SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the quantity-over-quality;-money-before-people dept.
Jessica Goodheart authored a story in Capital & Main (co-published by Slate) which reports:
While SolarCity has been an incredible job engine, for some workers the pace of growth has come at a cost. In lawsuits and interviews, workers allege being denied overtime, meal and bathroom breaks, minimum wages, and complain about managers' inattention to quality and safety.
"At first it was good", [former SolarCity employee George] Estrada remembers. But four years later, after SolarCity had exploded in size, from 2,500 employees to more than 15,000, Estrada quit, disillusioned by what he says was the company's focus on meeting sales goals over workmanship and the well-being of its employees.
[...] The industry also includes smaller regional firms such as Sullivan Solar Power in San Diego, where Estrada went to work after leaving SolarCity. Started in 2004, Sullivan Solar Power built its customer base slowly and aimed at creating a highly trained and well-compensated workforce. Estrada would find a different pace of work there, one that he says has allowed him to focus more care on each customer and to build a future as a skilled electrician, able to find work in any industry.
At SolarCity, crews are provided with "panel pay", a bonus system that incentivizes speed by paying installers for every panel they install if that rate is higher than their hourly wage. According to Estrada, the rapid pace led to leaky roofs when holes drilled to secure the panels weren't properly sealed, requiring return visits after customers complained.
[...] Estrada claims he was asked by supervisors to accept bonuses in exchange for not reporting overtime. Because of the pace of work, he was unable to get time off to be with his family, he says. In 2016, he quit, before the company began laying off workers.
[...] Some workers I interviewed spoke highly of the company, crediting SolarCity with providing ample training and promotion opportunities, generous benefits, as well as a chance to be part of an innovative company on the forefront of the move toward clean energy. One former installer, a graduate of Homeboy Industries' training program, described SolarCity as "the best job I ever had" and is now earning $55,000 a year as an inspector for the company. Kevin Midei, who worked as an installer in Maryland in 2015, and who now runs his own business, says SolarCity is "cool" and "forward-looking," and, he says, in reference to the 2016 layoffs, "like any other young industry," it faces ups and downs.
George Estrada, however, is hardly alone in criticizing SolarCity's employment practices. Ravi Whitworth, another installer, and four other plaintiffs, are seeking class action status in an amended complaint filed in March in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claiming that the company denied them overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest breaks.
The company did not provide its workers access to bathrooms during worktime, requiring them to urinate in bottles or buckets while on the job, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs--installers from various parts of California--claim to represent 2,000 workers at the company.
One of the lawsuit's allegations--that SolarCity failed to compensate installers for travel between jobs--was repeated in another lawsuit by former SolarCity crew leader John Zazueta, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2016.
Zazueta also alleges he was fired by SolarCity after he refused to perform electrical work under conditions he deemed unsafe. His charge echoes Estrada's claim that, when he worked out of the San Diego warehouse, certified electricians "would get fired if they asked too many questions".
Some of the lawsuit allegations are also echoed by "Jake", a Southern California field inspection coordinator for SolarCity who requested that his real name not be used in this article. He confirmed that installers clock out between jobs and also said the company was not always forthcoming with promised wages.
"There's the thing where they promise if you get it done in a certain amount of time, you get this bonus pay, but it never happens", he said.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @04:30PM (7 children)
Your attitude is about making america a shit hole. You're just a knee jerk reactionary that thinks people are lazy and entitled, so unless a workplace violation is near war crime status you think they are being babies.
Want to MAGA the fuck out of the country? Prohibit any business from growing beyond 1,000 people. Every corporation must fracture into dozens or hundreds of businesses, and cap the highest salary (including bonuses etc) at 10x the lowest paid employee.
Solved it for you, but you'll come back with complaints because your a temporarily embarrassed millionaire who wants the privilege of one day screwing over some workers so you can live it up on their dime. Welfare of a different sort.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday April 24 2017, @05:19PM (1 child)
A prohibition on large size is too strict. I think. Just multiply the tax rate by the number of times the company exceeds 1000 in size, so a company with 2000 people would pay twice as much in taxes as a company with 1000 people. Of course, now everyone is robotizing everything possible...but that's coming anyway, and there may be first-mover advantages.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24 2017, @06:17PM
This may not be the right formula, but it is an interesting idea.
There can be some benefit in having some big companies. But they should not become such mega concentrations of wealth that they can take over governments and buy and sell officials like trading cards.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24 2017, @06:22PM
There are some benefits to companies bigger than 1,000 people.
I like the fact that anywhere I happen to be, if I see a McDonalds, I instantly know exactly what I could get there, even if it is not the best food. Or if I see a Target store, I probably know what items they carry.
It's nice if some company comes up with a particularly good product and lots of people would like to be able to buy it no matter what part of the country they happen to live in. Why should I have to buy a brand of ${highly processed food product} that I don't like, but from a local company of no more than 1,000 employees.
Or what about: Crest White 3D toothpaste? (yes, a real thing, sad to say.)
What if I want that, but it's not made by a local company because Crest isn't bigger than 1,000 people and only sells to a certain region of the country? I need my 3D toothpaste because I don't like the toothpaste that only works in two dimensions.
I remember a few decades ago, a company in my state (different city) came up with a kind of hot potato chip. It was really good. Only sold in stores around the immediate region of the state. Eventually it grew. Eventually bought by a national brand of chips. Why limit the size a company can get to?
How about just limit how much wealth and power they can accumulate. Especially influence on politicians.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday April 24 2017, @06:29PM (1 child)
Here is an idea. Somehow disconnect the requirement that publicly traded companies must grow and grow and grow. If you don't like a particular company's stock, then don't buy it.
What if you've got a great business going. Some regular growth. But not some artificial continuously hugely rising growth. Just good business. New products. Growing customer base. But something that might not excite the most greedy stock traders.
What seems to happen is, a company goes public. Then it suddenly has to find every way it can to screw over everyone it can screw in order to make every extra cent it can possibly earn, because . . . shareholder value.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 24 2017, @11:37PM
> the requirement that publicly traded companies must grow and grow and grow
It's not a "requirement" as much as what the people in control always want... Thos people either funded it, bought it, or are banks or investment fund in search of as big a payout as they can extract.
And they want that because you don't have safe pensions or guaranteed living handouts or retirements in the US, so you gotta grab as much return as you can, your whole life, or age starving and toothless under a bridge.
The ultimate expression of US capitalism: the people's investments are fucking them over in their own job and future...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @06:48PM
Guilty as charged.
To me, it seems obvious that compared to say China or Mexico, this US worker seems lazy and entitled.
But your point is well taken. Compared to the folks running the company, he seems mistreated.
Unfortunately, economics makes him compete with the first group, so what to do?
We clearly don't want a race to the bottom, but the attitude of entitlement without hard work is not sustainable.
Perhaps entitlement should cut both ways.
If the worker doesn't get a bathroom for a 4 hour shift, then neither should the boss?
That should fix the bathroom issue.
Looking at the min and max wages seems useful
We need lots of liveable middle class jobs.
This is neither min nor max.
Perhaps the for the guy on the top to get his entitled 10000x, there should be a good range of wages paid in between.
Otherwise the guy on top gets 10x max.
The only problem with the wage limit line of thinking is it give companies yet another reason to do business elsewhere.
To MAGA, we need to square the expectation for wages at all levels with world rates.
While you are at it, you need to square ROI as well.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:52AM
SpaceX got 6000 employees so no private space program will go forward then. Your idea might be useful but you have to rethink it.
Another approach is free education and basic income to people that have the skills for a startup such that there always is a lot of competition.