28 ms·

Hotbed of Misinformation

384 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

runesoerensen 9y ago
Context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15699645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15699645
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Alex3917 9y ago
  And also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15685818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15685818
  - lloydde 9y ago
    Sounds like different lawsuit. New Yorker is hard to read as it tends to meld narratives and topics, but the lawsuit there is no “yesterday’s lawsuit”. NYer article includes: “On September 20, 2016, Vandermeyden filed a lawsuit charging Tesla with sex discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace violations.”
riffraff 9y ago
I have a question: how is it that things like n-word and w-word and whatever-word became part of normal and formal speak in the english language (or is it the US only?) ? I mean, how is the case that people don't just use "racial slander" or something like that, and instead use what seems to be like kindergarden teacher expressions? Is this phenomenon present in other languages/cultures?
- acover 9y ago
  Racial slur
- EngineerBetter 9y ago
  "n-word" is used in the UK too. Sometimes one needs to be specific about the nature and severity of the slur used.
  - riffraff 9y ago
    in what case is this specificness necessary? I can think of trials or police reports, but I imagine in that case one would have to use the actual words, lest confusion ensues. Forgive me if I sound argumentative, I'm genuinely interested and trying to understand.
    - roel_v 9y ago
      It's a style figure; i.e. a choice an author makes, in order to convey their intent most clearly. It's artistic freedom to choose whether or not to use it. I don't see what purpose your insistence on delineated rules on when to use what words serves. I for one found the article more authentic in the way it was written, vs if they would have used 'racial slurs' or another generic term.
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      Saying something like "racial slurs" could potentially leave one wondering if this was something relatively mild, possibly even a mere misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion. Mentioning that someone dropped an n-bomb leaves no room for uncertainty. It's like "sexual harassment." That phrase alone will have some people thinking "oh, the poor guy just said she looked nice today and she flipped out." If you say "he stuck his hand up her dress and told her to be at his apartment at 9pm," there's no space for that sort of misunderstanding.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ahoka 9y ago
  It's a PR trick to downplay it. Try how it reads like this: >>At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "nigger" and "wetback" towards each other and a threat of violence.<<
  - riffraff 9y ago
    yeah but why is it necessary to do this? why not >> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial slurs towards each other and a threat of violence.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Not all racial slurs are equal in everyone's eyes. What some people consider racial slurs, others say out of ignorance (less common, in today's sensitive reaction to them). Consider "colored" compared to "nigger". Colored will definitely be seen by some as a racial slur, but to others it may be the appropriate for the time, not necessarily racially charged, correct terminology they initially learned. For that matter, "nigger" was a fairly neutral term originally, but changed over time, as the circumstances of the people it referred to changed and they preferred a different, less loaded moniker.
    - toephu2 9y ago
      ...does it really matter? I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information.
      - thephyber 9y ago
        > I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information. At the risk of being equally pedantic... Does that really matter? And is there a company on Earth that will tell you everything with radical honesty? Is there any value in that? Does Tesla tell you how bad their batteries, plastics, or leathers are for the environment? No. They focus on the positive aspects of the product and the company. We prioritize and value what we need to know versus what we might like to know versus all of the other noise. And there is a lot of noise. Far too much noise for almost any of it to be useful. In fact, this is a tactic that large law firms use against small ones -- they DoS attack the small firms with too much paperwork during discovery in hopes that the small firm can't use it effectively and exhaust client expenses just trying to read through the material. I imagine it would just make it easier to build lawsuits against the radically honest companies and the only ones that survived would be the ones with the weasel words or diplomatic silence. Almost like a darwinism where the fitness function isn't relevant to any of the current economics that we observe or product features we care about. I find similar arguments against "political correctness" similarly tiring and fruitless.
- b3lvedere 9y ago
  Oh yes it is very present. Just ask the jews and gypsies.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    I don't think the parent was commenting about the existence of racial slanders, just the use of placeholders like "the n----- word".
    - lostboys67 9y ago
      Yes if your reporting factually the incident it does seem odd to bowderise in this way. And for those of you who haven't worked on the factory floor the behaviour there differs a lot from the nice and fluffy offices most of us are used to
  - int_19h 9y ago
    If you do ask the gypsies, by the way, they very much prefer to be called Roma or Romani.
    - b3lvedere 9y ago
      The G-word :)
    - cisanti 9y ago
      Not where I live! What word should we use now?
      - int_19h 9y ago
        I dunno, why not ask them? "Roma" should be a pretty universal endonym, though. If I remember correctly, it basically means "people".
- nodesocket 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but from your tone your seem to be sitting on some sort of pedestal of moral superiority. The US is so bad and evil, yet everybody still wants to come here, start their startup and company and make millions. May I ask what superior country you hail from?
- sidcool 9y ago
  Political correctness defeats the purpose.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  I think it's mostly a societal thing in the U.S. These words are so bad that we won't use them even when explaining what someone else said. They are so offensive that we can't even bear to repeat them! I kinda get it. No "reasonable person" likes to use or even hear others use words like these. I think it's just "political correctness" that keeps us from using them under any circumstances whatsoever (although, personally, I think that is taking things a bit too far) -- such as in news articles.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    That's a partial answer, but a more complete answer is that saying those words will get you labeled as a racist, even if you're repeating what someone else said. People are so terrified of this that they won't risk it. It's not just courtesy.
    - jlgaddis 9y ago
      Indeed, good point.
- abalone 9y ago
  A combination of a very deep history of slavery and racism, and a civil rights movement to confront and dismantle it culturally. You could draw a parallel with how Nazi symbols cannot be depicted in Germany (for the most part). It is not just about not offending little PC snowflakes or something.. it’s a campaign of de-Nazification. So too with racism here.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    But that's an legal thing in Germany, not a convention. Also, because it's a codified law, you're perfectly allowed to use Nazi symbology in many contexts where US people would still feel they have to use the "n-word". The rules are a bit similar to "fair use" in copyright.
    - abalone 9y ago
      Splitting hairs. Laws arise from conventions. And people still use the n word in many non-racist contexts here. The first amendment blocks the codification if this in law but the principle is the same: shun the words and symbols that these systems of oppression were built on.
- jerrycruncher 9y ago
  In areas of ancient Eastern Europe people were so frightened of bears that speaking the actual word for "bear" was extremely taboo [1]. I would guess that this sort of linguistic indirection/substitution has existed as long as spoken language. In the past the rationale was superstition and fear, now it's sensitivity and fear. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakenglishwelsh.html http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakeng...
  - lukasm 9y ago
    Interesting. This must be the origin of "he who must not be named"
    - grkvlt 9y ago
      Meh. The whole 'he who must not be named' thing is drawing on the idea in magical thought that by uttering the 'true name' of some evil entity, you somehow grant it power. So not mentioning Voldemort by name is a way of denying him that.
- BFatts 9y ago
