Elon Musk claims Ford and auto worker union wrote the new electric car incentive bill

[TruckElectric]

Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented on the new federal electric car incentive reform proposed by the Democrats, which includes a big benefit for unions.

Musk alleged that Ford and the United Auto Workers union wrote the new piece of legislation.



As we reported last week, the Democrats unveiled the latest version of their planned reform of the federal EV incentive, which they plan to push through as part of their $3.5 trillion social spending bill.

They were several changes compared to previously proposed reforms, but the biggest one is a $4,500 additional benefit to electric vehicles coming out of factories where the workers are part of a union.

It is putting several foreign automakers that produce vehicles without union workers at a disadvantage.

Domestically, it gives a strong advantage to virtually all American automakers, except for Tesla.

The automaker and its workers have resisted efforts from the UAW to unionize the Fremont factory, where Tesla produces all its vehicles for the US market.

On Twitter last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that he believes that lobbyists for Ford and the UAW are behind the new language in the bill:

“This is written by Ford/UAW lobbyists, as they make their electric car in Mexico. Not obvious how this serves American taxpayers.”

While there’s no proof behind the allegation, following the money shows that Ford and UAW likely had a lot of influence behind the new legislation.

There’s no doubt that The Big Three – Ford, GM, and Chrysler, out of Michigan – and the UAW workers they employ, will benefit the most from these changes.

It just so happened that Dan Kildee, US representative for Michigan’s 5th congressional district, who arguably couldn’t get elected without UAW support, was behind some of those changes.

Musk also singled out Ford, which is going to particularly benefit from the change to the reform that gives a five-year grace period for electric vehicles produced outside of the US to still get the $7,500 incentive.

Ford invested heavily in the production of its Mustang Mach-E, its first next-gen all-electric vehicle, at a factory in Mexico.

Musk is not alone in expressing discontent with the new language about unions in the new legislation.

Honda and Toyota both said that they are against it, but they also don’t have any EV production in the US.

Electrek‘s take
My take is simple. I am pro anything that is going to accelerate the advent of electric transport. That’s the most important part. This new legislation is undoubtedly going to achieve that. Therefore, if it’s between that and nothing, I’m definitely for that.

However, I’m certainly disappointed that they use such important new legislation to push a political agenda that is completely unrelated to the acceleration of electric transport. The incentive to buy electric vehicles is supposed to represent their greater value on the environment and health of the population versus their fossil fuel-powered counterparts. Whether you are pro-union or not, you can agree that whether or not union workers are making the EVs has nothing to do with how great their impacts are on the environment and health. It’s just about making it political and it doesn’t actually focus on increasing EV adoption.

That’s also why I’m actually for the five-year grace period for EVs produced outside the US. It will avoid temporarily slowing down EV adoption in the US and also avoid similar protectionist retaliation from foreign markets that get EVs from the US.

Back to the union issue: I am not anti-union. Workers banding together to get collective bargaining power makes sense to me. However, it can also get out of control when greed and corruption get involved, and we have seen that happen with the UAW.

Tesla has fiercely fought against UAW unionizing the Fremont factory, even illegally at timesaccording to the NLRB.

While UAW appears to be out of the question, Tesla workers could potentially create their union separate from the UAW and then Tesla vehicle buyers would get access to the extra $4,500 incentive.

Obviously, that’s not an ideal situation. I think the value of the incentive should simply represent the lesser negative impact EVs have on the environment compared to their gasoline-powered counterparts.

But they created the game, so they might as well play it.


https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/elon...rker-union-wrote-electric-car-incentive-bill/

 

[Ogre]

Ford didn't write the bill, nor did UAW. If Ford wrote it, the law would stay unchanged because they benefit from the current state.

If EVs are subsidized, it increases demand for them. If millions of people want EVs, there is only one company capable of delivering millions of EVs and it's not Ford.

On top of this, Ford gets $7,500/ car under the current law and based on current production, it would take them 2 years to burn through their quota.

I'm sure Ford would love for this whole thing to be kicked down the road until they've had more time to get their costs down and production scaled up. The Biden administration is pushing this. Ford & UAW (and likely GM & RAM pitched in too) obviously pushed for the extra $4,500, but the main points are not friendly to the big 3.

 

[CyberGus]

I don't think Elon was being literal when he said the lobbyists "wrote it". However, they certainly influenced it (which is what lobbyists do, duh).

