Talk:Tesla and unions/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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

~~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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
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]
Done. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.
Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

One follow up comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 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.'

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

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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]

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