  I think it seems easier to say "n-word" when you want to say nigger. People feel some sort of release from the offense of using the word and that it is some sort of excuse from being racist. Saying the word doesn't make you racist unless you use it with racist intent. But I also believe it is a way to try to eliminate such words from the vocabulary. Shit is usually stated as the "s-word" and fuck is "f-word" or "f-bomb". The implication is that you know the word and can fill in for the words not spoken. I think it's high time that we stopped being afraid of these words. For example, I had to search for what the damn "w-word" was (I was thinking "wigger", but what do I know?)! African Americans can try and differentiate all they want between nigger and nigga, but they obviously stem from the same word so why pretend. It's a thing of power, I suppose. It's okay for one group to say it, but not another - a double standard and extremely hypocritical, but again, who am I to know. EDIT: I am not focusing specifically on African Americans, as this is prominent behavior across many ethnic and racial groups. The group moves to restrict the usage of a word by bastardizing it in some way and making it normal in their group while shaming those outside who use it. This is what complicates race issues even more because non African Americans come away thinking "why is it okay for them to call each other this, and why would they?" Again, same goes for other races and ethnic groups. In America, everything is weird. We're a conglomeration of nationalities and ways of thinking from across the world. Asking "is that an American thing to do?" to me is like asking "is the color Green in the rainbow?".
  - gist 9y ago
    I am not even sure why a subgroup of a group got to decide that something was or is offensive and we all need to stop using it for ever and in any circumstance. For example Trump got up and made a speech in front of a group of jews and made reference to how they were either good or tough negotiators. Certain jews called him out on that and were offended. Others thought it was great and a compliment. What gives the one group the right to decide it's defacto offensive and decide the political correctness? (I get paid for negotiation and I was like 'yeah!'. When I was growing up it was common to refer to blacks as 'colored'. Nigger was derogatory. However now it's as if you can't even use it to refer to someone else saying it and many would take offense to either of us (as you did) even using it in a comment even historically. [1] I don't understand nor do I agree with that thinking. [1] On the other hand if it was used in a play or a movie it would be seen entirely different.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  I had to google "w-word", actually. Wiktionary says it's either "whore" or "wanker". What I (non-US) don't quite get is why putting the word "nigger" in quotes is not enough. I mean, I can think of some reasons, I just feel quotes should be enough to distance oneself from the usage of said word. Then again, the Dutch tend to curse with diseases (which is relatively rare, I think Spanish does it too). But it's mostly "old" diseases like typhoid, tuberculosis, pocks or the plague. Recent generations also tend to use cancer, which is frowned upon because many people know someone who suffered it (then again, heart attacks or strokes are similarly frequent and usually no big deal at all--I think that's related to the terrible suffering of chemotherapy) . I personally like to adopt even newer diseases like H5N1 or ebola, just for the ridiculousness of it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The reason is that people (sometimes the audience, sometime the speaker/writer) have trouble understanding use/mention distinctions or, at least, differentiating the application of word taboos based on those distinctions, exacerbated by the fact that quotes are so frequently abused for emphasis (especially for single words and very short phrases) rather than quotation or use/mention distinction that audiences may take quite the wrong message from their use.
    - tripzilch 9y ago
      Good point. I still kind of wish that genuine usage of quotes would be fine, since it's almost always obvious from context. But yeah, what you said about use/mention distinctions, not everyone's strongest point (especially for the immediate emotional reaction, it's still a trigger word). I know the feeling, in IRL conversation, I tend to speak such words at a somewhat lower volume :)
partycoder 9y ago
If a person out of their own initiative want to accept an apology, that is fine. But expecting employees to indulge such behavior is not fair, or acceptable even. The US has had: slavery, racial segregation, ethnic cleansing, forced depopulation, extrajudicial killings (e.g: hangings, lynchings), compulsory sterilization, racial profiling/police brutality, mass incarceration, with the latter resulting in loss of voting rights. Thanksgiving day 2016 was being celebrated while people at Standing Rock were being tear-gassed... and that is only domestically. What enabled a lot of that has been racial discrimination. If someone that has been discriminated doesn't want to accept an apology that is fine. At some moment you need to draw a line and racial discrimination is a reasonable criteria for that. South Africa, the country Elon is originally from, had institutionalized racial segregation until 1991. He should know first hand there difference between being a racist and being a jerk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale
- vlehto 9y ago
  But what happens when employee is not accepting apology from another employee? Does not sound like team spirit. So do you fire another one? Dissolve that team? That sounds very costly. If I was employer and had to abide by that, any work location would only have employees of single race and gender. Prevention is likely to be cheaper than dealing with the possible consequences. But then we immediately arrive second level of Allport's Scale...
  - partycoder 9y ago
    What is more costly is allowing that behavior to become tolerated and normal, affect employees' morale, ruin the culture, affect the company's reputation, etc. It can also get the company sued. Take a look at EEO laws. You also seem to be forgetting the fact that people don't have to insult or antagonize each other in order to be successful. If anything that is neurotic behavior that is negatively correlated with career success.
- nwah1 9y ago
  You're reading a whole lot into the statement. And from the statement, it seems that he may have been referring to a conflict between two different minority groups each using derogatory language. If your employees are doing that to each other, asking them to accept apologies seems reasonable. What alternative course is there? Firing everyone on the spot?
sleepychu 9y ago
The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system. I wonder how your shareholders will feel about that.
- tempestn 9y ago
  Winning in court would presumably be better PR than paying a settlement, so probably fine, even if all they care about is ROI.
- zolthrowaway 9y ago
  This is good PR for them now. "Look we are clearly not at fault and will vehemently defend our innocence." In addition this claim is absolutely non-binding. Also, if the trial lawyer in question is just trying to make a quick buck, this is a deterrent. If the goal is just a cash grab, why would this lawyer go through an arduous legal battle for a false claim when there are plenty of other lucrative cases that will settle out of court. Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't see any downside to saying this. There is zero obligation to follow through. The outcome of this case is going to be a big story regardless of this statement. It's just solid PR and posturing with little to no cost to do so.
zdw 9y ago
When does Elon sleep if he's writing cogent emails like this at 2:37AM ?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kbenson 9y ago
  Pacific time, that's 11:27.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  Musk apparently gets around 6 hours of sleep: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-daily-schedule-2017-6/ http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-daily-schedule-2017...
  - jamier1978 9y ago
    Didn't know he has 5 kids! I struggle with 1 full time job and 2 kids.
    - woolvalley 9y ago
      With money, a lot of that struggle can be mitigated. He still probably doesn't have that much to spend with them.
      - jamier1978 9y ago
        True. I found this quote kind of sad "What I find is I'm able to be with them and still be on email. I can be with them and still be working at the same time ... If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to get my job done." I don't know how much time he actually spends with his kids, but I suppose its comes with the territory of trying to change the world.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Does he write these himself? Whoever wrote that has a way with words.
saagarjha 9y ago
Perhaps I'm simply naive, but I've never encountered the term "w-word". What is it?
- Tepix 9y ago
  I thought it meant "whore". Wikipedia has a redirect from "w word" to "prostitution": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_word&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_word&redirect=n...
- comicjk 9y ago
  In the context, mentioning Hispanic individuals, probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)
  - kiproping 9y ago
    How is wetback as a slur even remotely comparable to the N-word.
    - Cthulhu_ 9y ago
      Are you serious or just trolling? Both are used by white supremacists to describe the respective ethnic minorities as a dehumanizing put-down.
      - nmeofthestate 9y ago