 

[Sirfun]

The more I think about this, the more I understand the response from Dids the other day. We all seem to agree that even with a $7,500 disadvantage, Tesla is able to sell all the vehicles they can make, at a profit. While I agree it's a BS move to play favorites. I also see that these OEM companies are NOT able to build comparable vehicles to Tesla, anywhere close to the cost that Tesla can. Tesla has the potential to kick their butts.
Now, don't we want more Electric cars and don't we want our friends, family and neighbors to be able to transition to EV's? Unfortunately, these OEMs and the retired union pension autoworkers need some help, or they're all screwed. And actually everyone gets screwed. We all need them to succeed at some level. People need more choices than Tesla or ICE. And we, the consumer, need to have some competition for Tesla also. The more players in the field, the more motivation they ALL have, and consumers win.
Sure, it would be great to buy a DM Cybertruck at $37,500. But actually it may be better for all of us, if these OEMs get a little boost. They've all been talking like they're going to start building EVs, but look at the production levels they've been talking about. NOT very impressive, probably because they didn't think they could make a profit. If consumers can buy the vehicles with $12,500 discount, MAYBE the prices will be at a number that these OEMs will feel they can be competitive at.

 

[TruckElectric]

Democratic lawmakers’ EV tax credit plan draws ire from non-union firms

• A proposal by Democratic lawmakers in the US House of Representatives to give union-made electric vehicles (EVs) higher subsidies drew criticism from non-unionized automakers, including Toyota Motor Corp, Tesla Inc and Rivian Automotive Inc.

Under the 10-year proposal unveiled late on Friday, union-built electric vehicles are to get an additional US$4,500 tax incentive, a measure that would favor the three traditional Detroit automakers — General Motors Co (GM), Ford Motor Co and Stellantis NV — whose factory workers are represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW).

That sweetener would be on top of a US$7,500 base incentive that would be available for electric vehicles.

Tesla vehicles are parked at a dealership in Washington on Feb. 8.
Photo: EPA-EFE


The draft discriminates “against American autoworkers based on their choice not to unionize,” Toyota said in a statement on Saturday. “We will also fight to focus taxpayer dollars on making all electrified vehicles accessible for American consumers.”

Tesla chief executive officer Elon Musk said on Twitter that the proposal smacked of being heavily influenced by the UAW, while Honda Motor Co also said it discriminatory and urged the US Congress to remove the language.

Rivian, the electric-truck maker backed by Amazon.com Inc, said the expansion of the tax credit is a “step in the right direction,” but that the proposal “risks confusing” potential buyers.

“Rivian supports a straightforward expansion without artificial limits to encourage EV adoption to as many households as possible,” the Irvine, California-based start-up, whose electric pickup truck is not yet available for sale, said in a statement on Sunday.

Foreign automakers and other non-unionized automakers have been voicing their unease with signs that the administration of US President Joe Biden wants to give their unionized Detroit rivals a leg up in the race to win over electric vehicle buyers.

Toyota, Honda, and Tesla were all left out of a White House event last month, during which Biden unveiled a national goal of having half of new vehicles sold in the US to be emissions-free by 2030.

The US House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s plan would provide a base credit of US$7,500 for electric vehicles for the first five years, with another US$4,500 credit for those made in a union facility. An additional US$500 credit would be provided for vehicles using a domestically manufactured battery.

The proposal was for inclusion in Democrats’ US$3.5 trillion tax and spending legislation, said US Representative Dan Kildee, a Michigan Democrat.

Additional details from the committee’s plan include elimination of the current cap of 200,000 vehicle per manufacturer for tax credit, a decision that would help GM and Tesla.

Credit would only apply to vehicles that have a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of less than US$55,000 for a car, US$64,000 for a van, US$69,000 for a sports utility vehicle and US$74,000 for a pickup truck, the plan says.

Credit would have annual income limitation of US$400,000 for an individual, US$600,000 for heads of household and US$800,000 for couples, and starting in 2027, the US$7,500 base credit would apply only to electric vehicles built in the US, according to the plan.

While Tesla — the biggest seller of electric vehicles in the US — would benefit by having the 200,000-vehicle cap removed, it, too, is a non-union shop and as such its customers would miss out on the sweetener.

Musk, in his Twitter post, said the proposal smacked of being heavily influenced by the UAW and by Ford, which for now builds its only electric vehicle — the Mustang Mach-E — in Mexico. Foreign-built electric vehicles sold in the US are eligible for the credit in the first five years.

Ford’s battery-powered F-150 Lightning is to be built at a new factory in Dearborn, Michigan, that Biden visited in May. The Lightning is scheduled to go on sale next spring.


https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2021/09/14/2003764321

 

[FutureBoy]

If consumers can buy the vehicles with $12,500 discount, MAYBE the prices will be at a number that these OEMs will feel they can be competitive at.

