Blog Tesla Workers Say Skipped Soft-Tooling Phase Ups Danger Inside ‘Production Hell’

Two pro-union workers from Tesla’s Fremont factory are speaking out about potential safety risks related to frantic efforts to hit production goals for the Model 3.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said the company is entering “production hell.” With heightened stress at the factory, the two workers fear that excessive overtime will result in overworked, tired workers who become more prone to injuries.

The workers told Business Insider that Tesla skipped a trial run on new equipment designed for Model 3 production. Instead, they used computer simulations to design and order the final production tools. The workers fear that trouble with the equipment could lead to worker injury.

“I have my doubts with that because, just like anything new, there are always going to be adjustments that need to be made and you can’t guarantee a flawless, injury-free line right off the launch,” Michael Catura, a Tesla battery production associate, told the Business Insider. “You’re going to have to deal with all the bugs, all the kinks.”

There are growing unionization efforts by workers at the plant. The concerns shared with Business Insider come just more than a week after a group of Tesla employees sent a letter to the company’s board of directors requesting access to Tesla’s safety plan, clarity on compensation and neutrality, and non-retaliation agreements in an effort toward unionization. The efforts are led by the “Tesla Workers’ Organizing Committee.”

 

[bkp_duke]

Computer simulations are used to build medical devices implanted into your body and evaluating the yield of both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The use of computer simulation to build a car is -TRIVIAL- in comparison.

Not a valid comparison. As a MD that has worked on clinical trials, I can tell you for FACT that the FDA never allows devices to be implanted without a trial run first (multiple ones). A computer simulation is helpful for design, but it would NEVER fly as the ONLY method of testing.

 

[teddytoons]

More dinosaur-school hysteria from a dying, dinosaur-school industry. I don't hear the CEO of GM saying she would step into any production line job to verify safety. From my (limited) perspective, it looks like Tesla is trying to go above and beyond what UAW would do for the employees. NO DUES REQUIRED!

 

[McRat]

Computer simulations are used to build medical devices implanted into your body and evaluating the yield of both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The use of computer simulation to build a car is -TRIVIAL- in comparison.

On the medical devices I work with, they make a qualification run, we analyze them to determine producibility at a large scale. Changes are made to the tools based on our data so they can create high volumes of high quality components. Just because a tool design should work, doesn't mean it will meet the necessary quality levels. Computers are a great help in both the design, and part validations. But it's not like it goes from design to packaging without validation.

Nuke (physics package) components are made at such a small scale, that all components are checked individually after manufacturing them.

I've worked on both.

 

[McRat]

Not a valid comparison. As a MD that has worked on clinical trials, I can tell you for FACT that the FDA never allows devices to be implanted without a trial run first (multiple ones). A computer simulation is helpful for design, but it would NEVER fly as the ONLY method of testing.

Correct. But the clinical trials are only done after the components are validated for their physical characteristics. Parts don't get used for medical treatment without a WHOLE bunch of QC steps.

 

[MXWing]

Easy folks, yes I left out the animal testing and human trials for FDA approval. My wife has been both an FEA engineer and a FDA regulatory specialists so the context is not lost. First point is that nothing is riskier and more complex than a device planted into the body.

Secondly, using computer simulations to engineer and validate devices from medical to vehicle to phones to weapons is not unique to Tesla.

 

[Krugerrand]

This article is nonsense. You can't go from computer simulation to full bore production. It doesn't work that way even if we're all living in a computer simulation.

The workers told Business Insider that Tesla skipped a trial run on new equipment designed for Model 3 production. Instead, they used computer simulations to design and order the final production tools. The workers fear that trouble with the equipment could lead to worker injury.

The first two sentences don't even belong in the same paragraph as they're talking about two different situations. One, skipping trials and two, not making prototype production tools. Just because you don't make prototype production tools doesn't mean you're skipping trials. In fact, trials are run on final production tools. Tesla isn't skipping trials. They started by making a handful of cars in July. Will make a few handfuls more in August and so. As they go through this slower production ramp they'll be testing/trialing production tools, solving issues, improving inefficiencies etc..

The third sentence is just a 'well, duh'. Obviously, if there's 'trouble' with the equipment a worker could be injured, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not you made prototype tools before final tools. In fact, there can be 'trouble' with prototype production tools and a worker could get injured. On top of that, final production tools CAN be modified and WILL be modified and ARE OFTEN modified EVEN IF prototype tools were made.