        "Both are used by white supremacists", except in this instance it's Blacks and Hispanics using it against each other, so I'm not sure why you brought whites into it.
        zentiggr 9y ago
        A point of history, per se: in this case, the terms were originated on the white side as slurs, and later they are used by each group to offend the other.
meri_dian 9y ago
Great response to the noise, I'm glad Tesla is getting out in front of this. This part struck me as important: "The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system" There are bad actors out there who will fan the flames of the outrage machine for their own selfish ends. Jumping to conclusions based on hearsay and accusations is what they want, not what is reasonable.
- lovich 9y ago
  It's just one sides statement. Another view of their desire to "...pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees..." is that they will use their corporate coffers to bury the plaintiff in paperwork. Less loved companies like BP or Walmart would certainly get accused of doing so, even if they said they were preventing an "...abuse of the legal system"
  - thephyber 9y ago
    Agree with this. It's important to realize that this is Tesla's PR team is fighting in the court of public opinion against this attorney that is gathering a lawsuit against them and anyone else that is using this event to spin some anti-Tesla news. If a company can get some great mileage out of creating a better narrative, they have a shot at much better leverage before/during any potential trial. I'm not making any judgement about Tesla (certainly better than post-Deepwater BP) or the lawyer, just saying it's a matter of perspective and incentives.
- b3lvedere 9y ago
  A big part of me is very happy that they would "fight to the ends of the Earth", but then again i'm also very sad that the only ones that can actually do that are the ones with a huge amount of money at their disposal.
  - 9y ago
KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
> "In fairness, if someone is a jerk to you, but sincerely apologizes, it is important to be thick-skinned and accept that apology." I have a colleague who has "sincerely apologized" to me three times within the span of a few months. Some people just know how to play the system, and if management is not firm (which this passage indicates is the case in Tesla), these people will win out.
- mavelikara 9y ago
  Once is an accident, twice is a pattern.
  - taneq 9y ago
    Three times is enemy action.
- hw 9y ago
  If it's a one time thing, then sure, accept the apology. But if that person is known to be a jerk often, and apologizes often albeit sincerely, I can't expect anyone to be that thick skinned, nor would I advocate for that
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    It's not even about being thick skinned: it might not bother me at a personal level, but I'm not letting a team malfunction as baseline where some members make a habit of abusing other members and will absolutely make an issue of it until management does something. Mostly because it's illegal for an employer to operate a business that way.
- new299 9y ago
  My reading would be that it's best if you accept the apology (don't retaliate). But that doesn't mean you wouldn't mention it to HR or a manager. And it doesn't mean management wouldn't fire them if it's effecting the workplace culture.
- meri_dian 9y ago
colemannugent 9y ago
I like the spirit of Elon's letter, but there is one part that bothers me: >This doesn't mean there is a different standard of performance [for less represented groups] ... ... >We have had a few cases at Tesla where someone in a less represented group was given a job or promoted over more qualified highly represented candidates... Which is it?
- eecc 9y ago
  Both? My guess is they don’t have a policy to favor anyone’s background but in practice it has happened unintentionally, and in hindsight it even backfired, when abused by subjects who used their ethnicity or gender to manipulate their way up.
- sdenton4 9y ago
  I read 'standard' as implying a quality bar, beyond which there's space for flexibility. Suppose we're giving out 100 promotions, and have 1000 promo nominations. You review the 1000 noms and find that there are 500 that pass the quality bar because your company is full of awesome people. So now you have to choose which 100 of the 500 to actually promote. You can do this in a number of ways, ranging from uniformly at random to doing a total stack rank and selecting the top 100. Or you can choose to try to correct systemic under-representation in management, which helps the company on a number of axes (including better recruitment of smart people from under-represented groups, providing a statistical bulwark against lawsuits, etc...). (edit: It's worth keeping in mind that trying to do a full stack rank of your 1000 applications is going to be noisy as hell and an incredible amount of work, as there will be multiple (individually noisy) promo committees working on sub-sets of nominations. So it pays off to have a clear set of standards for promotion to a given level, even if you don't automatically promote everyone who meets that standard.)
  - hw 9y ago
    Promotion is a touchy thing. As a manager, promoting your top performers seems like a no brainer, but sometimes if an employee is above a certain quality bar that warrants a promotion (as you mentioned), even though there are others who probably deserve it more, you sometimes have to spread the love around. Knowing who to promote (and who not to promote, knowing they'll still stick around) is a skill. So I don't think that the promotion was necessarily done just because those employees are from underrepresented groups and just to hit some company diversity/equality metric, but I wouldn't know for sure
snowwrestler 9y ago
> Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course. This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017. > Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action." This sounds bad to me. Discrimination complaints are complicated and dangerous and should be handled by experts--which the vast majority of HR staff are not. The idea of a "spot training session" sounds like the sort of thing that could be easily misinterpreted by any of the parties as a "make this go away" conversation. > We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions. This is more like it but the timing is vague--by this wording, this could have happened at any point, including yesterday. > Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified... Oh jeez, please don't share the details of an internal employee matter that is subject to litigation... - (me, but also Tesla's general counsel, probably) > Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible. Ok, but you are not getting sued for just random "bad conduct," you're getting sued for a failing to properly handle a specific (but relatively common, sadly) type of bad conduct. > There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all. Yes, this is how class action lawsuits work. > The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit. Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them. > The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. Well yes, you did say it was a trial lawyer. Overall I think this letter is not great for Tesla. It seems like the sort of thing that will be useful for feeding the current race-based culture war in the U.S., but doesn't make Tesla look serious about preventing racist and discriminatory behavior among its workforce. Fewer words and more contrition would probably have been better.
- 9y ago
Spike66 9y ago
"Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."
- rimliu 9y ago
  I wanted to quote this too. Seems like a nice way to harass someone while pretending to be harassed.
- eecc 9y ago
  That’s good. I guess it also works as unofficial warning
  - rimliu 9y ago
    How do you like unofficial warning when you did nothing wrong? "Hey, would you please stop doing that you never did?"
    - lostboys67 9y ago
      there's normally at least 1 level below a written warning which is quite a serious thing
    - eecc 9y ago
      IMHO failing to avoid engaging in bickering and name-calling is a professional blunder. Just being around and catching the wind means you didn't call yourself out in time. In this case - where nothing sanctionable really happened - a "retraining" that isn't really a warning, just a "gentle reminder", is fair.
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      I could see it being done generically enough that a person who was wronged sees something being done, a person who did something wrong sees an admonishment, but also someone who didn't actually do anything wrong sees it as a general 'don't be bad' message or thinks it is meant for someone else.
Top19 9y ago
Came into this not knowing what to expect, and recently I’ve had some mixed feelings about Tesla, but wow what an awesome statement. Honestly it was just so...authentic. They described very exactly what happened, what the accusations were, what the consequences were for those involved, what concerned them as a company, etc. It has none of the corporate double-speak that you would expect if this were Equifax.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  How can we tell if it's authentic without independently knowing what the truth is? There are many, many people who are good at sounding convincing while being dishonest. Human beings have very limited capability to discern the truth based on presentation, and IMHO one of our greatest weaknesses is that most of us believe we're secretly good at it.
