News
Tesla implicated in foreign worker scandal after reports of visa violations
The San Jose Mercury finds that up to 140 low wage workers were used to build the new Tesla paint shop at the Fremont factory. They were supplied with phony B1/B2 visas by foreign companies.
Updated: Tesla has issued a response to the story which can be seen here.
Tesla is justly proud of its new state-of-the-art painting facility capable of scaling up to 500,000 vehicles per year at the Fremont factory, but a report coming from the San Jose Mercury published on May 15 says that underpaid foreign workers contributed to the construction of the paint shop violating terms of their B1/B2 visas.
The Mercury began its investigation after Gregor Lesnik, a native of Slovenia who worked on the expansion of Tesla’s multimillion dollar Fremont factory paint shop in 2015, filed suit against Tesla and several other defendants. Lesnik was seriously injured while working on the paint shop project after slipping on loose tile and falling three stories before breaking both legs, ribs, and sustaining a concussion.
The newspaper reports that in 2014, Lesnik was an unemployed electrician living with his mother in Velenje, Slovenia. His girlfriend was expecting their first child and money was tight. He saw an ad seeking workers placed by ISM Vuzen, a construction company located in Slovenia. Vuzem provides teams of Eastern European workers to build manufacturing plants in Europe and the U.S. Among its clients are Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Volkswagen, Ford, and Saab.
In March, 2015, Tesla selected Eisenmann, a German-based manufacturer of industrial systems, to expand the Fremont paint shop. Eisenmann claimed it was the most valuable contract in its history at $100 million. Soon it began hiring subcontractors to fill out the work force for the project. It turned to Vuzen for some of those workers.
Vuzen helped Lesnik apply for a US visa. Eisenmann assisted. Robert Keller, its US purchasing manager based out of Chicago, was listed as Lesnik’s U.S. contact. After Lesnik filed his lawsuit, Eisenmann denied that it had any legal responsibility for him.
US immigration officials were told that Lesnik was a supervisor with specialized training who would be working at a paint shop for a BMW factory in South Carolina. Keller told INS in a letter that Lesnik was a “supervisor of electrical and mechanical installation. His assignment will involve multiple border entries,” Keller wrote, “but in no way adversely affect the employment of citizens of the United States.”
That couldn’t be further from the truth, says Rob Stoker, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County. “There’s definitely something wrong with this picture.” He claims a local company lost the bid on the Tesla project party because their labor costs were higher. The job would have meant tens of thousands of work hours and valuable training for local apprentices. “It killed us,” Stoker said. “We had so many people — ready, willing and able — needing this.”
For Lesnik and his fellow employees provided by Vuzen, the work in Fremont paid an average of $5 an hour with no benefits. They often worked 12 hour days, sometimes 7 days a week. He claims that Tesla employees who he worked side by side with were earning up to 10 times as much.
Tesla denies any responsibility for Lesnik, his injuries, or his immigration status. A company spokesperson told the Mercury, “Tesla expects all its contractors and their subs … to comply with all applicable pay laws.” Of course they do. But the real question is, how closely do they look at the status of people working at their facilities?
As with similar worker abuse issues that have beset other companies, such as Apple’s troubles with Foxconn, it is one thing to have high expectations. It is quite another to take adequate steps to ensure those expectations are met. All too often, it is easier to look the other way, especially when millions of dollars are involved.
Source and photo credit: San Jose Mercury
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) will report its earnings for the second quarter of 2026 this evening after market close, and investors and analysts are waiting anxiously to see what the company will report for the second three-month span of the year.
Analysts have already put out their expectations from a financial standpoint for the company’s second quarter, but what’s unknown is what Tesla plans to discuss during the call.
Financial Expectations
Wall Street consensus expectations put Tesla’s Earnings Per Share (EPS) at $0.53, while revenues are expected to come in around $26.4 billion.
This would compare to an EPS of $0.39 and $22.19 billion compared to Tesla’s Q2 2025. Last quarter, EPS came in at $0.41 on $22.387 billion of revenue. Additionally in Q1, Tesla beat analyst expectations, but shares dropped over 3 percent the following trading day.
What We Expect
In terms of discussions, Tesla earnings are pretty sporadic and depend on a handful of things, including current events, investor questions, and more.
Tesla uses a platform called Say to field questions from investors and analysts. These questions are what will be used during the call. Here are the top 5 from the Retail side and top 3 from the Institutional side:
Retail:
“Tesla has missed short-term guidance on robotaxi 3 earnings reports in a row, from 50% coverage of USA by end of 2025 to most recently 7 new cities in 1H26. What is keeping Tesla back from accomplishing these short term goals that they’ve set for themselves?”
“What are the main constraints to expanding robotaxi operations faster, and how do you see that lining up with Cybercab production?”
“What’s the current status of Optimus Gen 3 production ramp, initial deployment in factories, and external sales timeline/volume for 2027? What tasks can we expect the Optimus to perform by end of 2027?”