One of the main reasons for prototype tools is to be able to produce low volume prototype parts to put together into a prototype product to test the manufacturing process and the viability of that product. I can actually see where Tesla might not have to make prototype production tools for every component of the Model 3 because they've already made the S and X. The S being their first from scratch car and the X having been full of new and difficult tech compared to the simpler, easier to manufacture 3.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The reality is, none of us outsiders know whether or not Tesla's testing on this is sufficient or not. Anyone claiming otherwise is probably letting their bias speak for themselves. There is not enough info to claim either way.

What I do agree with, a UAW press release certainly is not reliable information one way or the other on that. So, a UAW press release is also not a reliable piece of info on that.

We just do not know if their testing is sufficient or not.

IMO it is nevertheless interesting that Tesla has this culture of very rapidly getting ahead and skipping certain stages others might expect to be there. I think most of us can agree that this is how Tesla operates be it anything, really, like their Autopilot strategy or whatever.

 

[schonelucht]

Secondly, using computer simulations to engineer and validate devices from medical to vehicle to phones to weapons is not unique to Tesla.

I think the union workers are not complaining about the validation of the product, but about the validation of the line itself. Ie, that it shuts down when someone trips a security barrier. That, when an operator asks for a slower speed setting, that every movement is executed at that lower speed. That no robot ever will put a piece within the mandatory edge zone from safety screens etc etc. I work on automation as an engineer. And while we do simulate things, there is always, always independent verification from a third party security inspector to actually clear the line for production before it is commisioned. While it is a pain sometimes to deal with their remarks (they tend to be strict) I would not want it any different way. Anyone who has actually done some engineeering work on automated lines will know how easy it is to mess something up.

 

[McRat]

... I don't hear that Mary Barra (ed) would step into any production line job to verify safety. ...

How would you know? Twitter is not the world.

I think you need to do your homework about Mary before bad-mouthing her. She is a few steps up the food chain when it comes to running an automotive company than most the CEOs of other automakers. She has personally managed the shop floor of an auto assy factory. She is highly trained in shop floor operations, manufacturing engineering, automotive design, automotive electronics, automotive human resources, automotive financial operations, and global procurement/manufacturing. Only then was she selected to be the CEO.

She has not only paid her dues and gotten her hands dirty, she has been successful in many auto related positions. She is arguably the world's greatest gearhead when it comes to making cars.

Why she is so often singled out as a lightweight has to do perception of women in the auto industry. It is not based on facts.

 

[Krugerrand]

The reality is, none of us outsiders know whether or not Tesla's testing on this is sufficient or not. Anyone claiming otherwise is probably letting their bias speak for themselves. There is not enough info to claim either way.

Anymore than you can claim (or as you prefer, insinuate, hint at) that they aren't, or might not be. For once I'd like to see you actually commit to a non-wishy-washy thought instead of maybe, might, could be, perhaps, especially when the evidence shows what is happening. Workers are not dying at Tesla - we'd have heard. They aren't losing limbs - we'd have heard. Injuries have been of the kind you'd expect in car manufacturing when doing a repetitive action as what happens on production lines - we've heard. Tesla has already gone on record as stating they have taken steps to improve safety and reduce injuries, which they have and have provided proof of that. And yet, here you sit doing what you always do trying to stir the pot with your passive aggressiveness.

IMO it is nevertheless interesting that Tesla has this culture of very rapidly getting ahead and skipping certain stages others might expect to be there. I think most of us can agree that this is how Tesla operates be it anything, really, like their Autopilot strategy or whatever.

Channeling my inner AnxietyRanger, there is no evidence that Tesla is skipping certain stages based on this article. It's just a couple of PRO-UNION workers not being very specific other than clearly wanting a union. There is no evidence that Tesla's speed of innovation has anything to do with skipping certain steps of production prototype tooling or that it will lead to worker injury.

And shame on you for trying to equate this to Autopilot when you know very well that it was the dissolving of the Mobileye partnership that played a significant roll in that situation. As well we know for a fact that Elon personally tests all the AP updates before anyone else and that often updates are tested by a select group of beta testers.

 

[Krugerrand]

Why she is so often singled out as a lightweight has to do perception of women in the auto industry. It is not based on facts.

Well, no. It's also based on what comes out of her mouth. She's put her foot in it more than a time or two where Tesla and EVs are concerned.

 

[Ulmo]

Trying to throw spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks. Nope. Keep

I was UAW, and I can tell you that California UAW locals are subservient to the Michigan UAW locals and national UAW. If killing Tesla helps Detroit UAW contracts, those Cal organizers will be flipping burgers sooner than they think. The UAW owes nothing to California workers. That's why they killed the auto and aerospace industries here, to push production elsewhere.

THIS BEARS REPEATING.

