Judge dismisses California kids' climate lawsuit. They plan to try again

Alex Wigglesworth
Tue, May 14, 2024

Avroh, left, Maya and Maryam were among the 18 California children suing the U.S. government over climate change. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

After a federal judge dismissed a landmark climate lawsuit filed by 18 California children against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the youth plaintiffs plan to amend and resubmit their allegations, their attorneys say.

The children — who have lost homes in wildfires, suffered health problems from breathing polluted air, missed weeks of education due to climate change-related school closures and been forced to ration tap water due to unprecedented droughts — sued the EPA for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by allowing pollution from burning fossil fuels to continue despite knowing the harm it poses to kids.

Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California this month ruled the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the suit because they did not show how the remedies they sought — including a declaratory judgment that their constitutional rights have been violated — would mitigate those harms.

“Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how a declaration regarding Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution and the legality of Defendants’ conduct, on its own, is likely to remedy these alleged injuries,” he wrote. The ruling granted the plaintiffs permission to amend their complaint by no later than May 20.

The co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit law firm that represents the plaintiffs and has filed similar suits in other states, called the order unjust and said attorneys would be filing an amended complaint.

"When presented with a constitutional violation, there is no reason for a federal judge to throw up his hands and say nothing can be done,” Mat dos Santos, general counsel of Our Children's Trust, said in a statement. “In doing just that, this order tells children that judges have no power to hear their complaints. Courts do, in fact, have that power.”

Read more: Joshua Tree's celebrity rattlesnake wrangler wants to change how you see reptiles

The lawsuit — Genesis B. vs. EPA, filed in December on behalf of plaintiffs ages 8 to 17 at the time — calls climate change “the single greatest driver of the health of every child born today.” It alleges that the EPA has intentionally allowed the United States to become one of the world’s biggest contributors to the crisis, despite issuing report after report detailing its harms, particularly to children.

When the EPA runs economic analyses to decide how much pollution to permit going forward, it assigns less value to the lives of children because they aren’t income earners, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say. The agency also applies discount rates that place less value on the future benefits of controlling pollution than the present ones, according to the attorneys, who say these practices discriminate against children.

In addition to the EPA, the lawsuit also named as defendants EPA administrator Michael Regan and the U.S. federal government.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys had petitioned the judge to dismiss the suit, arguing in part that the court did not have the authority to make sweeping public policy changes.

At a hearing earlier this month, Fitzgerald said he was inclined to side with the government, noting these decisions should rest with Congress and the executive branch.

“There are ways everyone can express their political views,” Fitzgerald said, noting that he volunteered for an elected official as a child.

In his ruling last week, Fitzgerald compared the case with Juliana vs. U.S., another climate action, filed in federal court in Oregon, in which 21 youth plaintiffs alleged the government violated their constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuel use despite knowing its harms. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month ordered the district court to dismiss that case, saying the declaratory relief the plaintiffs sought was not likely to mitigate the injuries they’d claimed to have suffered.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

CLIMATE CRISIS

IS THE CAPITALI$T CRISIS

Extreme weather causing billions of dollars in damage, driving up insurance premiums: StatsCan

CBC
Wed, May 15, 2024 

Houses are surrounded by flood water in High River, Alta., south of Calgary, on June 23, 2013. (Reuters/Andy Clark - image credit)

The increasing frequency of extreme weather events across the country has caused the sums paid out annually for catastrophic insurance claims to explode — and annual payouts for the last four years now rank among the ten largest on record, says a new Statistics Canada study.

"Homeowners have been particularly affected by extreme weather claims, with recent hurricanes, floods and unprecedented wildfires," says the report, released Wednesday.

"Insured claims costs were $3.4 billion in 2022 and $3.1 billion in 2023, each more than 50 per cent above the yearly average."

The report says that between 1983 — the first year catastrophic insurance claims were tracked — and 2008, insurers paid out an average of $400 million per year. From 2009 to 2023, that yearly average rose to almost $2 billion.

"These 'once in 100 years' events are happening more frequently and are becoming more severe and more costly," the report says.

The report also says that for almost the entire period from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2023, homeowner insurance premiums in Canada increased at a rate higher than inflation.

Despite those higher payments, Statistics Canada says insurance companies' "profitability has not wavered significantly and is consistent with historical trends."

The report says that returns on equity for the insurance industry ranged from 5.6 per cent at the beginning of 2020 to 25.7 per cent by the end of that year. In 2023, returns dropped down to near the "long run average" of 10.1 per cent, the report says.

"At the end of the day, insurers are remaining viable only because premiums have gone up," Craig Stewart, vice-president of climate change and federal issues at the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), told CBC News.

"What it means is that homeowners are now, on top of everything else, feeling the pinch because of the severe weather events that we are seeing."

The Statistics Canada study focuses on personal property insurance, which the report describes as "synonymous with homeowners insurance."

It says that despite the increasing intensity of wildfires in Canada,"flooding caused by heavy rainfall, hail and hurricanes remains most detrimental to homeowners, most significantly impacting the coastal regions of Canada."

The report says other factors have combined to drive up the cost of insurance premiums, including labour shortages, the pandemic and increased replacement costs.

The report says that because insurance companies are responsible for rebuilding houses under current market conditions, they are subject to spikes in the cost of building materials.

In September of 2021, the year-over-year increase in replacement costs (lumber, wire, concrete, construction wages and household items) hit 14.4 per cent, just as overall inflation sat at 4.4 per cent.

Former federal environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson's 2021 mandate letter directed him to "invest in reducing the impact of climate-related disasters, like floods and wildfires, to make communities safer and more resilient."

Stewart said that since then, not enough has been done to ensure homes and other properties are able to withstand the impacts of extreme weather events caused by climate change.

He said the fight against the impacts of climate change has to be about more than energy efficiency and emissions reductions.

"The greener homes program where they keep putting money into heat pumps, which is fine, but there should be funding available for folks that want to make their homes flood and wildfire proof," Stewart said.

CBC News reached out the federal government for comment but has not yet received a response.

California's strong labor laws aren't enough to protect workers, report says

Suhauna Hussain
Wed, May 15, 2024 

A study by researchers at Harvard and UC San Francisco found that 91% of California service sector workers surveyed experienced at least one labor violation in the last year at work. (Los Angeles Times)

Although California has some of the toughest labor laws in the country, a new study has found workers routinely suffer violations while on the job.

A team of researchers from UC San Francisco and Harvard University earlier this year surveyed 980 California workers at dozens of the state's largest retail, food and other service sector companies. The workers reported frequent abuses over pay, work schedules and other issues.

The study found, for example, that 41% of the workers surveyed had experienced at least one serious violation of federal labor in the last year, such as being required to work off the clock, not being paid overtime, or being paid less than minimum wage, according to the report, which was released this week.


Violations around paid sick leave and meal breaks were also common, the researchers found. More than half of workers, 58%, were not given proper rest breaks.

All told, 91% of the workers surveyed experienced at least one violation in the last year, the study found.

The findings seemed at odds with the fact that California has led the way in raising labor standards, said one of the study’s authors, Daniel Schneider, a professor of social policy and sociology at Harvard He and his co-author, Kristen Harknett, a UCSF sociology professor, wanted to understand why the state's rigorous laws weren't doing more to protect workers from abuse.

The survey of workers, Schneider said, showed it was common for workers not to report problems. Many, he said, "have been robbed of their time and their wages and the vast majority do not come forward.”

Schneider said the study found that workers who came forward to report problems to someone inside their company were often met with retaliation or other negative consequences, and that workers are unlikely to seek help from regulatory bodies such as the state labor commissioner.

"This is not to say that the laws are ineffective, but that their full promise isn't realized when they are being violated so routinely," Schneider said. "We need a robust system of enforcement to ensure these labor laws are being enforced and complied with.”

The results of the new study come against the backdrop of renewed debate over a controversial California law known as the Private Attorneys General Act that gives workers the right to file lawsuits against their employers over back wages and to seek civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state of California.

Read more: The battle brewing over California workers' unique right to sue their bosses

An initiative seeking to gut the act will appear on the ballot in November, the culmination of a long-running effort by business groups to scrap it.