  - dba7dba 9y ago
    First time hearing about this. Seeing the first 5 bullet points was enough for me to pretty safely guess this is much about a lawyer out for $$ from Tesla. Especially this: The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system. The lawyer apparently forgot that Tesla/Elon can easily hire a few dozen lawyers without any strain... IMHO the lawyer in this case === Patent Troll Lawyers
  - Brotkrumen 9y ago
    While you are right in that we tend to form opinions based on limited information, I'd say in this case it is likely to be warranted. What I try to look out for are statements that are easily disproven by the other side if false. No highly paid PR person would release those, thus if they are there, they're likely to be true. Now with those easily disproven claims in this press release as cornerstones of what is the truth, I can't come up with data points that would drastically alter my conclusion. Now all that's left to do is hope that that isn't due to my limited imagination and wait for the opposition to make new claims or disprove the points made.
diminish 9y ago
Antidiscrimination, mobbing, harassment classes for adults are fine but I guess it goes back to families, kindergarten and primary school. Such behavior must be excluded not only from the literate mind but from the subconscious social behavior too. Otherwise w- n- and other words will continue be part of entertaining back stage talk consumed with beer, sports, other unhealthy but fun things together with close friends and colleagues.
- averagewall 9y ago
  If you want to exclude racism from private groups of friends, then you'd better exclude gossip too. It's also harmful in much the same way - reinforcing people's negative views of others so they'll subconsciously or deliberately treat them badly. But unfortunately, even progressives haven't got themselve as far as not bullying or abusing individuals.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    If someone gossips to you they will gossip about you. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will.
nodesocket 9y ago
This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal of Tesla the company. Don’t believe me, in the last few years how many disastrous incidents have we seen derail companies and their founders? Companies shouldn’t need to hire full time employees that manage sensitivity training and certainly the ”tech” news that profits off the constant outrage is just fueling it all further. I fully expect this not to be a popular opinion, but everyday is some new incident or outrage. Get back to work!
- sidcool 9y ago
  Exactly my feeling. My conspiracy theory alt ego says this is a handy work of the entrenched companies that Tesla is aiming to displace.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- lostboys67 9y ago
  This is a car production line where "engineering" language is the norm.
- thephyber 9y ago
  > everyday is some new incident or outrage Welcome to the age of social media. It's a two-edged sword. Your company can use it to get some viral sharing of your great new concept car, coverage of how many pre-orders you sold, or it could be used to organize boycotts or spread word of "a hostile work environment" (whether true or not). And now the class-action attorneys can find their plaintiffs faster than ever before. > This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal I bet if you ask Travis K if he would rather have hired full time "sensitivity trainers" or still be CEO, the answer would be easy. You seem to be arguing that there should be a third option, but that's a counterfactual world where civil liability is different than it is today in the USA.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
stesch 9y ago
By the way: Tesla's CEO is African-American. ;-)
- stesch 9y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8wrqe72YG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8wrqe72YG4
abalone 9y ago
The weak point in this statement is equivocating explicitly racist harassment with “being a jerk.” You should not have to accept a “sincere apology” from someone who calls you a racial epithet. There is nothing careless or unintentional about that. I mean, look how awful this policy sounds if we substitute more concrete language: “if someone calls you a n_gger on a single occasion, but subsequently offers a sincere apology, then we believe that apology should be accepted.” Weird that Musk is doubling down on that, especially coming from South Africa. He should have instead clarified that Tesla is zero-tolerance on racism.
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  I think this "zero tolerance for all the things" is more dangerous than the things it targets in most cases. I assume Tesla is a very high stress place (at least at times). I don't know if you've ever experienced a highly emotional situation but it's possible to get so upset you yell things at people that you actually feel absolutely terrible about later (and didn't realize you were capable of saying). I can imagine someone, in such a highly charged situation, saying something hurtful like that and then feeling absolutely gutted about it later. Of course you don't have to accept an apology in that situation but I personally wouldn't think much of the kind of person who would write someone off, permanently, for one such event when they never did anything like that before or ever again and sincerely appologized.
  - abalone 9y ago
    Straw man. No one said zero tolerance for all things. Just racist harassment. Your argument is weak as well. Would this logic apply to physically assaulting a coworker as well, if the perpetrator is stressed and they’ve never done it before and feel bad after? No, of course not. There is a line beyond which zero tolerance should be the rule, and that line starts with calling someone a n_gger.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  There are times when someone wants to cause pain to another, and chooses a response to inflict maximum harm. This could be a racial slur, but it could also refer to a death of a loved one or something else. Imagine someone telling another "I see why your son killed himself." It is meant to cause maximum damage, not meant to be racist/sexist/etc. In these cases, I don't think there should be any difference in forgiveness between those who used discriminatory language and those who picked another means to attack. I'm not saying people should accept a sincere apology. I see such an attack as very bad regardless if it used discriminatory language. The intent, to cause maximum pain, is unjustifiable regardless of the tool used to carry it out.
majewsky 9y ago
> What it comes down to is this: do what would make your parents proud. If you can't look someone you respect in the eye and explain what you did, don't do it. That's a nice rule in general, although I think Elon is underestimating people's capabilities to rationalize past decisions.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ChanningAllen 9y ago
Good on Tesla for standing its ground and making its case publicly. Musk's pushback is nuanced and important. The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies. Some of it is valid, but much is not, and relevant complexities and subtle moral distinctions are lost on a general public which only has the bandwidth to digest memorable headlines and themes. And what could be more complex and morally thorny than how to mediate social issues — particularly those involving race — in a highly visible tech company employing tens of thousands of people? Speaking for myself as a black tech co-founder, I agree with the cliffnotes of Musk's message entirely: those of well-represented groups should consider the challenges they never had to face, but no one from any group should have free license to be a jerk. And for god's sake: when you misrepresent facts to serve a handful of minorities you end up undermining all the other minorities.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  >The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies. I think progressives are under attack. Hollywood, entertainment, and tech companies. I'm not arguing that bad behavior is acceptable and should be ignored. I'm just saying that, for example, removing health care coverage from millions of Americans is more important and hurtful than a homosexual grabbing someone's junk. It's happened to me a couple times, but sadly I wasn't offered a several thousand dollar watch afterwards to keep it quiet.
  - RickS 9y ago
    You're being downvoted because you've fallen into a common but serious logical trap[1] The validity of racial tensions in silicon valley companies is due consideration completely irrespective of sexual assault or healthcare. Both are problems, but the size of B has no bearing on the size of A. [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative-Privation https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
pdimitar 9y ago
You know what? I believe every word Tesla said. Especially about attorneys specializing in extorting companies into settlements. I applaud their decision to not give in to extortion and fight the battle in court until the end. Side note: From non-USA perspective, guys, sincerely, you're crazy. Everybody is suing everybody for what often times seems total nonsense. No offense or disrespect meant, just an honest bafflement -- how can somebody get promoted, then leave, and then sue? Wow.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

