Tesla workforce - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 01:08:48 am
content: Since some of you are interested in Tesla electric cars, I caught this piece of rather bad news about their workforce. In view of how much money they are getting from the State and Federal Government, this is rather grim. It rather confirm my suspicion that but for government funds, Tesla is probably not viable.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[my summary of the article]Due to a work place injury, it became known that Tesla imported 140 workers illegally from Eastern Europe working on stuff that they neither has the (professional) license nor legal immigration status to do. "the workers at the Tesla plant were simply installing pipes and welding parts — hands-on work banned by the terms of their (B1/B2) visas."......"They worked five or six days a week, sometimes seven... ...They usually spent at least 10 hours on site... ...Workers were not paid overtime, according to the men and the complaint... ...Dalibor said they received a little more than $10 an hour"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The (San Jose) Mercury News: (Quotes above are from this one)http://extras.mercurynews.com/silicon-valley-imported-labor/For a second source confirmation, I found this one:http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/05/17/tesla-hires-eastern-europeans-5-hour-expand-california-plant/

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 01:13:53 am
content: Tesla didn't do it, a subcontractor did. Tesla is taking full responsibility and taking the sub to task. Elon Musk even tweeted the press release. What more do people want out of Tesla?

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 01:25:55 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 18, 2016, 01:13:53 amYou are right, but that is thin. They saw the price, they know the work they are asking to be done...It is like saying, yeah, I sold you are real Fluke. I got it on eBay and seller said this $20 Fluke 85V is really Fluke and is brand new. So, it is real.

author: linux-works
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 01:54:36 am
content: companies have learned that its more profitable to bend the rules.as time goes on and congress is still totally beholden to big business, nothing improves for regular people and companies get to do anything they want. and get away with it, for the most part.lots of people are angry about this, overall. its not about tesla. they are simply one player in the game. the problem is that so many big companies think that its ok to do anything they want, if it makes them more money and/or saves them cost.no reason to single out tesla. I think there's an implied 'hit' here, but its really about how american business has taken over and is now a 'person' (don't get me started on that one.)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 02:08:40 am
content: Quote from: linux-works on May 18, 2016, 01:54:36 amOf course not.https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000057516&cycle=2014We should focus on Walmart and Koch brothers.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 03:40:38 am
content: Quote from: zapta on May 18, 2016, 02:08:40 amYou're right, we live not in a democracy but a corporayocracy. Crony capitalism abounds.And your right, Tesla's political lobbying budget is relatively puny. They've given just $30.5k so far in this election cycle and gave only $2.9k in the last. I'm sure that bought a lot of influence....Asper your sourceKoch Industries has given $5 million so far in this cycle and gave $10.8 million in the last.It's been a good investment for them - withthe many millions more in subsidiesthey have reaped. Their hypocrisy is unparalleled.Yeah for crony capitalism!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 04:07:23 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 18, 2016, 03:40:38 amI wouldn't say unparalleledhttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 04:49:29 am
content: QuoteThe difference is Musk does not spend hundreds of millions to promote a political agenda denouncing government subsidies.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 05:19:42 am
content: Quote from: zapta on May 18, 2016, 02:08:40 amDamn rightTesla should be singled out.If you read the article, you see how much$$$ both the State and the Federal government are funding the building of the factoryfor the prospect of employment - from walls to land to even manufacturing equipments!Whereas, Walmart and others typically pay the government for the privilege (and zoning modifications, and fees, and...)

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 06:00:38 am
content: Do any of you ever sub stuff out? There's a reason Tesla didn't do this stuff in house and instead outsourced it on a firm, fixed-price contract. Stuff like this can and does happen. It's not evidence that Elon Musk is really a white slaver. He took full responsibility and said that it was bullshit.I have yet to get a proposal telling me how my vendor plans to use underpaid illegal immigrants to perform the work they bid. I find out about vendor shenanigans *after* the PO is cut. Sometimes you'll find out about bad business practices in time to shift gears and not have problems, but not always.I'm not saying Elon walks on water, but I really doubt he deliberately outsourced misbehavior.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 06:42:10 am
content: Probably hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans would happily work in these conditions, no questions asked.Double standards...

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 07:43:06 am
content: https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/response-mercury-news-article-hidden-workforce-expanding-teslas-factoryQuoteQuote

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 08:34:20 am
content: Please don't compare it to Walmart etc, this is about the construction work and not the folks that build the cars.I did work as a leased labourer via a temporary employment agency (Timepower I think it was), before being employed by the company later. The company at which site you're working don't really know how much the leased workers earn unless there is a known minimum wage etc arranged by a labour agreement. (Probably different in different parts of the world)So Tesla gets billed by a company for the construction of a facility. I assume that this means Tesla does not necessarily know anything about the workers and have to assume that it is fair.I think Musk does the right thing and is upset about the conditions those people have to work in. Of course I don't know if he would have cared on his own without media investigating...but I think he would.The problem lies with the damn temporary agencies who don't pay properly and the lack of tools for the worker to fight for better conditions.But then, I don't know anything about how this works in the US.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 04:18:24 pm
content: Quote from: Neganur on May 18, 2016, 08:34:20 amThey don't know if they don't want to know. It's called plausible deniability.Here is an example of a company from the same area that does want to know:http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-launches-program-to-boost-contractor-benefits/

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 06:08:58 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 18, 2016, 06:00:38 amThe reason this made the news is that they are spending in-part tax dollars and it is used in an illegal process. Comparing it to merely low-pay is not an appropriate comparison. It is also about the illegality of it and about good faith.Not to pick on LabSpokane, as LabSpokane has my respect. I quoted him because his point is really good expand on. Regarding "I have yet to get a proposal telling me how my vendor plans to use underpaid illegal immigrants." Having worked on federal contracts. I know how thin a ground that is on. Not only must a supplier make sure all i's are dotted and t's are crossed, they have to do it all the way down the pipe. If your subcontractor hire "an all male workforce only", you would be in almost as much trouble as the subcontractor. You have to show at least a good-faith effort in ensuring you have check and made sure they are an up-and-up company.If Walmart did it, it would merely owe its stock-owners an explanation. If Telsa did it, he owes the tax-paying public an explanation. I understand and I think Telsa probably is not a "white slaver". Well, good then; but did it happen or not? If it did, what action did he take.Even partially tax funded activities should at least be somewhat directed toward the reason of the funding - rather than skirting the rules any means possible.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 09:57:59 pm
content: Rick,While I have no mercy for those that knowingly outsource work to entities, particularly in Asia or the third world with the full knowledge that the pricing they receive is based on unfair work practices, corruption, and environmental abuse ...... I must err on the side of Tesla. I didn't see the proposal or write the PO, but I really don't think Tesla thought a US business or subsidiary would resort to such slimy and blatantly unlawful business practices. There are no shortage of lousy places to work in America, but when subbing out work in the US, I really don't expect this kind of flagrant abuse. Nor does Tesla.The states and federal government also bear responsibility for enforcing wage laws, workers comp, and safe workplace practices. Tesla cannot be the sole blame holder, even though federal funds were used.The reality with this stuff is that suppliers and contractors will promise the moon before the PO is signed. We only get to assess a supplier's bad or good behavior *after* work is underway. No one can promise there won't be problems. We can only assure people that once a problem is identified it will be addressed appropriately.Tesla is probably guilting of accepting a bid that was too good to be true. I deal with this every day and can tell you it's hard politically to accept the higher bid. It may be the right choice and we do invalidate low bids based on qualifications or performance worries, but you damned well have to be right when you do so. Public companies also have a legal obligation to perform well financially to shareholders. I don't enjoy complying with this obligation always, but it is the law as well.Perfection is a laudable goal, but very hard to attain.FWIW...

