A fact from Tesla and unions appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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)reply
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.
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".
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)reply
"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.
"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?
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.
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)reply
"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)reply
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.'
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.
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 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:[1],[2] ,[3] and [4]. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
21:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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[5][6]. However, more recent data and Tesla's own communications suggest efforts to align these rates with industry standards[7].
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
A fact from Tesla and unions appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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)reply
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.
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".
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)reply
"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.
"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?
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.
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)reply
"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)reply
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.'
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.
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 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:[1],[2] ,[3] and [4]. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
21:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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[5][6]. However, more recent data and Tesla's own communications suggest efforts to align these rates with industry standards[7].
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply