10 ms·
And Tesla should be allowed every opportunity to stop them. I guess Tesla broke the law in this case, but I do not really agree with the ruling and the law. Mu
by meddlepal 6y ago
And Tesla should be allowed every opportunity to stop them.
I guess Tesla broke the law in this case, but I do not really agree with the ruling and the law. Musk should be allowed to present the possible downsides.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThe downside musk presented was a lie though: a union could absolutely bargain for stock options.
- stretchwithme 6y agoMaybe he has no plans to offer stock because such incentives don't really work when your labor supply is captured by a monopoly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zja 6y agoWhy wouldn’t stock options “work” when labor is unionized?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- refurb 6y agoJust a guess but union contracts typically fix compensation for a given role and seniority. So every role would get the same number of options. Not having control over how many options are granted (linking to performance) may mean the company doesn’t have much incentive to grant them to union members.
- spamizbad 6y agoIs the implication here stock options are only offered to labor when its in a weak bargaining position because otherwise they could be demanding something more valuable?
- eru 6y agoTesla is a publicly traded company. It's relatively easy to put a market value on their stock options. > [...] because otherwise they could be demanding something more valuable? Like twice as many stock options? I'm a bit confused. Stock options are fungible. You can make granting of stock options worth arbitrary many dollars, by eg increasing the volume or lowering the strike price etc.
- stretchwithme 6y agoStock options are offered to people who are ready, willing and able to work harder or smarter in response to potential ownership. These are INDIVIDUAL contributions. When a direct relationship exists between the parties, this is a possibility. When there is a third party dictating what happens, this is much less realistic.
- fastball 6y agoBut Tesla could outright refuse under any circumstances to give stock options to unionized employees, no? That's their prerogative. Also FWIW Musk clarified that he was talking about the fact that no UAW employees have stock options at any other company.
- eru 6y ago> But Tesla could outright refuse under any circumstances to give stock options to unionized employees, no? Not sure what the laws are. There might be laws saying that you can't discriminate against people in unions, so in order not to hand stock options to unionized employees, they might have to withhold stock options from all employees? (No clue, just speculating.)
- joshuamorton 6y ago> But Tesla could outright refuse under any circumstances to give stock options to unionized employees, no? I mean yes. And then a union could strike. At which point elon would have a decision to make: is proving a dumb point worth his business? > Also FWIW Musk clarified Presumably on lawyers advice. > no UAW employees have stock options at any other company. But that,as others have explained, isn't relevant. Nothing stops the Tesla union from maintaining those perks, and options aren't valuable at most auto companies anyway, so aiming for different perks is superior.
- boustrophedon 6y ago> And Tesla should be allowed every opportunity to stop them. We've tried this. People died over it. We enacted laws to prevent it from happening, so that labor can stand on equal ground with capital.
- kova12 6y agoLabor, Capital - jeez there's plenty of countries built on Marxist ideology you are advocating. Go live there. China, Venezuella, North Korea - check them out see if you like it. USA was not built on that ideology, can we please keep it that way thank you very much? I would much rather see a single place not destroyed by a mob of parasites
- colinmhayes 6y agoAll economies consist of labor and capital vying for resources.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> All economies consist of labor and capital vying for resources Economies without property rights in capital do not. They may have other (and even more significant) problems, but they don't have that one.
- mrkstu 6y agoAn example of such an economy IRL?
- dragonwriter 6y agoLots of small-community, low-tech societies (very much “pre-capitalist” in the view of either capitalist or Marxist teleogical economic descriptions).
- 6y ago
- viraptor 6y ago> allowed every opportunity Unless you're also happy about shooting people starting a union or striking, you should read this article to learn why this is a really bad idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
- kova12 6y agodidn't that happen when joining union was voluntary?
- eru 6y agoCompare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/
- viraptor 6y agoI'm curious what you wanted to point out? (It's a really interesting read either way)
- eru 6y agoI'm glad you enjoyed it! Mostly I wanted to give a bit more historic context. Japan is arguably a more productive economy and a better place to live than India, and Pseudoerasmus suggests that this is at least partly because labour was not able to mount as effective a defense as in India. To belabour that point: Fred says at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPINA156NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPINA156NRUG that the labour share of GDP in India is something above 50%. Japan is also something above 50%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPJPA156NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPJPA156NRUG India's GDP per capita is about 1.9k USD. The number for Japan is about 40k USD. So even in the hypothetical world where Indian labour would somehow be so strong it would capture 100% of GDP, that would still be only about 10% of what Japanese workers get. Now, of course, any nuanced argument will take into account that labour suppression wasn't the only difference between Japan and India. But the important thing is that this shifts the context of the argument: instead of a knee-jerk attitude of 'unions are obviously good for workers in the long run', we have some more explaining to do. (With sufficient mental gymnastics, you might stil be able to argue that unions and strong labour in general is good for standard of living. But at least now you have to engage in that gymnastics.)
- slumpt_ 6y agoSounds like you should crack a history book open.
- eru 6y agoDepending on your biases, you pick a book that'll confirm them.