Backers of the ballot initiative argue the law has resulted in a slew of lawsuits that small businesses and nonprofits have little ability to fight, and say that the long, costly lawsuits workers must pursue result in their getting less money than if they had filed complaints through state agencies.

Although not an expert on the law, Schneider said he believes there should be "more avenues for workers to come forward, to pursue some kind of redress, not fewer.”

The recent study is limited in scope, Schneider said, and does not capture the experiences of undocumented workers or those in domestic, agricultural and construction jobs where violations may be even more common.

Since the survey focused on workers at large firms, it leaves out service sector workers employed at smaller firms, which also likely experience violations at higher rates, he said.

Another study published this month by researchers at Rutgers University found that minimum wage violations have more than doubled in some major metro areas in California since 2014.

Workers in the Los Angeles, San Jose and San Diego metro areas who had been paid below minimum wage lost on average about 20% of the money they were owed, or as much as $4,000 a year, the study found.

In the San Francisco area, losses were even more steep, with workers losing an average of $4,300 to $4,900 annually to minimum wage violations, according to the study.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


California sees a surge in minimum wage violations
Jonathan Williams
Tue, May 14, 2024 

Scroll back up to restore default view.


Minimum wage violations have more than doubled in California cities like Los Angeles, costing workers billions.

California workers lose up to $4,000 per year in major metro areas that include San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose, according to a study by Rutgers University.

“This is the time to be strengthening — not weakening — labor enforcement,” said Professor Janice Fine, director of the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University.

The study was conducted by the School of Management and Labor Relations (SMLR), a research center dedicated to analyzing labor standards enforcement in the U.S.

“California is leading the way nationally in terms of strong state and local minimum wage laws, but our study shows that too many low-wage workers are not receiving the pay they are entitled to,” Fine said.

This November, a vote could come in the form of a California ballot initiative to repeal the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) act, revoking the ability to file class-action lawsuits over certain violations.

Instead of raising prices, California fast food restaurants should do this, franchisee says

Enacted in 2004, the California law empowers employees to file lawsuits for labor code violations on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the state.

The center took federal data collected from 2014 to 2023 and found that last year saw a 56% increase in violations, affecting nearly 1.5 million workers.

The study also found that mostly Black and Latino workers, and young people from the ages of 16-24 were more likely to experience minimum wage theft.

The most noticeable violation involved groups such as childcare workers, nannies, and home health care professionals.


On April 1, Californians experienced the fast-food minimum wage hike from $16 to $20 as the state continues to have one of the highest minimum wages in the country.

Business and labor groups would need to arrive at a deal before the end-of-June deadline to remove the measure. If no deal is reached, the issue will be presented to California voters in November.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. 

Labor laws largely exclude nannies. Some are banding together to protect themselves

CLAIRE SAVAGE and MORIAH BALINGIT
Updated Wed, May 15, 2024 







Domestic Workers Rights
Sandra Milena Saenz cries during a sexual harassment prevention class for nannies and housekeepers on Saturday, April 27, 2024, in the Brooklyn borough of New York. Nannies, housekeepers, and home care workers are excluded from many federal workplace protections in the United States, and the private, home-based nature of the work means abuse tends to happen behind closed doors.

 (AP Photo/Andres Kudacki)

NEW YORK (AP) — Map all doors in the home and figure out how to escape. Make a list of items in each room that you can use to defend yourself. Shelves, dishes, night stands, kitchen knives -- all can be weapons if you are attacked.

These are among the strategies Judith Bautista Hidalgo teaches her students -- 25 Hispanic women working as nannies, housekeepers and home care workers in the New York City area -- to defend themselves on the job. She hopes her April training on preventing sexual harassment will be a lifeline for many in the classroom who have experienced assault or abuse at work.

Domestic workers like those in Hidalgo's class are excluded from many federal workplace protections in the United States, and the private, home-based nature of the work means abuse tends to happen behind closed doors.

Although many domestic workers are covered under federal minimum wage and overtime laws, part-time and live-in workers are still exempt from some provisions. And domestic workers are generally excluded from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — a federal law banning workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment — since it only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

Neither are domestic workers covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which aims to ensure safe and healthy conditions for workers.

In the coming weeks, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) plans to introduce a national domestic workers bill of rights, which seeks to “reverse the historic exclusions of domestic workers from key labor laws,” according to a statement from her office.