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 10:43:06 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 18, 2016, 09:57:59 pmThis is an excellent point and one that is often overlooked. It's true that Tesla benefits from several government subsidies aimed at renewable energy and encouragement of the nascent EV industry. They could be held legally liable if they did not take advantage of the available subsidies. The fact that many, many other larger and long established companies similarly take advantage of various government subsides is usually ignored by the critics. It seems that singling out Tesla has become politically correct in certain political circles. This current outsourced workforce flap is just presenting another opportunity for that.In my mind what's important in this case (or any similar case involving a different company) is how the company responds once the discovery is made. So far Tesla's response seems appropriate. We'll see.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 10:58:36 pm
content: Also, I must add that hiring contract workers a la Facebook is a completely different matter from purchasing a painting facility to be installed at one's premises. The former specifies specific wages and benefits (or lack thereof), the latter specifies a fixed price for work described in a contract.For all the cries of "plausible deniability," there really isn't any. The contract, without question, required the supplier to comply with all laws, regulations, and standards. Any competently written contract does. The supplier must follow the contract or Tesla will suspend payments until they stop breaching it. (Or Tesla could cancel the contract, but usually that takes a protracted legal battle). If the supplier fails financially, then some responsibility for the safety of the equipment and facilities could fall on Tesla.Writing these types of contracts isn't nefarious, it's just how good business gets done.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2016, 11:18:28 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 18, 2016, 10:43:06 pmThat's cute.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 12:10:56 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 18, 2016, 11:47:40 pmOf course not and I neither said or implied such a thing.If you read the SJMN article in the OP you will see that Tesla is just used to create a click bait headline and draw in readers. Much of the article is about how the B1 worker visa system is widely abused across the Bay area and other parts of the country. Other examples are given. For better or worse - Tesla is in the spotlight both because of it's headline grabing products and because it is a political target.Read LabSpokane's posts - he spells it out. This is how business is done. Subcontractors are used and expected to obey the law. Everyone knows that some don't and now that Tesla has been burned by one - the important thing is how the respond to prevent such abuses by their subs in the future. But you can be damn well sure there are literally thousands of companies across the US who are knowingly or unknowingly benefiting from abusive labor practices. Hell, a large part of the agricultural harvest in the US and Europe has been traditionally done by such imported "slave labor". I grew up in California during the farm worker labor wars. This kind of thing has been happening for decades and will continue to. That's no excuse, but just reality.Of course most large corporations now just export their labor to developing countries where there are no such labor laws to worry about. Is that better?The electronics industry is perhaps more guilty of this than any industry BTW..

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 12:49:43 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 18, 2016, 11:47:40 pmI know you don't want to believe this, but for a system like the paint system like Tesla purchased, it is incredibly difficult to separate hard and soft costs from IP costs. If you read Tesla's statement, they were buying know how plus equipment plus installation. That's a far more complex evaluation than, "I'm going to make a bridge using so many pounds of steel at $2/lb" and knowing that I should toss out the low bid of $0.50/lb because that's less than the cost of the raw material.And I can tell you for a fact that the current global marketplace for fabricated goods is anything but predictable today. I've had bids for stuff made in Germany-proper come in substantially less than the Far East. Three years ago, the US would have been the hands-down low cost/best quality supplier for the same item.Does anyone think I would knowingly be exploiting anyone by taking the German bid, particularly under rigid German labor laws? Of course not. But they *could* be employing Syrian refugees under the table and I would none the wiser until I sent someone for the first QC inspection to check credentials.It's not a perfect world, and we corporate lackeys do the best we can to do the right thing. Occasionally things go wrong. On those days, we send in the lawyers to kick the crap out of the offenders, rectify the problem, and keep on a keepin' on.There's a LOT of things broken in Corporate America. There's a fair bit to hammer Elon Musk over. This just isn't one of those times.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 05:21:29 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 18, 2016, 11:47:40 pmWhy on earth would you assume that a slimy contractor using illegal labor would pass the rewards of those risks on to the buyer? They do it because they want to charge the same but fatten THEIR profit margin. Why else would they take on the risk if not to pad their pockets?

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 06:28:30 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 18, 2016, 06:42:10 amThey indeed work without complaining, the totally inverse from the other immigrant group that flooded west-europe.

author: sarepairman2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 12:57:39 pm
content: haha, im surprised they did not use electrical engineering interns

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 01:56:25 pm
content: Quote from: sarepairman2 on May 19, 2016, 12:57:39 pmThe EE interns work in the tire department.

author: klunkerbus
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 03:21:53 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 19, 2016, 01:56:25 pmI'm sure there's an insult to us EE's implied there, but I got a chuckle out of it anyway. It reminded me of my college interviewing days back in the 70's. One of the big tire companies was trying to interview all the pending EE graduates they could at my school. I think it was Firestone. I didn't interview with them, but those that did were told the company had found EE's made dang good tire designers.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2016, 08:10:20 pm
content: QuoteThat sounds like someone defending a bank CEO, or the "CEO" of the US government.

