5 ms·

Having toured multiple car plants, and knowing Tesla is more automated than many, I am of the belief that much of the line work can successfully happen at socia

Having toured multiple car plants, and knowing Tesla is more automated than many, I am of the belief that much of the line work can successfully happen at social distances.

pinkfoot 6y ago
…because you were able to detect - with your naked eye - the absence of microscopic virus molecues on the various factory surfaces. Wow
- rfrey 6y ago
  You mocked the worst possible straw-man interpretation of your parent's comment. Smileysteve clearly meant his tour of the plant indicated relatively few workers in the plant relative to other plants, and work could probably be arranged to keep them a certain distance from each other.
stefan_ 6y ago
This is the same car plant that produces triple the number of OSHA violations as any of its competitors (combined). If that plant has a record, it is one ignoring safety.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  A source: > A review by Forbes found 24 investigations by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors from 2014 to 2018, resulting in fines for 54 violations. These include new penalties that haven't yet hit the national online OSHA database, and they nearly double Tesla's fines over the last five years, to $236,730. * https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-safety-violations-dwarf-big-us-auto-plants-in-aftermath-of-musks-model-3-push/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    I don't think this is very damning nor unexpected. A plant with the degree of _change_ that Tesla has on its product line would likely have a very very dynamic production floor - resulting in more violations. It also seems that the OSHA rules were not designed for Tesla's unique processes, so many of those violations, if you actually read them, are not relevant to Tesla and have nothing to do with safety. This problem will go away as their plant process matures and as they are given the opportunity to comment on the next revision of the OSHA automotive plant rules. Also, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, so it's hard to argue that safety was actually compromised here.
    - originldirgibl 6y ago
      Or Tesla could design their processes in a way that doesn't violate OSHA rules... I don't understand why changing a production floor often would inherently lead to more violations. I could see an organizational bias towards speed and not caring about regulations leading to more violations, however. Also, why should OSHA redesign it's rules to fit Tesla's "unique" processes? And to your last point about injuries: 1. Why should a death or serious injury be the indicator? 2. You're wrong about serious injuries, as a cursory search would show: https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/ https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/tesla-gigafactory-safety-problems-detailed-by-usa-today.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/tesla-gigafactory-safety-pro...
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        > I don't understand why changing a production floor often would inherently lead to more violations. One way would be if increased production floor changes increased OSHA inspections. More inspections yields more discovered violations even for a constant background amount of actual violations.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > Also, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, so it's hard to argue that safety was actually compromised here. Safety was compromised due to the Heinrich/Bird safety pyramid, or accident triangle: > It shows a relationship between serious accidents, minor accidents and near misses and proposes that if the number of minor accidents is reduced then there will be a corresponding fall in the number of serious accidents. […] > The theory was developed further by Frank E Bird in 1966 based on the analysis of 1.7 million accident reports from almost 300 companies. He produced an amended triangle that showed a relationship of one serious injury accident to 10 minor injury (first aid only) accidents, to 30 damage causing accidents, to 600 near misses.[3] […] The numbers used by Bird were confirmed by a 1974 study by A. D. Swain, entitled The Human Element in Systems Safety.[3] The theory was later expanded upon by Bird and Germain in 1985's Practical Loss Control Leadership.[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_triangle The more minor things happening, the greater the probability of a major incident happening, leading to greater chances of a death down the road. The whole point in going hard on the small things is to help reduces the odds of things escalating because it's easy to get sloppy in one's thinking over time, and you can get 'risk creep'. * https://risk-engineering.org/concept/Heinrich-Bird-accident-pyramid https://risk-engineering.org/concept/Heinrich-Bird-accident-...
amiga_500 6y ago
Social distancing isn't the right way to assess risk https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-t...
wegs 6y ago
I think so too. My concern is about Tesla's leadership: 1) Elon Musk has made many comments downplaying COVID19, and 2) In photos (even in their Tesla Return-to-Work Playbook), the Leadership Team doesn't wear face masks (only the low-level workers do). The second issue is big. (1) They're clearly taking risks themselves (no PPE would be okay for a selfie, but these are clearly professional photoshoots with an AV team). (2) If leadership doesn't role-model safe behavior, you can't expect everyone else to follow. In abstract, I agree Tesla should be the poster child for safely re-opening. In practice, if Laurie Shelby, their VP for health and safety, can't be bothered to even wear a cloth face mask to a photoshoot on how to reopen safely (I can't make this stuff up), I have serious reservations about Tesla having the in-house expertise to run a COVID-safe shop. There's also the possibility of blowback. If Tesla re-opens without proper precautions -- and there's every indication they'll do that -- and those improper precautions turn out to be insufficient, that will make it that much harder for everyone else to reopen. 90% of safety is in attitudes, in being careful, and in being detail-oriented. The exact same high-level precautions can be 100% safe if executed well, and 0% safe is executed for PR or CYA. It seems Tesla is doing the latter (which is ironic, given their attention to detail everywhere else).
- valachio 6y ago
  1). I believe that Musk is treating this as it should be. The problem is that nearly everyone is over-reacting. A year from now, I believe that the world will realize that this was one giant over-reaction. 2). Is there really a need to over-analyze a photo shoot like that? High ranking officials usually don't wear masks (See Trump or Trudeau when they are talking to the press).
  - maest 6y ago
    What new information do you think will become available in one year's time to make it obvious that this was an over-reaction? If it's about total number of deaths - we know that know and even if the number is lower, it means the lockdown worked, no? If it's, for example, new information becoming available about covid virality, that will be irrelevant, as people have to make decisions now with the information available now. Re 2) it's expected and important for leadership to set the tone. Arguably what Trump and Trudeau are doing (if what you say is true) is wrong.