Although previous efforts to pass similar legislation have stalled in Congress, support continues to mount this time around. But there are still plenty of hurdles to overcome, according to Ai-jen Poo, president of the National Domestic Workers Alliance.

“It’s not uncommon for a bill of the scope and significance to take decades,” she said.

Last month, domestic workers traveled to Washington, D.C., where they were in the crowd for a rally headlined by President Joe Biden. The next day, they met with Jayapal to discuss the federal domestic workers bill of rights, crowding onto couches and sharing their stories in English and Spanish.

Dulce Tovar, who has been a nanny for more than a decade, lives in El Paso, Texas, where neither the state nor the city have passed protections for domestic workers.

“There’s a lot of abuse,” Tovar said in Spanish. “If we complain about something, or ask for something, we aren’t heard. They tell us, ‘There’s a lot of people who want your job.’”

Part of the problem is that domestic work is undervalued and often dismissed as “caregiving work that women were just expected to do out of the goodness of their hearts” rather than professional work deserving of labor protections, said Julie Vogtman, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center.

Isabel Santos, a nanny from Chicago, said many do not appreciate the expertise experienced caretakers like herself bring. Santos, 51, has been caring for children for more than two decades and has received training on early childhood development. She has potty-trained children, taught them Spanish, taught them their alphabets and colors and has made sure they were ready for school by the time they entered kindergarten.

“To support the child’s development, we have to be a little bit teacher, a little bit nurse and a little bit psychologist,” Santos said.

Domestic workers from across the country have taken their fight beyond Congress and straight to statehouses, where they have been instrumental in getting labor protections passed.

But even in the 11 states with laws on the books that specifically target domestic workers, those often go unenforced. Women are more likely to be assaulted at work than men. Domestic workers, who make less than half of what a typical worker makes and are disproportionately women and immigrant women -- many of whom lack legal work status -- are especially vulnerable to workplace exploitation, experts say.

The women taking Hidalgo’s course as part of We Rise Nanny Training in Brooklyn have no intention of being defenseless.

“We are fighters. We matter,” said Aniuska Esther, a house cleaner who attended the course on a recent Saturday afternoon. “We do the work that no one else will do.”

A coalition of organizations including Carroll Gardens Nanny Association, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations created We Rise as a low-cost education and organizing program aimed at transforming the domestic worker industry. Besides combating sexual harassment, the curriculum offers classes in English and Spanish on workers’ rights, newborn care, CPR and first aid, organizing, negotiating, family communication, child nutrition and more.

Hidalgo herself knows firsthand what it feels like to endure sexual harassment in the workplace. Last April, she said she was cleaning an apartment in New Jersey when a friend of the employer visited. He later cornered her in the kitchen, exposed himself and started to masturbate.

When he advanced toward her despite her protests, Hidalgo said she pulled out a meat knife she had just washed and held it to his throat. “Stay away from me,” she repeated. He retreated to the living room and sat down “like nothing happened,” Hidalgo said.

She was fired after reporting the incident to her employer.

A year later she's still living with the consequences. Hugs from her boyfriend or teenage son send her into a panic. Crowded subways set her on edge. It's hard to fall asleep at night.

When she felt strong enough, she came forward with her case and began teaching sexual harassment prevention classes. Some participants came forward with their own experiences, and classmates engulfed them in hugs and offered tissues.

Some said they feel afraid to speak up because they lack legal work authorization. But “the same laws apply to an undocumented worker as any other worker,” said Laura Rodriguez, a New York City area employment attorney who primarily represents low-wage immigrant workers, including domestic workers.

Although employers may threaten to call immigration authorities if domestic workers speak up about problems in the workplace, they generally don't because they risk revealing that they broke the law themselves by hiring someone without work authorization, she explained.

Some clients Rodriguez has represented experienced abuses so severe they are considered labor trafficking violations. For example, when the pandemic hit, some families insisted their nannies remain at the employer’s home to avoid spreading Covid-19, so workers were unable to go out in public or see their own families for long periods at the risk of getting fired, according to Rodriguez.

On top of that, duties often increased -- cooking meals and doing laundry for the whole family instead of just the children after parents started working remotely, for example.

Combined with lower pay and job insecurity, “the pandemic was a nightmare for every domestic worker,” according to Wendy Guerrero, program and membership coordinator for Carroll Gardens Nanny Association and a former nanny who helped organize the We Rise Nanny Training.

Esther, the housekeeper who attended Hidalgo’s class, said the trainings make her feel empowered. Before she started taking the classes, Esther had to miss four days of work because of breast cysts requiring biopsies that left her arm and chest swollen for days. She didn't know that New York law entitled her to paid sick leave, and went without pay.

“I can defend myself now. I can’t stay silent. Now I feel that the law is with me and I feel that I can speak," she said.

____

Balingit reported from Washington, D.C.

___

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

A Robotaxi May Not Be Enough To Solve Tesla's Mounting Issues

Amber DaSilva
Tue, May 14, 2024

Screenshot: Tradingview, Photo: Apu Gomes/Getty Images


2024 has been a very bad year for Tesla so far. We’ve all read about the layoffs, the poor sales, and the deeply weird earnings call, but a closer look reveals even more behind the scenes. It’s about who is being laid off, why sales are down, and whether what Musk said on that call might be signaling his exit from Tesla entirely.

A viral Twitter thread from user Zero Sum Bond looked into just how bad the circumstances at Tesla are, declaring that the “walls are starting to close in” on the automaker. While the thread isn’t entirely accurate — tweets about Tesla keeping two separate copies of its books to fool regulators are only backed up by a suit that’s since been dismissed for lack of evidence — it’s a convenient compilation of some of Tesla’s biggest misses in recent months.



First on the agenda for Zero Sum Bond is the steady loss of many of Tesla’s top folks. A lot of folks have been wrapped up in the sweeping layoffs at the company, like Daniel Ho and Rebecca Tinucci, but others have left of their own accord — most notably HR head Allie Arebalo. Still others, like Cybertruck manufacturing head Renjie Zhu, left the company for reasons that are still unclear and we don’t know who made the call.

What’s more interesting than those who left, though, is what they did on the way out. People who were recently either restructured at or removed from high-level positions at Tesla are unloading their shares, like former CFO Zach Kirkhorn or now-former Musk right-hand-man Tom Zhu. Zhu, who is still employed at Tesla, holds fewer shares now than he did a year ago — despite thousands of shares awarded as compensation. Whatever’s going on behind the scenes, it’s possible it’s making even the inner circle lose faith.

Tesla is even going back on some of those layoffs, rehiring parts of the Supercharger team just weeks after gutting it. The move shows disorganization at the top, a shoot-from-the-hip mentality that seems incongruous with a company valued at $538.6 billion.



That valuation, of course, isn’t really matched by Tesla’s actual business. The company missed revenue and earnings per share targets last quarter, as it did for the two quarters prior. Softening EV demand is part of the issue, but Tesla has steadily dropped prices and market share at once — competition from more established automakers is simply getting tougher for the company to battle.

Tesla’s outdated inventory, save the new and issue-prone Cybertruck, certainly isn’t helping. Tesla sells some of the oldest new cars you can buy, which is a wonder in a world where even Toyota is changing the platform beneath the 4Runner. The faithful will tell you that Tesla is constantly iterating, always improving beneath the cars’ skin, but that’s a line that only works on the faithful — your average commuter sees a new car on the lot that looks nearly identical to one from ten years ago.

Tesla also has fewer avenues to hide its missteps. Traditional automakers can force cars down dealers’ throats in a move called channel stuffing, an unethical practice that shifts vehicles off the OEM’s books and tells local retailers to deal with it themselves. Automakers have been known to hide bad quarters through this method — Triumph once lost a CEO over the practice — but it’s not an option Tesla can use to sweeten its books. Not that it should, of course.

This, of course, is all before the myriad litigation Tesla faces over its semi-autonomous driver assist software. FSD and Autopilot are being investigated by the Justice Department for fraud, due to the implication of self-driving when the software truly can’t, while NHTSA is probing just how bad the systems really are, and whether mandatory recalls actually made as much of a difference as they promised to.

