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)
 * 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, 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 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 Proposed article mergers or WP:AfD if you think the article shouldn't exist.
 * A relevant essay that comes to mind is 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)

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 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:
 * 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)
 * 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/)
 * 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/)
 * 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 Sources. QRep2020 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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)