author: ovnr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 01:22:25 am
content: Who says the contractor was the lowest bidder? It sounds like Tesla picked a contractor with a good reputation (Eisenmann), and proceeded in good faith. That the contractor decided to line their own pockets as opposed to pay the workers is on the contractor, not Tesla. And AFAIK it's not clear whether the fault lies with Eisenmann, or the subcontractor (Vuzem); Tesla did not, in any event, bring in the workers and set their salary.If you hired a renowned company to remodel your home, you don't go pester them about how much they pay their employees, especially not if they charge a normal market rate for the job. It's between the employees and the company.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 01:47:43 am
content: Quote from: ovnr on May 20, 2016, 01:22:25 amOf course not, I am not a large corporation with legal department and compliance officers. Different situations, different responsibilities.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 04:06:54 am
content: The lack of easy to verify eligibility to work in the US doesn't help.Over here a company is responsible for checking the ID of anyone working for them (directly or indirectly, if directly they need to make a copy of the ID too). Such a low overhead method doesn't work in the US ... Tesla would basically have to send a forensic accountant to the company to check their administration to see if everything is on the up and up in this respect.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 05:09:19 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 20, 2016, 04:06:54 amThe law actually has very clear documentation requirements. There are various combinations of documentations such as "US Passport (alone); or Birth Certificate + State issued ID with photo; or Foreign Passport with valid work-allowable visa..." We have have an on-line system "e-Verify" that one can use to validate an employee's status. Oh, plus Social Security card which is not directly related to work-authorization but force participation on government run retirement scheme.Last time it was "first day on the job" for me, I was handed such a packet/form (I4) with a clear lists of what the acceptable documentation combinations were. I had three days to bring those documentations to Human Resources - or my job is no longer mine by the end of the third day.Anyone employing 3 or more people must validate employee status, and copies of documentation should be kept and available for inspection anytime during work hours. Even if everyone in your employ are US citizens, it is still necessary to have the form and copies of documentation for every employee (who joined the company after the law was enacted some 20+ years ago). That is the law.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 05:29:46 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 20, 2016, 03:07:49 am(bold added to quote)Thankyou! You and I may be the only ones who read the whole article.What really ticks me off was the huge State (and Federal) funding they got for this project. They got the $ from the State for the prospect of employment, and they did this kind of crap. I guess the State really doesn't know how to negotiate.One should not expect a corporation to be a patriot - particularly when it is an international company. One should however be able to expect a corporation to be a good corporate citizen where they operate.Getting money from the government and then didn't do enough to even merely ensure legality is falling down on their obligation of being a good corporate citizen.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 05:33:06 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 20, 2016, 12:11:37 amSo you were just stating your ignorant opinions as fact? And I mean ignorant in the textbook sense, not the pejorative one.I spent a lot of years doing development work related to contracts (the bidding, evaluation, awarding) process within the state government, then the federal government, and then with lots of companies big and small - companies like Dell, HP, Ford, Exxon and more.I have never seen any of those that awarded contracts on the basis of the lowest bidder. Do you have some information that I didn't glean in my years working in that field which proves your assertions correct? Do you have a copy of the Tesla contract, or are you privvy to what the bids were, or what the evaluation and award metrics were?And if not, what justifies all the "I'm sure...." statements you made above?Not trying to be a total asshole, but people thinking they know all about something they have no experience with is an epidemic these days. And since contracts generally are not awarded on lowest price, that debunks the claim that subs are using illegal labor to undercut on price.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 06:27:23 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 20, 2016, 05:33:06 amI know this isn't addressed to me, but allow me to comment.Whether the contracts were lowest bid or not, it is not really relevant. Tesla has the obligation to do diligence. That was clearly lacking.My experience with dealing with bidding and contract awarding probably is less than yours. I spend a handful of years in a consulting firm that was a sub-contractor as well as hiring sub-contractors to work with us. Do-diligence is expected. As sub-contractor, we had to validate that stuff we provided are in full compliance to all applicable rules and regulations; and we demanded the same from our subcontractors.From the articles, the project in question is not a small one-week project. It went on for months at times involving high double digit or triple digit people. So, easily a six or seven figure project. Tesla should/would have someone on site or would have visited regularly unless they are morons.I am not hitting them for breaking them law themselves. I suspect they merely looked the other way. I expected better from them particularly since they are (in part) doing this with tax payer dollars. I was disappointed.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 08:26:16 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 20, 2016, 05:09:19 amI didn't say they weren't clear, I said they weren't easy to verify. You have this long list of a mix of possible documents, some of which with no significant security measures for quick visual verification. Which is why they are used in combination with the I-9 form in the first place. E-verify works with that form and the documentation, you can't use that to quickly check some subcontractor who might spend one day on your site.In a sane world you would just get a card after submitting your I-9, but then it would be a defacto ID card ... and can't have that ...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 08:35:36 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 20, 2016, 06:27:23 amYou demanded it, but did you go to their office and actually check it?This was criminal, so they don't have a problem lying about it, it wouldn't add any significant risk.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 10:11:46 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 20, 2016, 06:27:23 amI think you'll find that's "Due diligence". It rather undermines ones argument about anything when one gets the basic terminology wrong.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 10:51:18 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 20, 2016, 10:11:46 pmWell, not everyone has English as their first language. I have been using do-diligence for eons. I have been wrong for some years now, I guess.But one should let others' language limitation prejudice others' straighten in argument now, should one?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2016, 11:11:23 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 20, 2016, 10:51:18 pmI'm not speaking for or against your argument. Just pointing out an error. And, try as I might, I just can't parse your last sentence. As to your native language, I'd kind of assumed it was American or you'd learned English from an American as that quite a few American accents (Nu Joisey, some parts of Nu Yoik to name a few) lead naturally to exactly that error by the way they pronounce "due" - as in "Dis bill's overdu".

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2016, 04:31:30 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 20, 2016, 11:11:23 pmYou mean an obvious spelling error.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2016, 07:18:26 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 20, 2016, 11:11:23 pm"I am not hitting them for breaking them law themselves. I suspect they merely looked the other way. I expected better from them particularly since they are (in part) doing this with tax payer dollars. I was disappointed."Hmm.. you are right! My last sentence wasasreally poorly written! Allow me to blame it on my keyboard for awful performance. It was an old keyboard so it was not really up to the task of writing nicely. Those damn cheap keyboards randomly inserting grammatical errors.Let me try again:I am not hitting them for breaking themlawthemselves. I suspect they merely looked the other way. I expected better from them - particularly since they are (in part) doing this with tax payer dollars. I was disappointed (by them).