Yet, this software is what’s supposed to save Tesla: Musk himself said, “If someone doesn’t think Tesla’s gonna solve autonomy, I don’t think they should be an investor in the company.” The robotaxi project is the company’s new north star, and Musk believes it’ll be enough to save the company from its financial dire straits. Maybe he’ll open up another preorder round this August, hoping for some real money for nothing.

Sketchy software and vaporware promises may be enough to save a fledgling startup, but Tesla hasn’t been that kind of company for years. It’s the most valued automaker in the world, nearly doubling the market cap of Toyota. Tesla has had years to prepare itself for stronger competition, but it spent that time resting on its laurels and making fart jokes. Now, it seems, the market is finally realizing Tesla may be wearing nothing at all.

Tesla needs to focus more on 'car company problems': Analyst

Madison Mills and Seana Smith
Tue, May 14, 2024



Tesla (TSLA) is rehiring back some of its Supercharger team which were laid off last month, according to Bloomberg. This comes after CEO Elon Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the EV maker was all in on expanding its Supercharger network with an investment of over $500 million in spite of headcount reductions and recent executive departures.

ROTH Capital Senior Research Analyst Craig Irwin sits down with Catalysts to talk about Tesla's Supercharger road map and which areas the auto company should be prioritizing.

They got to show they can they can get growth going again right? When you decline 7 or 8% you've got to actually show that you can get to positive growth again. That's not particularly easy. They're going to have to cut price, they're going to have to be aggressive," Irwin states. "And they're going to have to lay out a path to the mini car, the cyber taxi, robotaxi, whatever it's going to be. Where's the growth going to come from? they've got a lot of work to do with investors."

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Catalysts.

This post was written by Luke Carberry Mogan.
Video Transcript

Hiring back some of its recently laid off supercharging team.

That's according to reporting from Bloomberg, this comes after the maker laid off 10% of its global workforce last month, including some of the charging team members break down what this means for the company.

We've got Craig or when Rock Capital, senior research analyst, Craig, thanks for in studio, we appreciate it.

So I wanna just start on the U turning that we've seen here.

What do you make of this pivot back for Elon Musk?

Yeah.

You know, he, he tends to make kind of absolutist uh decisions and then uh vacillate around like oops, right?

So they have a capital program they need to execute on um you know, deliveries might not be the trajectory they plan for or hope for this year.

Um But there's a lot of money that's been invested in expanding the supercharger network.

And you know, they're basically gonna be giving a big gift away to industry unless they execute on supporting customers like WW et cetera with, with their build out plans.

Do you think they will be able to do that?

They can definitely, they have the capital, they have the capability.

Um They've spent the money, you know, they need to have the staff there to support the, the completion of these, of these projects.

Is there any headwind for Tesla though, on the likes of BP, who had tried to kind of sniff around the real estate that they had potentially given up and now Tesla's back or is BP?

Just so the, the headwinds for Tesla haven't, haven't really been discussed a whole lot in the charging side.

So Tesla was denied from the direct procurement in New York State.

And there have been several other instances where they've had zero share in some of the nev money.

So Mr Musk has made some uh political mistakes in the way.

He's uh been out there fairly aggressive with rhetoric and it's come back to bite him on the capital access side or the, the, the support side uh for the growth of his ev charging network.

I'm sure that's driving his frustration with the business, but you know, Tesla is a great company.

They have the best network out there.

It's gonna stay the best if they don't invest any more dollars right now for a while.

Um But it's, it makes economic sense for them to bring people back.

Craig just more broadly speaking right now, the next couple of months for Tesla, what is that going to look like?

Because it seems like you, it's nothing new when it comes to Musk.

Obviously, he's a man of making headlines.

I think if you are invested in the stock, you're pretty used to some of the turmoil that has played out over the last several months, several quarters, early several years.

But the next couple of months could potentially be critical here when we're talking about the fact that obviously inflation is still a real issue in the middle of a pricing war.

You have lots of questions just about sluggish demand.

So where does that then position Tesla?

So they gotta show they can, they can get growth going again, right?

When you decline 7 8% you've got to actually show that you can get to positive growth again.

You know, that's not particularly easy.

They're gonna have to cut price, they're gonna have to be aggressive.

