"The Hidden Workforce Expanding Tesla's Factory"

[Drivin]

Legally Tesla is obligated to do nothing. In their reply they take moral high ground which should be applauded as long as it's not just empty talk.

My point is they seemed to take the high road only when the article came out, not when the issue surfaced. Which is better than nothing and better late than never.

I hope that they will pay all these workers the back wages difference of $45/hour (or whatever the difference is) for the time they were working there. That would be the right thing to do and applause-worthy!

 

[Drivin]

Yes, the article does not accurately describe situation and misidentifies the culprit. .

DId you actually read the full article? That is the conclusion you came to based on reading the article?

You may want to notify the Mercury news about what parts of the situation they described wrong based on your facts and analysis.
They have printed corrections and retractions in the past.
The author's phone number is listed in the bottom of the article.

 

[Vitold]

You may want to notify the Mercury news about what parts of the situation they described wrong based on your facts and analysis.
They have printed corrections and retractions in the past.
The author's phone number is listed in the bottom of the article.

No need, they all know who the culprit is. If article was about Eisenman or B1 visa abuses few would read it.

 

[Drivin]

No need, they all know who the culprit is. If article was about Eisenman or B1 visa abuses few would read it.

Did you actually read the entire article?
Did you read the second sentence in the headline where it asked about the COMPANIES involved? There were 3 companies involved.
You mention Eisenmann, but didn't you read and understand about Vuzem's role in this?
Did you read the section labeled "Unregulated Visa" - even has a nice chart about previous crackdowns? Oh, look, they listed 3 non-Tesla companies.
Did you read the section labeled "The Economic Question" - raising the entire visa/economics issues?

You claimed the article did not "accurately describe the situation and misidentifies the culprit"
- What is not accurate in the description?
- Who exactly are they saying is the culprit - which sentence are you referring to?
(protip: The first "blame" for the situation is in the seventh paragraph where the government is blamed for being an unwilling partner in the visa abuse). Are you saying that that culprit they identified is wrong?

 

[Vitold]

Did you actually read the entire article?
Did you read the second sentence in the headline where it asked about the COMPANIES involved? There were 3 companies involved.
You mention Eisenmann, but didn't you read and understand about Vuzem's role in this?
Did you read the section labeled "Unregulated Visa" - even has a nice chart about previous crackdowns? Oh, look, they listed 3 non-Tesla companies.
Did you read the section labeled "The Economic Question" - raising the entire visa/economics issues?

You claimed the article did not "accurately describe the situation and misidentifies the culprit"
- What is not accurate in the description?
- Who exactly are they saying is the culprit - which sentence are you referring to?
(protip: The first "blame" for the situation is in the seventh paragraph where the government is blamed for being an unwilling partner in the visa abuse). Are you saying that that culprit they identified is wrong?

1. Drawing to the article insinuates that Tesla is 'squeezing' a foreign employee.
2. Article states that the automaker’s urgent upgrade of its Fremont facility benefited from cheap, imported workers w/o any proof.
3. Further it claims that The labor practices contrast with Tesla’s image as the planet’s most innovative automaker, using technological ingenuity to manufacture cars in the heart of Silicon Valley w/o any proof.
4. It says that Tesla was bypassing American workers which is also unsubstantiated.

5. Eisenmann USA wrote letters to the U.S. Embassy on behalf of Lesnik and as many as 200 foreign workers stating they would supervise employees at a U.S. auto plant.

6. Stoker, the Alameda County labor leader, said : “Tesla made the decision to award the paint line contract to a contractor". Which is all that Tesla did - hired a contractor - rest of the story is about visa abuses and outsourcing.

 

[Drivin]

1. Drawing to the article insinuates that Tesla is 'squeezing' a foreign employee.

- Where does it say that that is Tesla's hand? The red use of the hand is the same as the Eisnemann (logo About us - Eisenmann ), where Tesla uses the plain black logo: About Tesla | Tesla Motors (see branding on bottom)

The text underneath mentions companies. Is a green person a code now for a foreign employee?

2. Article states that the automaker’s urgent upgrade of its Fremont facility benefited from cheap, imported workers w/o any proof.

- Are you disputing that Tesla got labor at $5/hour rate? If they did, that is certainly cheap and they are imported.
- If you are disputing it, you may want to contact the author and correct them, since I expect they reviewed the lawsuit filings about the case.

