6 ms·

It is insane. There's a huge line between justice and grift, and I mainly blame lawyers for the latter. If every claim of hostile workplaces resulted in similar

by BluSyn 5y ago

It is insane. There's a huge line between justice and grift, and I mainly blame lawyers for the latter. If every claim of hostile workplaces resulted in similar settlements, every company would be bankrupt within a few years. A company can have a strict zero tolerance policy, but they can't police every action of every employee while on the clock. Such settlements would likely incentivize companies to put cameras and microphones everywhere, including bathrooms, which would also result in "emotion distress". Forced arbitration isn't just either, but the court system hasn't left much room for alternative with such overreaching punishments.

Valakas_ 5y ago
No, it's not insane. Emotional abuse isn't a one time thing, by several employees. It's a systemic problem because of particular employees with abusive tendencies, and/or toxic company rules. In either case, there is no need for such surveillance to see such abuse from miles away. I'm 100% everyone knew about this ongoing abuse. There would be no need whatsoever for any of the suggestions you mentioned to have prevented this from happening.
aaomidi 5y ago
Lol this is ridiculous. Don't make a hostile work environment or fuck around and find out? Theres literally a pending class action against Tesla for this. They have a systemic problem that they're going to have to address or keep getting fined. 137 million is pennies for the company anyway. Some might find this hard to believe but it's really easy not to be racist. It really really is.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I wonder if each participant in that class action is awarded similar amount to this 137 million.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ngcazz 5y ago
A bunch of you here are clearly concerned about the financial impact of the fine on Tesla’s bottom line, but maybe you should consider they could’ve gotten the house straight instead.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  This person is a VP of engineering too. Like. I feel uncomfortable just thinking about the poor people working for them. Ugh.
  - sprayk 5y ago
    what part of their comment brought you to that conclusion?
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      The bit where their only recourse to a company facing a meaningful punishment for allowing a hostile work environment is to institute an incredibly invasive level of snooping?
      - BluSyn 5y ago
        The point of my comment was the warn against such an outcome. I thought that was obvious. If the alternative is bankruptcy, large companies will do just about anything to survive it.
        meheleventyone 5y ago
        Right but you went straight to pervasive surveillance which is not the only option here. For example Tesla could start enforcing their existing zero tolerance policy. They didn’t get here because there was no way to know about the issue! It comes across more like a threat than a warning.
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        Exactly this. That language, the argument, just :flashing-red-light:.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
> If every claim of hostile workplaces resulted in similar settlements, every company would be bankrupt within a few years. If every claim of hostile workplace involved a high up person yelling at black people to go back to Africa maybe a whole bunch of companies deserve to get hit with fines that actually encourage them to stop enabling that stuff, or go bankrupt and be replaced by companies that don’t tolerate their leadership doing that stuff.
kalkut 5y ago
The settlement does not follow a mere claim, here you have a court that inflicted punitive damage to Tesla after a trial. Also most business are not racist nor hostile to the extent Tesla is described by the victims, otherwise they would indeed be shut down. Your cameras and microphones argument makes no sense. Racist graffitis in the restroom does not require big brother level of surveillance for the company to start an internal investigation. Also mandatory arbitration agreements is obviously used to avoid both dealing with toxic behavior inside the company and public backlash.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
A day in court is ALWAYS preferable to forced arbitration, especially in civil cases between cash-rich entities and individuals. We have an appeals system for a reason.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> incentivize companies to put cameras and microphones everywhere, including bathrooms No. This incentivizes companies to take complains seriously. Tesla isn't being punished because an employee did something. Employees always do things. Tesla is being punished for allowing the behavior to continue for an extended period of time. They don't need to install cameras to detect/prevent every occurrence. They need to institute a functional system that detects and handles repeat offenders. That might be as simple as a means for complaints to be lodged, investigated and acted upon. And when they find people acting like this, yes they do need to actually fire them.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  And then inevitably get sued for $137M by some of the people they fired or some of the people whose complaints weren't responded to satisfactorily because whatever system they come up with, will occasionally fail. Punishments that are disproportionate to the offense are never a good policy. Ask any people who were on the receiving end of those throughout history. Just because it's a company being punished, does not change anything fundamentally. It's still an insane punishment for a single offense. It's telling that almost nobody would choose non-hostile working conditions over being paid off more than they will earn in a lifetime even as a senior employee. When litigation is so significantly more desirable than the supposedly desirable outcome of non-hostile work environment, you have a much bigger problem than what you'd started with.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    >> Punishments that are disproportionate to the offense This is a civil matter, not criminal. The punishment is proportional to both the crime and the size of the defendant. A bug company will always require a greater level of punishment in order to induce change.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      If you think that, fine them and burn 90% of the money instead of giving it to the plaintiff, to remove perverse incentives for employees to excessively litigate. Or whatever other method accomplishes the same goal. You can't just choose to be blind to half the incentives in this transaction.