Um and they're gonna have to lay out a path to the mini car, the Cyber taxi, Robo, taxi, whatever it's gonna be.

Where's the growth gonna come from?

They, they've got a lot of work to do with investors.

How much, how much do you, you just said that they're gonna have to lower prices again by how much I wouldn't be surprised to see another cumulative 20% price cuts in the next year.

And what kind of pressure is that gonna put on margin, margin, margin will keep going down?

I mean, I don't think margins are going up anytime soon, right?

They're gonna need, they're gonna need another vehicle platform to actually start driving margins again.

They're gonna have to innovate their way out of this mess.

They have car company problems and tech company aspirations and they need to focus on being a car company and solving the car company problems.

Well, then what product do they need to come first?

What would potentially be a saving day for Tesla right now?

So the one they should have launched literally four or five years ago is the mini car, right?

If they'd have launched it, the supply chain would be in place for them to have, you know, mid to high teens margins, right?

They could have been building it in Germany or in India and they're just late and this vacillation around where and when obviously Tesla, Tesla decided that that um Texas is not the location.

That makes sense, right?

Texas is not where you want to build a small car that's really best sold in Europe.

You want to build it in Europe or you want to build it into another market like in India that will supply in um you know, there are so many problems they have to fix at Tesla right now for them to be going through um significant 10 to 20% head pound cuts right now is is problematic.

They need their best people working hard.

Tesla is going all out to push Elon Musk's $55 billion pay package through — even spending money on ads


Grace Kay

BUSINESS INSIDER
Wed, May 15, 2024 

Tesla is spending money on ads to promote Elon Musk's $55 billion pay plan.


The company aims to reapprove Musk's compensation package after it was voided by a judge.


Whether the package is reinstated will be voted on by shareholders on June 13.

Tesla is going all in on its efforts to push through approval of Elon Musk's $55 billion pay package.

The automaker, which has traditionally avoided advertising, has even spent some money on ads calling for Tesla investors to vote in favor of the compensation plan. Tesla showed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission it had paid for some ads on Google, as well as through Musk's social media site X.

"You deserve the final say on matters affecting your investment in Tesla," one ad on X reads. "Vote FOR the protection of stockholder rights and to preserve present and future value creation by supporting Tesla proposals 3 and 4."

A screenshot of some of the paid ads Tesla ran in support of Musk's pay package proposal.SEC

The company aims to pass two separate proposals, one moving its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas and another reapproving Musk's pay, which was struck down by a Delaware judge earlier this year. In January, when the pay plan was voided, Court of Chancery Judge Kathleen St. J. McCormick said that Musk had undue influence over the package due to his close ties to several board members and said Musk's influence over Tesla's board resulted in an "unfair price."

A spokesperson for Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Musk does not receive a salary from Tesla and his pay package centered on a series of goalposts around the carmaker's financial growth. The compensation plan was initially set in place in 2018. Specifically, it involves a 10-year grant of 12 tranches of stock options which are vested when Tesla hits specific targets. When each milestone is passed, Musk gets stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. Tesla has accomplished all of the 12 targets as of 2023, according to the carmaker.

The package was valued at around $55 billion at the time it was struck down by the judge.

The ad spending is one of several methods Tesla is using to attempt to push shareholders to vote in favor of the proposal. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla's board chair, Robyn Denholm, plans to spend the weeks leading up to the shareholder vote on June 13 traveling in order to drum up support for the initiative. Separately, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Tesla had brought on a strategic advisor to promote the agenda.

Earlier in May, Denholm even sat down for a video promoting the pay plan.

"We don't believe one judge's opinion should void the will of millions of votes cast by all of the owners of the company," the Tesla chair said in the video. "So once again, we're asking you to make your voices heard by voting for the ratification of the 2018 performance award."



Tesla's Finally Buying Ads...To Get Elon Musk His $55 Billion Pay Day


Owen Bellwood
Tue, May 14, 2024 

Photo: Apu Gomes (Getty Images)

Good morning! It’s Tuesday, May 14, 2024, and this is The Morning Shift, your daily roundup of the top automotive headlines from around the world, in one place. Here are the important stories you need to know.

