost is expensive, but it is becoming MUCH cheaper.
That's why I would hope we could do all we can to keep "humans" working. Tesla employs approx. 50,000 people right now. I don't want to see any of them lose their jobs to robots, however if these outside groups don't stop what they are doing or if no one steps up and defends these people.....then they just might lose their jobs. Can you imagine if 25K people lose their jobs...what that would do to all of the families affected?

Check out my link above as to how its going to be cheaper to replace the battery module folks with robots - concerning how fast a robot can produce vs a human.

Tesla replacing battery operators with robots. .

People complaining about work conditions is not what will cause a company to automate. Profits and quality will be the driving factors. When automation is cheaper, factory lines are automated. It's a cost benefit ratio, nothing more. If you've ever converted a manufacturing line from manual assembly to automated assembly, you'd understand the costs involved.

Automated lines do not mean that you don't require people. It's just that the skills change. Designing, producing, validating, maintaining automated equipment is not a small task. And it's not just a one-time task.

Investing in employees always pays off.

 

[AudubonB]

I would have been happier had this thread stayed even mostly on the topic of fake news regarding workers, as from my perspective there has been an onslaught of effectively identical articles using data and anecdotes that appear mostly from pre-2016 sources.

But -

On the topic of robotic replacement, it seems that the most careful approach could be along the lines of:

2017: A worker base of X employees and Y robots create Z automobiles per unit time;

202x: A worker base of approximately X employees and >Y robots create >>Z automobiles.

With the above, there is no "replacement" per se of workers; it would be, of course, utterly opposite to what a labor union would like to see.

Thus has it ever been since Benjamin Arkwright &co.; I believe this increase in worker productivity should continue even though I also believe that the old means used to determine productivity are showing their age. That extreme increase in capital inputs relative to labor inputs in a situation like Tesla's Fremont factory is what would be raising the productivity rates....not because a particular worker is himself or herself so much more highly qualified, experienced, innovative.

To the extent the above is true, what could be the rôle of a UAW? I haven't the slightest idea - I think the answer is nothing - but am interested to learn if others have different, reasoned input.

 

[gowthamn]

Rate of injuries at tesla is higher than the industry average.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Rate of injuries at tesla is higher than the industry average.

link?

 

[Garlan Garner]

Rate of injuries at tesla is higher than the industry average.

This is truth.
2015
The Worksafe report (http://worksafe.typepad.com/files/worksafe_tesla5_24.pdf) notes that Tesla (TSLA)workers at its Fremont, Calif., auto-manufacturing facility suffered 8.8 nonfatal injuries per 100 workers in 2015,while the average rate in the industry was 6.7.

2016 Tesla better Industry Worse:
Tesla posted a rate of 8.1 in 2016; while industrywide figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are not yet available for last year, the average rate for the automobile industry has ranged from 6.7 to 7.7 since 2008, Worksafe pointed out. The median rate in that time is 7.2.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
05-26-17 0733ET
Copyright (c) 2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

But yet... all we say is that Tesla is worse than average. This is what I'm talking about. Tell the whole reported story.

 

[AudubonB]

"6.7"...."8.8"...Need error bars on those data to be able to draw any inferences of significance.

 

[whitex]

I have no idea as to the veracity of the claims, but I do know this: Replacing people (whether on an assembly line or an engineering team) is an expensive proposition. Much more expensive than ensuring employees are healthy and enjoy their job.

Profits and quality will be the driving factors. When automation is cheaper, factory lines are automated. It's a cost benefit ratio, nothing more.

Are you saying that keeping employees happy (giving them what they ask for, higher pay, better benefits, etc) has $0 cost? If not, then said cost contributes to the "cost benefit ratio" making more expensive automation worth doing, no?

 

[hitparader]

Here's at least some potential real data for us to consume and shed light on how some real workers feel. 3.5 stars on Glassdoor.

Tesla Motors Reviews | Glassdoor

 

[bonnie]

Are you saying that keeping employees happy (giving them what they ask for, higher pay, better benefits, etc) has $0 cost? If not, then said cost contributes to the "cost benefit ratio" making more expensive automation worth doing, no?

No, I don't believe I implied in any way that there was zero cost. Of course it has to be added into the cost benefit ratio. As do the lowered costs due to retention, skill sets increasing over time, creative problem-solving, etc.

Automation is great & there are numerous applications. I'm def not against automation. But threatening people that 'if they don't shut up and quit complaining or they'll be replaced' is naive, at best. Complaining employees is not why companies automate. Companies automate because it makes sense from a cost benefit perspective. For instance, if you've dreamt up a new widget, you don't start by investing money in automation. You have that widget manually produced - until your market grows to the point that you are willing to invest in the automated process. It's not cheap. You can't just call DialARobot and have automation show up one day.

Automated lines require skilled people to maintain. They're not easily replaceable. So what point do you decide it's worth treating your people right, so that you are not watching those people walk out the door, those people with necessary skill sets & knowledge gained on the job?

If you take anything away from what I've been saying, it's these two points: 1) It's not expensive to treat people right, and, 2) Companies don't bring in automation to solve people management issues. Automation is brought in because it's the right point in the product lifecycle.

The two things are completely separate from each other. My issue is with the idea that employees should be quiet or they'll be replaced by machines.

 

[whitex]

No, I don't believe I implied in any way that there was zero cost. Of course it has to be added into the cost benefit ratio. As do the lowered costs due to retention, skill sets increasing over time, creative problem-solving, etc.

