[bardworx]

Not entirely. Many companies who bid out projects during "off times" would receive preferential bids. In colder climates, if your construction begins in the colder months, construction companies will bid lower since there is less work and do their best to make little to no profit on the job.

That's fairly standard. The downside, most construction companies will have many COs (Change Order)to supplement the work.

Just because a bid is lower doesn't mean the subcontractor is hiring illegal labor.

Parent company that accepts bid isn't morally responsible to check on their subcontractors. If parent company is responsible, imagine the possibilities? Ever subcontractor would then blame the parent company for just about everything since they're not held responsible.

Did Tesla realize that labor wasn't "legal" during the process? Probably...but what now? Stop building the factory? They have investors that don't care about morals or ethics.

[jsprogrammer]

>Parent company that accepts bid isn't morally responsible to check on their subcontractors. If parent company is responsible, imagine the possibilities? Ever subcontractor would then blame the parent company for just about everything since they're not held responsible.

What absolves them of responsibility? Exchanging money? If the parent company isn't responsible then imagine what happens: every parent company blames subcontractors for everything as the parent could never be responsible since they only commissioned the project.

[hueving]

You are saying the customer is responsible for how a company achieves something. (Tesla is a customer of the contractor.)

By that procedure of blame shifting, we could basically blame every Volkswagen customer for the diesel emissions scandal because they should have done their due diligence and realized that an engine couldn't perform that well without cutting corners.

[croon]

Just playing devils advocate:

When you go to the grocery store to pick up bananas and coffee and you go for the cheapest of each you can pretty much guarantee that you're purchasing something produced by mistreating workers, spraying of carcinogens, destroying rain forests, etc.

Even if you're not producing it you are supporting it. You might go for the the second cheapest banana, and still not know if it's "good" or "bad", but at least the answer goes from "definitely bad" to "possibly okay".

I understand the realities we live with, but blankly accepting the status quo without at least questioning it shouldn't be defended. Why shouldn't companies be held at least morally/ethically responsible in the same way grocery store customers are, even if none are held legally accountable?

[hueving]

>When you go to the grocery store to pick up bananas and coffee and you go for the cheapest of each you can pretty much guarantee that you're purchasing something produced by mistreating workers, spraying of carcinogens, destroying rain forests, etc.

But I don't know that. I don't follow the latest on the sourcing for the banana markets, cucumber markets, whatever. It's ridiculous to expect that everyone could. What about the mushrooms you bought? The cheese? Depending on the location, the cheapest item could easily be an ethically sourced one.

>You might go for the the second cheapest banana, and still not know if it's "good" or "bad", but at least the answer goes from "definitely bad" to "possibly okay".

Not even close. Second cheapest could just as likely be a more inefficient operation of the cheapest abusive one. Transportation/storage of fruits/veggies is one of the highest components of the cost. The price you end up paying in the store is much less related to abuse than you think.

Consider that people pay a premium for 'local' and/or 'organic'. Either of those could have the most abusive labor practices in the industry and you would be paying more for them than the non-local/non-organic fruit while feeling pretty good about yourself at the same time.

[jsprogrammer]

VW customers should have realized that.