Tesla will move its headquarters to Texas, Elon Musk says

All that winning California is doing based off of liberal values.

Love it!

 

In a manner of speaking. You have to be educated to work for a company like Tesla, and educated people tend to vote Democrat.

 

But he's moving to Austin nobody needs to follow him there there are plenty of Democrats already there. Do you know anything about Texas?

 

At what point did you realize you had an irrational hatred for one man?

 

Anti-union is the correct terminology, not anti-labor. To the uninitiated abolishing "right to work" laws sounds absolutely ridiculous.

 

LMAO, if you say so IQ levels are clearly Tesla's number one priority..

Tesla racism lawsuit: Why the verdict is a big deal in the fight against forced arbitration (msn.com)

 

To the educated it won't sound absolutely ridiculous, especially once they realize that they are being treated like cattle living off of bread crumbs in some cases. One thing they will realize is the conservatives in this country support "freeloaders" despite their claims to the opposite. Life is a great teacher.

 

While I think your wrong I believe the biggest issue is that those that lean right or more conservative generally tend to do less group think and are more individually based in their thought processes which is harder to manipulate and control like all the far left.

 

You can’t find a union based workplace that runs more efficiently than non-union. NEVER. I can speak first hand for production/entertainment and Union people are the laziest mother truckers on the planet.

 

Who hired them? Management of course. So because management can't do their jobs properly they blame the union. Perhaps if you fired the inefficient managers who hire people in the first place, you might get better employees.

I worked in production/entertainment for close to 40 years and I can tell you that our union people were hard workers because we only hired the best, had good working conditions and paid the highest wages in the market. Both the union and company formed a working partnership which benefited both parties. You'd do well to learn to work together as opposed to having an adversarial relationship with organized labor.

 

In general unions have some of the lazier people. Union stewards everywhere have the same story 80% of their time spending getting 20% that didnt deserve it off the hook.

 

If the prospective employees were properly vetted by the employer, that number would be much lower. Btw non-union people can be just as lazy as some unionized people as well. I've seen it first hand.

 

Good point.

 

In the entertainment industry you don’t know who you’re going to get. Unions choose and you’re stuck using them or paying them to sit. You have no control. That’s the point. If you’re at a union location you’re at their mercy.

And non union guys can of course be lazy. But no one protects them. And they sure as **** don’t work with or for me

 

Not through my experience; all the employees work for the same company and are hired by the same company. The union is not a hiring hall if that's what you are implying.

I don't know what planet you are on, but unions don't "protect" their members, rather they "represent" them as required by law. But you wouldn't know anything about that since you are anti-union.

 

@Pred said correctly that in some industries, or parts of some industries, unions do in fact operate as generic hiring halls. Unions do to in fact provide worker protection in terms of many work rules and processes that are bargained for.

 

Hiring halls are mainly found in blue collar trades; in white collar unions (which is what my response was directed at) very few hiring halls exist, instead the companies hire the employees directly and the union "represents" them for purposes of collective bargaining.

As far as providing "worker protection, what they have is a labor contract which spells out the terms and conditions of employment; you could toss in the word "protection" however it's meaning is not one of "protecting the worker" rather it's "representing" the worker, which under labor law is what they legally are supposed to do.

 

If I was Texas, I’d politely ask them to reconsider the move

 

Can't disagree much. Some say potato some say potäto.

 

100% agree on non union employees can be equally lazy. The solution is remove them from the company at a non union. In a union they keep their job time after time.

 

Can confirm.

I've worked for a major company for over 20 years, in union and non union shops.

Extra funny part, I work (in a parallel company) with their top union stewards.

They can't touch me but they pretend to be conservative.

I ask them (since they are conservative) why they let leftist union shops represent them?

Crickets.

I point out non union shops make more, have better benefits, and don't have an antagonistic relationship with management.

Their response was they had the wrong union to represent them.

I asked who's fault that was?

Now, almost all of those old union goat leaders are fired.

They got fired for the lamest things, and most after 18 or 19 years of service.

 

Not where I come from; we've had unionized employees who were problematic and were terminated from employment. In fact I recall one manager (who had hired a few other problematic employees without doing a proper background check) who was fired for failing to do his job.

The difference between terminating a non-union employee and a unionized one is that you have to have just cause and prove it in front of an arbitrator or hearing board whereas a non-union employee can--as we call it in the trades--be thrown out on a whim with the trash at the end of the day.

 

Union is good on the surface but we are no where near the labor problems of the 1900s in todays world unions aren't in the companies that need them and in the companies that would be better off without them.

A union factory in my town traded their pension for 10 cents an hour raise and went to a normal 401k. They also have to higher outside contractors from the union hall for maintenance because they cant higher enough maintenance because the union wont let them pay enough but the contractors come in making $9 an hour mor.

 

I see your point and agree with some of it but (and like you my experiences are anecdotal) I've seen fork truck drivers go to work drunk destroy a cell not once but twice and all he got after the second time was transferred to a different job.

 

In my job (we didn't have fork lift operators) the first time you would have been sent for review treatment and if found that you had--in their opinion--a drinking issue, then you would have been sent for treatment. If a second occurrence happened, then the company would move for discharge and the union would normally try to get the discharge changed over to a resignation so if he/she can be rehabbed, he/she wouldn't have a discharge on his/her records with hopes that it wouldn't interfere with applying for a new job somewhere else.