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.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