384 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

runesoerensen 9y ago

Context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15699645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15699645

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 9y ago
And also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15685818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15685818
- lloydde 9y ago
  Sounds like different lawsuit. New Yorker is hard to read as it tends to meld narratives and topics, but the lawsuit there is no “yesterday’s lawsuit”. NYer article includes: “On September 20, 2016, Vandermeyden filed a lawsuit charging Tesla with sex discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace violations.”

riffraff 9y ago

I have a question: how is it that things like n-word and w-word and whatever-word became part of normal and formal speak in the english language (or is it the US only?) ? I mean, how is the case that people don't just use "racial slander" or something like that, and instead use what seems to be like kindergarden teacher expressions? Is this phenomenon present in other languages/cultures?

acover 9y ago
Racial slur
EngineerBetter 9y ago
"n-word" is used in the UK too. Sometimes one needs to be specific about the nature and severity of the slur used.
- riffraff 9y ago
  in what case is this specificness necessary? I can think of trials or police reports, but I imagine in that case one would have to use the actual words, lest confusion ensues. Forgive me if I sound argumentative, I'm genuinely interested and trying to understand.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    It's a style figure; i.e. a choice an author makes, in order to convey their intent most clearly. It's artistic freedom to choose whether or not to use it. I don't see what purpose your insistence on delineated rules on when to use what words serves. I for one found the article more authentic in the way it was written, vs if they would have used 'racial slurs' or another generic term.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    Saying something like "racial slurs" could potentially leave one wondering if this was something relatively mild, possibly even a mere misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion. Mentioning that someone dropped an n-bomb leaves no room for uncertainty. It's like "sexual harassment." That phrase alone will have some people thinking "oh, the poor guy just said she looked nice today and she flipped out." If you say "he stuck his hand up her dress and told her to be at his apartment at 9pm," there's no space for that sort of misunderstanding.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ahoka 9y ago
It's a PR trick to downplay it. Try how it reads like this: >>At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "nigger" and "wetback" towards each other and a threat of violence.<<
- riffraff 9y ago
  yeah but why is it necessary to do this? why not >> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial slurs towards each other and a threat of violence.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Not all racial slurs are equal in everyone's eyes. What some people consider racial slurs, others say out of ignorance (less common, in today's sensitive reaction to them). Consider "colored" compared to "nigger". Colored will definitely be seen by some as a racial slur, but to others it may be the appropriate for the time, not necessarily racially charged, correct terminology they initially learned. For that matter, "nigger" was a fairly neutral term originally, but changed over time, as the circumstances of the people it referred to changed and they preferred a different, less loaded moniker.
  - toephu2 9y ago
    ...does it really matter? I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information.
    - thephyber 9y ago
      > I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information. At the risk of being equally pedantic... Does that really matter? And is there a company on Earth that will tell you everything with radical honesty? Is there any value in that? Does Tesla tell you how bad their batteries, plastics, or leathers are for the environment? No. They focus on the positive aspects of the product and the company. We prioritize and value what we need to know versus what we might like to know versus all of the other noise. And there is a lot of noise. Far too much noise for almost any of it to be useful. In fact, this is a tactic that large law firms use against small ones -- they DoS attack the small firms with too much paperwork during discovery in hopes that the small firm can't use it effectively and exhaust client expenses just trying to read through the material. I imagine it would just make it easier to build lawsuits against the radically honest companies and the only ones that survived would be the ones with the weasel words or diplomatic silence. Almost like a darwinism where the fitness function isn't relevant to any of the current economics that we observe or product features we care about. I find similar arguments against "political correctness" similarly tiring and fruitless.
b3lvedere 9y ago
Oh yes it is very present. Just ask the jews and gypsies.
- thephyber 9y ago
  I don't think the parent was commenting about the existence of racial slanders, just the use of placeholders like "the n----- word".
  - lostboys67 9y ago
    Yes if your reporting factually the incident it does seem odd to bowderise in this way. And for those of you who haven't worked on the factory floor the behaviour there differs a lot from the nice and fluffy offices most of us are used to
- int_19h 9y ago
  If you do ask the gypsies, by the way, they very much prefer to be called Roma or Romani.
  - b3lvedere 9y ago
    The G-word :)
  - cisanti 9y ago
    Not where I live! What word should we use now?
    - int_19h 9y ago
      I dunno, why not ask them? "Roma" should be a pretty universal endonym, though. If I remember correctly, it basically means "people".
nodesocket 9y ago
I'm sorry, but from your tone your seem to be sitting on some sort of pedestal of moral superiority. The US is so bad and evil, yet everybody still wants to come here, start their startup and company and make millions. May I ask what superior country you hail from?
sidcool 9y ago
Political correctness defeats the purpose.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jlgaddis 9y ago
I think it's mostly a societal thing in the U.S. These words are so bad that we won't use them even when explaining what someone else said. They are so offensive that we can't even bear to repeat them! I kinda get it. No "reasonable person" likes to use or even hear others use words like these. I think it's just "political correctness" that keeps us from using them under any circumstances whatsoever (although, personally, I think that is taking things a bit too far) -- such as in news articles.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  That's a partial answer, but a more complete answer is that saying those words will get you labeled as a racist, even if you're repeating what someone else said. People are so terrified of this that they won't risk it. It's not just courtesy.
  - jlgaddis 9y ago
    Indeed, good point.
abalone 9y ago
A combination of a very deep history of slavery and racism, and a civil rights movement to confront and dismantle it culturally. You could draw a parallel with how Nazi symbols cannot be depicted in Germany (for the most part). It is not just about not offending little PC snowflakes or something.. it’s a campaign of de-Nazification. So too with racism here.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  But that's an legal thing in Germany, not a convention. Also, because it's a codified law, you're perfectly allowed to use Nazi symbology in many contexts where US people would still feel they have to use the "n-word". The rules are a bit similar to "fair use" in copyright.
  - abalone 9y ago
    Splitting hairs. Laws arise from conventions. And people still use the n word in many non-racist contexts here. The first amendment blocks the codification if this in law but the principle is the same: shun the words and symbols that these systems of oppression were built on.
jerrycruncher 9y ago
In areas of ancient Eastern Europe people were so frightened of bears that speaking the actual word for "bear" was extremely taboo [1]. I would guess that this sort of linguistic indirection/substitution has existed as long as spoken language. In the past the rationale was superstition and fear, now it's sensitivity and fear. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakenglishwelsh.html http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakeng...
- lukasm 9y ago
  Interesting. This must be the origin of "he who must not be named"
  - grkvlt 9y ago
    Meh. The whole 'he who must not be named' thing is drawing on the idea in magical thought that by uttering the 'true name' of some evil entity, you somehow grant it power. So not mentioning Voldemort by name is a way of denying him that.
BFatts 9y ago
I think it seems easier to say "n-word" when you want to say nigger. People feel some sort of release from the offense of using the word and that it is some sort of excuse from being racist. Saying the word doesn't make you racist unless you use it with racist intent. But I also believe it is a way to try to eliminate such words from the vocabulary. Shit is usually stated as the "s-word" and fuck is "f-word" or "f-bomb". The implication is that you know the word and can fill in for the words not spoken. I think it's high time that we stopped being afraid of these words. For example, I had to search for what the damn "w-word" was (I was thinking "wigger", but what do I know?)! African Americans can try and differentiate all they want between nigger and nigga, but they obviously stem from the same word so why pretend. It's a thing of power, I suppose. It's okay for one group to say it, but not another - a double standard and extremely hypocritical, but again, who am I to know. EDIT: I am not focusing specifically on African Americans, as this is prominent behavior across many ethnic and racial groups. The group moves to restrict the usage of a word by bastardizing it in some way and making it normal in their group while shaming those outside who use it. This is what complicates race issues even more because non African Americans come away thinking "why is it okay for them to call each other this, and why would they?" Again, same goes for other races and ethnic groups. In America, everything is weird. We're a conglomeration of nationalities and ways of thinking from across the world. Asking "is that an American thing to do?" to me is like asking "is the color Green in the rainbow?".
- gist 9y ago
  I am not even sure why a subgroup of a group got to decide that something was or is offensive and we all need to stop using it for ever and in any circumstance. For example Trump got up and made a speech in front of a group of jews and made reference to how they were either good or tough negotiators. Certain jews called him out on that and were offended. Others thought it was great and a compliment. What gives the one group the right to decide it's defacto offensive and decide the political correctness? (I get paid for negotiation and I was like 'yeah!'. When I was growing up it was common to refer to blacks as 'colored'. Nigger was derogatory. However now it's as if you can't even use it to refer to someone else saying it and many would take offense to either of us (as you did) even using it in a comment even historically. [1] I don't understand nor do I agree with that thinking. [1] On the other hand if it was used in a play or a movie it would be seen entirely different.
tripzilch 9y ago
I had to google "w-word", actually. Wiktionary says it's either "whore" or "wanker". What I (non-US) don't quite get is why putting the word "nigger" in quotes is not enough. I mean, I can think of some reasons, I just feel quotes should be enough to distance oneself from the usage of said word. Then again, the Dutch tend to curse with diseases (which is relatively rare, I think Spanish does it too). But it's mostly "old" diseases like typhoid, tuberculosis, pocks or the plague. Recent generations also tend to use cancer, which is frowned upon because many people know someone who suffered it (then again, heart attacks or strokes are similarly frequent and usually no big deal at all--I think that's related to the terrible suffering of chemotherapy) . I personally like to adopt even newer diseases like H5N1 or ebola, just for the ridiculousness of it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The reason is that people (sometimes the audience, sometime the speaker/writer) have trouble understanding use/mention distinctions or, at least, differentiating the application of word taboos based on those distinctions, exacerbated by the fact that quotes are so frequently abused for emphasis (especially for single words and very short phrases) rather than quotation or use/mention distinction that audiences may take quite the wrong message from their use.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    Good point. I still kind of wish that genuine usage of quotes would be fine, since it's almost always obvious from context. But yeah, what you said about use/mention distinctions, not everyone's strongest point (especially for the immediate emotional reaction, it's still a trigger word). I know the feeling, in IRL conversation, I tend to speak such words at a somewhat lower volume :)

