4 ms·

Title here is misleading. Actual title of article at LA Times is "Tesla had worse safety records than slaughterhouses and sawmills" - note "had", past tense. Th

by gr2020 9y ago

Title here is misleading. Actual title of article at LA Times is "Tesla had worse safety records than slaughterhouses and sawmills" - note "had", past tense. The records in question are from 2015, and as the article says, they are working on improvements.

colomon 9y ago
And even then, the records are for number of incidents rather than severity. The two specific things they mention are tendinitis and carpal tunnel, which suck, but aren't the sort of injuries one associates with sawmills...
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Or falling into a machine at a slaughterhouse and having it mangle your leg or everything below your waist.
- mowenz 9y ago
  The title is clickbait. It's analagous to saying "Elon Musk's mouth has worse bacterial contamination than petri dish of Lyme Disease." Sure, by number of bacterial agents, Musk's mouth is more contaminated... But that's not a very useful statement unless you want to mislead people.
  - boznz 9y ago
    Agree, could also have been written Tesla had lower than average safety incidents in ..2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016.. Nothing to see here
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Most sawmill injuries involve splinters and worn out work gloves with holes in them. Machinery doesn't kill people every day at Tesla nor at sawmills but considering the differences between the workplaces it's impressive that the number of little injuries at an auto manufacturer adds up to the number of little injuries in a sawmill.
dang 9y ago
Ok, we've changed the baity title to representative language from the article, in accordance with https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. All: let's please have a more substantive discussion now. It's amazing how sensitive these threads are to hot coals in the title.
- Sacho 9y ago
  I don't think you would get much productive discussion for the article, which makes apples to oranges comparisons, misrepresents the report or focuses on irrelevant details. The report itself is fairly clear and easy to read and probably serves as a much better starting point for a discussion. The report is linked in the article - http://worksafe.typepad.com/files/worksafe_tesla5_24.pdf http://worksafe.typepad.com/files/worksafe_tesla5_24.pdf
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Even the report is a bit misleading, comparing Tesla's yearly rates to the same-year averages paints the picture that Tesla got an additional 15% more risky than the industry in one year. About a quarter of the y/y change in the industry average between 2014 and 2015 is apparently residual[0]. There are only three points, but the residuals on the slope of Tesla's TRIR are lower than the residuals on the industry average [1]. What this basically shows us is that Tesla hasn't been a company long enough to establish a trend, upward or downward, of workplace injury. Worksafe Inc.'s report claims that Days Away, Restricted [activity], and Transfer[red] (understandably [given how inconsistent OSHA themselves are about what it stands for] misquoted as Days Away Transfer Rate) is a better indicator of rates of serious injury, but it's obvious to a layperson that days off, even on a 300 form, are discretionary. It could just as easily be the case that Tesla workers are encouraged to take days off for more minor injuries. [0]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5B6.8,+7.3,+7.7,+6.7,+7.2,+7.2,+7.3,+6.7%5D http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5... [1]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5B8.4,+8.8,+8.1%5D http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5...
- microcolonel 9y ago
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Later in the article they give the numbers from 2016; they aren't quite as bad then, but still pretty bad.

by gr2020 9y ago

colomon 9y ago

And even then, the records are for number of incidents rather than severity. The two specific things they mention are tendinitis and carpal tunnel, which suck, but aren't the sort of injuries one associates with sawmills...

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Or falling into a machine at a slaughterhouse and having it mangle your leg or everything below your waist.
mowenz 9y ago
The title is clickbait. It's analagous to saying "Elon Musk's mouth has worse bacterial contamination than petri dish of Lyme Disease." Sure, by number of bacterial agents, Musk's mouth is more contaminated... But that's not a very useful statement unless you want to mislead people.
- boznz 9y ago
  Agree, could also have been written Tesla had lower than average safety incidents in ..2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016.. Nothing to see here
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Most sawmill injuries involve splinters and worn out work gloves with holes in them. Machinery doesn't kill people every day at Tesla nor at sawmills but considering the differences between the workplaces it's impressive that the number of little injuries at an auto manufacturer adds up to the number of little injuries in a sawmill.

dang 9y ago

Ok, we've changed the baity title to representative language from the article, in accordance with https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. All: let's please have a more substantive discussion now. It's amazing how sensitive these threads are to hot coals in the title.

Sacho 9y ago
I don't think you would get much productive discussion for the article, which makes apples to oranges comparisons, misrepresents the report or focuses on irrelevant details. The report itself is fairly clear and easy to read and probably serves as a much better starting point for a discussion. The report is linked in the article - http://worksafe.typepad.com/files/worksafe_tesla5_24.pdf http://worksafe.typepad.com/files/worksafe_tesla5_24.pdf
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Even the report is a bit misleading, comparing Tesla's yearly rates to the same-year averages paints the picture that Tesla got an additional 15% more risky than the industry in one year. About a quarter of the y/y change in the industry average between 2014 and 2015 is apparently residual[0]. There are only three points, but the residuals on the slope of Tesla's TRIR are lower than the residuals on the industry average [1]. What this basically shows us is that Tesla hasn't been a company long enough to establish a trend, upward or downward, of workplace injury. Worksafe Inc.'s report claims that Days Away, Restricted [activity], and Transfer[red] (understandably [given how inconsistent OSHA themselves are about what it stands for] misquoted as Days Away Transfer Rate) is a better indicator of rates of serious injury, but it's obvious to a layperson that days off, even on a 300 form, are discretionary. It could just as easily be the case that Tesla workers are encouraged to take days off for more minor injuries. [0]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5B6.8,+7.3,+7.7,+6.7,+7.2,+7.2,+7.3,+6.7%5D http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5... [1]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5B8.4,+8.8,+8.1%5D http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=linear+regression+of+%5...
microcolonel 9y ago

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

Later in the article they give the numbers from 2016; they aren't quite as bad then, but still pretty bad.