The EE interns work in the tire department.
Tesla didn't do it, a subcontractor did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The law actually has very clear documentation requirements.
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.
... Do-diligence is expected. ...
... 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.
... 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?
Just pointing out an error.
... 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".
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.
...
...
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 well publicized in the news (unavoidable election season news bombardment) that some had hope to modify the law but the law has not changed.
...
...
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...
...
...
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.
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.
...
...
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.
...