2022 Tesla Model 3 Long Range Awd 4dr Sedan on 2040-cars

Auto blog

UAW sets up organizing committee at Tesla's Fremont factory

Tesla is happy to do things differently than other automakers, from the company-owned stores to the all-electric drivetrain. It also doesn't use union workers at its factory in Fremont, California (the former NUMMI plant, pictured). But now the United Auto Workers (UAW) is testing the waters for representation at the plant, according to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle. UAW President Bob King has revealed that the UAW has created an organizing committee in Fremont. How this would change things at Tesla – and whether it would be a good or bad thing – is not really known, but it would certainly make the EV company more like the Big Three in this one aspect. We heard rumblings of unions at Tesla in 2010, when Toyota and Tesla announced they were going to collaborate on developing EVs. At that time, the United Auto Workers said it wanted union workers back at the plant, especially some of the 4,500 who ended up unemployed after the General Motors/Toyota partnership that built cars at NUMMI was shut down. That didn't happen, but Tesla has called unionization a 'risk' to business in a financial report. Tesla CEO Elon Musk at least has a plan for running his shop both with and without a union. As he told Wired in 2009, "Most of our experienced factory workers come from unionized environments, and we asked them what benefit did they see in unions. They said, 'Well, if their boss was an asshole, they had recourse.' I said, 'Let's make a rule: There will be no assholes.' I fired someone for being an asshole. And I only had to do that once, actually." Tesla declined comment to AutoblogGreen about the new union rumblings, but when we spoke with Musk in 2012, he described the longer-than-average work hours: Right now we're working six days a week. Some people are working seven days a week – I do – but for a lot of people, working seven days a week is not sustainable. The factory is operational seven days a week but most people we only ask to work six days a week right now and, obviously, we want to get that to a more reasonable number. I think people can sustain a 50-hour work week. I think that's a good work week. If you're joining Tesla, you're joining a company to work hard. We're not trying to sell you a bill of goods. If you can go work for another company and then maybe you can work a 40-hour work week. But if you work for Tesla, the minimum is really a 50-hour week and there are times when it'll be 60- to 80-hour weeks.

Is BMW the only real competition to Tesla Motors?

Tesla Motors chief Elon Musk probably isn't losing a ton of sleep over the new plug-in efforts by the makers of the "Ultimate Driving Machine," but maybe he should. That's what the Motley Fool is saying, presenting the case that the California company's real competition will come from BMW. What about the plug-in efforts of General Motors or Ford? Musk can hit the snooze, Motley Fool says. Unlike automakers that are "jamming battery packs into the existing vehicle design," BMW has built its i3 battery-electric and i8 plug-in hybrid supercar from the ground up. Like Tesla, BMW puts its battery packs into the floor of its vehicles. Most importantly, the i3 - and especially the i8 - are real performers. While the i8 is about 40-percent more expensive than the Tesla, it matches the Model S's 0-60 mile per hour acceleration times and handily beats its top speed figures. Tesla sold about 6,900 vehicles during the last three months of 2013 and BMW had more than 10,000 i3 orders on the books by late November and the first year's allotment of i8s is already sold out. The German automaker has what the Fool calls an "outside chance" of selling more plug-in vehicles than Tesla by next year, but Tesla is gearing up its gigafactory to get ready to sell a half-million EVs in 2020, so the race is most certainly on. You can read more over on the Fool.

Tesla appears to be winning direct sales battle in Missouri

Last week, it looked like Missouri would join the list of states where Tesla Motors would not be allowed to sell its all-electric vehicles directly to consumers. Without warning, language was inserted into a bill about off-road vehicles what would have prevented direct sales in the state. Tesla called it a "sneak attack" and tried to get supporters to let lawmakers know the law was a bad idea. "It is not clear that the statues apply to a seller like Tesla" – Missouri Department of Revenue Thanks to some digging by Tesla fans over at the Tesla Motors Club, it became clear that one of the main drivers of the anti-Tesla legislation was conservative state senator Mike Kehoe, a former Ford and Lincoln-Mercury auto dealer. For some time, Kehoe has been asking the Missouri Department of Revenue if Tesla should have gotten a license to operate its one store in the state (in St. Louis) and said that the automaker's moves were, "clearly designed to circumvent the traditional franchise model for the distribution and sale of new motor vehicles." The DOR responded by saying, "It is clear under Missouri law that traditional manufacturers who already have franchised dealerships in the state may not sell cars directly to consumers. It is not clear that the statues apply to a seller like Tesla, which apparently has not entered into franchise relationships with independent dealers." After Kehoe got that response, it seems, he added the language to the bill. You can read the bill here. The tide may be turning against the proposed law, though. Tesla has apparently hired 10 lobbyists to makes its case. Local newspaper The Kansas City Star published an opinion column yesterday in support of the automaker. "As a business offering something new and better for the environment overall, Tesla should have been given allowances to operate in a different way in the state," the paper wrote. And the state House Republican majority leader, John Diehl, says he has no plans to move the bill forward because lawmakers are worried it would put a limit on the free market and have unintended consequences. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/12/5019618/missouri-house-leader-not-fond.html#storylink=cp