5 ms·

>I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. Of course they can, and we know where that margin comes from:

>I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. Of course they can, and we know where that margin comes from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-wor... Ambulances have been called more than 100 times since 2014 for workers experiencing fainting spells, dizziness, seizures, abnormal breathing and chest pains, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian. Hundreds more were called for injuries and other medical issues. ... “I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open,” said Jonathan Galescu, a production technician at Tesla. “They just send us to work around him while he’s still lying on the floor.”

sershe 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Boogie_Man 3y ago
  >historically known to be... racist As many (most?) American institutions historically were >virulently anti-immigrant To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor >outright violent against non-union workers When "scabbing", or not cooperating with their fellow workers to secure better terms There are reasonable criticisms of Unions historically and the concept of Unions as a whole, but I'm not certain your quoted comment quite hits the nail on the head.
  - sershe 3y ago
    Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? > To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ Also, for me as an immigrant it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions.
    - Boogie_Man 3y ago
      >Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? Because it's a job that's available near the workers. You could also say "Why would workers at GM take union jobs instead of non-union jobs". Companies having employees is not a useful metric in determining how good a company is when we're talking about manual work. It only tells you there are people who would like to be employed. >It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ This is a valid criticism. I think it might be a critique of the workforce or educational system in general, but I agree that these unions are playing a part. Some sort of working agreement is needed for exceptional circumstances like this, and unions need to come to the table. >it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. I was attempting to provide context to your statement. It is a moral and tactical failing of the union to not accept workers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and protect their interests the same as any other working man, if they already existed in the labor pool. If a company is importing cheap labor of a different ethnicity en masse, they are not doing it innocently. Companies understand that racial tensions are a great tool to divide workers. A company using racial tension as a weapon is much more of a problem than workers being racist individually. That is a failing that needs to be addressed with socialization, education, and shared culture, but it is secondary. >Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions. If you replace "unions" with "companies forced to compete in a race to the bottom, becoming more and more cutthroat to survive" I'd agree. Remember: They'd chain you to the machines if it was still legal
      - sershe 3y ago
        Points 1-2 make sense, although I don't believe (see no reason why, given the rest) unions would "come to the table", other than again when their demands are seen as unreasonable. >I was attempting to provide context to your statement. For the third, I'm not blaming. It's just interesting to me that you would provide proper context (they were trying to exclude other labor) for immigration case; but even though the motivation was the same for the racist case, you didn't say that - I assume it was not because you personally are ok with the anti-immigration case, it's just giving this "context" for racist behavior is really taboo, whereas for anti-immigration it's still ok even if you don't agree with it. As for companies, responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 In reality if they could replace 100% of labor with capital they'd do it. Meanwhile it's actually an interesting paradox... I agree that in narrow circumstances unions achieved/helped achieve worker protections. However, other rules were imposed on corporations without unions, and in different contexts (e.g. environmental, consumer protection, etc.). So I'm not convinced unions were necessary, but suppose they were. Still, if the basic rules are established as laws (and I don't consider extra-legal rules, like suppressing competition for wage, as valid or necessary), a permanent union becomes unnecessary for them and its motivations become as I've described...
- pydry 3y ago
  The most violent attack on American soil since the civil war was when strike breakers with a private air (yes, really) force bombed strikers in the Battle of Blair mountain: https://www.history.com/news/americas-largest-labor-uprising-the-battle-of-blair-mountain https://www.history.com/news/americas-largest-labor-uprising... Sympathy for these strikers who were the subject of violent attacks by the 1% was key to the rise of Union sympathy in the United Statesm This subsequently the new deal and eventually the rise of the middle class (something that is now being steadily destroyed). That kind of violence against peaceful strikers will probably happen again. When greed and profit meets a desire for a fair wage and standing up for one's rights, ordinary workers eventually die at the hands of strikebreakers - just as the workers at Blair mountain did.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > racist, virulently anti-immigrant and outright violent against non-union workers. pretty much describing a lot of corporations, only they can be violent against all workers with union organizers getting it the worst.
  - sershe 3y ago
    Responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 For corporations, it's incidental. For unions, it's inherent.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      That is almost incoherently delusional.
      - sershe 3y ago
        I strive to make my responses ALMOST incoherently delusional, as opposed to the ones such as yours that has literally zero value.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        The article has fallen off HN so there's no point in making any effort, and its about to fall off my comment page, so I'll never bother thinking about this exchange again. Welcome to shouting into the void.
        sershe 3y ago
        Ok, then I can write anything here with the same amount of effort... You choose a really roundabout way to admit that your pro-union position has zero justification! Reminds me of arguing with young earth creationists when I was a teenager ;)