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2016, 10:25:46 pm
content: SOP. Do what you want and say sorry later.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2016, 08:26:16 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 20, 2016, 03:07:49 amI think it's entirely plausible for this to have happened without Tesla's knowledge given the scale of the project. A project of that scale will have so many layers of oversight, from the project head through contractors through subcontractors and more subcontractors through shift foremen down to the individual workers. It's entirely plausible that there would never be an opportunity for anyone at Tesla familiar enough with the relevant laws to make face to face contact with one of these workers, let alone find out their visa status or pay scale. The few managers who walk through the site will at best talk to the contractors' reps and maybe a foreman or two. As far as these workers, the managers will just see a crew fitting some pipe or whatever, and you can't tell just by looking if their visas aren't in order or they're on slave wages.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2016, 09:15:28 pm
content: Quote from: ajb on May 22, 2016, 08:26:16 pmIt is the responsibility of the employer (with three or more employees) to check, and to keep copies of the relevant paper work on file at the place of business for inspection. That is the law. The on-line "e-Verify" is available to employers so they can check easily.I had consulted a lawyer approx 5 years ago (in starting up a business) so I have detail notes on the responsibility of employers. It is well publicized in the news (unavoidable election season news bombardment) that some had hope to modify the law but the law has not changed.Visas clearly state whether it includes work permission or otherwise. From the news paper articles, the B1/B2 visas hasexplicit exclusionfrom doing the work they were doing.So, the relevant laws are clear. Visas attached to passport are clear (or it would be the employers responsibility to reject). I have to assume that the laws were ignored on purpose by the sub-contractors.I can accept thatTesla doesn't know and probably didn't care enough to know. I assumed as much. But: (a) sub-contractor or not, they are responsible since they hired the subcontractor. (b) they are doing it (in-part) with tax-payer dollars. As such, they have the moral obligation to double check and make double sure. Federal aside, they accepted state/local government funding (and other goodies) to increase the prospect of employment and the local economy. They therefore have the obligation toat least have a good-faith effortto try to achieve the goals set forth with the tax-breaks and funding.Now, if they show that the subcontractor handed them copies fake work-visas, I would have given them some absolution (in a manner of speaking). Instead, they have shown they just "didn't know" or "didn't care". As tax payer, they are spending my money. They didn't even do a good faith effort to make sure they are spending my money in ways as it was intended. Now, that is a description of an irresponsible company.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2016, 09:43:21 pm
content: QuoteIf the administration had taken the same interpretation of "employees" that they have taken recently against fast food franchisers, sharing-economy start-ups, etc., they would certainly have to classify those "subcontractors" as "employees" and find Tesla responsible for whatever wrong doings we are talking about here.Unfortunately, we are in a world where the laws are being selectively deployed, likely for political / social motivations, and the (ex-) head of law enforcement encouraged people to un-enforce whatever laws they feel "unjust", the oath of the office be damned.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2016, 09:55:03 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 22, 2016, 09:15:28 pmExactly. And Tesla was not, and is not, the employer.There just seems to be some complete refusal here to understand how construction projects and contracts work. If I decide to build a skyscraper, I hire a construction company, who then will likely further subcontract out the various disciplines to other contractors. None of these people are my employees. I only want one skyscraper, and once it is built, I no longer need the workers. Those workers will likely continue to work on other jobs with other clients via their employers, but at no time, did any of those workers work directly for me.If I hire a company to mow my lawn, I do not suddenly employ their workers directly and take on all liabilities and responsibilities for those workers.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2016, 11:23:07 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 22, 2016, 10:11:06 pmYou are confusing Elon Musk with Ernst Blofeld.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 12:50:15 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 22, 2016, 09:12:26 pmSure, lots of people might notice the new workers, and some of them might notice they're foreign, but that's not in and of itself cause for suspicion. If the contractor is doing this part of the project top-to-bottom there may be very little mingling with other workers, just depends on how the project is scheduled and laid out. But sure, some people might start talking and find out that they were brought in specifically for the job, but how many of those people will be sufficiently familiar with employment and immigration to notice that these foreign workers are doing the sort of work they probably shouldn't be? The average american construction worker probably has no idea what sorts of visas permit what sorts of work, so most will probably be told that a specialist company brought in a bunch of their own specialist workers, shrug their shoulders and move on (maybe grumble about american workers not getting those jobs, but probably little else). For that matter, how many middle managers would know enough about visas to get suspicious? And even if anyone does get suspicious, how likely is it that they'll be sufficiently peeved to try to blow the whistle? The types of people who DO know the law and/or have the authority to do something about it within the company probably never set foot on the job site, and as long as they have that 'comply with applicable laws' clause in the contract it's all asses covered as far as they're concerned.Note that I'm not trying to say that there was no way Tesla could have known, I'm just saying that it's plausible that they didn't. Without more extensive knowledge of the way the project and plant are laid out and scheduled, there's really no grounds for a bunch of nerds on an EE forum to draw a firm conclusion as to 'they didn't know and are completely innocent' and 'they're total scumbags who were in on the con'. Pretending otherwise is silly. Unless you have some other clearly damning evidence that wasn't in the linked article, in which case, please share it with the class.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 02:19:30 am
content: As a company even if I suspected I'd probably call in a tip anonymously and wait it out ... just too many ways to get burned by involving yourself more directly.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 06:57:29 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 22, 2016, 09:55:03 pmWhether Tesla was the direct employer or not is not relevant. A sub-contractor acts on the behave of the firm that contracted them.If they knewthat the sub-contractor is acting illegally, they can be found guilty of some infraction as well. I don't know the immigration laws in such detail to cite the specific US Code, but this concept is well established in other areas of US Code. You cannot hire an assassin and try to escape responsibility of the killing. You cannot hire someone to "write" a passage and then insert that passage into your bookif you knewhe copied it from another copyrighted book. Insert that plagiarized passage into your book will still get you in trouble for copyright violation. So it is well established in US Code that sub-contracting is no defense if you fully knew that what the subcontractor is doing is illegal.The legal question is did Tesla knew it, what did they do when they first learned of it, and what control did they have towards that decision of illegality. Subcontracting puts some distance between Tesla and the illegal act, but it doesn't give full insulation from such act.Beside legality, the moral question is, since they are spending tax-payer dollars, did they do enough to fulfill their moral obligation to ensure it is not doing bad things with tax-payer dollars?Unless we read minds (or have inside information), we wont know. So we all just have to guess based on our own gut-feel and with our own frame of reference.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 05:11:59 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 23, 2016, 06:57:29 amYou're talking aboutvicarious liability. It's well established that an employer has vicarious liability for their employees andagents(within limits) but I'm far from convinced that concept has been or could be extended to the customer->supplier relationship which is what Tesla have to the people building their paint shop for them. There's more to the employer->employee relationship than "do what I ask and I'll pay you for it" or we'd all be being treated as employers of our banks, butchers etc.A former boss of mine got into a right mess related to the law ofagencyand its sheer complexity and he strenuously recommended me to talk to a lawyer before creating any such business relationship. It's definitely "needs a decent lawyer" territory and is almost certainly beyond us barrack-room lawyers.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 06:49:17 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 23, 2016, 05:11:59 pmI agree that it would not be a "cut and dry" when a customer-supplier (contractor) relationship inserted.While my take on the news articles is the "they knew" implication. But for any criminal liability, adequate proof must exist and taken to a legal process such as a court or grand jury. Nothing in the article would lead me to think any legal proceeding is in progress. There is indeed the possibly that they just didn't know, in which case, some jury would found it hard to fault them even if the law states "they should have known" as adequate justification.I think while we can all agree that legally this is a question mark, but the public relation picture it paints is a bad one. These kinds of perception issues are what smart companies do hard to avoid and they certainly did a bad job with it thus far. For a company that survive on public funding*, this is not a good place to be in.---*Just in case you dispute the company on public funding statement, this is my reasoning:According to Tesla's own website, each car receive $7500 federal tax credit (not mere tax deduction but hard cash equivalent tax credit) plus State goodies per car and depending on state, it goes as high as $9000 in Louisiana! That means it could be as low as $7500 and as high as $16500 per car - about the price of a new compact 4 door from a typical other brands. With such subsidies and cash-flow of just barely making it, it is not a stretch to say they right now survive because of government funding.---