That may be what the OEMs think. But the dealerships are salivating at the extra $12,500 profit they are going to get on the EVs. Tesla will just pass the discount on to the buyers. The dealerships for other makers will use the discount to mark up the original price and just get more profit. No way the buyers of non-Tesla EVs will get $12,500 off of MSRP.

 

[Ogre]

No way the buyers of non-Tesla EVs will get $12,500 off of MSRP.

I find this unlikely. The dealers + automakers are going to have enough trouble competing with Tesla without trying to price gouge. If the Mustang Mach-E was more expensive than the Model Y, they'd gather dust on th lots.

 

[Sirfun]

I find this unlikely. The dealers + automakers are going to have enough trouble competing with Tesla without trying to price gouge. If the Mustang Mach-E was more expensive than the Model Y, they'd gather dust on th lots.

Exactly! Prices are based on what people will pay. That's also why we want more players in the field. We the consumer get more choice, then we get a better toy, at a better price.

 

[FutureBoy]

I find this unlikely. The dealers + automakers are going to have enough trouble competing with Tesla without trying to price gouge. If the Mustang Mach-E was more expensive than the Model Y, they'd gather dust on th lots.

Half the time people are promoting the idea that big auto is going to out compete Tesla. If so, then the demand for the big auto EVs will be so high they won’t be able to keep them on the lots and the dealerships will be marking them up to crazy expensive prices.

The other half of the time, people are saying that big auto can’t make their EVs at a profitable price, they can’t make very many of them, and that they can’t compete on functionality. In that case, either it doesn’t matter the price because almost no one will buy one, or the lack if supply will once again jack up the price.

Either way, no one is getting $12,500 off MSRP from big auto. And either way, Tesla is at an incredible advantage even with the extra incentive for union shops.

The problem will come in how people deal with the likes of Rivian and other EV only makers. Their prices tend to be too high for the incentives so they will be at a serious disadvantage compared to big auto.

 

[SwampNut]

Protectionist scams like unions will always fight to keep their monopoly. The non-union shops will obviously be more efficient and competitive on both features and price.

I've sent my letters to the administration and expressed my displeasure. Have you? I know that government doesn't really give a shit about the people, but they do move under pressure and threat.

 

[Ogre]

The problem will come in how people deal with the likes of Rivian and other EV only makers. Their prices tend to be too high for the incentives so they will be at a serious disadvantage compared to big auto.

The more I think about this, the more I think we should just let the Obama 200k unit structure run it's course. Tesla isn't having any trouble competing with big auto even with the current disadvantage. Turning this into a 10 year program is a massive government expense with questionable benefits and huge rewards for PHEVs and other nonsense.

If they want to encourage EV use, building out charging stations is likely the better long term route. Right now they are investing 100s of billions in rewarding companies for making cars of questionable benefit which will be in the junkyard in 10 years or less. They have a measly $7b set aside for building out infrastructure.

In 6 years, the government is going to be paying EV incentives to car companies even though nobody is going to want ICE cars regardless. If they build out infrastructure, it'll encourage adoption and benefit us all for decades to come.

 

[firsttruck]

The more I think about this, the more I think we should just let the Obama 200k unit structure run it's course. Tesla isn't having any trouble competing with big auto even with the current disadvantage. Turning this into a 10 year program is a massive government expense with questionable benefits and huge rewards for PHEVs and other nonsense.

If they want to encourage EV use, building out charging stations is likely the better long term route. Right now they are investing 100s of billions in rewarding companies for making cars of questionable benefit which will be in the junkyard in 10 years or less. They have a measly $7b set aside for building out infrastructure.

In 6 years, the government is going to be paying EV incentives to car companies even though nobody is going to want ICE cars regardless. If they build out infrastructure, it'll encourage adoption and benefit us all for decades to come.

I agree 2,000 percent. If the deal offered will give subsidy to hybrids, plugin-hybrids (PHEVs), NO subsidy at all is better.

Giving PHEVs a subsidy means pure electrics EVs (BEVs) have to get even thousand dollars lower price before purchase price parity is achieved. Delays many years before parity happens.

 

[Crissa]

The non-union shops will obviously be more efficient and competitive on both features and price.

Generally they're not. Well, price, but that usually is just taken out of the workers' cut. So they tend to have worse safey records, fewer features, etc.

We need the EV credit to pass. And so we need the votes. Which means creating a coalition. Which means getting Union support.

