Hacker News Reader

> Yes the underlying (if true) behavior is bad too.

Not just bad, but illegal.

If Tesla is losing court cases — which they are — then that’s because the judge and jury believe based on the evidence presented and argued that Tesla, as a company, was at fault.

If it’s happened, they SHOULD be sued. No ifs ands or buts about it.

> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits

No, we don’t need to consider that possibility. Judges and juries, who have actually seen the evidence (moreso than you or me), have repeatedly considered that possibility and repudiated it.

Keep in mind Tesla has some of the absolute best legal representation money and reputation can buy. If the claimants’ stories had any exploitable openings for doubt, Tesla’s lawyers would have absolutely (and skillfully) used them to deflect culpability. The fact they are still losing says something.

>>If Tesla is losing court cases — which they are — then that’s because the judge and jury believe based on the evidence presented and argued that Tesla, as a company, was at fault.

Or the law itself is impossible to comply with:

https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/wokeness-as-saddam-sta...

>>Even after the case has been litigated, we still do not know what exactly Tesla could have done to avoid the $137 million judgment (it may be reduced on appeal). Employees did in fact get in trouble for using the n-word and drawing racist cartoons. In retrospect, they probably would’ve been safer if they just fired everyone who Diaz or Di-az accused of racism, at least the non-blacks, but there’s no guarantee that would’ve worked either, as they were in an industry that required them to rely on workers who hadn’t yet internalized elite ways of thinking about race. If they had fired black people for using the n-word too, would that have helped or hurt them in trying to avoid a lawsuit? It’s difficult to say, and that’s sort of the point.

>>For next time, there’s little Tesla can do but go all in on diversity training, be as enthusiastic as possible in adopting whatever next race fad comes out of academia, and hope that the next jury isn’t as woke as the one they got this time. Until anti-discrimination laws are rolled back, or come to be based on clear and objective standards, there is no other way.

Yet, none of the other electric car makers face this. Ford employs a lot of black and white people in michigan but you don't see this there.

Could be a function of anti-discrimination lawyers focusing on the most high profile, deep pocketed carmaker.

But as it happens, Ford, along with probably every one large American company, has been targeted numerous times by discrimination lawsuits:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+discrimination+lawsuit&...

It’s simplistic to just trust the justice system in this case. Since short sellers pushing false narratives have drummed up a lot of hate, Tesla sometimes has to “take the hit” as Elon put it. Judges and juries have the power, not lawyers. And they are not perfect and neutral, even though in a naively idealistic notion they are supposed to be.

Also your points were well answered by a different commenter but instead of discussing the good, interesting points, someone just downvoted. This is how it goes with Tesla. It’s some kind of weird thing that happens with companies that make products perceived as luxury, I guess, but in this case aided by short seller media campaigns.

You think the justice system is stacked against Tesla? The US justice system?

> short sellers pushing false narratives have drummed up a lot of hate

I haven't really seen evidence of false narratives. They definately push negative news.

> Tesla sometimes has to “take the hit” as Elon put it.

Wait, you dismiss what short sellers say because of economic incentives but don't consider that Elon Musk could be putting out a false narrative? Because his entire personal net worth wouldn't collapse to zero if Tesla tanks?

At any rate, a jury trial is as good as you can get to determine truth. After all, highly paid people on both sides present as powerful an argument as they can to twelve disinterested people. How better to figure out what's true?

That is quite a spectacular claim. I would assume you have equally solid evidence to suggest that people routinely make up lawsuits like this?

Just because a case is not proven, does not mean a lawsuit is made up. Most legal systems have innocent until proven guilty and a high standard of proof. Many things which happen cannot always be proven with sufficient amount of evidence even if they happened. A classic case is rape, where it is often hard to produce evidence.

That an individual engage in a lawsuite that is made up can make sense. But when you got multiple people with the same kinds of complaints I think the probability of it being made up drops considerably.

> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.

If it's "sadly routine" and also unlawful then the people are not "cashing in" but are using the legal system to enforce their rights and ensure that companies are held to account for unlawful conduct. Saying that Tesla doesn't have an especially outsized problem is entirely beside the point. It's not a valid defense to say "sure my activities were unlawful but they weren't much more unlawful than other people - you're just picking on me because I'm high profile."

I don't know whether or not what they did was in fact unlawful, but deciding that is the whole point of the lawsuit.

Racism isn't just "rude". It's morally reprehensible and damaging across many dimensions for individuals and society at large. Even moreso at work, where such attitudes are irrelevant and have no place in furthering the business objectives.

> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work setting

Calling minority workers “lowlifes” is classy, and even if illegal race discrimination is pervasive in many blue collar work settings, so what? “Everyone employer does it” isn't a justification, just a reason that imposing consequences to break the practice is more urgent.

> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.

From the article:

"Tesla's treatment of Black employees was previously highlighted in a federal lawsuit filed by former employee Owen Diaz, who was awarded $137 million by a jury. After the jury trial, a federal judge rejected Tesla's claim that it is not liable for the "disturbing" racist abuse Diaz suffered but reduced the award to $15 million."

> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.

Painting racialized minorities as "lowlifes" because they've got the audacity to speak out about pervasive mistreatment is the kind of hot take I'd expect to see in the comments of Fox News.

I disagree because the same isn't happening with their competitors and the verdict against them has been consistent.

Indeed, and definately some bandwagoning involved. If one group gets an outsized settlement, then others are inspired to do dirt digging to do the same. Alleging pervasive racism is a tall order, and the evidence presented thus far amounts to he-said-she-said and between workers and some supervisors as far as we're aware of and not some leadership thing to go as far to say "standard operating procedure".

Tesla itself has engaged in frivolous lawsuits against competitors. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Citation needed.

They've sued Fisker, Rivian, Zoox, Xiaopeng, and more. Just Google "tesla lawsuit trade secret". Maybe some of those cases were legitimate, but were all of them? I doubt it. They seem to sue anybody who goes to a competitor, unless that person has a very low profile.

Thanks for the reply; now that you mention those keywords I do recall having heard of some of these. I guess "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder here.