11 ms·

Tesla files a petition against U.S. labor board order

33 points by misiti3780 6y ago

grumpyautist 6y ago
Ok I'm over my head with this kinda thing... Someone care to enlighten me on what he did wrong exactly? Reuters expects you to already know the ins and outs of the law apparently
- jmisavage 6y ago
  The government is saying that he threaten employees with the loss of stock options if they voted to form a union. [1] https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/03/25/elon-musk-tweet-violated-federal-labor-law-nlrb/7009077002/ https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/03/25/elon-musk-...
  - ghufran_syed 6y ago
    It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. But taxpayers will pay the government’s legal bills, while the politicians in charge can show they are “pro-union” - every administration does something like this for the political benefits, whether they claim to be “pro-union” or “pro-business”.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. The National Labor Relations Act has survived court challenges since 1935. I doubt it'll go down here.
    - geofft 6y ago
      As a US taxpayer, I love paying the government's legal bills. Prosecuting violations of the laws that my elected representatives have voted on, and defending the constitutionality of those laws, is one of the highest-impact things the government can spend my tax revenue on - it's certainly far more value for money than paying a trillion dollars for an airplane.
      - refurb 6y ago
        You love paying when the govt defends the war on drugs and asset forfeiture?
        geofft 6y ago
        I don't believe that it's either a consistent position or a practically effective tactic to say that I support the government when it does things I like, but not when it does things I dislike. I think I'm obligated to support the government when it enforces laws that are constitutional and supported by the people as determined by our representative system, even if I disagree strongly with the outcome. If I disagree so strongly that I feel like I can't support it, then my position should be that I believe the government itself is unjust, and it would be hypocritical and long-term ineffective for me to support an unjust government when it does just things, because that would make the government appear just and thus make it harder to replace the government with an actually just one. If policies like the war on drugs and asset forfeiture are (as I suspect) not actually supported by the people, then my route is to convince my fellow voters that we should get rid of those laws/policies. Perhaps we should elect representatives who will do a better job of doing what we want; perhaps we should let our existing representatives know how we stand. My route is definitely not to support leaving those laws on the books as I cheer on the government failing to enforce those laws. That doesn't question the laws I don't like, that questions the entire notion of the rule of law. (In particular, one moral issue I have with both the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is the way that those laws lend themselves to selective enforcement - so it certainly does not help my cause for the government to happen not to enforce them today but to retain the option in the future!) If they are supported by the people, but they're not constitutional, then I do not, in fact, support the government spending my tax revenues defending unconstitutional laws, and I attempt to vote for executives (presidents who appoint attorneys, district attorneys that I can vote for directly, etc.) who know better than to defend unconstitutional laws. And I do also monetarily support organizations that sue the government in court. In this particular case, as a sibling comment noted, it seems hard to believe that the NLRA violates the First Amendment and nobody's noticed in almost a century. If a law is supported by the people and constitutional, then my only legitimate avenue is to try to change the people's minds - it's not legitimate for me to sidestep debate on the merits of the law and say "Oh, my poor tax dollars! How expensive enforcing this law would be!" (And asset forfeiture pays for itself, so it's not like that argument would even work.)
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      While legal result is unknown. I think it’s unlikely for this to fall under 1st amendment. Same as I cannot use 1st amendment to get out of hostile work environment charges.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  Musk tweeted “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.” And there are big regulations about not doing anti union things. I, for one, can’t see anything particularly wrong with this tweet and don’t really care what the law says, I’m opposed to unions and labor boards having the power to silence somebody saying this.
  - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
    > I, for one, can’t see anything particularly wrong with this tweet and don’t really care what the law says you really don't see the difference between just anyone saying this and the employer saying this? what you personally feel about unions is irrelevant; there is a very clear imposition of power over the employee here and manifestly why the laws are as strict as they are. just so no one willfully misconstrues what i'm saying: what's at issue here is that the employee's continued employment is contingent on their employer's opinion of them hence this is tantamount to an overt threat. saying you don't see anything wrong with what he said is like saying you see anything wrong with a teacher implying quid pro quo for sexual favors from students.
    - temp8964 6y ago
      Is quid pro quo for sexual favors from students legal? Is change payment schedule after unionization legal?
      - seoaeu 6y ago
        Neither is legal, I'm not sure what your point is?
        temp8964 6y ago
        No. The second is legal.
- advisedwang 6y ago
  WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/25/tesla-nlrb-ruling/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/25/tesla-n... says Tesla: * interrogated workers over suspected unionization efforts * threatened workers with the loss of their stock options if they unionized * fired one worker and disciplined another over protected union-related activity * had a policy prohibiting employees from communicating with the media, in violation of their right to speak “concerning labor disputes and terms and conditions of employment” Elon's tweet is a side-show.
  - Avshalom 6y ago
    Yup. Making a show of the most defensible thing to distract from anything less defensible
  - brokenkebab 6y ago
    Well, ok those are important things, and let's see what court will say. Ordering to remove the tweet still moronic though.
sesuximo 6y ago
I’m not a huge Musk fan, but seems like he’s right here? Especially now that we know how that stock has performed over the last few years. Imo the value of the UAW should be to provide a lower bound for worker pay/treatment. Tesla seems above that (at least for factory workers).
- Avshalom 6y ago
  The article is misleading because "canceled over a tweet" is how you make a news story sexy in 2021, the NLRB didn't make this decision based on that single tweet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26693850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26693850
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- oivey 6y ago
  > Especially now that we know how that stock has performed over the last few years. So because Tesla’s stock price is high he doesn’t have to follow labor laws?
  - sesuximo 6y ago
    I think because workers have recently made a lot of money from stock, it doesn’t make sense to renegotiate their contracts right now.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  A lower bound for worker pay/treatment is like a law prohibiting supermarkets from selling gruel mix, on account of the sentiment that poor people should not be eating gruel. It doesn't lead to the poor suddenly being able to afford fish fillet and steak. It leads to the poor going hungry. There is absolutely no public welfare benefit in creating statutory minimums on wages, benefits and working conditions. The arguments that rationalize the granting of extra-contractual rights to labor unions, and labor regulations in general, are basically just economic fallacies that rent-seeking unions popularized.
dundarious 6y ago
The original decision was discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598155
seany 6y ago
I don't get why it's a problem for companies to let people go who are actively advocating against the companies interest.
- advisedwang 6y ago
  Things that include "actively advocating against the company interest" * Asking for a raise (they lose money after all) * Supporting efforts to pass laws such as paid family and medical leave, pollution regulation, disability accommodations or anything else which puts obligations on the company. * Suing your employer or otherwise responding to harm they do to you. * Refusing to do profitable but unethical acts or whistleblowing illegal ones. If we allowed employers to threaten employees for doing these things, society would be a lot worse off.
  - seany 6y ago
    But at some point doing that is also bad for the company, or good for the companies competitors. It's just artificial market manipulation.

