3 ms·

How's it sneaky? Business management and shareholders routinely try to shut down unionizing all the time throughout the last two centuries. My buddy is a manage

How's it sneaky? Business management and shareholders routinely try to shut down unionizing all the time throughout the last two centuries. My buddy is a manager at a national retail chain and often comments on how proactively anti-union they are, just like their competitors. Other demographic groups like the ones you pointed out really don't have that same collective effect on the bottom line for shareholders across industries like those that unionize, whose only trait in common is that of a provider of labor.

dmitrygr 9y ago
Parent edited post. It said before "amongthem were pro union workers"
late2part 9y ago
It's sneaky because it's taken out of context. Yes, pro-union people were targeted. This may or may not be statistically significant. And what is "pro-union?" If they have 30k employees, and 3% of them are pro-union, and they laid off 1% - what are the odds that some of the folks laid off are pro-union but weren't targeted? What what are the odds that someone that wasn't targeted assumes they were? I have no idea what the facts are, but blind assertions like those in the article are foolish. Imagine reading an article about you that says "Some neighbors felt he was holding more guns than needed and enough ammunition to kill dozens of people." Or they said that your Internet service provider had noticed large bandwidth which is consistent with someone watching perverted pornography. These are baseless assertions - and therefore shallow.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  > Though Tesla cited performance as the reason for the firings, the source told Reuters he was fired in spite of never having been given a bad review.
crazy1van 9y ago
If it's not "sneaky", it's at least lazy. "Some believe they were targeted"... Who? Why? If I said "Some believe we didn't land on the moon", that would be a true statement. But, it's also a way at hinting that we may have really not landed on the moon without offering any evidence or even citing specific people who believe that.
- AndrewCHM 9y ago
  "who", the people who were distributing union related materials "why", because they were distributing union related materials? "without offering any evidence", which is why it says "believe"
  - wybiral 9y ago
    I think they meant: who are the "some people" who "believe they were targeted" And why did they believe that? Without some grounds for accusation it's "sneaky".
loeg 9y ago
It's sneaky because it suggests that people were targeted because they were pro-union, without going so far as to make a claim of fact (which would open them to libel claims).
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  If the shoe fits.
  - loeg 9y ago
    Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism.
    - dilemma 9y ago
      This is Reuters REPORTING on the case. Not make a claim. Take of your fanboy glasses or go home.
      - loeg 9y ago
        If you can't report on pro-union organizers being fired in retribution because the facts aren't there, don't make the suggestion. I have no Tesla stock, products, nor am I employed by them. Not a "fanboy" in any way.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      "Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism." No. It would be impossible to verify and to say with certainty the fact that Tesla was targeting Union folks - if this were true. Second - the journo is communicating the opinions of others, not his/her own. There would be Musk, and a very small handful of trusted lieutenants who would have been behind it (if it happened). But - one could look at the totality of those who are fired - and find that 'most of the vocal union bakers' were let go. So what does this mean? It doesn't prove anything - but it looks pretty bad, doesn't it? So a journalist talks to some of the current or laid off workers, and they say 'off the record' - that this has happened, and 'we think they did this to kabosh the union agenda' - well, then it's reasonable. If the journalist is just 'making it up'- that would be a deep dereliction of their duty. But if 'some were actually saying' this, in this journalists interviews, then it's fair for them to say. And it would be irresponsible for the journalist to say 'Musk specifically targeted Union advocates' unless they had some pretty good evidence that this were true. Which would be very hard.

dmitrygr 9y ago

Parent edited post. It said before "amongthem were pro union workers"

late2part 9y ago

It's sneaky because it's taken out of context. Yes, pro-union people were targeted. This may or may not be statistically significant. And what is "pro-union?" If they have 30k employees, and 3% of them are pro-union, and they laid off 1% - what are the odds that some of the folks laid off are pro-union but weren't targeted? What what are the odds that someone that wasn't targeted assumes they were? I have no idea what the facts are, but blind assertions like those in the article are foolish. Imagine reading an article about you that says "Some neighbors felt he was holding more guns than needed and enough ammunition to kill dozens of people." Or they said that your Internet service provider had noticed large bandwidth which is consistent with someone watching perverted pornography. These are baseless assertions - and therefore shallow.

RodericDay 9y ago
> Though Tesla cited performance as the reason for the firings, the source told Reuters he was fired in spite of never having been given a bad review.

crazy1van 9y ago

If it's not "sneaky", it's at least lazy. "Some believe they were targeted"... Who? Why? If I said "Some believe we didn't land on the moon", that would be a true statement. But, it's also a way at hinting that we may have really not landed on the moon without offering any evidence or even citing specific people who believe that.

AndrewCHM 9y ago
"who", the people who were distributing union related materials "why", because they were distributing union related materials? "without offering any evidence", which is why it says "believe"
- wybiral 9y ago
  I think they meant: who are the "some people" who "believe they were targeted" And why did they believe that? Without some grounds for accusation it's "sneaky".

loeg 9y ago

It's sneaky because it suggests that people were targeted because they were pro-union, without going so far as to make a claim of fact (which would open them to libel claims).

NegativeLatency 9y ago
If the shoe fits.
- loeg 9y ago
  Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism.
  - dilemma 9y ago
    This is Reuters REPORTING on the case. Not make a claim. Take of your fanboy glasses or go home.
    - loeg 9y ago
      If you can't report on pro-union organizers being fired in retribution because the facts aren't there, don't make the suggestion. I have no Tesla stock, products, nor am I employed by them. Not a "fanboy" in any way.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism." No. It would be impossible to verify and to say with certainty the fact that Tesla was targeting Union folks - if this were true. Second - the journo is communicating the opinions of others, not his/her own. There would be Musk, and a very small handful of trusted lieutenants who would have been behind it (if it happened). But - one could look at the totality of those who are fired - and find that 'most of the vocal union bakers' were let go. So what does this mean? It doesn't prove anything - but it looks pretty bad, doesn't it? So a journalist talks to some of the current or laid off workers, and they say 'off the record' - that this has happened, and 'we think they did this to kabosh the union agenda' - well, then it's reasonable. If the journalist is just 'making it up'- that would be a deep dereliction of their duty. But if 'some were actually saying' this, in this journalists interviews, then it's fair for them to say. And it would be irresponsible for the journalist to say 'Musk specifically targeted Union advocates' unless they had some pretty good evidence that this were true. Which would be very hard.