Ex-Tesla employee reveals shocking details on worker conditions: ‘You get fired on the spot.’::Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ‘ultra hardcore’ work culture is revealed to have led to long hours, unsafe conditions, and harassment for employees.
Ex-Tesla employee reveals shocking details on worker conditions: ‘You get fired on the spot.’::Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ‘ultra hardcore’ work culture is revealed to have led to long hours, unsafe conditions, and harassment for employees.
As a western European, to me the problem isn’t that they’re fired on the spot, but that a company can actually do that. You guys should’ve fought for your rights.
80 years of living in the church of capitalism will do that to you.
Not to mention protesting likely means becoming homeless. It means losing insurance, it means losing you car insurance and likely paying a hefty premium when you can get it again. It means losing access to food, Healthcare. It means risking being barred from future employment.
So let’s vote? Well turns out your district is shaped like a contorted snake, and unless you convince 60% of people who will vote for any loony who hates the same people they do, to help their neighbor for once, well you’re SOL.
Leaving your job doesn’t automatically mean becoming homeless and starving. That is a pretty extreme and unrealistic stance.
When 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (by design) it really does.
How do you propose they make rent the next month with no money?
By having a social security net like in any developed country
Did you maybe not see the context of my comment?
We’re talking about whether or not it’s feasible for your average American to quit their job in protest in order to secure workers rights (of which a social security net is part) and your contribution is that they can quit their job in protest to get things like a social security net, by already having a social security net?
Very helpful, thank you
Isn’t something like 50% of the US workforce paycheck to paycheck? That’s very much by design. Look up any strikebreaking action in history, the strategy is always for businesses to see if they can hold out longer than their workers, and if they can, no concessions are necessary.
Our stability and ability to strike is diametrically opposed to the desires of those in power. Until we get the guillotines out again, I’m not really sure how any of this could possibly change. Under capitalism, there is no incentive for it.
we could probably manage it with a concerted long rent strike, but everyone would have to be in on it, and the way this country is divided, doesn’t seem possible.
Sadly for too many people this is the case. If you’re paycheck to paycheck losing a job could leave you chose between starving or homelessness. Not to mention how long it might that unfortunate soul to get another source of income that is enough to back to just making it. They might have to settle for lower pay.
No it pretty much does, I’m lucky I’m on disability. Cuz in this one horse town, you can go months or years between jobs. I may be getting paid in chump change and pizza parties…
But at least I can eat pizza…
Too many of us thought of ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I did when I was a teenager, it seems most of our parents never grew out of being teenagers.
Don’t know why that was in past tense. This is still such a massive issue in American society.
Looking good for your age!
Welcome to ‘at-will employment’ America, where you can fire anyone for any reason as long as they can’t prove it was because you are one of the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act (does not include LGBT+ people). They can literally fire you because they don’t like your ears.
Yes it does.
Hey! What’s wrong with my ears??
Too round. Return your passkey and get out.
And political views aren’t a protected class. 🤡 World.
Are you comparing an intentional political stance that someone (hopefully) reasoned themselves into as equally inescapable of the colour of one’s skin, or sexual orientation?
Crazy thought, if you’re getting put on blast due to your political views you absolutely do not need to continue sharing them with the class.
You’re right perhaps you shouldn’t have all of media running interference for you and your ilk.
Let me get this right so you feel that it’s appropriate to discriminate in the workplace based on political views? You would.
Certain views?
Absolutely.
“All libs should be executed in the streets” is a political view.
And that is why it is not a protected class.
Is that what I said or even alluded to? Or is it just your prerogative to put words in people’s mouths? You think it’s perfectly acceptable that liberals outnumbers everyone in the workplace perhaps in your big city, however you’re far from the majority.
The sooner you wake up to that the better.
Yes, I think if your political views are actively hurting someone or advocating for harm to a group of people then you should be held responsible for the shit that comes out of your own mouth.
This is not even remotely comparable to being unable to fire someone just because they’re black, or gay, or a woman.
USA. The no vacation nation.
No way. That would be un American. /s
they can’t, really. they probably see a lot of wrongful termination lawsuits, and try to settle them out of court.
Wrongful termination suits are hard to win. If they can point at you failing to do your job in any way your case is shot.
Population density, it’s easy to protest when the capital is just 30 minutes away by bike like it is in a lot of Western European countries.
Conversely, I’m an American, it will take days for me to reach the nearest major city by car… it will take me around 2.5 hours to reach the newest minor City.
I live in North Carolina by the way.
You could drive through three countries in Western europe, by the time I could get to my nation’s capital. My nation’s capital is in virginia, that is the state north of me.
Much of our population lives in California, Texas, and New York, all much much further away from Washington DC then where I live.