3. Further it claims that The labor practices contrast with Tesla’s image as the planet’s most innovative automaker, using technological ingenuity to manufacture cars in the heart of Silicon Valley w/o any proof.

- Wow, that is such a terrible statement - accusing Tesla of being innovative and using technology innovation.
- Or are you saying that paying people $5/hour does not conflict with their labor practices?
- May want to contact the author since that would be a bigger story than this one.

4. It says that Tesla was bypassing American workers which is also unsubstantiated.

- How is hiring $5/hour foreign works NOT bypassing American workers?

5. Eisenmann USA wrote letters to the U.S. Embassy on behalf of Lesnik and as many as 200 foreign workers stating they would supervise employees at a U.S. auto plant.

- Ok, so? Why is that relevant to your argument? If they did supervise them, would Tesla have not paid $5/hour for the labor?

6. Stoker, the Alameda County labor leader, said : “Tesla made the decision to award the paint line contract to a contractor". Which is all that Tesla did - hired a contractor - rest of the story is about visa abuses and outsourcing.

Ok, so what you have pointed out is that the article presented a comprehensive view of the situation and discussed, seemingly accurately, everyone's role in it and the problem with visa abuses and outsourcing. Tesla benefited from cheap labor, other people sold the cheap labor to Tesla and didn't supervise them (if that is your point #5) so probably cut costs.

That is the exact opposite of what your originally claimed: "The article does not accurately describe situation and misidentifies the culprit"

 

[FlatSix911]

Tesla is doing the right thing here. Typical Labor union tactics to try to blame the Company, not the subcontractor.

 

[Vitold]

- Where does it say that that is Tesla's hand? The red use of the hand is the same as the Eisnemann (logo About us - Eisenmann ), where Tesla uses the plain black logo: About Tesla | Tesla Motors (see branding on bottom)

The text underneath mentions companies. Is a green person a code now for a foreign employee?


- Are you disputing that Tesla got labor at $5/hour rate? If they did, that is certainly cheap and they are imported.
- If you are disputing it, you may want to contact the author and correct them, since I expect they reviewed the lawsuit filings about the case.


- Wow, that is such a terrible statement - accusing Tesla of being innovative and using technology innovation.
- Or are you saying that paying people $5/hour does not conflict with their labor practices?
- May want to contact the author since that would be a bigger story than this one.


- How is hiring $5/hour foreign works NOT bypassing American workers?



- Ok, so? Why is that relevant to your argument? If they did supervise them, would Tesla have not paid $5/hour for the labor?



Ok, so what you have pointed out is that the article presented a comprehensive view of the situation and discussed, seemingly accurately, everyone's role in it and the problem with visa abuses and outsourcing. Tesla benefited from cheap labor, other people sold the cheap labor to Tesla and didn't supervise them (if that is your point #5) so probably cut costs.

That is the exact opposite of what your originally claimed: "The article does not accurately describe situation and misidentifies the culprit"

Ok not everyone is arts major. The bottom line is this:

Tesla did not hire foreign workers. Tesla did not pay $5/hour. Tesla did not bypass American workers. Tesla hired contractor to upgrade their factory.

 

[Drivin]

Ok not everyone is arts major. The bottom line is this:

Tesla did not hire foreign workers. Tesla did not pay $5/hour. Tesla did not bypass American workers. Tesla hired contractor to upgrade their factory.

You are funny!
You really need to contact the author and let them know that they are wrong on all their points. And since there are some lawsuits floating around, you should probably alert the Tesla lawyers too!

Great detective work you have done!

 

[Drivin]

Tesla is doing the right thing here. Typical Labor union tactics to try to blame the Company, not the subcontractor.

Did you read the article?

The actions of the two contractors and even the US Government/Policies were all highlighted.

 

[renim]

Ok not everyone is arts major. The bottom line is this:

Tesla did not hire foreign workers. Tesla did not pay $5/hour. Tesla did not bypass American workers. Tesla hired contractor to upgrade their factory.

You just try to walk into a safety sensitive area of any factory? Won't happen, Tesla controls whoever goes into safety sensitive areas.

Yes it is a turn key job, but it is still within Tesla's factory. The contractor's contractor may be the entity at fault, but it was Tesla's loose contract that allowed $5 / hour wages to exist in Tesla's factory.