by BluSyn 5y ago

Valakas_ 5y ago

No, it's not insane. Emotional abuse isn't a one time thing, by several employees. It's a systemic problem because of particular employees with abusive tendencies, and/or toxic company rules. In either case, there is no need for such surveillance to see such abuse from miles away. I'm 100% everyone knew about this ongoing abuse. There would be no need whatsoever for any of the suggestions you mentioned to have prevented this from happening.

aaomidi 5y ago

Lol this is ridiculous. Don't make a hostile work environment or fuck around and find out? Theres literally a pending class action against Tesla for this. They have a systemic problem that they're going to have to address or keep getting fined. 137 million is pennies for the company anyway. Some might find this hard to believe but it's really easy not to be racist. It really really is.

Ekaros 5y ago
I wonder if each participant in that class action is awarded similar amount to this 137 million.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ngcazz 5y ago

A bunch of you here are clearly concerned about the financial impact of the fine on Tesla’s bottom line, but maybe you should consider they could’ve gotten the house straight instead.

aaomidi 5y ago
This person is a VP of engineering too. Like. I feel uncomfortable just thinking about the poor people working for them. Ugh.
- sprayk 5y ago
  what part of their comment brought you to that conclusion?
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    The bit where their only recourse to a company facing a meaningful punishment for allowing a hostile work environment is to institute an incredibly invasive level of snooping?
    - BluSyn 5y ago
      The point of my comment was the warn against such an outcome. I thought that was obvious. If the alternative is bankruptcy, large companies will do just about anything to survive it.
      - meheleventyone 5y ago
        Right but you went straight to pervasive surveillance which is not the only option here. For example Tesla could start enforcing their existing zero tolerance policy. They didn’t get here because there was no way to know about the issue! It comes across more like a threat than a warning.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      Exactly this. That language, the argument, just :flashing-red-light:.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

> If every claim of hostile workplaces resulted in similar settlements, every company would be bankrupt within a few years. If every claim of hostile workplace involved a high up person yelling at black people to go back to Africa maybe a whole bunch of companies deserve to get hit with fines that actually encourage them to stop enabling that stuff, or go bankrupt and be replaced by companies that don’t tolerate their leadership doing that stuff.

kalkut 5y ago

The settlement does not follow a mere claim, here you have a court that inflicted punitive damage to Tesla after a trial. Also most business are not racist nor hostile to the extent Tesla is described by the victims, otherwise they would indeed be shut down. Your cameras and microphones argument makes no sense. Racist graffitis in the restroom does not require big brother level of surveillance for the company to start an internal investigation. Also mandatory arbitration agreements is obviously used to avoid both dealing with toxic behavior inside the company and public backlash.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

A day in court is ALWAYS preferable to forced arbitration, especially in civil cases between cash-rich entities and individuals. We have an appeals system for a reason.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> incentivize companies to put cameras and microphones everywhere, including bathrooms No. This incentivizes companies to take complains seriously. Tesla isn't being punished because an employee did something. Employees always do things. Tesla is being punished for allowing the behavior to continue for an extended period of time. They don't need to install cameras to detect/prevent every occurrence. They need to institute a functional system that detects and handles repeat offenders. That might be as simple as a means for complaints to be lodged, investigated and acted upon. And when they find people acting like this, yes they do need to actually fire them.

clusterfish 5y ago
And then inevitably get sued for $137M by some of the people they fired or some of the people whose complaints weren't responded to satisfactorily because whatever system they come up with, will occasionally fail. Punishments that are disproportionate to the offense are never a good policy. Ask any people who were on the receiving end of those throughout history. Just because it's a company being punished, does not change anything fundamentally. It's still an insane punishment for a single offense. It's telling that almost nobody would choose non-hostile working conditions over being paid off more than they will earn in a lifetime even as a senior employee. When litigation is so significantly more desirable than the supposedly desirable outcome of non-hostile work environment, you have a much bigger problem than what you'd started with.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> Punishments that are disproportionate to the offense This is a civil matter, not criminal. The punishment is proportional to both the crime and the size of the defendant. A bug company will always require a greater level of punishment in order to induce change.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    If you think that, fine them and burn 90% of the money instead of giving it to the plaintiff, to remove perverse incentives for employees to excessively litigate. Or whatever other method accomplishes the same goal. You can't just choose to be blind to half the incentives in this transaction.