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 09:04:49 pm
content: Quote from: Rick LawSince when does morality depend on the source of money? So are you arguing that the many companies knowingly benefiting from abusive labor practices are morally ok as long as they don't benefit from any government subsidies?QuoteVery few states (9 total)offer any significant additional tax credits. Louisiana is an outlier and the $9K is only for the largest batteries. CO offers $5k. The other 7 states range from $750 to $2500.More importantly, Tesla is on track to meet the 200K vehicles sold target later this year (or early 2017). That means the consumer tax credit will be phased out for them over the following year (2017-18).Bottom line: the tax credit for Tesla EV's will be ending soon.Tesla will live or die based on the success of their Model 3, sales of which will be unlikely to benefit much (or at all) from the tax credit.As with many, many new, ambitious companies, it's an open question whether they will be successful and survive through the initial period of growth. IMHO they've done pretty well given the multiple industry forces aligned against a new major auto manufacturer succeeding as well as the lack of charging infrastructure. Sure the tax credits for early EV adopters has helped them but your assessment that they only exist because of "public funding" is simply a judgment you are making and is an obvious political statement (as is this thread). Nothing wrong with that but let's call it what it is.BTW regardless of the benefit Tesla (and many other companies) get from government tax credits designed to promote adoption of EVs, their construction capital is coming from public stock offerings (and bond offerings pehaps), not government tax credits to end users as you seem to suggest.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2016, 10:58:29 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 23, 2016, 09:04:49 pmIt's highly debatable whether they 'exist because of "public funding"' - by which I mean you could indulge in a lot of debate about it and probably still not come to an informed opinion. I prefer to look at it the other way around: the tax credits exist as public policy to encourage electric vehicle manufacture and adoption. If Tesla weren't taking the money someone else would be (and there might be the same debate about them in similar circumstances). Whether Tesla's business was viable without the subsidy, or whether they could have realistically started their business without the subsidies, is moot as the subsidies do exist and exist to promote the creation of products such as Tesla's.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 12:01:17 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 23, 2016, 09:04:49 pmMtdoc,I don't know the exact start of it, but it would be a good bet it started since the invention of taxation.If it is between a company and its workers, it is a deal between private parties - as long as it doesn't reach illegality, it is a private deal. Not that bad labor practices are morally okay, but at least it is private parties having bad moral codes and have nothing to do with the public at large.However, once a company uses public funds, it is no longer a deal between private parties. The are using tax dollars to do bad things. In other words, they are using your money, my money, and every tax payers' money to do the bad things. That makes us the tax payers the enablers of their bad deeds. I double very much the State would have given them money to commit crimes. So, not only did the said company did the bad things, they also swindled the money from us to do it.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 12:15:54 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 22, 2016, 09:15:28 pmThe number of documents which could be used to show eligibility to work is HUGE and double checking all that shit is not due diligence ... it's an unreasonable burden. IF they are even allowed to do it, which I very much doubt. If they use I-9 forms with e-verify (which among other things seems to be some weird backdoor way to mandate photo-IDs by the way) there's this gem from the e-verify MOU :"The Employer agrees that it will use the information it receives from E-Verify only to confirm theemployment eligibility of employees as authorized by this MOU. The Employer agrees that it willsafeguard this information, and means of access to it (such as PINS and passwords), to ensure that itis not used for any other purpose and as nec essary to prot ect its confidentiality, including ensuring thatit is not disseminated to any person other than employees of the Employer who are authorized toperform the Employer's responsibilities under this MOU, except for such dissemination as may beauthorized in advance by SSA or DHS for legitimate purposes."Combine that withthis recent questionto the OSC about sharing I-9 data and you can see that not only is double checking an unreasonable burden ... it could be a liability. As expected the US law in this regard is an unholy mess.In my country there is a very limited set of photo IDs which show eligibility to work ... and when you are working for someone directly or indirectly you need to have it on you at all times and he is explicitly allowed to check it. Of course if we just give every undocumented migrant citizenship it doesn't matter much :/

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 12:31:06 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 23, 2016, 10:58:29 pmYes, precisely.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 12:35:01 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 24, 2016, 12:15:54 amYeah, government bureaucrats. They do have ways to make the simple convoluted.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 12:53:09 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 24, 2016, 12:01:17 amI think we all know what defines a private deal. I still see no rational for linking morality to funding source. Abusive labor practices are immoral - public, private - no matter. I don't understand how you think there is a link there.QuoteIgnoring the fact that it was the subcontractor, not Tesla who potentially committed a crime, dId the state give them money? If so please show some evidence of that.QuoteSwindled money from us? Huh? Tesla has done no such thing (that I am aware of). The government gives a tax credit to customers who buy their products (IF the customer qualifies for the credit).Please explain how that constitutes "swindling money from us"? For reference:QuoteAs was previously pointed out in this thread, If Tesla did not allow it's customers to take advantage of the tax credit (for example by not providing the IRS with the needed info), then Tesla could be held liable by it's share holders. (and perhaps in that case be accused of swindling it's customers)

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 01:46:36 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 24, 2016, 12:31:06 amTesla, if fully privately funded, would just have the lesser obligation of merely their fiduciary duty to their stock holders. If someone else took the money, someone else would have the moral obligation to spend the money to achieve public goods.It is no revelation that the statement about Tesla seem political because it is. This project is partially public funded (granted by politician), any discussion of public funding is by definition a discussion of politics.MtDoc, by the way, swindle is the right word. I seriously doubt the State had in mind giving them money to do anything illegal. There surely was some cheating that went on. Whether they did it directly or via a subcontractor, it was still cheating. What is unclear is their level of involvement. Did they knew or not, should they have known or not, and what did they do about it when they knew.As to your other points, with one exception,they are repeatsand some already addressed multiple times. They are not worth further addressing. You missed the article quoted which clearly cited their public funding. You also missed Tesla's own website cites subsidies and tax relief which is of public source. Whether it was directly to the company or indirectly via the buyer is unimportant.The exception point is your statement: "I still see no rational for linking morality to funding source. Abusive labor practices are immoral - public, private - no matter. I don't understand how you think there is a link there."I would think it isactually rather obvious public fund should be for public goodand those spending public funds has the moral obligation to aim for public good.That you are arguing it makes me think you are just trying to be argumentativeor just trying to be silly or whatever.Quote from: mtdoc on May 24, 2016, 12:53:09 am

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 04:18:02 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 24, 2016, 12:53:09 amNot allowing? They promote the government subsidies to increase saleshttps://www.teslamotors.com/support/incentivesThe government subsidizes millionaires and billionaires. Must makes Bernie mad as hell.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 04:58:10 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 24, 2016, 01:46:36 amFact: Tesla is a publicly traded company just like thousands of others. It happens to benefit from some government subsidies (corporate tax credits, government loans and tax credits to consumers of its products) that are also available to other companies and manufacturers. The loans and tax credits are in some cases designed to promote domestic or local manufacturing. In some cases (eg the EV tax credit you cited) it is designed to jump start the nascent EV industry. You may disagree with these type of government "subsidies" but they are available to and taken advantage of by many other companies.QuoteQuoteI've read nothing in the articles you posted or elsewhere to suggest they were "given" or granted any money. That is a misrepresentation. As I stated above, they received corporate tax credits and a government loans just as many companies do. Please state whatTesladid that was illegal.QuoteAs others have pointed out, Tesla is not and cannot be responsible for all of the actions of its subs. That's not to say that they should ignore violations of labor laws if they are aware of them (though that is commonplace) - but what you are implying is completely different and not supported by the facts.I agree that if they were aware at a higher corporate level - they should be called out on it and suffer the appropriate PR consequences. But that does not make it illegal or any more or less immoral than if the same thing occurred to a company that did not benefit so much from government subsidies.QuoteOnly the Brietbart article focuses on this and they cite (as stated above) a governmentloanand corporate tax credits. It is you that were focused in your post on the tax credit that consumers get.QuoteWell of course it's important. I get a tax deduction for my mortgage interest - by your logic the government is giving money to my mortgage company who are then "swindling the public" if their office janitorial service breaks labor laws.QuoteAs pointed out the public funds are in the form of government loans and tax credits designed to promote domestic manufacturing and promote an industry that will help get us off our reliance of foreign oil and reduce air pollution. Most would agree the thousands of domestic manufacturing (and engineering!) jobs created by Tesla and the thousands of Tesla EVs on the road are for the public good.Whether that is an appropriate role of government - is another issue and can be honestly argued on either side - but that is not what you've done here.Morality is an entirely different thing. Again - abusive labor practices are immoral - regardless of funding or government subsidies. Stating so is not being argumentative. I'm honestly baffled that you could think otherwise. You seem to be mixing up "public good" with morality. Those are two overlapping but mostly very distinct concepts. Creating domestic manufacturing jobs and creating products that decease air pollution and our reliance on foreign oil are in most peoples mind - in the public good - yet have mostly nothing to do with morality.Look, I get it - you, Zapta and many others (Fox viewers, Brietbart readers, etc) of a particular political view - can't stand the fact that Tesla benefits so much from available government programs. But why the need to misrepresent facts and try to tie that political agenda to this issue of one of it's subcontractors violating labor laws?. If it turns out they knew (and kept quiet) at the upper levels of this abuse then that is a moral failing and they should and will suffer some consequences. The same is true of any company - regardless of how much or little they benefit from government subsidies.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 05:05:32 am
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 04:18:02 amYou entirely missed the point. I was stating thathypotheticallyif they did not allow it thenthatwould subject them to lawsuits by shareholders. That could be construed as swindling - unlike what Rick suggests.Of course they want their customers to take advantage of the available tax credit.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 05:09:27 am
content: I don't have anything to contribute to the ethics or law of what is being argued in this thread.In my heart of hearts I am not sure I want Elon Musk to spend more of his time monitoring these kinds of issues and less time making SpaceX a viable access to space and Tesla electric cars a viable alternative to internal combustion.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 06:11:19 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 24, 2016, 05:05:32 amYou entirely missed the point. They don't need to 'not allowing', they just need to stop actively promoting the incentives to increase their sales.And then they lobby the government for higher subsidies financed by taxing other car sales (aka California ZEV points).https://www.teslamotors.com/sv_SE/blog/carb-must-maintain-pressure-deliver-pure-zevs-californiaThis is a corrupt business model.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 09:28:58 am
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 06:11:19 amLike the business models that depend on trillions of dollars of bloody military intervention spanning over nearly a century to preserve access to petroleum?And what of the business model that obtains billions of dollars in annual subsidies to turn natural gas and diesel into a supposed "green" fuel?There's nothing saintly about the automotive and petroleum industries. If I must choose my version of corruption, and it seems I must, I'm OK with subsidizing practical electric car development.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 02:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 24, 2016, 09:28:58 amYes, the petroleum in Germany, Italy, Japan, Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam.Repeating a myth over and over doesn't make it correct. China doesn't go to wars and it has access to oil.Tesla's business model is based on preferential treatment and governmental freebies and The Cult Of Tesla tries to spin it otherwise.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 03:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 04:18:02 amWhat is it about even the most vaguely political discussion that causes normally rational and intelligent people to lose the basic ability to read and comprehend something.Quote from: mtdoc on May 24, 2016, 12:53:09 amIf, he saidIf. He did not say they weren't allowing their customers access to the subsidy and he didn't go anywhere near the topic of promoting the subsidy. Sheesh!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 03:58:52 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 24, 2016, 03:06:02 pmI didn't say they he said they aren't allowing. Read again. Sheesh!The point is that not only they 'allow' but they actively lobbing the government to increase Tesla subsidies by other car manufactures (aka ZEV credits). Tesla business model is based on a corrupt political game.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 03:59:44 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 02:21:21 pmYou should tell the US Navy in the Persian Gulf that their mission is mythical.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 04:12:02 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 03:58:52 pmThey'd need a bloody strong right arm to do that!Not a bad idea though...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 04:16:58 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 24, 2016, 04:12:02 pmOf course you will think it's not a bad idea. That's the double standard. The famous "Yes, they are basterds, but they are my basterds"

