Talk:Tesla and unions

Article name

Maybe we should rename this History of Tesla Unionization Efforts and set Tesla Union as a redirect? QRep2020 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Tesla unionization effort would be the shortest. Calling it a history would be misleading with all the ongoing initiatives. I agree that Tesla union as a title is misleading. Tesla union drive would be my punny but also succinct alternative suggestion ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

QRep2020 Edit: I changed it to Tesla union drive for simplicity. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Tesla and unions" would probably be more WP:NPOV, most of the present content is about Europe; where-as the WP:LEDE appears more US-centric. —Sladen (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

POV tag

Hello Ita140188, you added a {{POV}} tag on the article, could you elaborate further? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure this topic deserves an article by itself. I think it gives undue weight to this controversy while it could easily be covered within a section in the Tesla article. See WP:CRITS. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently Tesla Inc. is 76kb which is the range in which Wikipedia:Splitting recommends splitting article content, all the more so because Criticism of Tesla which is what WP:CRITICISM discourages (and I agree) has content that I'd like to merge here as well in a more balanced/neutral way. I disagree that an article about labor/trade unions is inherently criticism. On the contrary, framing all/any labor relations as criticisms is in itself a POV.

I am fairly confident this article passes WP:GNG and if there are specific things that can be written in more neutral way, please either directly edit it or or state what the issue is. I will remove the POV tag, and suggest you either find specific POV violations or propose Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers or WP:AfD if you think the article shouldn't exist.

A relevant essay that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"Tesla CEO Elon Musk has commented negatively on trade unions in relation to Tesla." is missing a source

See title. 2001:7C7:1180:810:A076:5EFB:B455:E506 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs technically do not require sources if their statements are summarizing what is expressed below. QRep2020 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tesla and unions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No images to review; Earwig finds no issues. Will look at sources next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• What makes wnylabortoday.com a reliable source?

   Done Now removed, the article rotted too and wasn't archived ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• There's a "needs update" tag on the "as of 2016" statement in the lead; can you update that? If the information is not available, I'm OK with deleting the tag.
• Everything in the lead should also be in the body, since the lead is a summary of the body of the article. The statement that "Tesla was the only major American auto manufacturer without a union in the United States or Germany" appears not to be in the body, though in the Germany section it does say "one of the few".

   Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  The lead now says "As of 2016, Tesla was the only major American auto manufacturer without a union in the United States. It is similar in Germany." "Similar" doesn't really mean anything here -- if it means "only" by reference to the previous sentence then it's not supported in the body. The situation in Germany seems a bit difficult to summarize concisely for an English-speaking audience, since there is a works council and a Betriebsvereinbarung. The statements at the start of the "Germany" section probably should have an "As of 2021", by the way, since the supporting source is dated 2021. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

   Done. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's fixed, but the "As of 2016" date has been removed -- I think it needs to be put back in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite facing allegations of high injury rates, long hours, and below-industry pay, efforts to unionize the workforce have been largely unsuccessful." Suggest deleting "facing"; the company faced these allegations, not the efforts.

   Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "In October 2017, Tesla fired Richard Ortiz, which the NLRB later ruled to be illegal retaliation". We need to say who Ortiz is -- he hasn't been mentioned before. Was he working with Moran to help organize for the UAW?

   Done yup and elaborated! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• What was the reasoning behing the NLRB's order? That "give up stock options" is a threat? From the footnote I see that's the case, but I think that should be clearer to the reader without making them go to the footnotes.

   Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be any mention of unions in the "Grohmann" subsection; it's just about negotiations. From the intro to the section I would guess Grohmann was unionized when acquired but is not now; is that right?

   Done Grohmann did not seem to have a collective agreement before. That said, I think what it means to be 'unionized' or not, has different meaning in Germany from US. Here, a Works Council negotiated with assistance of IG Metall (and individual union members even threatening a strike) to achieve a Works Council agreement. I expanded on this subtlety as much as I could. The union involvement is notable enough here imho. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "initiated a Works Council proceeding": what does this mean? That they wanted to establish a Works Council?
• What's the relevance of the Netherlands section? Again there's no mention of unions. If the topic of the article is really "Tesla's labor relations" I think it should be renamed, but I also think that would significantly expand the scope of the article.

   Done sadly agreed. I expected to find more sources about FNV and the Tilburg plant in Dutch perhaps, but have not succeeded so far. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass; once these points are addressed I'll read through again and do some spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Christie for the first round of reviews, I believe it is ready for a second round. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

One follow up comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks -- footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 6 cites "In October 2017, Tesla fired Richard Ortiz who was organizing alongside Moran, which the NLRB later ruled to be illegal retaliation." Mostly verified, but there's no mention of Moran -- I would just make this "who had been one of the union organizers" or something like that to avoid the need for another source.'

 Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• FNs 17 & 18 cite "In February 2023, workers at Gigafactory New York in Buffalo involved with labeling data for Tesla Autopilot announced a unionization effort with Workers United. Workers United is affiliated to SEIU, the same union that successfully led the union drive at the Starbucks store also in Buffalo." I can't see the text of FN 18; from the other source I can see support for some of this -- the date, the fact that these workers label data for Autopilot in Buffalo, the mention of Workers United. I can't see anything that names the location as Gigafactory, or the mention of Starbucks -- can you quote here the bits of FN 18 that support that?

 Done replaced CNBC source with Verge article that explicitly references Gigafactory. The Bloomberg source can be accessed with WP:LIBRARY account here and additionally, I have enclosed two open-access news articles so others can verify it too, even if they don't have WMF Library access. It discusses the first Starbucks union store being 6 mile away and being supported by Jaz Brisack a barista/union organizer. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• FN 14 cites "In March 2022 Musk invited the United Auto Workers (UAW) union to hold a vote at their convenience." Verified -- I can only see snippets of this source but it looks OK to me.
• FN 3 cites "In 2010, Tesla acquired the formerly unionized NUMMI plant in Fremont, California which was rebranded as the Tesla Fremont Factory." I don't see support for "rebranded as the Tesla Fremont Factory". If you just mean that it became a Tesla factory in Fremont, rather than it acquired this specific name, I'd rephrase -- perhaps just deleting everything after "California" would do it.

 Partly done I have changed inline text, but also added a source that explicitly states NUMMI was rebranded. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie I believe your spot checks have been addressed, and also the claim in the lede. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

All the spotchecks look good now. There's one unstruck point above -- I think another editor took out the "as of 2016" in the lead; once you put that back in I can promote this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Passing; last fix is done. Congratulations! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tesla, Inc. is the only major auto manufacturer not represented by a union in the United States? Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-launch-union-campaign-new-york-2023-02-14/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Colonial Pipeline oil spill

Improved to Good Article status by Shushugah (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tesla and unions; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Promoted to GA on the day of the DYK. Very good article on a topical issue that I suspect will get a LOT of clicks. Hook directly cited, all checks green, lots of high-quality cites. Might suggest adding an image, perhaps the lead image in the Tesla Fremont Factory article, which has relevance as one of the primary sites mentioned within. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke and Maury Markowitz: is it the company that is represented by the union, or its workers? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: based on the cited source it seems to be the workers so I can modify the hook to be.

• Alt1"... that Tesla, Inc. is the only major auto manufacturer whose workers are not represented by a union in the United States?"

Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere, but the source doesn't seem to fully support the claim. The source says [Telsa,] up until now has managed to avoid unionization at its U.S. facilities unlike other major automakers. that doesn't seem to fully rule out the idea that another major automaker isn't unionized, and looks more like a general statement than a definitive one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern About Neutral Point of View Regarding Tesla and Unions

Hello fellow editors,

I recently edited the article to remove the line "Despite allegations of high injury rates, long hours, and below-industry pay, efforts to unionize the workforce have been largely unsuccessful." There were two primary reasons for this removal:

1. Lack of Sourcing: The claim lacked a reliable source to back it up. Such unsourced assertions can introduce bias and potentially undermine the accuracy of the article.
2. Neutrality Concern: The language of the statement seemed to lean towards a non-neutral point of view. The wording "Despite allegations" presents a perspective that may not align with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. As one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, maintaining a neutral point of view is critical, and this phrasing appeared to potentially compromise that pillar.

After my edit, the user Shushugah reinstated the original content. I would appreciate clarification from Shushugah or any other editor regarding the reasons for this reinstatement, especially considering the concerns I've raised.

In line with Wikipedia's core policies, particularly WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and WP:VERIFY (Verifiability), I believed that my removal was warranted. However, I deeply value collaboration and consensus. If anyone has a reliable source to support this claim or suggestions to rephrase it neutrally, I'm open to discussing its reintegration or other compromises to ensure the article's neutrality and accuracy.

Thank you for your understanding and looking forward to a productive discussion.

Butter142 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Butter142 I have not restored them in either of the two cases, rather QRep2020 did. You removed them from the WP:LEDE which summarises the rest of the article. We have three examples of below industry wages in the US, Tesla Automation and Gigafactory Berlin as well as high injury rates. Even though they're sourced with data/statistics, they're still weighted as allegations. If you have concrete suggestion on rewording them, that's useful to discuss. Even better, let's add more sourcing/background on both topics. See for example with USA Fremont injury rates:, , and . ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for the oversight, @Shushugah. If you'd prefer me not to mention you directly, I will respect that in future discussions.

