News
State officials highlight worker choice in Tesla Giga Berlin labor dispute
As Tesla faces continued labor efforts in Europe over whether the company’s German Gigafactory will sign a collective labor agreement, the automaker has largely doubled down on the idea that its workers are better off being independent from a union’s influence. However, local officials have recently explained why they think an agreement could be mutually beneficial for workers and for Tesla overall, though they emphasize that it’s ultimately up to the workers.
Earlier this month, multiple workers at Tesla’s Gigafactory Berlin, including the works council leader, defended the company’s avoidance of a labor agreement, saying the automaker’s close proximity to the workers made it easier to make routine changes and find solutions for workers.
In recent statements to Teslarati, an official from the Brandenburg Ministry of Economy, Labor and Energy has noted how social partnership between workers and unions contributes to the German economy and to companies overall, while the autonomy of employees to choose remains an important part of the equation.
“It would be good if IG Metall and Tesla could agree on a collective labor agreement or at least talk about it,” said Felix Dollase, a spokesperson for the Brandenburg Ministry of Economy, Labor and Energy, in an email to Teslarati. The statements closely echoed those from Brandenburg Minister Jörg Steinbach made earlier this month.
“Like Social Partnership as a whole, this would have many advantages for both sides. Social partnership is partly responsible for prosperity. It has been creating conditions for economic growth for decades and is also responsible for a well-developed welfare state,” Dollase added.
In Germany, it is up to each individual worker to decide whether they want to join a union, and the greater the proportion of union-represented workers, the greater the strength of the union in that company, as Dollase clarified in the email. In addition, he explained that workers have the right to elect and facilitate a works council, which can’t be taken away by the company, and unions are allowed to offer up an electoral candidacy list during elections.
The result, Dollase says, is an effective system of businesses that play an important role in Germany’s economy and society. However, he also says individual autonomy in choosing whether or not to join a union plays an equal role in this process.
“This is not an obstacle for productivity, but increases it, and makes an important contribution to stabilizing society and the economy,” Dollase added. “This is why Social Partnership is and remains an important part of our economic system. But it is also characterized by the autonomy of the social partners.”
Tesla’s Giga Berlin elected a works council in 2022, though IG Metall has accused it of being comprised primarily of lower-level leadership workers who are close to executive management (via Wall Street Journal). The leader of the current works council at Giga Berlin recently also opposed a collective labor agreement with IG Metall in a report, saying that union influence would make the company lose its agility.
“We are close to the workforce,” said Michaela Schmitz, leader of Giga Berlin’s works council. “Our agility will be lost if we are influenced from outside.”
“We are focusing on ourselves in order to find solutions for our employees quickly and without unnecessary escalation and thus make changes happen significantly faster,” said Andre Thierig, senior director of manufacturing at Tesla’s Giga Berlin, in the same piece.
As of writing, Tesla and IG Metall have not responded to Teslarati‘s requests for comment on the ongoing labor efforts.
The statements come as Tesla faces strikes in Sweden, lodged by union IF Metall, and including sympathy strikes from other entities. Despite IF Metall’s attempts to encourage unions around the world to target Tesla, including IG Metall, the German union highlighted autonomy then too, noting the importance of individual workers having the choice as to whether or not they should join a union.
“If IG Metall got to decide, Tesla’s employees would have a collective agreement,” said IG Metall spokesperson Markus Sievers in a statement last month about the encouragement to join strike efforts. “But the initiative must come from the employees.”
One Tesla Sweden worker recently spoke out after being expelled from IF Metall, due to his unwillingness to join the strike. The worker, who asked to remain anonymous, said he is facing “harassment” from the union, adding that he feels “terrified” of them as they “try to make it difficult” for workers. Operationally, the Tesla Sweden employee explains, work has not changed much, despite the labor union’s efforts.
“The main reason is that I care about the environment and enjoy my job,” the worker said as to why he won’t join the strike. “And I care a lot about our customers too. I want customers to feel safe choosing Tesla.”
Despite this, IG Metall said in October that Tesla workers at Giga Berlin were joining the union in droves, largely due to health and safety concerns. Last January, the union also claimed that workers weren’t getting enough time for “leisure, family and recovery,” once again emphasizing that it thinks Tesla needs a union in Germany.
Tesla gets new neighbor as Germany’s IG Metall union builds office near Giga Berlin
Are you a worker at Tesla’s Gigafactory Berlin or a member of the German union IG Metall? If so, reach out and tell me your thoughts at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us your tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
