3 ms·

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 irrele

by 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...

3 ms·

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 irrele

by Sacho 9y ago

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...