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 05:01:38 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 04:16:58 pmYou do realise that you actually wrote "lobbing" when you thought you had written "lobbying" and "to lobb" means to throw, as in "Lad, lobb that spanner over here willya."? No double standards there, just a (very) small joke.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 06:04:43 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 24, 2016, 04:58:10 amThis is just one level of insulation and they already managed confused the public?Be serious, I think youdosee thatpaying the customer to buy a specific product is the same as paying the company that made the product. You are just pulling my leg for an argument. No one can be so easily fooled.Any other companies' sub-contractor(s) in deep controversy will bubble up back to the company. That is the nature of legal liability. A contractor acts on the behalf of the hiring firm.Any company even with good reputation, would get in trouble if they/their contractors do illegal things to get their contract done. It may be legal trouble or not, but it is definitely a PR disaster. Prima facie, what they did has the raw fish smell somewhere.Reading the article, this is like "buying $100 bills for $50" and then claim "gee, I don't know those are counterfeit money". Claiming that it was printed by someone else (a sub-contractor) hardly helps. Can one get away with it? Sure, it depends on the lawyer.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 06:15:10 pm
content: Let me ask the dangerous loaded question. How many people do you will have their vehicle purchase decision changed by this? I would probably not even give it a second thought if I was in the market, otherwise you would never buy anything as every supply chain would encounter this sort of story at some point.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 06:23:42 pm
content: Quote from: calexanian on May 24, 2016, 06:15:10 pmI wonder about that too, but $7500 to $16500 is a lot of money!Bare in mind, unlike tax deduction, tax credit is hard-cash equivalent. You just have to wait till tax filing to get the hard-cash back. So the impact should be substantial.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 06:30:01 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 24, 2016, 05:01:38 pmYou accept corruption and complain about a spelling errors. Time to revisit priorities.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 06:49:11 pm
content: Quote from: calexanian on May 24, 2016, 06:15:10 pmThat would depend on how close I was to the decision threshold. If I were just slightly positive about buying a Tesla car, it could certainly make the difference.Also, there are other decisions that might be affected:- whether to invest in Tesla- whether to support some future tax break or rule exception for Tesla

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 07:50:44 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 06:30:01 pmLook here young man - it's one thing for me to make a small joke around your typo, not even directly about it, just around. It's quite another for you to accuse me of accepting corruption. If you were physically here you and I would be stepping outside for me to give you some attitude adjustment. <- No smiley, not a single hint of one, I'm bloody angry.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 09:11:07 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 24, 2016, 06:04:43 pmPrima facie conclusions are generally uninformed conclusions.Facts are that Tesla employed a major plant building company, Tesla's contract accounted for a 55$/hour labor cost and double checking of contractor employee work eligibility in the US is a legal minefield (probably intentionally so, because of politics).So, what are your conclusions on second thought?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 09:25:55 pm
content: This whole thing is a prime example of us living in a 3rd world country where laws are violated without any consequences as long as you are the favored party / contributors / ... of the government.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 09:53:18 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 24, 2016, 09:11:07 pmThe fact is,illegal things did occur. That means their control was inadequate. Negligence at best.My conclusion is that they did not do enoughto ensure that the tax dollars they got went to do good things. At best, they merely assumed and that is not good management.Secondarily, this involved more than the Federal funding. State funding is explicitly or implicitly for the prospect of employment and benefit of the local economy. I am not privy to their discussion with the State. The fact is,foreign labor was brought in. So, either they are too dumb to realize that the local economy should get some benefit, or they don't care. Either way, they did not made enough of a good faith effort to ensure that they tried to increase local employment. So,I further concluded they are not a good corporate citizen.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 10:11:38 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 24, 2016, 09:53:18 pmHow? Ask contractor employees for documents? Ask the contractor for access to I-9 forms/e-verify?Both are bad ideas.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 10:45:26 pm
content: Quoteand lax oversight: why didn't the government put some conditions on the grant of that public funding so that if there is a violatin, someone is going to pay?Because those beaucrats are spending other people's money and they don't give a damn.QuoteI believe that the union complained about it.But nothing bad can happen to the favorite son (Musk),QuoteTrust me, Musk is too smart to want to know, or to be in a position to be reasonably expected to know.The power of no-knowledge.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 10:50:27 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 24, 2016, 07:50:44 pmBased on your post #79 above.Quote from: Cerebus on May 24, 2016, 07:50:44 pmThis is a novel way to argue for Tesla.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2016, 10:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 24, 2016, 10:11:38 pmNo, not ask the employees but ask the (sub) contractors. Put it into the contract and reject any contractors/subcontractors that cannot fulfill basic legal requirements. Demand that they have it on site for you to check so you don't become entangled in "appearance of impropriety" let alone entangled in legal quagmire.I would not do eVerify unless I saw something fishie. I would walk on site to see if the stuff they submitted match a random sample of people I saw there.In having a good inspection of their paper work, I have done at least a reasonable good faith effort. Of course, if up-stream has further requirements, I would have to go as far as needed to satisfy the up-stream requirements. In this case, I consider their up-stream is the State government since they are getting State goodies.This is no different than "good advice" from home-owner-shows that before you let the electrician walked into your door, check their electrician license and their insurance. They should have it and they should show it. Otherwise, your home insurance may not cover an electrical fire caused by their work. Worst yet, if they had "work injuries" in your house, they can get YOU to pay damage out of your insurance.According to the articles I linked to, this is getting goodie from the State to the extend of reducing cost for equipment. They got quite a bit of goodies well beyond just tax credits for their product. I look at their level of responsibility as proportional to the goodies they obtained. That I think is fair: More goodies, more obligation to make sure you fulfill the goodie-giver's expectation.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 12:00:11 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 24, 2016, 10:58:01 pm"(4) Limitation on use of Form I-9. Any information contained in or appended to the Form I-9, including copies of documents listed in paragraph (c) of this section used to verify an individual's identity or employment eligibility, may be used only for enforcement of the Act and Sections 1001, 1028, 1546, or 1621 of Title 18, United States Code."QuoteThe contractor was breaking the law, hell they were trying to force the guy out of the hospital against doctor's orders ... they don't care about what they have to put into the contract.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 01:00:39 am
content: Quote from: zapta on May 24, 2016, 10:50:27 pmAre you stupid or are you just a troll spoiling for a fight? #79 was a joke, it's even a joke that has been explained to you in all but single syllable words. There is no way that can be interpreted as support for any position beyond a mildly humorous anti-government-in-general one.If you think that's justification to call someone's integrity into question you are of such poor intelligence that it would be cruel to engage you in a battle of wits. If you don't think it's justification then you're just a tiny little man hurling baseless insults from behind a keyboard who wouldn't be man enough to do it face to face. Either way, that's my last word on the subject. You will be soundly ignored from this point onwards as not worth the attention you so clearly crave.And by the way, it's clearly escaped your meagre intellect that I'm not arguing for, or against, Telsa.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 01:04:44 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 25, 2016, 12:00:11 amNot sure why you cited this. I take it you interpret the "Limitation on use" as preventing your contractor from passing it on to you. I bolded the part that said it is ok. You are enforcing the act - ie:verifying the individual's identity and employment eligibility of those who will work at your site and funded by your firm.Quote from: Marco on May 25, 2016, 12:00:11 amMore evidence of bad managing in hiring a firm like that, wouldn't you say!If the contractor did put some fake documents in, and they looked reasonably real, (as I have said in earlier reply) I would have excused Tesla since it would mean they did tried. That would have qualified as a good faith effort just by asking for them and checking them to a minimal (but reasonable) extend (as I said in earlier reply).The "do nothing, let whatever happen happens, and look the other way" is exactly the attitude that caused me to fault them as not being good corporate citizens.----------------Next paragraph should be called:Do you want an ambulance chaser to call first?Good management would be (on the day of the accident) by the guy's hospital bedside before the day is out. Good management would called the guy's wife and smooth things out (make sure she has money for dinner, rent, so on). Good management would offer free transportation to take the wife and kid to see him. Good management would then fire the contractor (distance yourself from the illegal act)....Now, you did the good hearted thing, as well as get your words in to the injured guy before the ambulance chasers do...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 03:54:59 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on May 25, 2016, 01:00:39 amI will take it as a promise.Quote from: Cerebus on May 25, 2016, 01:00:39 amHmm, promise broken.Anyway, have a nice day Cerebus.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 06:37:04 am
content: I don't see... any ethics... at all, sir.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/business/tesla-model-s-nhtsa-suspension-failure.html

