Response to “The Hidden Workforce Expanding Tesla’s Factory” | Hacker News Reader

Response to “The Hidden Workforce Expanding Tesla’s Factory”

teslamotors.com

38 pointsph0rque12 comments

Some fine corruption there.

What good are insane labor costs if people can't actually benefit from them -$52 an hour? Isn't that like $100k per year? And another $42 for pension. Now I don't wonder why they're bringing in foreign labor force. SAP developers don't earn that much in eastern Europe, and in the US all sheet metal grunt labor can.

Also the company allegedly paid them about the same they'd get in Slovenia. Genius, really, but stinks somewhat. In eastern Europe people go abroad to work, but usually because you can earn a multiple of what you'd get at home. Double or triple or more.

And how come they can even try this crap, import a hundred foreign laborers and employ them on invalid visa?

Local PD never checked their papers or queried Immigration on that? No one cares once they get cleared?

Local PD can't just check someone's papers in the US. The law is such that it is illegal to employ someone "not eligible to work", so it is really up to the employer to enforce the law. Government would only become involved to prosecute the employer for breaking the law once it was known (and only if there are resources to merit enforcement) that illegal behavior occurred.

> The law is such that it is illegal to employ someone "not eligible to work", so it is really up to the employer to enforce the law.

Actually, it is illegal to employ someone without the employee and employer both completing the relevant portions of the I-9 form, which requires the employee to present to the employer certain documentation of eligibility to work.

In addition to investigations and enforcement actions stemming from information raising suspicion of a violation, the government can conduct audits (administrative inspection) of I-9 compliance, which need not be based on any suspicion.

According to the I-9 form, submission of required information is voluntary, though an employer may be later be applied penalties if they are unable to prove that they determined eligibility.

True. Police don't typically get involved in immigration status in the US as they do in China or Japan [or other places, which I may not be familiar with] I was made aware the police would raid places which had foreign workers on a periodic basis --so even if you had a proper visa, if the employer was over their visa quota you could get kicked out --the employer would have to fire you to come under compliance and you'd lose your visa sponsorship and have to leave. It was fun having to wait out police immigration raids, sometimes looking for kickback to not look too hard for the foreigners.

I'm pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, this response is 90% sincere apology, and only 10% non-apology and shifting the blame.

I don't see the shifting there at all. They state the process, what part they took and what could have been done better. The only thing beyond what they wrote would be to take responsibility for things they did not do.

Could they have been more proactive? Sure, probably. But there's a fine line between doing all that's right and micromanaging. They settled on a contractor, assessed him and offloaded work assuming everything will be fine (within the parameters of trust given to the contractor).

If this is what really happened in this case than this is probably the best apology I've seen in my life. Spot on even. Of course we could be cynical about everything but let's at least hope this is 100% sincere. :)

I think that's a model response. Explain the situation and then make it right.

What else can one expect them to do? They've already said that they'll make sure it never happens again.

I agree, an excellent response. Admit there was a problem, clarify that there is apparently no legal implication but honestly admit there's a moral responsibility to treat people reasonably and say that will address it.

Go Tesla

<"As far as the law goes, Tesla did everything correctly.">

"If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law."

<"All of that is fine legally, but there is a larger point. Morally, we need to give Mr. Lesnik the benefit of the doubt and we need to take care of him.">

It doesn't sound like they are trying to dodge anything here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com