33 points by misiti3780 6y ago

Ok I'm over my head with this kinda thing... Someone care to enlighten me on what he did wrong exactly? Reuters expects you to already know the ins and outs of the law apparently

jmisavage 6y ago
The government is saying that he threaten employees with the loss of stock options if they voted to form a union. [1] https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/03/25/elon-musk-tweet-violated-federal-labor-law-nlrb/7009077002/ https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/03/25/elon-musk-...
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. But taxpayers will pay the government’s legal bills, while the politicians in charge can show they are “pro-union” - every administration does something like this for the political benefits, whether they claim to be “pro-union” or “pro-business”.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. The National Labor Relations Act has survived court challenges since 1935. I doubt it'll go down here.
  - geofft 6y ago
    As a US taxpayer, I love paying the government's legal bills. Prosecuting violations of the laws that my elected representatives have voted on, and defending the constitutionality of those laws, is one of the highest-impact things the government can spend my tax revenue on - it's certainly far more value for money than paying a trillion dollars for an airplane.
    - refurb 6y ago
      You love paying when the govt defends the war on drugs and asset forfeiture?
      - geofft 6y ago
        I don't believe that it's either a consistent position or a practically effective tactic to say that I support the government when it does things I like, but not when it does things I dislike. I think I'm obligated to support the government when it enforces laws that are constitutional and supported by the people as determined by our representative system, even if I disagree strongly with the outcome. If I disagree so strongly that I feel like I can't support it, then my position should be that I believe the government itself is unjust, and it would be hypocritical and long-term ineffective for me to support an unjust government when it does just things, because that would make the government appear just and thus make it harder to replace the government with an actually just one. If policies like the war on drugs and asset forfeiture are (as I suspect) not actually supported by the people, then my route is to convince my fellow voters that we should get rid of those laws/policies. Perhaps we should elect representatives who will do a better job of doing what we want; perhaps we should let our existing representatives know how we stand. My route is definitely not to support leaving those laws on the books as I cheer on the government failing to enforce those laws. That doesn't question the laws I don't like, that questions the entire notion of the rule of law. (In particular, one moral issue I have with both the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is the way that those laws lend themselves to selective enforcement - so it certainly does not help my cause for the government to happen not to enforce them today but to retain the option in the future!) If they are supported by the people, but they're not constitutional, then I do not, in fact, support the government spending my tax revenues defending unconstitutional laws, and I attempt to vote for executives (presidents who appoint attorneys, district attorneys that I can vote for directly, etc.) who know better than to defend unconstitutional laws. And I do also monetarily support organizations that sue the government in court. In this particular case, as a sibling comment noted, it seems hard to believe that the NLRA violates the First Amendment and nobody's noticed in almost a century. If a law is supported by the people and constitutional, then my only legitimate avenue is to try to change the people's minds - it's not legitimate for me to sidestep debate on the merits of the law and say "Oh, my poor tax dollars! How expensive enforcing this law would be!" (And asset forfeiture pays for itself, so it's not like that argument would even work.)
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    While legal result is unknown. I think it’s unlikely for this to fall under 1st amendment. Same as I cannot use 1st amendment to get out of hostile work environment charges.
colechristensen 6y ago
Musk tweeted “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.” And there are big regulations about not doing anti union things. I, for one, can’t see anything particularly wrong with this tweet and don’t really care what the law says, I’m opposed to unions and labor boards having the power to silence somebody saying this.
- anon_tor_12345 6y ago
  > I, for one, can’t see anything particularly wrong with this tweet and don’t really care what the law says you really don't see the difference between just anyone saying this and the employer saying this? what you personally feel about unions is irrelevant; there is a very clear imposition of power over the employee here and manifestly why the laws are as strict as they are. just so no one willfully misconstrues what i'm saying: what's at issue here is that the employee's continued employment is contingent on their employer's opinion of them hence this is tantamount to an overt threat. saying you don't see anything wrong with what he said is like saying you see anything wrong with a teacher implying quid pro quo for sexual favors from students.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    Is quid pro quo for sexual favors from students legal? Is change payment schedule after unionization legal?
    - seoaeu 6y ago
      Neither is legal, I'm not sure what your point is?
      - temp8964 6y ago
        No. The second is legal.
advisedwang 6y ago
WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/25/tesla-nlrb-ruling/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/25/tesla-n... says Tesla: * interrogated workers over suspected unionization efforts * threatened workers with the loss of their stock options if they unionized * fired one worker and disciplined another over protected union-related activity * had a policy prohibiting employees from communicating with the media, in violation of their right to speak “concerning labor disputes and terms and conditions of employment” Elon's tweet is a side-show.
- Avshalom 6y ago
  Yup. Making a show of the most defensible thing to distract from anything less defensible
- brokenkebab 6y ago
  Well, ok those are important things, and let's see what court will say. Ordering to remove the tweet still moronic though.

sesuximo 6y ago

I’m not a huge Musk fan, but seems like he’s right here? Especially now that we know how that stock has performed over the last few years. Imo the value of the UAW should be to provide a lower bound for worker pay/treatment. Tesla seems above that (at least for factory workers).

Avshalom 6y ago
The article is misleading because "canceled over a tweet" is how you make a news story sexy in 2021, the NLRB didn't make this decision based on that single tweet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26693850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26693850
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
oivey 6y ago
> Especially now that we know how that stock has performed over the last few years. So because Tesla’s stock price is high he doesn’t have to follow labor laws?
- sesuximo 6y ago
  I think because workers have recently made a lot of money from stock, it doesn’t make sense to renegotiate their contracts right now.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
A lower bound for worker pay/treatment is like a law prohibiting supermarkets from selling gruel mix, on account of the sentiment that poor people should not be eating gruel. It doesn't lead to the poor suddenly being able to afford fish fillet and steak. It leads to the poor going hungry. There is absolutely no public welfare benefit in creating statutory minimums on wages, benefits and working conditions. The arguments that rationalize the granting of extra-contractual rights to labor unions, and labor regulations in general, are basically just economic fallacies that rent-seeking unions popularized.

dundarious 6y ago

The original decision was discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598155

seany 6y ago

I don't get why it's a problem for companies to let people go who are actively advocating against the companies interest.

advisedwang 6y ago
Things that include "actively advocating against the company interest" * Asking for a raise (they lose money after all) * Supporting efforts to pass laws such as paid family and medical leave, pollution regulation, disability accommodations or anything else which puts obligations on the company. * Suing your employer or otherwise responding to harm they do to you. * Refusing to do profitable but unethical acts or whistleblowing illegal ones. If we allowed employers to threaten employees for doing these things, society would be a lot worse off.
- seany 6y ago
  But at some point doing that is also bad for the company, or good for the companies competitors. It's just artificial market manipulation.