Having toured multiple car plants, and knowing Tesla is more automated than many, I am of the belief that much of the line work can successfully happen at social distances.

pinkfoot 6y ago

…because you were able to detect - with your naked eye - the absence of microscopic virus molecues on the various factory surfaces. Wow

rfrey 6y ago
You mocked the worst possible straw-man interpretation of your parent's comment. Smileysteve clearly meant his tour of the plant indicated relatively few workers in the plant relative to other plants, and work could probably be arranged to keep them a certain distance from each other.

stefan_ 6y ago

This is the same car plant that produces triple the number of OSHA violations as any of its competitors (combined). If that plant has a record, it is one ignoring safety.

throw0101a 6y ago
A source: > A review by Forbes found 24 investigations by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors from 2014 to 2018, resulting in fines for 54 violations. These include new penalties that haven't yet hit the national online OSHA database, and they nearly double Tesla's fines over the last five years, to $236,730. * https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-safety-violations-dwarf-big-us-auto-plants-in-aftermath-of-musks-model-3-push/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I don't think this is very damning nor unexpected. A plant with the degree of _change_ that Tesla has on its product line would likely have a very very dynamic production floor - resulting in more violations. It also seems that the OSHA rules were not designed for Tesla's unique processes, so many of those violations, if you actually read them, are not relevant to Tesla and have nothing to do with safety. This problem will go away as their plant process matures and as they are given the opportunity to comment on the next revision of the OSHA automotive plant rules. Also, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, so it's hard to argue that safety was actually compromised here.
  - originldirgibl 6y ago
    Or Tesla could design their processes in a way that doesn't violate OSHA rules... I don't understand why changing a production floor often would inherently lead to more violations. I could see an organizational bias towards speed and not caring about regulations leading to more violations, however. Also, why should OSHA redesign it's rules to fit Tesla's "unique" processes? And to your last point about injuries: 1. Why should a death or serious injury be the indicator? 2. You're wrong about serious injuries, as a cursory search would show: https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/ https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/tesla-gigafactory-safety-problems-detailed-by-usa-today.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/tesla-gigafactory-safety-pro...
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      > I don't understand why changing a production floor often would inherently lead to more violations. One way would be if increased production floor changes increased OSHA inspections. More inspections yields more discovered violations even for a constant background amount of actual violations.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > Also, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, so it's hard to argue that safety was actually compromised here. Safety was compromised due to the Heinrich/Bird safety pyramid, or accident triangle: > It shows a relationship between serious accidents, minor accidents and near misses and proposes that if the number of minor accidents is reduced then there will be a corresponding fall in the number of serious accidents. […] > The theory was developed further by Frank E Bird in 1966 based on the analysis of 1.7 million accident reports from almost 300 companies. He produced an amended triangle that showed a relationship of one serious injury accident to 10 minor injury (first aid only) accidents, to 30 damage causing accidents, to 600 near misses.[3] […] The numbers used by Bird were confirmed by a 1974 study by A. D. Swain, entitled The Human Element in Systems Safety.[3] The theory was later expanded upon by Bird and Germain in 1985's Practical Loss Control Leadership.[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_triangle The more minor things happening, the greater the probability of a major incident happening, leading to greater chances of a death down the road. The whole point in going hard on the small things is to help reduces the odds of things escalating because it's easy to get sloppy in one's thinking over time, and you can get 'risk creep'. * https://risk-engineering.org/concept/Heinrich-Bird-accident-pyramid https://risk-engineering.org/concept/Heinrich-Bird-accident-...

amiga_500 6y ago

Social distancing isn't the right way to assess risk https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-t...

wegs 6y ago

I think so too. My concern is about Tesla's leadership: 1) Elon Musk has made many comments downplaying COVID19, and 2) In photos (even in their Tesla Return-to-Work Playbook), the Leadership Team doesn't wear face masks (only the low-level workers do). The second issue is big. (1) They're clearly taking risks themselves (no PPE would be okay for a selfie, but these are clearly professional photoshoots with an AV team). (2) If leadership doesn't role-model safe behavior, you can't expect everyone else to follow. In abstract, I agree Tesla should be the poster child for safely re-opening. In practice, if Laurie Shelby, their VP for health and safety, can't be bothered to even wear a cloth face mask to a photoshoot on how to reopen safely (I can't make this stuff up), I have serious reservations about Tesla having the in-house expertise to run a COVID-safe shop. There's also the possibility of blowback. If Tesla re-opens without proper precautions -- and there's every indication they'll do that -- and those improper precautions turn out to be insufficient, that will make it that much harder for everyone else to reopen. 90% of safety is in attitudes, in being careful, and in being detail-oriented. The exact same high-level precautions can be 100% safe if executed well, and 0% safe is executed for PR or CYA. It seems Tesla is doing the latter (which is ironic, given their attention to detail everywhere else).

valachio 6y ago
1). I believe that Musk is treating this as it should be. The problem is that nearly everyone is over-reacting. A year from now, I believe that the world will realize that this was one giant over-reaction. 2). Is there really a need to over-analyze a photo shoot like that? High ranking officials usually don't wear masks (See Trump or Trudeau when they are talking to the press).
- maest 6y ago
  What new information do you think will become available in one year's time to make it obvious that this was an over-reaction? If it's about total number of deaths - we know that know and even if the number is lower, it means the lockdown worked, no? If it's, for example, new information becoming available about covid virality, that will be irrelevant, as people have to make decisions now with the information available now. Re 2) it's expected and important for leadership to set the tone. Arguably what Trump and Trudeau are doing (if what you say is true) is wrong.