Agreed, and companies do that. If they don't treat employees well, people leave, retraining or lost "tribal knowledge" cost hurt, quality drops, customers are unhappy, etc - it all balances over time. The problem starts when you get a union involved, so you don't get to reward increased skill set or productivity but instead of have to stick to "higher seniority, higher benefit" and "everyone at the same seniority is interchangeable". This increases costs of retention by orders of magnitude. For example, if you get an employee who learns fast, works great, in order to pay him (or her) so he doesn't leave to the next company you have to pay everyone else at their seniority and above more money, then the comparison is not "pay this employee $10K per year more so he or she sticks around" it's "raise everyone's pay $10K or more to the few good ones don't leave" so if you have 50,000 employees, it's not worth paying the extra half a billion per year to retain few, but wait, that's a decent chunk of change that could decently affect the "cost" of the "cost vs. benefit" of automation.

threatening people that 'if they don't shut up and quit complaining or they'll be replaced' is naive, at best.

Absolutely agree on that one. It's a ludicrous argument from for an employer to make. It really should be "if you don't like it here, feel free to leave". If low retention becomes a costly issue to the company, they have to solve it, and if automation is more expensive than keeping people, then they usually do. Btw, if labor laws are being violated (e.g. safety issues), go to the labor board - that is what they are for (labor laws are some of the strongest in CA).

Automated lines require skilled people to maintain. They're not easily replaceable. So what point do you decide it's worth treating your people right, so that you are not watching those people walk out the door, those people with necessary skill sets & knowledge gained on the job?

When it makes financial sense, as you said earlier. And yes, you have to pay those people more than the people who are replaced, but in return you hope to get higher productivity per person, higher quality/repeat-ability and scalability.

1) It's not expensive to treat people right, and,

Unless you have a union, which can become a significant multiplier to those costs.

2) Companies don't bring in automation to solve people management issues. Automation is brought in because it's the right point in the product lifecycle.

Agreed.

 

[bonnie]

Agreed, and companies do that. If they don't treat employees well, people leave, retraining or lost "tribal knowledge" cost hurt, quality drops, customers are unhappy, etc - it all balances over time. The problem starts when you get a union involved, so you don't get to reward increased skill set or productivity but instead of have to stick to "higher seniority, higher benefit" and "everyone at the same seniority is interchangeable". This increases costs of retention by orders of magnitude. For example, if you get an employee who learns fast, works great, in order to pay him (or her) so he doesn't leave to the next company you have to pay everyone else at their seniority and above more money, then the comparison is not "pay this employee $10K per year more so he or she sticks around" it's "raise everyone's pay $10K or more to the few good ones don't leave" so if you have 50,000 employees, it's not worth paying the extra half a billion per year to retain few, but wait, that's a decent chunk of change that could decently affect the "cost" of the "cost vs. benefit" of automation.


Absolutely agree on that one. It's a ludicrous argument from for an employer to make. It really should be "if you don't like it here, feel free to leave". If low retention becomes a costly issue to the company, they have to solve it, and if automation is more expensive than keeping people, then they usually do. Btw, if labor laws are being violated (e.g. safety issues), go to the labor board - that is what they are for (labor laws are some of the strongest in CA).


When it makes financial sense, as you said earlier. And yes, you have to pay those people more than the people who are replaced, but in return you hope to get higher productivity per person, higher quality/repeat-ability and scalability.


Unless you have a union, which can become a significant multiplier to those costs.


Agreed.

There is nothing in this post that I disagree with.

 

[BluestarE3]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/altern...d-the-assault-on-tesla-factory-safety/5592073

 

[jerry33]

Agreed, and companies do that. If they don't treat employees well, people leave, retraining or lost "tribal knowledge" cost hurt, quality drops, customers are unhappy, etc - it all balances over time. The problem starts when you get a union involved, so you don't get to reward increased skill set or productivity but instead of have to stick to "higher seniority, higher benefit" and "everyone at the same seniority is interchangeable". This increases costs of retention by orders of magnitude. For example, if you get an employee who learns fast, works great, in order to pay him (or her) so he doesn't leave to the next company you have to pay everyone else at their seniority and above more money, then the comparison is not "pay this employee $10K per year more so he or she sticks around" it's "raise everyone's pay $10K or more to the few good ones don't leave" so if you have 50,000 employees, it's not worth paying the extra half a billion per year to retain few, but wait, that's a decent chunk of change that could decently affect the "cost" of the "cost vs. benefit" of automation.

This is certainly true in smaller companies, but many larger companies only consider the top executives pay and stock price. Stock price always increases when you dump people or move the jobs to China or India. Customer satisfaction is almost never an issue because often the consumer only has a choice between two or three similar companies.

 

[Super_Popular]

I grew up in a "union" town...

I didn't know Sombertown was a union town.

 

[whitex]

This is certainly true in smaller companies, but many larger companies only consider the top executives pay and stock price.

In larger companies executive pay is peanuts compared to combined labor cost. Most fortune 500 companies could give $100M bonuses to their CEO and their P/E or other metrics wouldn't even budge.

Stock price always increases when you dump people or move the jobs to China or India.

Not quite. If that was true, all large companies would jack up their prices by firing everyone until they are left with just the CEO. Something tells me the stock would not keep going up. In tech sector by the way I've seen the opposite sometimes, companies over-hiring just so they can say how many engineers they have on staff.

Customer satisfaction is almost never an issue because often the consumer only has a choice between two or three similar companies.

Only true when there are no alternative choices and customer requires the product. Especially true when it's a monopoly protected by the government. Once you have a choice of 3 or more, competition kicks in - this is why Comcast charges less for service in areas where there is Verizon FIOS or Google Fiber. But, we are talking Tesla here, so there are definitely more than 3 choices (maybe not BEV today, but that's like saying there are not many manufacturer choices for cars with 1200+hp - if there is demand, more choices will become available).