I'm sure this is at least partly tied-in to their ongoing, illegal efforts to crush labor organizing at their plants.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-nlrb/worker-testifi...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-nlrb/worker-testifi...
Yet to be determined by a court. Precision in language is important, no matter how heated you are about a situation.
Let's go with "immoral efforts." I think that's precise enough language.
I can make claims about my worldview. I say the sky is blue. you say the sky is white (cloudy). we can argue about it, but there's no reason for either of us to change our opinion till we look out the window and see what color the sky is.
The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact.
in my very humble opinion it's perfectly reasonable to call something illegal if you genuinely believe it's illegal, regardless of status as a lawyer. But once the court has ruled, you need to change your opinion, or you're a crackpot. (Or, perhaps, the court is corrupt, but that's well off into crazy person land)
As someone who is involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter, this is exactly how it works. I don't claim people are doing illegal things. I am filing lawsuits against them alleging improper behavior and I let the courts do their job, which is determining legality and harm to parties.
Laymen don't get to decide what is or isn't legal, nor is it a wise decision to accuse people of illegal activities when no fact finding group has found that to be true. Trust me on this one when I say courts really, really don't appreciate that kind of language.
Conversationally, saying "I think this is illegal" instead of "this is illegal" freely surrenders to those who disagree with you to use appeals to authority to bypass conversation without addressing what you said. I think this is a bad strategy if you're levying a case in the e-court of e-opinions.
sounds like breach of contract, not crimes though. shrug
If you can trespass for 20 years (varies by jurisdiction) without getting ejected, it's legal. And you now own the property.
If you don't enforce a trademark, it is void. There are statutes of limitations on a lot of crimes and torts, including those involving violence. So there is quite a lot of precedent involved in unenforced, flagrantly-violated laws becoming void.
One way around that is to elect government attorneys that will prosecute those laws, and government cops that will investigate suspected violations of those laws.
Virtually every union in the US
> its not my experience working as an M&P grade in a unionised company in the UK.
Yeah. Tesla isn't based in the UK, nor are the wroker in question here.
And I suspect the vast majority of imported H1b's would love a seniority "buggins turn" system.
You can, for instance form a union, whose sole purpose is bargaining for pay bands in a company with well-defined job roles. You can form a union that only fights 'arbitrary' dismissal of employees for their political views. You can form a union that only negotiates working conditions, and overtime rules and rates.
Pointing at the worst example of a union, and claiming that they are fundamentally broken is like me pointing at the worst employer you can imagine, and claiming that corporations are fundamentally broken.
Unions are democratic organizations, employers are authoritarian ones. You can decide what direction your union should go.
They also provide additional insurances for things like glasses, funding for education, and a range of subsidised country cottages with outdoor hot tubs for summer holidays. Seriously, you guys are missing out.
Apparently the way your 'civilized' nations work, is they pay labor a lot less. France, infamous for their powerful unions, has enjoyed annual wage growth about 80% lower than the US over the last 20 years, leaving them trailing horribly behind the US on wages.
The US median full-time income is higher than all nations on earth except for three (Norway, Switzerland, Australia).
Your recommendation is for US labor to earn a lot less. If you were right, the union-friendly nations would dramatically out-earn US labor. Nearly without exception, the exact opposite is true.
Just the amount of time saved in not having to argue with US medical insurance companies about fully insured bills, is worth it to me. So yes, I'll take civilisation - when I add it all up, I not only earn more here, but I actually have some spare time to spend it in.
Tech salaries have nothing to do with unions, infact are tech salaries in sweden also union negotiated?
I'm probably about as skilled at negotiating terms of my employment as I am at arguing law. Oh, I think I'm good at it, but I'll bet a union rep would laugh at my naivety. But it would appear that many tech workers not only overestimate their negotiating skills, they also think that a tech workers union would work exactly like the U. A. W. (compensation based on seniority, et. al.), as if "union" allows no other option.
A lawyer that you hired and pay for represents your interest 100%.
A union rep represents union interest first and then your interest. But if union interest is at odd with your interest, you loose 100%.
For example when GM hit hard times UAW agreed to firing all UAW members in California factory, the one that Tesla then bought and is operating.
As you might imagine, none of the UAW members that lost their jobs wanted that outcome.
But it didn't matter what those thousands of UAW members wanted. UAW agreed to that deal with GM to save jobs of UAW members in Detroit.
So far, the difference I have noticed between union and non-union areas is this: in the heavily unionized locales, all work done is very expensive, but it is also mostly done correctly; in the lightly unionized locales, work is inexpensive, but is slipshod, and without any express or implied warranty. Both take at least twice as long as you think should be necessary, but the union guys will at least show up and pretend to work, while the non-union guys will just ghost.
I want to be the guy that shows up and (eventually) does it right, while three other guys stand around and watch. I'd rather not be the guy that cannot meaningfully engage with the work, because the pay is peanuts, and I could get fired just for sneezing wrong. I (and my ancestors) have a deep-rooted desire to be able to dig in my heels and give someone an earful (or page-full, as it were) whenever they are about to do something stupid and involve me in it. I don't feel like "at will" employment gives me that option. If I speak truth to power, I can get fired.
Who is this magical employer that exhibits those contradictory traits:
* super harsh, fires workers for sneezing
* doesn't fire workers for not working
There are employers out there that pull this crap. You don't have to work if you know the right people. You can't make waves if you don't.
To answer your question, obviously there are both pros and cons to unions (as with basically all political issues). If unionization costs jobs, and the left considers unionization a victory, it must mean that they value the other benefits gained from unionization (e.g. improved working conditions) more than the jobs lost from it.
If we lost half of all jobs, but a family could be supported comfortably by a single-breadwinner, would you consider that a net loss, or a net gain?
Or, alternatively, if we had 100% employment, yet all lived in poverty, would that be a better world?
Consider that the Soviet Union had 100% employment. Is that the high water mark for economic success? Why not? Inefficiency is one answer to it. Another was 'Where did the wealth surplus go?' There are others.