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 01:28:57 pm
content: "... at least some Tesla customers who experienced suspension failures with Model S luxury cars were asked to sign confidentiality agreements about the issue."If true this is evil.Edit: here is a good reporthttp://dailykanban.com/2016/06/tesla-suspension-breakage-not-crime-coverup/

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 04:27:01 pm
content: And now for the other side of the story:http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/grain-of-saltThe "Daily Kanban" author's articles about Tesla. He seems to have no axe to grind at all.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 05:29:26 pm
content: Yes, as an industry analyst that takes money from carmakers he obviously has a bias. But that doesn't make the story wrong.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 06:40:38 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on June 10, 2016, 04:27:01 pmWhat part of the Kanban report is inaccurate or misleading?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 07:30:29 pm
content: Zapta - I'm glad to see you're in favor of the NHTSA and strong auto industry safety standards. Thank you Ralph Nadar.I agree that if Tesla intentionally tried to prevent consumers from reporting and issue to the NHTSA that it would be wrong and they should pay a price. So far it is unclear that this was the case and as Tesla points out - the only customer who is claiming it is did in fact report the issue to the NHTSA - so they have a weak argument. As Tesla also points out they have a history of working closely with the NHTSA and are doing so on this issue - I suspect the result will be a change in their "Goodwill Agreement".Of course Daily Kanban author has a well documented agenda. Making a mountain out of any Tesla mole hill seems to be the part time job of many. It's pretty clear there are large political and financial forces aligned against Tesla.Tesla may yet fail (it will all come down the the Model 3)- but so far they've done an impressive job of overcoming the obstacles. Per Tesla's press release on the issue:Quote

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 09:29:53 pm
content: Apparently you missed that the story appeared in theNew York Times. Which do you think is more credible,ceteris paribus, the Times or a corporate press release?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 09:55:56 pm
content: Quote from: helius on June 10, 2016, 09:29:53 pmNope, I have no issue with the NYT reporting on the issue. As I said - it's good the NHTSA is looking into it and as I also said the outcome will likely be a change in the way their "Goodwill Agreement" is written.BTW, The NYT has a newer story about it today:Tesla Motors Says Model S Suspension Has No Safety Defects.QuoteAll in all - just the same old back and forth that almost every auto manufacturer goes through on a regular basis - with possible safety issues, recalls, legal issues etc, etc. It's just than when it's Tesla - the politicos get their panties in a knot about it..

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 12:58:27 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 10, 2016, 07:30:29 pmThis is a really amazing argument. The only customer who contacted the NTSB refused to accept the company's offer!Suppose I send you a contract that proposes to pay you to kill my associate, and you turn it down and say you'd never do such a thing. Does that mean I did nothing wrong? No harm, no foul? That's what the above argument would mean.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 02:16:31 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 10, 2016, 07:30:29 pmI don't follow your logic. Do you say that the quote of the NDA is incorrect or misleading? Do you say that the NDA quote is correct but it doesn't restrict reporting?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 03:41:09 am
content: Tesla's argument is that the "Goodwill agreement" has nothing to do with preventing reporting from the NHTSA and the fact that a customer who signed did report the issue to the NHTSA is evidence of that. There is nothing about the NHTSA in it. Read theirblog post. Their argument is pretty clear.Look at it this way - why and how could Tesla prevent a consumer from reporting a safety concern to the NHTSA? What would they do - sue the person for violating the "goodwill agreement"? If they did that, how would THAT look to the NHTSA?It's analogous to this: I just signed an updated employment contract with the hospital who employs me. There was a long section in it that I had to initial about internal dispute resolution process, binding arbitration, etc. that specifically prevents me from suing them and says I give up my right to have a dispute settled by a court, etc That does not prevent me from going to the State Medical board if I have a concern about the hospital.Look - the "goodwill agreement" could be interpreted a number of ways and the those with an axe to grind with Tesla will have their interpretation which Tesla obviously disagrees with. Big deal. Tesla and the NHTSA will obviously come to some agreement about the future wording.That whole issue is a red herring IMO - another mole hill for those grinding axes.The more important question is whether there is a real safety issue here. From what I've read so far there is no evidence of that but the NHTSA will do their job and determine if there is. Tesla is not impeding that process - they are cooperating with it. If necessary a recall will be done. Again - just par for the course in the auto industry - mole hills and panty knots notwithstanding.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 04:32:28 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 11, 2016, 03:41:09 amWhy? To hide deficiencies in their product.How? By using wording that suggests that the incident must be kept confidential between the parties.Code:... You agree to keep confidential our provision of the Goodwill, the terms of this agreement and the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill.Quote from: mtdoc on June 11, 2016, 03:41:09 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 04:51:01 am
content: Yep. Differing views, different interpretations, panty knots, and axe grinding:Tesla to clarify how customers may disclose problemsQuote

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 06:16:38 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 11, 2016, 04:51:01 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemQuote from: mtdoc on June 11, 2016, 04:51:01 amCode:Tesla Motors Inc on Friday revised a nondisclosure clause in its customer repair agreements after a U.S. regulator took issue with the practiceGood.