partycoder 9y ago

If a person out of their own initiative want to accept an apology, that is fine. But expecting employees to indulge such behavior is not fair, or acceptable even. The US has had: slavery, racial segregation, ethnic cleansing, forced depopulation, extrajudicial killings (e.g: hangings, lynchings), compulsory sterilization, racial profiling/police brutality, mass incarceration, with the latter resulting in loss of voting rights. Thanksgiving day 2016 was being celebrated while people at Standing Rock were being tear-gassed... and that is only domestically. What enabled a lot of that has been racial discrimination. If someone that has been discriminated doesn't want to accept an apology that is fine. At some moment you need to draw a line and racial discrimination is a reasonable criteria for that. South Africa, the country Elon is originally from, had institutionalized racial segregation until 1991. He should know first hand there difference between being a racist and being a jerk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale

vlehto 9y ago
But what happens when employee is not accepting apology from another employee? Does not sound like team spirit. So do you fire another one? Dissolve that team? That sounds very costly. If I was employer and had to abide by that, any work location would only have employees of single race and gender. Prevention is likely to be cheaper than dealing with the possible consequences. But then we immediately arrive second level of Allport's Scale...
- partycoder 9y ago
  What is more costly is allowing that behavior to become tolerated and normal, affect employees' morale, ruin the culture, affect the company's reputation, etc. It can also get the company sued. Take a look at EEO laws. You also seem to be forgetting the fact that people don't have to insult or antagonize each other in order to be successful. If anything that is neurotic behavior that is negatively correlated with career success.
nwah1 9y ago
You're reading a whole lot into the statement. And from the statement, it seems that he may have been referring to a conflict between two different minority groups each using derogatory language. If your employees are doing that to each other, asking them to accept apologies seems reasonable. What alternative course is there? Firing everyone on the spot?

sleepychu 9y ago

The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system. I wonder how your shareholders will feel about that.

tempestn 9y ago
Winning in court would presumably be better PR than paying a settlement, so probably fine, even if all they care about is ROI.
zolthrowaway 9y ago
This is good PR for them now. "Look we are clearly not at fault and will vehemently defend our innocence." In addition this claim is absolutely non-binding. Also, if the trial lawyer in question is just trying to make a quick buck, this is a deterrent. If the goal is just a cash grab, why would this lawyer go through an arduous legal battle for a false claim when there are plenty of other lucrative cases that will settle out of court. Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't see any downside to saying this. There is zero obligation to follow through. The outcome of this case is going to be a big story regardless of this statement. It's just solid PR and posturing with little to no cost to do so.

zdw 9y ago

When does Elon sleep if he's writing cogent emails like this at 2:37AM ?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 9y ago
Pacific time, that's 11:27.
saagarjha 9y ago
Musk apparently gets around 6 hours of sleep: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-daily-schedule-2017-6/ http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-daily-schedule-2017...
- jamier1978 9y ago
  Didn't know he has 5 kids! I struggle with 1 full time job and 2 kids.
  - woolvalley 9y ago
    With money, a lot of that struggle can be mitigated. He still probably doesn't have that much to spend with them.
    - jamier1978 9y ago
      True. I found this quote kind of sad "What I find is I'm able to be with them and still be on email. I can be with them and still be working at the same time ... If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to get my job done." I don't know how much time he actually spends with his kids, but I suppose its comes with the territory of trying to change the world.
mistermann 9y ago
Does he write these himself? Whoever wrote that has a way with words.

saagarjha 9y ago

Perhaps I'm simply naive, but I've never encountered the term "w-word". What is it?