sershe 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Boogie_Man 3y ago
>historically known to be... racist As many (most?) American institutions historically were >virulently anti-immigrant To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor >outright violent against non-union workers When "scabbing", or not cooperating with their fellow workers to secure better terms There are reasonable criticisms of Unions historically and the concept of Unions as a whole, but I'm not certain your quoted comment quite hits the nail on the head.
- sershe 3y ago
  Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? > To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ Also, for me as an immigrant it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions.
  - Boogie_Man 3y ago
    >Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? Because it's a job that's available near the workers. You could also say "Why would workers at GM take union jobs instead of non-union jobs". Companies having employees is not a useful metric in determining how good a company is when we're talking about manual work. It only tells you there are people who would like to be employed. >It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ This is a valid criticism. I think it might be a critique of the workforce or educational system in general, but I agree that these unions are playing a part. Some sort of working agreement is needed for exceptional circumstances like this, and unions need to come to the table. >it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. I was attempting to provide context to your statement. It is a moral and tactical failing of the union to not accept workers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and protect their interests the same as any other working man, if they already existed in the labor pool. If a company is importing cheap labor of a different ethnicity en masse, they are not doing it innocently. Companies understand that racial tensions are a great tool to divide workers. A company using racial tension as a weapon is much more of a problem than workers being racist individually. That is a failing that needs to be addressed with socialization, education, and shared culture, but it is secondary. >Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions. If you replace "unions" with "companies forced to compete in a race to the bottom, becoming more and more cutthroat to survive" I'd agree. Remember: They'd chain you to the machines if it was still legal
    - sershe 3y ago
      Points 1-2 make sense, although I don't believe (see no reason why, given the rest) unions would "come to the table", other than again when their demands are seen as unreasonable. >I was attempting to provide context to your statement. For the third, I'm not blaming. It's just interesting to me that you would provide proper context (they were trying to exclude other labor) for immigration case; but even though the motivation was the same for the racist case, you didn't say that - I assume it was not because you personally are ok with the anti-immigration case, it's just giving this "context" for racist behavior is really taboo, whereas for anti-immigration it's still ok even if you don't agree with it. As for companies, responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 In reality if they could replace 100% of labor with capital they'd do it. Meanwhile it's actually an interesting paradox... I agree that in narrow circumstances unions achieved/helped achieve worker protections. However, other rules were imposed on corporations without unions, and in different contexts (e.g. environmental, consumer protection, etc.). So I'm not convinced unions were necessary, but suppose they were. Still, if the basic rules are established as laws (and I don't consider extra-legal rules, like suppressing competition for wage, as valid or necessary), a permanent union becomes unnecessary for them and its motivations become as I've described...
pydry 3y ago
The most violent attack on American soil since the civil war was when strike breakers with a private air (yes, really) force bombed strikers in the Battle of Blair mountain: https://www.history.com/news/americas-largest-labor-uprising-the-battle-of-blair-mountain https://www.history.com/news/americas-largest-labor-uprising... Sympathy for these strikers who were the subject of violent attacks by the 1% was key to the rise of Union sympathy in the United Statesm This subsequently the new deal and eventually the rise of the middle class (something that is now being steadily destroyed). That kind of violence against peaceful strikers will probably happen again. When greed and profit meets a desire for a fair wage and standing up for one's rights, ordinary workers eventually die at the hands of strikebreakers - just as the workers at Blair mountain did.
lamontcg 3y ago
> racist, virulently anti-immigrant and outright violent against non-union workers. pretty much describing a lot of corporations, only they can be violent against all workers with union organizers getting it the worst.
- sershe 3y ago
  Responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 For corporations, it's incidental. For unions, it's inherent.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    That is almost incoherently delusional.
    - sershe 3y ago
      I strive to make my responses ALMOST incoherently delusional, as opposed to the ones such as yours that has literally zero value.
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        The article has fallen off HN so there's no point in making any effort, and its about to fall off my comment page, so I'll never bother thinking about this exchange again. Welcome to shouting into the void.
        sershe 3y ago
        Ok, then I can write anything here with the same amount of effort... You choose a really roundabout way to admit that your pro-union position has zero justification! Reminds me of arguing with young earth creationists when I was a teenager ;)