Connect with us

News

Tesla pokes holes in Mercury’s story; it’s $55/hr pay rate not $5

The president of Eisenmann Corp has responded to an article last Sunday in the San Jose Mercury about a foreign workers being paid $5 an hour or less. claiming it was not involved in any wrongdoing.

Published

on

Tesla-Supercharger-Hawthorne

Over the weekend, the San Jose Mercury ran a story about a foreign worker who was injured while working on improvements to the paint shop at the Tesla factory in Fremont. The story alleged that some of those workers were paid as little as $5.00 an hour. Not so says Mark West president of Eisenmann the German-based manufacturer of industrial systems that won the contract to build Tesla’s high-volume paint shop

In a letter to Tesla dated May 17, West states that Vuzem the subcontractor who employed the foreign worker agreed to a $55 per hour base rate “for additional services” (and it goes on to reference an attachment). “This rate gave ISM Vuzem full opportunity to pay its workers appropriately,” West says in his letter.

West also says that his company was not involved in any visa violations. The Mercury story alleged that Robert Miller, Eisenman’s purchasing manager in Chicago, told INS in a letter that Lesnik was a “supervisor of electrical and mechanical installation. His assignment will involve multiple border entries but in no way adversely affect the employment of citizens of the United States.” There is clearly a discrepancy between West’s representations and what was reported in the Mercury article.

West goes on to say that Eisenmann requires compliance with all “permits, fees, notices, and compliance with laws” in all its contracts, and that it is “committed tor our employees and business partners to offering fair and appropriate working conditions and salaries.” The letter concludes by saying Eisenmann is revising its procedures relating to how its suppliers deal with labor regulations and obligations, and promises “our comprehensive commitment and cooperation.”

The import of the letter is that Tesla paid Vuzem full value for each employee, including benefits and extras. The open question is whether Vuzem improperly diverted some of those payments to its own account rather than paying them to its employees. In his letter, West claimed “ISM Vuzem has been a long term supplier to Eisenmann. We have been working with ISM Vuzem because of their proven record of consistently excellent work in conjunction with our proprietary equipment. As an experienced and reliable partner on global projects, we engaged ISM Vuzem for the Tesla project.”

Advertisement

After receiving the letter from Eisenmann, Elon Musk tweeted:

There are still discrepancies to be resolved, but it now appears that Tesla Motors did not gain any advantage in this transaction and that if there was wrong doing, it occurred without Tesla’s knowledge or participation.

 

Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

News

GM takes latest step to avoid disaster as EV efforts get derailed

There was an even larger step taken this morning, as the Detroit Free Press reported that GM was idling its Factory Zero plant in Michigan until late November, placing about 1,200 workers on indefinite layoff status.

Published

on

Credit: GM

General Motors has taken its latest step to avoid financial disaster as its electric vehicle efforts have been widely derailed.

GM’s electric vehicle manufacturing efforts started off hot, and CEO Mary Barra seemed to have a real hold on how the industry and consumers were starting to evolve toward sustainable powertrains. Even former President Joe Biden commended her as being a major force in the global transition to EVs.

However, the company’s plans have not gone as they’ve drawn them up. GM has reported some underwhelming delivery figures in recent quarters, and with the loss of the $7,500 tax credit, the company is planning for what is likely a substantial setback in its entire EV division.

Earlier this month, the company reported it would include a $1.6 billion charge in its quarterly earnings results from EV investments. It was the first true sign that things with GM’s EV projects were going to slow down.

There was an even larger step taken this morning, as the Detroit Free Press reported that GM was idling its Factory Zero plant in Michigan until late November, placing about 1,200 workers on indefinite layoff status.

Advertisement

This is in addition to the 280 employees it has already laid off after production cuts that happened earlier this year at the Detroit-Hamtramck plant.

After November 24, GM will bring back 3,200 people to work until January 5 to operate both shifts. On January 5, GM is expected to keep 1,200 workers on indefinite layoff.

GM is not the only legacy automaker to make a move like this, as Ford has also started to make a move that reflects a cautious tone regarding how far and how committed it can be to its EV efforts.

After the tax credit was lost, it seemed to be a game of who would be able to float their efforts longest without the government’s help. Tesla CEO Elon Musk long said that the loss of these subsidies would help the company and hurt its competitors, and so far, that is what we are seeing.

