Tesla workforce

[klunkerbus]

The EE interns work in the tire department.

I'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. 

[dannyf]

Tesla didn't do it, a subcontractor did.

That sounds like someone defending a bank CEO, or the "CEO" of the US government.

[ovnr]

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.

[zapta]

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.

Of course not, I am not a large corporation with legal department and compliance officers.  Different situations, different responsibilities.

[Marco]

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.

[Rick Law]

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.

The 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.

[Rick Law]

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.

Well I read the whole article now I'm even more convinced that Tesla would have known that the contractor was employing cheap foreign labour. You don't have hundreds of foreigners imported and working in a plant at slave wages without at the very least management knowing about it. Things like this would be well known between the workers in the plant as well as management. I have no need to personally target Tesla all large companies are the same. Tesla just used the contractor so they could take the heat when things go sideways.

Here there was a big press release about McD's abusing the temporary foreign workers Visa system to hire slave labour. Not only did they pay them jack shit, they put them in McDs owned housing and basically got what little they did pay them back. Everyone who worked in those Mcds knew what was going on just like everyone at Tesla did. Once that release came out it was followed by several other large companies doing similiar practices.

I also didn't see where in the article that Tesla paid fair market value and that is subjective anyway.

(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.

[Corporate666]

They are using low paid labour to be able to undercut the competition on contracts that is their reward.

I still have a hard time buying that a successful entrepreneur had no clue that a contractor was able to undercut the competion while not sacrificing anyhing. I know for example if I were to buy one of those boost converter modules off Ebay it's cheap because the chips are bogus and it uses mainly cheap components. I'm sure a multi billion dollar corporation has a staff of bean counters that do nothing other then costing materials and labour. I'm also sure the CEO and management all have enough experience to know how much materials and labour cost as well because they do it all the time.

I'm assuming the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder like it always is, well with the exception of goverment ones, then its awarded to family, friends or the highest palm greaser.

So 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.

[Rick Law]

They are using low paid labour to be able to undercut the competition on contracts that is their reward.

I still have a hard time buying that a successful entrepreneur had no clue that a contractor was able to undercut the competion while not sacrificing anyhing. I know for example if I were to buy one of those boost converter modules off Ebay it's cheap because the chips are bogus and it uses mainly cheap components. I'm sure a multi billion dollar corporation has a staff of bean counters that do nothing other then costing materials and labour. I'm also sure the CEO and management all have enough experience to know how much materials and labour cost as well because they do it all the time.

I'm assuming the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder like it always is, well with the exception of goverment ones, then its awarded to family, friends or the highest palm greaser.

So 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.

I 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.

[Marco]

The law actually has very clear documentation requirements.

I 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 ...

[Marco]

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.

You 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.

[Cerebus]

... Do-diligence is expected. ...

I think you'll find that's "Due diligence". It rather undermines ones argument about anything when one gets the basic terminology wrong.

[Rick Law]

... Do-diligence is expected. ...

I think you'll find that's "Due diligence". It rather undermines ones argument about anything when one gets the basic terminology wrong.

Well, 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?

[Cerebus]

... Do-diligence is expected. ...

I think you'll find that's "Due diligence". It rather undermines ones argument about anything when one gets the basic terminology wrong.

Well, 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?

I'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".

[zapta]

Just pointing out an error.

You mean an obvious spelling error.

[Rick Law]

... Do-diligence is expected. ...

I think you'll find that's "Due diligence". It rather undermines ones argument about anything when one gets the basic terminology wrong.

Well, 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?

I'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".

"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 was as really 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 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 (by them).

[lemmegraphdat]

SOP. Do what you want and say sorry later.

[ajb]

Well I read the whole article now I'm even more convinced that Tesla would have known that the contractor was employing cheap foreign labour. You don't have hundreds of foreigners imported and working in a plant at slave wages without at the very least management knowing about it. Things like this would be well known between the workers in the plant as well as management.

I 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.

[Rick Law]

...
...
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.

It 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 has explicit exclusion from 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 that Tesla 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 to at least have a good-faith effort to 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.

[dannyf]

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.

If 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.

[LabSpokane]

...
...
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.

It is the responsibility of the employer (with three or more employees) to check...

Exactly. 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.

[LabSpokane]

...
...
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.

It is the responsibility of the employer (with three or more employees) to check...

Exactly. 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.

There seems to be confusion on business reality in my opinion. These groups of businesses all interact with each other within the same circle of people and would know that contractor A exploits foreighn workers. It may not be common knowledge out of that circle but word gets out on these things it just does,. Most of the people who know reap the benifits so don't talk, the competitors don't talk out of fear of being black balled for other contracts or worse. Thats fucking reality.

edit
Tesla I’m sure has some peon they send out to get bids on contracts for the corporation he would know everything there is to know about his pool of contractors if he’s been doing it for more than a year and know how the game is played. That way the upper echelon at Tesla is well insulated for any blowback when shit like this happens. They will do an internal investigation maybe scapegoat the peon when they all knew dam well what was going on.

You are confusing Elon Musk with Ernst Blofeld.

[ajb]

Well I read the whole article now I'm even more convinced that Tesla would have known that the contractor was employing cheap foreign labour. You don't have hundreds of foreigners imported and working in a plant at slave wages without at the very least management knowing about it. Things like this would be well known between the workers in the plant as well as management.

I 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.

Maybe in your world not mine. I worked in a plant with 8k people and if all of a sudden a bunch of foreigners (contractors or not) showed up on our shifts we would notice. Theres always talk, like who the hell are all the new guys. Eventually they would start talking to them, I mean they work in the same place, you talk to people you work with. I suppose it may be possible if the workers were kept completely isolated from people but that would draw more attention.

Sure, 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.

[Marco]

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.

[Rick Law]

...
...
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.

It is the responsibility of the employer (with three or more employees) to check...

Exactly. 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.
...

Whether 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 knew that 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 book if you knew he 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.