That statement isn't exactly compelling. It just resorts to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to discredit a minor piece of the article, while deflecting/ignoring the major claims (like the worker with a crushed spine who was denied an ambulance because it would've shown up on OSHA logs).
Also, this report was done by one of the most respectable investigative news organisations in the world. Its hard to see how the PR wing of a corporation that just settled with the SEC for fraud could be considered more trustworthy.
I was referencing the response from their doctor, where they have 24/7 doctors at their factory.
I'm not sure if this answer is in anything posted, however: 1) is that claim of someone with a "crushed spine denied an ambulance" proven, and 2) is "because it would've shown up on OSHA logs" proven as Tesla's reasoning, or just conjecture and/or speculation?
Likewise, why aren't people addressing that maybe an ambulance being called as the triggering something added to OSHA logs is incomplete or badly designed - and because Tesla has doctors on staff/on-site 24/7 for workers to go to first, maybe a visit to doctors should actually be the trigger adding the event to logs? Maybe the process is broken, but requiring an ambulance be called for a sprained wrist - if they trained doctors on staff to access the situation isn't reasonable, it certainly is an emotional reaction they're triggering in people though.
"Also, this report was done by one of the most respectable investigative news organisations in the world."
I've never heard of them and likewise - is this specific journalist (and perhaps the editor) known and associated with any awards the journal received?
> I'm not sure if this answer is in anything posted, however: 1) is that claim of someone with a "crushed spine denied an ambulance" proven, and 2) is "because it would've shown up on OSHA logs" proven as Tesla's reasoning, or just conjecture and/or speculation?
1) The source is named, and to be included in the article would've likely provided medical records backing up his assertions. Not to mention the fact that Tesla (which has previously demonstrated its willingness to go the media to try and discredit former employees) has not denied his claims.
2) There are multiple sources in the article that mention being taught by lawyers how to deny care in a way that avoids legal requirements to log incidents.
> I've never heard of them and likewise
That says more about you than the source, Reveal has broken a number of extremely important stories and won many awards for doing so.
> is this specific journalist (and perhaps the editor) known and associated with any awards the journal received?
You could've just clicked on the author's bio, but yes. "His reporting with a partner and CNN exposed rampant fraud in California's drug rehab system for the poor, winning an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award."
Also, this report was done by one of the most respectable investigative news organisations in the world. Its hard to see how the PR wing of a corporation that just settled with the SEC for fraud could be considered more trustworthy.