 

[McRat]

Well, no. It's also based on what comes out of her mouth. She's put her foot in it more than a time or two where Tesla and EVs are concerned.

Tesla fans might not like what she says, but 'putting her foot in her mouth' has nothing to do with it.

Right now, one of her predictions COULD be putting her 'foot in her mouth' ('AVs will be here sooner than you think' - MB). This must have po'd a more than a few in Tesla mgmt:

Read GM CEO Mary Barra’s Remarks On Automaker’s Assembly Of First Self-Driving Cars

It could have had something to do with change in staffing at Tesla:

Tesla loses 3 more computer vision experts on the Autopilot team
Tesla’s Autopilot team grew by ‘over 50%’ in the past 6 months, says former VP of software

Look at the dates. Seems Mary's speech is either the ultimate coincidence, or somebody got angry at a timeline progress report.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Just to be clear, by the way, for those looking at my comments in this thread - I have no views on unionization or even any of this affecting stock price. Such things are quite beyond my interest. I know many care. I don't, so my comments don't reflect those things at all.

What I personally find interesting is the Tesla process (the part in the UAW spiel when you strip away all that possible agenda and alarmism) that is being discussed in this bit of reporting as well as in the quoted piece by @anticitizen13.7.

Similar to Tesla skipping beta vehicles for Model 3 (when they had those for Model X), it is interesting insight into the company process and culture that Tesla keeps pushing the envelope of how rapidly things are progressing.

In many ways, ship first and change later seems to be the order of the day.

"Most automakers test a new model's production line by building vehicles with relatively cheap, prototype tools designed to be scrapped once they deliver doors that fit, body panels with the right shape and dashboards that don't have gaps or seams.

Tesla, however, is skipping that preliminary step and ordering permanent, more expensive equipment as it races to launch its Model 3 sedan by a self-imposed volume production deadline of September, Musk told investors last month." - Reuters, April 24, 2017

 

[jimmyjohn]

"They're dinosaurs. They're extinct and don't know it. One day they'll be discovered by a future archaeologist."
- The Time Machine

 

[Krugerrand]

Tesla fans might not like what she says, but 'putting her foot in her mouth' has nothing to do with it.

Yeah it does. First you are judged by what you say. Then you are judged by what you do. That might not be the way it should be, but that's how many humans react. And sometimes humans never get past the what you say part. Plenty of Elon/Tesla examples of that on this forum.

I wouldn't care if she could change an engine out all by her little lonesome, she's not for sustainable transport and energy so she's irrelevant to me just like ICEs are on their way to being irrelevant.

 

[Krugerrand]

In many ways, ship first and change later seems to be the order of the day.

Not true.

A FEW things have been shipped first and changed later. MOST things have not been. Just a recent and very important example for you, to keep you real; Model 3 being sold to employees first before the general public to make sure any issues that might appear can be addressed. That seems to me to be a most excellent example of a 'trial process' in a controlled environment meant to prevent customer 'injury'.

 

[McRat]

Yeah it does. First you are judged by what you say. Then you are judged by what you do. That might not be the way it should be, but that's how many humans react. And sometimes humans never get past the what you say part. Plenty of Elon/Tesla examples of that on this forum.

I wouldn't care if she could change an engine out all by her little lonesome, she's not for sustainable transport and energy so she's irrelevant to me just like ICEs are on their way to being irrelevant.

Did you think the janitor at GM decided to pull out all the stops on EV and AV research and spend literally billions and devote over 50% of the Global Powertrain Division in non-ICE propulsion technologies? I don't. I think that sort of spending is done at higher level than the broom closet.

In fact, I think an automotive electrical engineer who moved up the ranks at GM decided that recently.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This thread has so many different, diverging and conflicting discussions going on. A certain result of a polarizing topic on an Internet forum.

Personally I would prefer some discussion on the neutral source @anticitizen13.7 pulled for this (old) news. It seems like the basic premise behind the alarmist and agenda-filled UAW post was at least a real event:

"Most automakers test a new model's production line by building vehicles with relatively cheap, prototype tools designed to be scrapped once they deliver doors that fit, body panels with the right shape and dashboards that don't have gaps or seams.

Tesla, however, is skipping that preliminary step and ordering permanent, more expensive equipment as it races to launch its Model 3 sedan by a self-imposed volume production deadline of September, Musk told investors last month." - Reuters, April 24, 2017

Comments on the actual story there?

 

[bkp_duke]

Correct. But the clinical trials are only done after the components are validated for their physical characteristics. Parts don't get used for medical treatment without a WHOLE bunch of QC steps.

Absolutely. My point was no one does the component validation completely in software without prototypes.