Tesla will want that tax credit as their output increases. Gives them more headroom on prices. Gets the cars in the hands of people who'll drive them.

-Crissa

 

[Red61224]

Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented on the new federal electric car incentive reform proposed by the Democrats, which includes a big benefit for unions.

Musk alleged that Ford and the United Auto Workers union wrote the new piece of legislation.



As we reported last week, the Democrats unveiled the latest version of their planned reform of the federal EV incentive, which they plan to push through as part of their $3.5 trillion social spending bill.

They were several changes compared to previously proposed reforms, but the biggest one is a $4,500 additional benefit to electric vehicles coming out of factories where the workers are part of a union.

It is putting several foreign automakers that produce vehicles without union workers at a disadvantage.

Domestically, it gives a strong advantage to virtually all American automakers, except for Tesla.

The automaker and its workers have resisted efforts from the UAW to unionize the Fremont factory, where Tesla produces all its vehicles for the US market.

On Twitter last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that he believes that lobbyists for Ford and the UAW are behind the new language in the bill:


While there’s no proof behind the allegation, following the money shows that Ford and UAW likely had a lot of influence behind the new legislation.

There’s no doubt that The Big Three – Ford, GM, and Chrysler, out of Michigan – and the UAW workers they employ, will benefit the most from these changes.

It just so happened that Dan Kildee, US representative for Michigan’s 5th congressional district, who arguably couldn’t get elected without UAW support, was behind some of those changes.

Musk also singled out Ford, which is going to particularly benefit from the change to the reform that gives a five-year grace period for electric vehicles produced outside of the US to still get the $7,500 incentive.

Ford invested heavily in the production of its Mustang Mach-E, its first next-gen all-electric vehicle, at a factory in Mexico.

Musk is not alone in expressing discontent with the new language about unions in the new legislation.

Honda and Toyota both said that they are against it, but they also don’t have any EV production in the US.

Electrek‘s take
My take is simple. I am pro anything that is going to accelerate the advent of electric transport. That’s the most important part. This new legislation is undoubtedly going to achieve that. Therefore, if it’s between that and nothing, I’m definitely for that.

However, I’m certainly disappointed that they use such important new legislation to push a political agenda that is completely unrelated to the acceleration of electric transport. The incentive to buy electric vehicles is supposed to represent their greater value on the environment and health of the population versus their fossil fuel-powered counterparts. Whether you are pro-union or not, you can agree that whether or not union workers are making the EVs has nothing to do with how great their impacts are on the environment and health. It’s just about making it political and it doesn’t actually focus on increasing EV adoption.

That’s also why I’m actually for the five-year grace period for EVs produced outside the US. It will avoid temporarily slowing down EV adoption in the US and also avoid similar protectionist retaliation from foreign markets that get EVs from the US.

Back to the union issue: I am not anti-union. Workers banding together to get collective bargaining power makes sense to me. However, it can also get out of control when greed and corruption get involved, and we have seen that happen with the UAW.

Tesla has fiercely fought against UAW unionizing the Fremont factory, even illegally at timesaccording to the NLRB.

While UAW appears to be out of the question, Tesla workers could potentially create their union separate from the UAW and then Tesla vehicle buyers would get access to the extra $4,500 incentive.

Obviously, that’s not an ideal situation. I think the value of the incentive should simply represent the lesser negative impact EVs have on the environment compared to their gasoline-powered counterparts.

But they created the game, so they might as well play it.


https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/elon...rker-union-wrote-electric-car-incentive-bill/

Remember the numerous occasions the former senator outright plagerized others works and called it his own. The list is endless, so this is nothing new..... Like Forest Gump said.

 

[Huntsman]

Protectionist scams like unions will always fight to keep their monopoly. The non-union shops will obviously be more efficient and competitive on both features and price.

I've sent my letters to the administration and expressed my displeasure. Have you?

No I haven’t, but thank you for doing so. My senators and congressman are of my thinking and will likely vote down the infrastructure bill until it contains something about infrastructure and not just social spending.
My point is on union nonunion however. If Brandon is so intent on sticking the shaft to Mr. Musk, what say Tesla form a union? Unless the legislation specifies AFL CIO it could be TSLA COOP where Musk charges union dues of $1 a month and in return allows employees to have an employee representative attend share holder meetings and provides a picnic table in smoking and non smoking areas. Nothing says the union has to be of the organized crime model. Having a union might appease the dems and allow customers to share on this new incentive rebate.
I think rather than even acknowledge the sinister practices of this administration, Mr. Musk might simply ignore it all and focus on producing a superior product beyond the realm of rebate and discount marketing.