Tesla workforce

[Cerebus]

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.

You're talking about vicarious liability. It's well established that an employer has vicarious liability for their employees and agents (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 of agency and 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.

[Rick Law]

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.

You're talking about vicarious liability. It's well established that an employer has vicarious liability for their employees and agents (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 of agency and 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.

I 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.}
---

[mtdoc]

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?

Since 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?

*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}

Very 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.

[Cerebus]

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).

It'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.

[Rick Law]

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?

Since 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?
...
...

Mtdoc,

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.

[Marco]

Now, if they show that the subcontractor handed them copies fake work-visas

The 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 the
employment eligibility of employees as authorized by this MOU. The Employer agrees that it will
safeguard this information, and means of access to it (such as PINS and passwords),  to ensure that it
is not used for any other purpose and as nec essary to prot ect its confidentiality, including ensuring that
it is not disseminated to any person other than employees of the Employer who are authorized to
perform the Employer's responsibilities under this MOU,  except for such dissemination as may be
authorized in advance by SSA or DHS for legitimate purposes."

Combine that with this recent question to 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 :/

[mtdoc]

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).

It'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.

Yes, precisely.

[Rick Law]

Now, if they show that the subcontractor handed them copies fake work-visas

The 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 the
employment eligibility of employees as authorized by this MOU. The Employer agrees that it will
safeguard this information, and means of access to it (such as PINS and passwords),  to ensure that it
is not used for any other purpose and as nec essary to prot ect its confidentiality, including ensuring that
it is not disseminated to any person other than employees of the Employer who are authorized to
perform the Employer's responsibilities under this MOU,  except for such dissemination as may be
authorized in advance by SSA or DHS for legitimate purposes."

Combine that with this recent question to 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 :/

Yeah, government bureaucrats.  They do have ways to make the simple convoluted.

[mtdoc]

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.

I 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.

  I double very much the State would have given them money to commit crimes. 

Ignoring 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.

So, not only did the said company did the bad things, they also swindled the money from us to do it.

Swindled 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:

swindle
[swin-dl]

verb (used with object), swindled, swindling.
1.
to cheat (a person, business, etc.) out of money or other assets.
2.
to obtain by fraud or deceit.

As 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)

[Rick Law]

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).

It'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.

Yes, precisely.

Tesla, 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 repeats and 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 is actually rather obvious public fund should be for public good and 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 argumentative or just trying to be silly or whatever.

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.

I 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.

  I double very much the State would have given them money to commit crimes. 

Ignoring 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.

So, not only did the said company did the bad things, they also swindled the money from us to do it.

Swindled 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:

swindle
[swin-dl]

verb (used with object), swindled, swindling.
1.
to cheat (a person, business, etc.) out of money or other assets.
2.
to obtain by fraud or deceit.

As 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)

[zapta]

As 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)

Not allowing? They promote the government subsidies to increase sales

https://www.teslamotors.com/support/incentives

The government subsidizes millionaires and billionaires. Must makes Bernie mad as hell.

[mtdoc]

Tesla, if fully privately funded, would just have the lesser obligation of merely their fiduciary duty to their stock holders.

Fact: 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.

This project is partially public funded (granted by politician),

MtDoc, by the way, swindle is the right word.  I seriously doubt the State had in mind giving them money to do anything illegal.

I'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 what Tesla did that was illegal.

There surely was some cheating that went on.  Whether they did it directly or via a subcontractor, it was still cheating.

As 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.

  You missed the article quoted which clearly cited their public funding.   

  Only the Brietbart article focuses on this and they cite (as stated above) a government loan and corporate tax credits. It is you  that were focused in your post on the tax credit that consumers get.

Whether it was directly to the company or indirectly via the buyer is unimportant.

Well 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.

I would think it is actually rather obvious public fund should be for public good and those spending public funds has the moral obligation to aim for public good.

As 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.

[mtdoc]

As 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)

Not allowing? They promote the government subsidies to increase sales

You entirely missed the point. I was stating that hypothetically if they did not allow it then that would 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.

[CatalinaWOW]

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.

[zapta]

As 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)

Not allowing? They promote the government subsidies to increase sales

You entirely missed the point. I was stating that hypothetically if they did not allow it then that would subject them to lawsuits by shareholders. That could be construed as swindling - unlike what Rick suggests.

You 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-california

This is a corrupt business model. 

[LabSpokane]

This is a corrupt business model.

Like 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.

[zapta]

This is a corrupt business model.

Like the business models that depend on trillions of dollars of bloody military intervention spanning over nearly a century to preserve access to petroleum? 

Yes, 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.

[Cerebus]

Not allowing? They promote the government subsidies to increase sales

https://www.teslamotors.com/support/incentives

The government subsidizes millionaires and billionaires. Must makes Bernie mad as hell.

What 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.

... If Tesla did not allow ...

If, he said If. 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!

[zapta]

... If Tesla did not allow ...

If, he said If. 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!

I 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.

[LabSpokane]

This is a corrupt business model.

Like the business models that depend on trillions of dollars of bloody military intervention spanning over nearly a century to preserve access to petroleum? 

Yes, 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.

You should tell the US Navy in the Persian Gulf that their mission is mythical.

[Cerebus]

...actively lobbing the government...

They'd need a bloody strong right arm to do that!  Not a bad idea though...

[zapta]

...actively lobbing the government...

They'd need a bloody strong right arm to do that!  Not a bad idea though...

Of 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"

[Cerebus]

...actively lobbing the government...

They'd need a bloody strong right arm to do that!  Not a bad idea though...

Of 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"

You 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.

[Rick Law]

Tesla, if fully privately funded, would just have the lesser obligation of merely their fiduciary duty to their stock holders.

Fact: 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.

This is just one level of insulation and they already managed confused the public?

Be serious, I think you do see that paying 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.

[calexanian]

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.