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
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