“To reward long-term Tesla retail shareholders for their loyalty, can you commit to achieving at least half of the goals outlined in your 2025 compensation plan before considering any offers to acquire or merge Tesla?”
“Why has growth of robotaxi vehicles stalled? When will we see cybercab start customer rides?”
Institutional
“Previously, you’ve said Tesla would lead the R&D while SpaceX would lead production for Terafab. Can you provide an update on how that division of responsibilities is evolving, and any additional clarity on the expected capital contributions from Tesla and SpaceX?”
“For autonomous driving, Tesla’s fleet created a huge data advantage by collecting billions of real-world miles. That advantage doesn’t yet exist for Optimus. How should we think about data availability and its impact on Optimus development?”
“Why is it necessary to limit robotaxi operations within specific zones within cities to start? Will every city have to be rolled out this way?”
Tesla will report earnings for Q2 this evening with the Shareholder Deck at 4 p.m. ET, with the call starting around 5:30 p.m. ET.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk handed Grok something no other AI company can get their hands on
Elon Musk says SpaceX will feed engineering data into Grok’s next model, avoiding restricted material.
Elon Musk said Tuesday that SpaceX will feed its internal engineering data into the next major training run for Grok, the AI model now folded into SpaceX following February’s merger. In a post on X, Musk wrote that SpaceX’s “massive corpus of world-class engineering data,” excluding anything restricted under U.S. arms export law, will be added during supplemental training of what he called the “2T run,” a reference to a roughly two trillion parameter model that would nearly double the parameters behind the latest Grok 4.5 that’s rolling out.
SpaceX’s massive corpus of world-class engineering data (excluding material blocked by ITAR) will be added during supplemental training of the 2T run.
This will dramatically improve Grok’s engineering capabilities. https://t.co/BbQEViFByn
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 21, 2026
The excluded material that Musk is referring to would fall under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which restricts export of technical data tied to defense and space hardware. That likely rules out propulsion specifics for Merlin and Raptor engines along with guidance and control details for SpaceX’s launch vehicles, but leaves manufacturing knowledge, materials science, and Starlink hardware design on the table.
The announcement extends a pattern that has been building since SpaceX’s Nasdaq debut in June, when the company went public with Grok and xAI’s Colossus supercomputer folded into the pitch to investors.
Days after that listing, SpaceX closed its $60 billion all stock acquisition of coding startup Cursor, giving xAI both enterprise software distribution and a stream of real world developer data to train on. Grok 4.5 launched July 8 running partly on that Cursor training data, with Musk describing it as roughly comparable to Anthropic’s Opus 4.7 but faster and cheaper to run.
Feeding SpaceX’s own engineering data into the next AI model follows the same logic Musk has applied across xAI’s sister companies. Tesla supplies real world driving data and manufacturing expertise, X supplies conversational data, and now SpaceX supplies aerospace engineering data built up since 2002.
Musk did not give a release date for the upcoming AI model, referred to elsewhere as Grok 4.6. He has said the two trillion parameter run is in its final training phase and expected to wrap this week.
Tesla has extended its Bay Area ride-hailing service to include pickups and drop-offs at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The update, shared via the company’s official channels on July 21, allows users in the region to request rides directly to and from one of California’s busiest airports.
The expansion builds on Tesla’s secured limousine permit for SFO operations. Public records show the permit became effective March 20, 2026, and remains active through January 31, 2027. Tesla vehicles operating the service now display authorized limousine permits issued by the City and County of San Francisco.
Our Bay Area rideshare service now goes to SFO ✈️
— Tesla AI (@Tesla_AI) July 21, 2026
Tesla’s ride-hailing program in California relies on Model Y vehicles equipped with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) technology. Human safety drivers remain present in compliance with state regulations, distinguishing the service from fully driverless operations.
The Bay Area geofence covers a broad area spanning north of San Francisco to south of San Jose, offering extensive connectivity across the region.
UPDATE: Elon Musk reveals why Tesla didn’t say ‘Robotaxi’ upon California launch
This SFO addition follows earlier progress at other Bay Area airports. Tesla previously expanded service to San Jose Mineta International Airport (SJC) in late 2025. The company had engaged with SFO, SJC, and Oakland International Airport officials as early as September 2025 to secure necessary approvals for passenger transport.
The service provides a new option for travelers seeking electric, app-based transportation integrated with Tesla’s ecosystem. Rides are booked through Tesla’s dedicated ride-hailing application, which handles matching, routing, and payments. Pricing follows standard ride-hailing models, with potential adjustments based on distance, time, and demand.
Tesla’s California ride-hailing program launched in July 2025 with an initial invite-only rollout in the Bay Area. It started alongside operations in Austin, Texas, marking the company’s second major U.S. market.
The Bay Area remains a primary focus in California, with service centered on high-demand corridors connecting residential, commercial, and now major transportation hubs. This latest airport integration represents a practical step in Tesla’s broader mobility ambitions within the state.
Tesla Q2 Earnings: Here’s what to expect
Tesla Mobile App gets a new feature that wrap fans are going to love