Tepix 9y ago
I thought it meant "whore". Wikipedia has a redirect from "w word" to "prostitution": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_word&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_word&redirect=n...
comicjk 9y ago
In the context, mentioning Hispanic individuals, probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)
- kiproping 9y ago
  How is wetback as a slur even remotely comparable to the N-word.
  - Cthulhu_ 9y ago
    Are you serious or just trolling? Both are used by white supremacists to describe the respective ethnic minorities as a dehumanizing put-down.
    - nmeofthestate 9y ago
      "Both are used by white supremacists", except in this instance it's Blacks and Hispanics using it against each other, so I'm not sure why you brought whites into it.
      - zentiggr 9y ago
        A point of history, per se: in this case, the terms were originated on the white side as slurs, and later they are used by each group to offend the other.

meri_dian 9y ago

Great response to the noise, I'm glad Tesla is getting out in front of this. This part struck me as important: "The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system" There are bad actors out there who will fan the flames of the outrage machine for their own selfish ends. Jumping to conclusions based on hearsay and accusations is what they want, not what is reasonable.

lovich 9y ago
It's just one sides statement. Another view of their desire to "...pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees..." is that they will use their corporate coffers to bury the plaintiff in paperwork. Less loved companies like BP or Walmart would certainly get accused of doing so, even if they said they were preventing an "...abuse of the legal system"
- thephyber 9y ago
  Agree with this. It's important to realize that this is Tesla's PR team is fighting in the court of public opinion against this attorney that is gathering a lawsuit against them and anyone else that is using this event to spin some anti-Tesla news. If a company can get some great mileage out of creating a better narrative, they have a shot at much better leverage before/during any potential trial. I'm not making any judgement about Tesla (certainly better than post-Deepwater BP) or the lawyer, just saying it's a matter of perspective and incentives.
b3lvedere 9y ago
A big part of me is very happy that they would "fight to the ends of the Earth", but then again i'm also very sad that the only ones that can actually do that are the ones with a huge amount of money at their disposal.
- 9y ago

KKKKkkkk1 9y ago

> "In fairness, if someone is a jerk to you, but sincerely apologizes, it is important to be thick-skinned and accept that apology." I have a colleague who has "sincerely apologized" to me three times within the span of a few months. Some people just know how to play the system, and if management is not firm (which this passage indicates is the case in Tesla), these people will win out.

mavelikara 9y ago
Once is an accident, twice is a pattern.
- taneq 9y ago
  Three times is enemy action.
hw 9y ago
If it's a one time thing, then sure, accept the apology. But if that person is known to be a jerk often, and apologizes often albeit sincerely, I can't expect anyone to be that thick skinned, nor would I advocate for that
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  It's not even about being thick skinned: it might not bother me at a personal level, but I'm not letting a team malfunction as baseline where some members make a habit of abusing other members and will absolutely make an issue of it until management does something. Mostly because it's illegal for an employer to operate a business that way.
new299 9y ago
My reading would be that it's best if you accept the apology (don't retaliate). But that doesn't mean you wouldn't mention it to HR or a manager. And it doesn't mean management wouldn't fire them if it's effecting the workplace culture.
meri_dian 9y ago

colemannugent 9y ago

I like the spirit of Elon's letter, but there is one part that bothers me: >This doesn't mean there is a different standard of performance [for less represented groups] ... ... >We have had a few cases at Tesla where someone in a less represented group was given a job or promoted over more qualified highly represented candidates... Which is it?

eecc 9y ago
Both? My guess is they don’t have a policy to favor anyone’s background but in practice it has happened unintentionally, and in hindsight it even backfired, when abused by subjects who used their ethnicity or gender to manipulate their way up.
sdenton4 9y ago
I read 'standard' as implying a quality bar, beyond which there's space for flexibility. Suppose we're giving out 100 promotions, and have 1000 promo nominations. You review the 1000 noms and find that there are 500 that pass the quality bar because your company is full of awesome people. So now you have to choose which 100 of the 500 to actually promote. You can do this in a number of ways, ranging from uniformly at random to doing a total stack rank and selecting the top 100. Or you can choose to try to correct systemic under-representation in management, which helps the company on a number of axes (including better recruitment of smart people from under-represented groups, providing a statistical bulwark against lawsuits, etc...). (edit: It's worth keeping in mind that trying to do a full stack rank of your 1000 applications is going to be noisy as hell and an incredible amount of work, as there will be multiple (individually noisy) promo committees working on sub-sets of nominations. So it pays off to have a clear set of standards for promotion to a given level, even if you don't automatically promote everyone who meets that standard.)
- hw 9y ago
  Promotion is a touchy thing. As a manager, promoting your top performers seems like a no brainer, but sometimes if an employee is above a certain quality bar that warrants a promotion (as you mentioned), even though there are others who probably deserve it more, you sometimes have to spread the love around. Knowing who to promote (and who not to promote, knowing they'll still stick around) is a skill. So I don't think that the promotion was necessarily done just because those employees are from underrepresented groups and just to hit some company diversity/equality metric, but I wouldn't know for sure

snowwrestler 9y ago

> Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course. This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017. > Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action." This sounds bad to me. Discrimination complaints are complicated and dangerous and should be handled by experts--which the vast majority of HR staff are not. The idea of a "spot training session" sounds like the sort of thing that could be easily misinterpreted by any of the parties as a "make this go away" conversation. > We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions. This is more like it but the timing is vague--by this wording, this could have happened at any point, including yesterday. > Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified... Oh jeez, please don't share the details of an internal employee matter that is subject to litigation... - (me, but also Tesla's general counsel, probably) > Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible. Ok, but you are not getting sued for just random "bad conduct," you're getting sued for a failing to properly handle a specific (but relatively common, sadly) type of bad conduct. > There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all. Yes, this is how class action lawsuits work. > The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit. Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them. > The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. Well yes, you did say it was a trial lawyer. Overall I think this letter is not great for Tesla. It seems like the sort of thing that will be useful for feeding the current race-based culture war in the U.S., but doesn't make Tesla look serious about preventing racist and discriminatory behavior among its workforce. Fewer words and more contrition would probably have been better.

9y ago

Spike66 9y ago

"Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."

rimliu 9y ago
I wanted to quote this too. Seems like a nice way to harass someone while pretending to be harassed.
eecc 9y ago
That’s good. I guess it also works as unofficial warning
- rimliu 9y ago
  How do you like unofficial warning when you did nothing wrong? "Hey, would you please stop doing that you never did?"
  - lostboys67 9y ago
    there's normally at least 1 level below a written warning which is quite a serious thing
  - eecc 9y ago
    IMHO failing to avoid engaging in bickering and name-calling is a professional blunder. Just being around and catching the wind means you didn't call yourself out in time. In this case - where nothing sanctionable really happened - a "retraining" that isn't really a warning, just a "gentle reminder", is fair.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    I could see it being done generically enough that a person who was wronged sees something being done, a person who did something wrong sees an admonishment, but also someone who didn't actually do anything wrong sees it as a general 'don't be bad' message or thinks it is meant for someone else.