Let's delve into the sources provided, @QRep2020:

1. Source 1: Over six years old, which is significant in the auto manufacturing industry. Wong, Julia Carrie (2017-05-24). "Tesla workers were seriously hurt more than twice as often as industry average". The Guardian.(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/24/tesla-factory-workers-injuries-higher-than-industry-average)
2. Source 2: Uses data from 2014 to 2018, highlighting a potential misrepresentation of the current scenario. Ohnsman, Alan. "Inside Tesla's Model 3 Factory, Where Safety Violations Keep Rising". Forbes.(https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-safety-violations-dwarf-big-us-auto-plants-in-aftermath-of-musks-model-3-push/)
3. Source 3: Revolves around data and events from 2018. Perry, Will Evans, Alyssa Jeong (2018-04-16). "Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books". Reveal.(http://revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/)
4. Source 4: Relates to events from 2020. Eidelson, Josh; Bloomberg, Dana Hull (2020-03-06). "Tesla left hundreds of injuries out of its workplace reports, California regulator says". Los Angeles Times.(https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-06/tesla-left-injuries-out-of-reports-california-safety-regulator-says)

While I recognize the validity of these sources, they mostly highlight an older phase of the Tesla factory's timeline. Additionally, Tesla's blog post from 02-04-2020 here indicates that their injury rate has improved over time. Here is a direct quote from the link above "Our injury rate continues to be below the industry average. The Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIR) at our Fremont factory improved compared to 2018 and is 5% better than the industry average for large manufacturers according the Bureau of Labor Statistic"

As for the "below-industry pay" claim, there seems to be evidence to backup the claims that Tesla pay vs Union Pay is lower, but then goes on to state that "Tesla is also shaking up conventional German contracts by offering packages with stock options and bonuses rather than predetermined holiday pay." This means that conventionally weighing compensation with salary may not be the most efficient way to value total compensation. All I'm saying is that we should be weary making an across the board claim that Tesla offers lower compensation than union shops, especially since it's manufacturing facilities span across many countries with different laws and customs.

Butter142 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Given our ongoing discussion regarding neutrality and the need for a comprehensive perspective on the topic, I'd like to propose some actionable changes:

1. Removal from the Lead:

Considering the reasons and sources we've previously discussed, I suggest removing the following line from the lead:

"Despite allegations of high injury rates, long hours, and below-industry pay, efforts to unionize the workforce have been largely unsuccessful."

2. Addition of a New Subsection:

I propose introducing a new subsection titled

Accusations of Lower Pay and Safety Concerns:

During specific periods, Tesla faced scrutiny over worker safety and wage structures. Early reports indicated that the company's injury rates exceeded industry averages. However, more recent data and Tesla's own communications suggest efforts to align these rates with industry standards.

On the topic of compensation, there's been debate over Tesla's pay model. While some direct salary comparisons suggest potential discrepancies with industry standards, Tesla's inclusion of stock options and bonuses presents a multifaceted compensation approach. This makes direct comparisons challenging, particularly considering Tesla's global operational footprint and varied regional employment practices.

Would love to hear feedback from other editors on these proposed changes.

--Butter142 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Butter142 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the longer reply, and there was no issue with tagging me. I was not the one to reinstate any content and wanted to clarify that.

For my thoughts. I'm wary of some of the WP:WEASEL words and WP:Original research presented here, for example "it suggests" or "there's been debate" etc..

I agree that explaining direct comparisons are complex/improper etc.. for reasons you mentioned, which is why we rely on what analysis secondary sources have. As the numbers aren't straightforward, we don't delve into specific labor costs, stock vs healthcare vs base salary compensation in the article.

The concern about date of reports is mitigated by saying "From 2006 to 2014, injury rates were above average automotive sector" or something to that affect. What happened after 2014 is not something any editor should be casting aspersion on. It might be higher, it might be lower. But Tesla's own PR as WP:PRIMARY should be weighted accordingly. Either we leave the present/later out, or search for more fresh/recent sourcing, which I'm certain exists. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I still don't see why we should change the sentence: There are allegations addressed in the article, so we mention that fact in the lead paragraphs. Furthermore, the article elsewhere cites plenty of other, newer articles that reestablish the basis for the mentioned allegations and organizing, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-14/tesla-autopilot-workers-launch-union-campaign-in-buffalo-new-york-tsla#xj4y7vzkg. If the age of the immediately referenced articles is the only concern, then we can easily supplement them with stock material.

If you want to propose other changes to the article, you should make a separate Talk page discussion as prescribed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. But, for the sake of expediency, the primary problem with the drafted subsection is the basis of its points comes from Tesla versus an independent reliable third party source. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Sources. QRep2020 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Nordic translations

If anyone can help with translating this article into Swedish, Danish, or another Nordic language, it would greatly help to expand the reach of this topic to relevant audiences. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)