What if? what if it had been a fatality?

Tesla could've made part of the scope requirements that on-site work workers pay match better than union norms, or receive at least a minimum of $$.
And yes it is reasonable for supervisors to do actual work, productivity/quality sux when supervisors are not permitted to handle the tools.

 

[FlatSix911]

More nonsense ... Tesla has already been declared not liable and is taking the moral high ground with regard to compensation.

You are funny!
You really need to contact the author and let them know that they are wrong on all their points. And since there are some lawsuits floating around, you should probably alert the Tesla lawyers too! Great detective work you have done!

You just try to walk into a safety sensitive area of any factory? Won't happen, Tesla controls whoever goes into safety sensitive areas. Yes it is a turn key job, but it is still within Tesla's factory. The contractor's contractor may be the entity at fault, but it was Tesla's loose contract that allowed $5 / hour wages to exist in Tesla's factory. What if? what if it had been a fatality?
Tesla could've made part of the scope requirements that on-site work workers pay match better than union norms, or receive at least a minimum of $$. And yes it is reasonable for supervisors to do actual work, productivity/quality sux when supervisors are not permitted to handle the tools.

 

[Drivin]

More nonsense ... Tesla has already been declared not liable and is taking the moral high ground with regard to compensation.

Better late than never. They did that after this news came out, not after they knew about this issue.
We don't know what they are doing with regard to compensation only that they are looking into it and will make it right. Whatever that means.

 

[Vitold]

It's impossible for workers to had been paid $5/hour when CA minimum wage was $8/hour, especially if they were working overtime. This article sounds more and more like a hit piece.

 

[AudubonB]

I'm not sure why it's impossible to have paid the $5/hr vs the $8/hr minimum - lots of other statutes appear to have been broken, walked around or trampled.

However, I've another point for all; it should go in Poll Format but I'm not doing it. As follows:

How many of you are more concerned that some semi-skilled laborers are receiving $5/hr for work....or that some are receiving $52/hr?

Just curious, of course.

 

[SmartElectric]

How many of you are more concerned that some semi-skilled laborers are receiving $5/hr for work....or that some are receiving $52/hr?
Just curious, of course.

Wouldn't it make sense to pay people well enough so they can also buy an electric car? What's the problem with $52/hr for skilled work? Good paying jobs matter to families, that's how we build an equitable society. Maybe that worker can actually live near where he works, and not take a 2 hour bus ride one way.

As for $5 or even minimum wage, it's a gross failure of society to have such disparity between reasonable pay and living conditions necessary to raise a family. Keep electing the "business first" politicians and watch the laws bend to ensure contractors can bring in low paid labour while local jobs go unfilled. You get what you elect.

 

[Vitold]

However, I've another point for all; it should go in Poll Format but I'm not doing it. As follows:

How many of you are more concerned that some semi-skilled laborers are receiving $5/hr for work....or that some are receiving $52/hr?

Just curious, of course.

It's an interesting question only that no one was getting paid $5/hour or if they were, they were robbed by their employer.

 

[Eclectic]

I do a lot of work with subcontracting agreements. When a company is truly interested in how the sub's employees and contractors are treated, it drafts specific language to ensure that the employees and contractors are treated well. And it is always the case that the subcontractor's workers are closely monitored by the company retaining the subcontractor. Maybe the sub violated the terms of the contract, but at the very least, Tesla didn't properly supervise the sub.

 

[Vitold]

I do a lot of work with subcontracting agreements. When a company is truly interested in how the sub's employees and contractors are treated, it drafts specific language to ensure that the employees and contractors are treated well. And it is always the case that the subcontractor's workers are closely monitored by the company retaining the subcontractor. Maybe the sub violated the terms of the contract, but at the very least, Tesla didn't properly supervise the sub.

So you're saying that you have access to your sub's accounting system? How do you monitor how much your sub is paying or track overtime? First time I hear of such arrangement.

 

[Eclectic]

So you're saying that you have access to your sub's accounting system? How do you monitor how much your sub is paying or track overtime? First time I hear of such arrangement.

I didn't say there is direct access to the sub's accounting system. There are contractual requirements that cover the things I mentioned and the company has audit rights. This is all very standard, so if it's the first time you've heard of such an arrangement you must not have much to do with subcontracting.