Top19 9y ago

Came into this not knowing what to expect, and recently I’ve had some mixed feelings about Tesla, but wow what an awesome statement. Honestly it was just so...authentic. They described very exactly what happened, what the accusations were, what the consequences were for those involved, what concerned them as a company, etc. It has none of the corporate double-speak that you would expect if this were Equifax.

forapurpose 9y ago
How can we tell if it's authentic without independently knowing what the truth is? There are many, many people who are good at sounding convincing while being dishonest. Human beings have very limited capability to discern the truth based on presentation, and IMHO one of our greatest weaknesses is that most of us believe we're secretly good at it.
- dba7dba 9y ago
  First time hearing about this. Seeing the first 5 bullet points was enough for me to pretty safely guess this is much about a lawyer out for $$ from Tesla. Especially this: The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system. The lawyer apparently forgot that Tesla/Elon can easily hire a few dozen lawyers without any strain... IMHO the lawyer in this case === Patent Troll Lawyers
- Brotkrumen 9y ago
  While you are right in that we tend to form opinions based on limited information, I'd say in this case it is likely to be warranted. What I try to look out for are statements that are easily disproven by the other side if false. No highly paid PR person would release those, thus if they are there, they're likely to be true. Now with those easily disproven claims in this press release as cornerstones of what is the truth, I can't come up with data points that would drastically alter my conclusion. Now all that's left to do is hope that that isn't due to my limited imagination and wait for the opposition to make new claims or disprove the points made.

diminish 9y ago

Antidiscrimination, mobbing, harassment classes for adults are fine but I guess it goes back to families, kindergarten and primary school. Such behavior must be excluded not only from the literate mind but from the subconscious social behavior too. Otherwise w- n- and other words will continue be part of entertaining back stage talk consumed with beer, sports, other unhealthy but fun things together with close friends and colleagues.

averagewall 9y ago
If you want to exclude racism from private groups of friends, then you'd better exclude gossip too. It's also harmful in much the same way - reinforcing people's negative views of others so they'll subconsciously or deliberately treat them badly. But unfortunately, even progressives haven't got themselve as far as not bullying or abusing individuals.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  If someone gossips to you they will gossip about you. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will.

nodesocket 9y ago

This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal of Tesla the company. Don’t believe me, in the last few years how many disastrous incidents have we seen derail companies and their founders? Companies shouldn’t need to hire full time employees that manage sensitivity training and certainly the ”tech” news that profits off the constant outrage is just fueling it all further. I fully expect this not to be a popular opinion, but everyday is some new incident or outrage. Get back to work!

sidcool 9y ago
Exactly my feeling. My conspiracy theory alt ego says this is a handy work of the entrenched companies that Tesla is aiming to displace.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lostboys67 9y ago
This is a car production line where "engineering" language is the norm.
thephyber 9y ago
> everyday is some new incident or outrage Welcome to the age of social media. It's a two-edged sword. Your company can use it to get some viral sharing of your great new concept car, coverage of how many pre-orders you sold, or it could be used to organize boycotts or spread word of "a hostile work environment" (whether true or not). And now the class-action attorneys can find their plaintiffs faster than ever before. > This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal I bet if you ask Travis K if he would rather have hired full time "sensitivity trainers" or still be CEO, the answer would be easy. You seem to be arguing that there should be a third option, but that's a counterfactual world where civil liability is different than it is today in the USA.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

stesch 9y ago

By the way: Tesla's CEO is African-American. ;-)

stesch 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8wrqe72YG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8wrqe72YG4

abalone 9y ago

The weak point in this statement is equivocating explicitly racist harassment with “being a jerk.” You should not have to accept a “sincere apology” from someone who calls you a racial epithet. There is nothing careless or unintentional about that. I mean, look how awful this policy sounds if we substitute more concrete language: “if someone calls you a n_gger on a single occasion, but subsequently offers a sincere apology, then we believe that apology should be accepted.” Weird that Musk is doubling down on that, especially coming from South Africa. He should have instead clarified that Tesla is zero-tolerance on racism.

alien_at_work 9y ago
I think this "zero tolerance for all the things" is more dangerous than the things it targets in most cases. I assume Tesla is a very high stress place (at least at times). I don't know if you've ever experienced a highly emotional situation but it's possible to get so upset you yell things at people that you actually feel absolutely terrible about later (and didn't realize you were capable of saying). I can imagine someone, in such a highly charged situation, saying something hurtful like that and then feeling absolutely gutted about it later. Of course you don't have to accept an apology in that situation but I personally wouldn't think much of the kind of person who would write someone off, permanently, for one such event when they never did anything like that before or ever again and sincerely appologized.
- abalone 9y ago
  Straw man. No one said zero tolerance for all things. Just racist harassment. Your argument is weak as well. Would this logic apply to physically assaulting a coworker as well, if the perpetrator is stressed and they’ve never done it before and feel bad after? No, of course not. There is a line beyond which zero tolerance should be the rule, and that line starts with calling someone a n_gger.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
There are times when someone wants to cause pain to another, and chooses a response to inflict maximum harm. This could be a racial slur, but it could also refer to a death of a loved one or something else. Imagine someone telling another "I see why your son killed himself." It is meant to cause maximum damage, not meant to be racist/sexist/etc. In these cases, I don't think there should be any difference in forgiveness between those who used discriminatory language and those who picked another means to attack. I'm not saying people should accept a sincere apology. I see such an attack as very bad regardless if it used discriminatory language. The intent, to cause maximum pain, is unjustifiable regardless of the tool used to carry it out.

majewsky 9y ago

> What it comes down to is this: do what would make your parents proud. If you can't look someone you respect in the eye and explain what you did, don't do it. That's a nice rule in general, although I think Elon is underestimating people's capabilities to rationalize past decisions.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ChanningAllen 9y ago

Good on Tesla for standing its ground and making its case publicly. Musk's pushback is nuanced and important. The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies. Some of it is valid, but much is not, and relevant complexities and subtle moral distinctions are lost on a general public which only has the bandwidth to digest memorable headlines and themes. And what could be more complex and morally thorny than how to mediate social issues — particularly those involving race — in a highly visible tech company employing tens of thousands of people? Speaking for myself as a black tech co-founder, I agree with the cliffnotes of Musk's message entirely: those of well-represented groups should consider the challenges they never had to face, but no one from any group should have free license to be a jerk. And for god's sake: when you misrepresent facts to serve a handful of minorities you end up undermining all the other minorities.

abandonliberty 9y ago
>The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies. I think progressives are under attack. Hollywood, entertainment, and tech companies. I'm not arguing that bad behavior is acceptable and should be ignored. I'm just saying that, for example, removing health care coverage from millions of Americans is more important and hurtful than a homosexual grabbing someone's junk. It's happened to me a couple times, but sadly I wasn't offered a several thousand dollar watch afterwards to keep it quiet.
- RickS 9y ago
  You're being downvoted because you've fallen into a common but serious logical trap[1] The validity of racial tensions in silicon valley companies is due consideration completely irrespective of sexual assault or healthcare. Both are problems, but the size of B has no bearing on the size of A. [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative-Privation https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...

pdimitar 9y ago

You know what? I believe every word Tesla said. Especially about attorneys specializing in extorting companies into settlements. I applaud their decision to not give in to extortion and fight the battle in court until the end. Side note: From non-USA perspective, guys, sincerely, you're crazy. Everybody is suing everybody for what often times seems total nonsense. No offense or disrespect meant, just an honest bafflement -- how can somebody get promoted, then leave, and then sue? Wow.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]