4 ms·
> And Tesla is not requiring anyone to show up. That's an important point. But is he paying them more to show up than they'd otherwise be paid if they didn't
by mirimir 6y ago
> And Tesla is not requiring anyone to show up.
That's an important point.
But is he paying them more to show up than they'd otherwise be paid if they didn't show up?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> But is he paying them more to show up than they'd otherwise be paid if they didn't show up? That would be reasonable, to compensate for risk and going above-and-beyond?
- mirimir 6y agoIt would, yes. But if they're being paid nothing otherwise, one could make the argument that it's coercive. Still, this is the US, and it's arguably unfair to expect Tesla to pay nonworking employees indefinitely, even though Musk is a billionaire.
- manigandham 6y agoMusk (and most billionaires) don't have actual billions in the bank. Their net worth coms from owning the stock of the companies they founded. If the company goes bankrupt, they lose their wealth too. And paying for employees (10s of thousands of them) without any revenue or production can have an adverse impact. If giant companies like Ford and Boeing are having trouble, it's not hard to imagine that a new car company that just recently crossed profitability is going to have solvency issues by staying closed.