4 ms·

How is anyone buying into the complete false statement/propaganda that what Elon said is a threat? Has anyone commenting here even read Elon's tweet in questio

by loceng 6y ago

How is anyone buying into the complete false statement/propaganda that what Elon said is a threat? Has anyone commenting here even read Elon's tweet in question? "Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare." - Elon, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 Edit to add: lots of Elon hate blocking critical thinking here on HN.

aphextron 6y ago
>"Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare." - Elon, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 This is literally textbook union busting BS. It's been the same line for 200 years.
- loceng 6y ago
  Private companies are allowed to negotiate with unions, no? That's the point of a union - to have an organizational body that allows members to vote. All Elon is saying is that Tesla won't be providing stock options to a union. The union could still strike if they don't get what they want - but this being considered a threat or union busting is akin to a temper tantrum because you don't like that something you're currently getting (candy<->stock) then you'll no longer get.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > This is literally textbook union busting BS. So any CEO saying that unions aren't wanted is "union busting"? This just seems like watering down the word until it means almost nothing. There was a time when "union busting" meant literally busting striking member's heads.
cinntaile 6y ago
Why would they not get stock options? Sounds like a punishment for voting union?
- loceng 6y ago
  Punishment? It's negotiation. It's Elon stating that Tesla won't be putting stock options on the table, but a union still could then negotiate - they could potentially negotiate to refuse to work unless they're getting stock but it sounds like Tesla is drawing the line there because they believe that their stock is valuable and will become much more valuable; employees will have to decide for themselves if they want to risk potentially losing out on getting stocks and weigh if that's valuable enough for them for whatever else the union may or may not be able to negotiate. Arguably, as Elon said, they haven't unionized yet because of that potential loss - but it's not a threat, and arguably the employees are smart enough to decide for themselves.
  - cinntaile 6y ago
    So if I tell you that you can join a union but if you do you won't get stock options, then I have negotiated with you?
    - loceng 6y ago
      You can then refuse to work, as a group, and that will apply pressure to Tesla.
      - cinntaile 6y ago
        You evaded the question.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    That’s exactly the kind of thing that’s forbidden under the law. You can’t threaten to take a current benefit off the table if employees unionize.
hoppyhoppy2 6y ago
I think the threat is that union members wouldn't get stock options.
- loceng 6y ago
  That's not a threat - that's called pointing out a fact, it's called reasoning, that employees would be doing themselves when balancing out the pros and cons; just because Elon's pointing out pros and cons doesn't make something a threat. The employees and union still have the ability to decide based on pros and cons. This is being warped and a lack of reasoning at the same level of absurdity as changing master-slave language in programming to shallowly appeal/respond to racism issues.
- hedora 6y ago
  It wasn’t a threat: UAW has never allowed that type of compensation in a union contract, and have specifically blocked attempts to tie compensation to performance in the past. The point of the tweet is that Tesla workers are already treated better than their UAW counterparts. Why let the UAW come in and screw it up?
xutopia 6y ago
I think the devil is in the details here. Is he saying that if people unionize they don't get stock options? Why is that? Is it a threat?
- loceng 6y ago
  No, it's a fact - pros and cons. Tesla has no obligation to provide stock to employees - and so employees/unions get to decide what is the better potential option for them - and I suppose it's a risk for employees to unionize if they will no longer then be getting stock; unless a union somehow can force Tesla to give X stock to unionized employees, I don't know all nor have I thought through all possibilities - so there's possibly nuance missing but Elon's tweet itself isn't a threat. Threat's the wrong word but purposefully misused, even if it causes fear or rather it will cause a fear of a sense of loss of value - because if employees value owning/gaining Tesla stock over whatever else they potentially could negotiate through a union, then there's certainly a fear of potential loss - but Elon pointing out that possibility isn't a threat itself.

by loceng 6y ago

aphextron 6y ago

>"Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare." - Elon, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 This is literally textbook union busting BS. It's been the same line for 200 years.

loceng 6y ago
Private companies are allowed to negotiate with unions, no? That's the point of a union - to have an organizational body that allows members to vote. All Elon is saying is that Tesla won't be providing stock options to a union. The union could still strike if they don't get what they want - but this being considered a threat or union busting is akin to a temper tantrum because you don't like that something you're currently getting (candy<->stock) then you'll no longer get.
koheripbal 6y ago
> This is literally textbook union busting BS. So any CEO saying that unions aren't wanted is "union busting"? This just seems like watering down the word until it means almost nothing. There was a time when "union busting" meant literally busting striking member's heads.

cinntaile 6y ago

Why would they not get stock options? Sounds like a punishment for voting union?

loceng 6y ago
Punishment? It's negotiation. It's Elon stating that Tesla won't be putting stock options on the table, but a union still could then negotiate - they could potentially negotiate to refuse to work unless they're getting stock but it sounds like Tesla is drawing the line there because they believe that their stock is valuable and will become much more valuable; employees will have to decide for themselves if they want to risk potentially losing out on getting stocks and weigh if that's valuable enough for them for whatever else the union may or may not be able to negotiate. Arguably, as Elon said, they haven't unionized yet because of that potential loss - but it's not a threat, and arguably the employees are smart enough to decide for themselves.
- cinntaile 6y ago
  So if I tell you that you can join a union but if you do you won't get stock options, then I have negotiated with you?
  - loceng 6y ago
    You can then refuse to work, as a group, and that will apply pressure to Tesla.
    - cinntaile 6y ago
      You evaded the question.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  That’s exactly the kind of thing that’s forbidden under the law. You can’t threaten to take a current benefit off the table if employees unionize.

hoppyhoppy2 6y ago

I think the threat is that union members wouldn't get stock options.

loceng 6y ago
That's not a threat - that's called pointing out a fact, it's called reasoning, that employees would be doing themselves when balancing out the pros and cons; just because Elon's pointing out pros and cons doesn't make something a threat. The employees and union still have the ability to decide based on pros and cons. This is being warped and a lack of reasoning at the same level of absurdity as changing master-slave language in programming to shallowly appeal/respond to racism issues.
hedora 6y ago
It wasn’t a threat: UAW has never allowed that type of compensation in a union contract, and have specifically blocked attempts to tie compensation to performance in the past. The point of the tweet is that Tesla workers are already treated better than their UAW counterparts. Why let the UAW come in and screw it up?

xutopia 6y ago

I think the devil is in the details here. Is he saying that if people unionize they don't get stock options? Why is that? Is it a threat?

loceng 6y ago
No, it's a fact - pros and cons. Tesla has no obligation to provide stock to employees - and so employees/unions get to decide what is the better potential option for them - and I suppose it's a risk for employees to unionize if they will no longer then be getting stock; unless a union somehow can force Tesla to give X stock to unionized employees, I don't know all nor have I thought through all possibilities - so there's possibly nuance missing but Elon's tweet itself isn't a threat. Threat's the wrong word but purposefully misused, even if it causes fear or rather it will cause a fear of a sense of loss of value - because if employees value owning/gaining Tesla stock over whatever else they potentially could negotiate through a union, then there's certainly a fear of potential loss - but Elon pointing out that possibility isn't a threat itself.