Elon Musk was right all along about Tesla’s rivals and EV subsidies

Advertisement

However, Tesla still has some things to figure out, including how its delivery numbers will be without the tax credit. Its best quarter came in Q3 as the credit was expiring, but Tesla did roll out some more affordable models after the turn of the quarter.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla expands Robotaxi geofence, but not the garage

This has broadened its geofence to nearly three times the size of Waymo’s current service area, which is great from a comparative standpoint. However, there seems to be something that also needs to be expanded as the geofence gets larger: the size of the Robotaxi fleet.

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | X

Tesla has expanded its Robotaxi geofence four times, once as recently as this week.

However, the company has seemingly kept its fleet size relatively small compared to the size of the service area, making some people — even pro-Tesla influencers — ask for more transparency and an expansion of the number of vehicles it has operating.

Over the past four months, Tesla has done an excellent job of maintaining growth with its service area in Austin as it continues to roll out the early stages of what is the Robotaxi platform.

The most recent expansion brought its size from 170 square miles (440.298 sq. km) to 243 square miles (629.367 sq. km).

Tesla sends clear message to Waymo with latest Austin Robotaxi move

Advertisement

This has broadened its geofence to nearly three times the size of Waymo’s current service area, which is great from a comparative standpoint. However, there seems to be something that also needs to be expanded as the geofence gets larger: the size of the Robotaxi fleet.

Tesla has never revealed exactly how many Model Y vehicles it is using in Austin for its partially driverless ride-hailing service (We say partial because the Safety Monitor moves to the driver’s seat for freeway routes).

When it first launched Robotaxi, Tesla said it would be a small fleet size, between 10 and 20 vehicles. In late August, after its second expansion of the service area, it then said it “also increased the number of cars available by 50 percent.”

Tesla reveals it has expanded its Robotaxi fleet in Austin

The problem is, nobody knows how many cars were in the fleet to begin with, so there’s no real concrete figure on how many Robotaxis were available.

Advertisement

This has caused some frustration for users, who have talked about the inability to get rides smoothly. As the geofence has gotten larger, there has only been one mentioned increase in the fleet.

Tesla did not reveal any new figures or expansion plans in terms of fleet size in the recent Q3 Earnings Call, but there is still a true frustration among many because the company will not reveal an exact figure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla recalls 6,197 Cybertrucks for light bar adhesive issue

On October 20, Tesla issued a voluntary recall of the impacted vehicles and has identified 619 warranty claims and just a single field report that is related to the issue. 

Published

on

Credit: Francisco Garcia (via Greggertruck on X)

Tesla has recalled 6,197 Cybertrucks for a light bar adhesive issue that was utilized by Service to install the aftermarket part.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), impacted vehicles may have had the light bar “inadvertently attached to the windshield using the incorrect surface primer.”

Tesla identified an issue with the light bar’s adhesion to glass back in February and worked for months to find a solution. In October, the company performed chemical testing as a part of an engineering study and determined the root cause as the BetaPrime primer it utilized, figuring out that it was not the right surface priming material to use for this specific application.

On October 20, Tesla issued a voluntary recall of the impacted vehicles and has identified 619 warranty claims and just a single field report that is related to the issue.

The component is manufactured by a Romanian company called Hella Romania S.R.L., but the issue is not the primer’s quality. Instead, it is simply the fact that it is not the correct adhesive for this specific type of application.

Advertisement

Tesla says there are no reports of injuries or deaths due to this issue, and it will be resolved. In the 473 report that the NHTSA released this morning, Tesla said:

“At no charge to customers, Tesla will inspect the service-installed optional off-road light bar accessory for delamination or damage and if either is present, replace the light bar with a new light bar adhered with tape and a positive mechanical attachment. If no delamination or damage is present, Tesla will retrofit the service-installed optional off-road light bar accessory with a positive mechanical attachment.”

This is the third recall applied to Cybertrucks this year, as one on March 18 highlighted the potential for exterior trim panels to detach while driving, and another earlier this month when the NHTSA said its front parking lights were too bright.

Tesla resolved the first with a free assembly replacement, while the headlight issue was fixed with an Over-the-Air software update earlier this week. Owners said there was a noticeable difference in the brightness of the lights now compared to previously.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending