7 ms·

I'm sure this is at least partly tied-in to their ongoing, illegal efforts to crush labor organizing at their plants. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-

I'm sure this is at least partly tied-in to their ongoing, illegal efforts to crush labor organizing at their plants. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-nlrb/worker-testifies-that-tesla-stopped-him-from-organizing-union-idUSKBN1J803Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-nlrb/worker-testifi...

icelancer 8y ago
>> illegal efforts Yet to be determined by a court. Precision in language is important, no matter how heated you are about a situation.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  True. Let's go with "immoral efforts." I think that's precise enough language.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- paulcole 8y ago
  Stomach churning? Un-American?
  - organsnyder 8y ago
    All too American, I'm afraid.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Union busting is as all-American as Wal-Mart.
- SEJeff 8y ago
  Don't feed the trolls. He's a new account perhaps a UAW shill.
  - Jasper_ 8y ago
    Yes, I agree. The only people who could possibly have problems with Tesla's hazardous working conditions and union-busting efforts are UAW shills, and as everybody knows, you can't be a valuable contributor to a conversation if you registered your account today. I think Merriam-Webster even lists the definition of "Internet troll" as "someone who has been on Hacker News for less than a month".
- jfoutz 8y ago
  Is it imprecise? I can make claims about my worldview. I say the sky is blue. you say the sky is white (cloudy). we can argue about it, but there's no reason for either of us to change our opinion till we look out the window and see what color the sky is. The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. in my very humble opinion it's perfectly reasonable to call something illegal if you genuinely believe it's illegal, regardless of status as a lawyer. But once the court has ruled, you need to change your opinion, or you're a crackpot. (Or, perhaps, the court is corrupt, but that's well off into crazy person land)
  - icelancer 8y ago
    >> The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. As someone who is involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter, this is exactly how it works. I don't claim people are doing illegal things. I am filing lawsuits against them alleging improper behavior and I let the courts do their job, which is determining legality and harm to parties. Laymen don't get to decide what is or isn't legal, nor is it a wise decision to accuse people of illegal activities when no fact finding group has found that to be true. Trust me on this one when I say courts really, really don't appreciate that kind of language.
    - MrLeap 8y ago
      Certain contexts DO allow Laymen authority to determine the legality of things. Juries and voting come immediately to mind. Conversationally, saying "I think this is illegal" instead of "this is illegal" freely surrenders to those who disagree with you to use appeals to authority to bypass conversation without addressing what you said. I think this is a bad strategy if you're levying a case in the e-court of e-opinions.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      > involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter sounds like breach of contract, not crimes though. shrug
- snackbugs 8y ago
  This itself seems like an imprecise argument. If there are well-known laws against doing something that has gone unpunished so far, is it then legal?
  - mlindner 8y ago
    That claims you know what's going on at Tesla, which you don't. So you can't make such a statement.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    It is illegal to trespass, but you can also acquire the property you trespass upon by adverse possession. If you can trespass for 20 years (varies by jurisdiction) without getting ejected, it's legal. And you now own the property. If you don't enforce a trademark, it is void. There are statutes of limitations on a lot of crimes and torts, including those involving violence. So there is quite a lot of precedent involved in unenforced, flagrantly-violated laws becoming void. One way around that is to elect government attorneys that will prosecute those laws, and government cops that will investigate suspected violations of those laws.
poster123 8y ago
How many tech workers would like their terms of employment, including compensation, to be decided by negotiations between a union and a company?
- influx 8y ago
  Can you imagine pay, promotion, and assignment by seniority instead of skill? Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    I don't know where you get that idea from its not my experience working as an M&P grade in a unionised company in the UK.
    - mark_edward 8y ago
      Don't worry, the American Enterprise Institute and other business groups have produced plenty of educational material on how unions work.
    - djrogers 8y ago
      > I don't know where you get that idea from Virtually every union in the US > its not my experience working as an M&P grade in a unionised company in the UK. Yeah. Tesla isn't based in the UK, nor are the wroker in question here.
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Actually worked at place with professional unions in the USA? And I suspect the vast majority of imported H1b's would love a seniority "buggins turn" system.
  - vkou 8y ago
    This is not a necessary requirement for a union. It is quite possible to charter a union which does not make any seniority expectations of their employer. You can, for instance form a union, whose sole purpose is bargaining for pay bands in a company with well-defined job roles. You can form a union that only fights 'arbitrary' dismissal of employees for their political views. You can form a union that only negotiates working conditions, and overtime rules and rates. Pointing at the worst example of a union, and claiming that they are fundamentally broken is like me pointing at the worst employer you can imagine, and claiming that corporations are fundamentally broken. Unions are democratic organizations, employers are authoritarian ones. You can decide what direction your union should go.
paulpauper 8y ago
i don't mean to make this political, but if unionization costs jobs, why does the left consider that a victory?
- simonbw 8y ago
  It really seems like you do mean to make this political. GP was talking about accusations of Tesla doing something illegal. You came in and brought up political parties and the value of unions, making the discussion much more political. To answer your question, obviously there are both pros and cons to unions (as with basically all political issues). If unionization costs jobs, and the left considers unionization a victory, it must mean that they value the other benefits gained from unionization (e.g. improved working conditions) more than the jobs lost from it.
- vkou 8y ago
  Perhaps jobs are not the end. Perhaps prosperity is the end, and jobs are occasionally the means to it. If we lost half of all jobs, but a family could be supported comfortably by a single-breadwinner, would you consider that a net loss, or a net gain? Or, alternatively, if we had 100% employment, yet all lived in poverty, would that be a better world? Consider that the Soviet Union had 100% employment. Is that the high water mark for economic success? Why not? Inefficiency is one answer to it. Another was 'Where did the wealth surplus go?' There are others.

icelancer 8y ago

>> illegal efforts Yet to be determined by a court. Precision in language is important, no matter how heated you are about a situation.

Someone1234 8y ago
True. Let's go with "immoral efforts." I think that's precise enough language.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
paulcole 8y ago
Stomach churning? Un-American?
- organsnyder 8y ago
  All too American, I'm afraid.
- vkou 8y ago
  Union busting is as all-American as Wal-Mart.
SEJeff 8y ago
Don't feed the trolls. He's a new account perhaps a UAW shill.
- Jasper_ 8y ago
  Yes, I agree. The only people who could possibly have problems with Tesla's hazardous working conditions and union-busting efforts are UAW shills, and as everybody knows, you can't be a valuable contributor to a conversation if you registered your account today. I think Merriam-Webster even lists the definition of "Internet troll" as "someone who has been on Hacker News for less than a month".
jfoutz 8y ago
Is it imprecise? I can make claims about my worldview. I say the sky is blue. you say the sky is white (cloudy). we can argue about it, but there's no reason for either of us to change our opinion till we look out the window and see what color the sky is. The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. in my very humble opinion it's perfectly reasonable to call something illegal if you genuinely believe it's illegal, regardless of status as a lawyer. But once the court has ruled, you need to change your opinion, or you're a crackpot. (Or, perhaps, the court is corrupt, but that's well off into crazy person land)
- icelancer 8y ago
  >> The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. As someone who is involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter, this is exactly how it works. I don't claim people are doing illegal things. I am filing lawsuits against them alleging improper behavior and I let the courts do their job, which is determining legality and harm to parties. Laymen don't get to decide what is or isn't legal, nor is it a wise decision to accuse people of illegal activities when no fact finding group has found that to be true. Trust me on this one when I say courts really, really don't appreciate that kind of language.
  - MrLeap 8y ago
    Certain contexts DO allow Laymen authority to determine the legality of things. Juries and voting come immediately to mind. Conversationally, saying "I think this is illegal" instead of "this is illegal" freely surrenders to those who disagree with you to use appeals to authority to bypass conversation without addressing what you said. I think this is a bad strategy if you're levying a case in the e-court of e-opinions.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    > involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter sounds like breach of contract, not crimes though. shrug
snackbugs 8y ago
This itself seems like an imprecise argument. If there are well-known laws against doing something that has gone unpunished so far, is it then legal?
- mlindner 8y ago
  That claims you know what's going on at Tesla, which you don't. So you can't make such a statement.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  It is illegal to trespass, but you can also acquire the property you trespass upon by adverse possession. If you can trespass for 20 years (varies by jurisdiction) without getting ejected, it's legal. And you now own the property. If you don't enforce a trademark, it is void. There are statutes of limitations on a lot of crimes and torts, including those involving violence. So there is quite a lot of precedent involved in unenforced, flagrantly-violated laws becoming void. One way around that is to elect government attorneys that will prosecute those laws, and government cops that will investigate suspected violations of those laws.

poster123 8y ago

How many tech workers would like their terms of employment, including compensation, to be decided by negotiations between a union and a company?

influx 8y ago
Can you imagine pay, promotion, and assignment by seniority instead of skill? Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
- walshemj 8y ago
  I don't know where you get that idea from its not my experience working as an M&P grade in a unionised company in the UK.
  - mark_edward 8y ago
    Don't worry, the American Enterprise Institute and other business groups have produced plenty of educational material on how unions work.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    > I don't know where you get that idea from Virtually every union in the US > its not my experience working as an M&P grade in a unionised company in the UK. Yeah. Tesla isn't based in the UK, nor are the wroker in question here.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Actually worked at place with professional unions in the USA? And I suspect the vast majority of imported H1b's would love a seniority "buggins turn" system.
- vkou 8y ago
  This is not a necessary requirement for a union. It is quite possible to charter a union which does not make any seniority expectations of their employer. You can, for instance form a union, whose sole purpose is bargaining for pay bands in a company with well-defined job roles. You can form a union that only fights 'arbitrary' dismissal of employees for their political views. You can form a union that only negotiates working conditions, and overtime rules and rates. Pointing at the worst example of a union, and claiming that they are fundamentally broken is like me pointing at the worst employer you can imagine, and claiming that corporations are fundamentally broken. Unions are democratic organizations, employers are authoritarian ones. You can decide what direction your union should go.

paulpauper 8y ago

i don't mean to make this political, but if unionization costs jobs, why does the left consider that a victory?

simonbw 8y ago
It really seems like you do mean to make this political. GP was talking about accusations of Tesla doing something illegal. You came in and brought up political parties and the value of unions, making the discussion much more political. To answer your question, obviously there are both pros and cons to unions (as with basically all political issues). If unionization costs jobs, and the left considers unionization a victory, it must mean that they value the other benefits gained from unionization (e.g. improved working conditions) more than the jobs lost from it.
vkou 8y ago
Perhaps jobs are not the end. Perhaps prosperity is the end, and jobs are occasionally the means to it. If we lost half of all jobs, but a family could be supported comfortably by a single-breadwinner, would you consider that a net loss, or a net gain? Or, alternatively, if we had 100% employment, yet all lived in poverty, would that be a better world? Consider that the Soviet Union had 100% employment. Is that the high water mark for economic success? Why not? Inefficiency is one answer to it. Another was 'Where did the wealth surplus go?' There are others.