Combine that with the fact that a lot of us can’t take any days off of work without falling way behind on our bills, and even if the capital was somewhere where we could all get to it to hold picket signs… there is simply too much to lose, the workers of the world can’t Unite when there is more on the table than our chains. I hate it here
I get your point that the US is big, but it shouldn’t take days to get to a major city from anywhere in NC. It’s what, a 9 hour drive to Washington from the furthest end of NC?
Maybe 10 hours if you’re in Murphy and there’s a rock slide. If you’re on Ocracoke island after 9 PM you might have to wait for morning for the next ferry.
Also, it’s REAL hard to be 6 hours away from Charlotte while you’re in either of the Carolinas, as long as you can travel at the Interstate speed limits. You should be able to drive from Bath to Boone in about 10 hours.
Ok I’m not even from the states, but you should be able to get to Washington DC in less than a day from North Carolina. Hell, anywhere on the east coast is within 5 hours from a huge metropolitan centre
Fellow Tarheel here, and bud if it takes you “days” to drive to the nearest major city, you should have your car looked at. I drove from San Diego to Raleigh in 60 hours once.
deleted by creator
Notice how that’s almost three days
This example was provided as an estimated upper limit - you could drive to basically the furthest-away big city within 60 hours. Other cities would be substantially less than that, because that’s an upper limit.
Driving from a small town on the western tip of NC… let’s say Franklin, NC, to Washington DC takes only 8 hours… but driving to Knoxville, TN or Atlanta, GA would only take you 2 hours.
If that drive takes you “days” by car, you might have an issue.
Do you walk to those cities or what?
Do you think that in Europe we all live right next to the capital or even next to one of the top 4 biggest cities of our country?
I literally already said that the times listed were driving. America as a country is too big for protest to be a feasible solution.
Why don’t you protest on the steps of the company you work at?
The trade off between job security and arbitrary firings and people who are unproductive but can’t be fired.
The first is a problem for the worker, the second is mainly a problem for the employer.
While I bet that the employers claim that it’s impossible to do and will lead to the downfall of the economy it has worked just fine in Europe.
And yet productivity is very similar between the US and Europe…
I do think it’s good to create a healthy culture that respects workers, but I don’t understand why being able to fire an employee is a bad thing
Imagine you’re not allowed to fire people you don’t like who you think are doing a bad job at work
It’s obviously not forbidden to fire people. You just can’t do it like that, because you woke up grumpy that particular morning. Employees are highly protected in France, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be fired.
That should be fine though, that’s freedom of association, why force people to work together who don’t want to do so?
I personally don’t find it fine. You’re talking as if everyone is equal meanwhile, most of the time, there is a subordination. People usually don’t say “I want to work with that guy because I think he’s nice”. Sometimes it’s “I need to work anywhere because I need to feed my children and simply survive”. Those people can’t live in fear of losing their job everytime their boss has a twisted testicle, they can’t afford being jobless. Their lives depend on it.
But it’s something quite cultural, that’s how we decided to build our society.
It has flaws though : corporations can become quite cautious when hiring someone, making sure they fit well and won’t cause any trouble.
Exactly this.
It’s an adjustment of power and privilege, we protect the ones with less power from the ones with the money. And since it goes both ways, in Sweden you usually have at least 3 months termination period. This allows the companies to find a replacement and not being left stranded when an important employee leaves.
The US, for a country being proud of not having any kings they are sure hell bent on creating new ones in every company.
Because people require a job in order to survive in this capitalist hell scape.
If you want to fire them sure, but you will still need to pay them 2-3 months of wages so they can comfortably search for a new job.
Same with employees, if they want to quit they will need to stay 2-3 months so the employer has time to look for a replacement.
Yeah it’s not all or nothing though. You’re acting like outside the US it’s impossible to fire people. That’s simply not even remotely true.
Indeed. That still happens. Just you have to have a valid reason to fire them. Not liking someone is a petty reason to fire someone. Not doing their job is another thing altogether.
the “valid reason” is you don’t like them, why would we want to force people to work together who don’t like each other?
You did well on the first one. Now you are just obviously trolling.
It’s sincere, I don’t think people are thinking through what they’re asking for
OK I’ll bite. Noone is being forced to work together. If you don’t like a colleague you can find a new job. But you can’t get someone fired just because you don’t like them, that is petty, selfish and childish. You seem to be taking extreme examples. Try looking at how the world outside America actually handles employment law before making wild assumptions that protecting employees from mini dictators means that people are forced to work together.
You just need to lose that American anti-worker mindset.
That isn’t a valid reason to stop paying someone though.
Since they need that pay in order to survive.
So every developed nation requires employers to pay their fired workers a couple of months of pay in advance.
> I don’t want to work at this company anymore so I quit, I just don’t feel like working here anymore
Seems ok for the employee to quit “at will” so why not for the employer?
Bc companies aren’t people. Corporations and humans are in no way two equal entities. There is no reason to think the laws should be set in any way other than ensuring people have their needs met.