1st Gear: Tesla Is Using Ad Money To Secure Musk’s $55 Billion Pay Pack


For some reason, Elon Musk decided that his work at Tesla was worth an eye-watering $55 billion in a move that would see him become one of the best-paid executives across the auto industry. However, the pay pack was blocked by the courts last year and since then Musk has been doing everything he can to try and get it approved, including using Tesla’s advertising budget to promote it.

Tesla has reportedly funneled funding that should be used to promote its cars to buy adverts that aim to encourage shareholders to vote in favor of Musk’s pay packet, reports Electrek. The adverts have so far run on platforms including X, which Musk also owns, and promote moving Tesla’s HQ to Texas and approving the $55 billion pay. As Electrek reports:



In a new filing with the SEC, Tesla confirmed that it is now buying ad spaces to encourage shareholders to vote for these items.

Tesla has to file with the SEC all the “communications” it has with shareholders regarding the vote and this time, the communications are listed as “sponsored” on Google – meaning that Tesla bought Google ads for it.

The automaker even spent money on Elon Musk’s pockets by buying ads on X with the post listed as “promoted”.

Shareholders, who have until June to cast their votes on the issues, could have seen the adverts running online. Each one encourages them to vote in favor of moving Tesla’s state of incorporation out of Delaware and into Texas, which was a move Musk promised after Delaware judges blocked the $55 billion pay. The ads also ask shareholders to vote in favor of having the final say on any compensation offered to Musk.

The spending on such adverts would be suspicious at any time, but it also comes amid falling profits and massive job cuts across the EV maker. Musk has pledged to cut roughly 10 percent of Tesla’s workforce, including across its Supercharger team, workers at its California base and even its interns.
2nd Gear: Uber And Lyft Are In Court Over Driver Benefits



There’s no denying it, rideshare services like Uber and Lyft have changed the way we get around town, but despite thousands of drivers across America operating rides for apps like this, the companies behind them still refuse to treat them as regular employees.

Now, the state of Massachusetts is taking Uber and Lyft to court over its treatment of people driving for the apps, reports Reuters. The lawsuit urges them to treat drivers as it treats its full-time employees, offering proper pay and benefits. As Reuters explains:



Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, is asking a judge to conclude that drivers for Uber and Lyft are employees under state law and therefore entitled to benefits such as a minimum wage, overtime and earned sick time.

Studies have shown that using contractors can cost companies as much as 30% less than employees.

Assistant Attorney General Douglas Martland in his opening statement said the companies’ algorithms, pricing policies and operating standards gave them a level of control over their drivers that belied any claim that they work independently.

The case, which will be heard in a non-jury trial, argues that because of the control Uber and Lyft have over drivers on their network, they should be treated to the same conditions as its contracted employees. It argues that conditions such as a 15-second window to accept rides and the fact that drivers often won’t know how much they will be paid for a trip mean that they should be privy to the same pay and benefits as salaried workers.

However, Uber and Lyft don’t believe this. Instead, they argue that the only full-time employees it needs are data scientists and developers who can fine-tune the app and make sure drivers are being connected with the right rides for them. This, they argue, is better for drivers than, oh I don’t know, holiday pay, healthcare and set hours.
3rd Gear: Tesla Settles Sexual Harrasment Case



Tesla is being put through the wringer these days, with slowing sales hitting its profits, boss Elon Musk cutting staff left, right and center, and its flagship Cybertruck electric pickup falling apart in customers hands. Now, the electric vehicle maker has settled a sexual harassment case brought by a former factory worker.

A factory worker at Tesla’s flagship Fremont, California, assembly plant sued the EV maker after claiming that they were dismissed from their role after complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace, reports Reuters. Now, the Cybertruck maker has reached an agreement with Tyonna Turner out of court. As Reuters explains:



Turner worked at Tesla’s flagship Fremont, California, assembly plant, where the company is accused in a number of lawsuits of failing to address rampant harassment of Black and female workers. The settlement appears to be the first in a series of sexual harassment cases filed against Tesla since 2021.

Tesla, which has denied wrongdoing in those cases, and lawyers for Turner did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Turner in the lawsuit alleged that in the nearly two years she worked at the Fremont plant she was harassed about 100 times, including by a male coworker who followed her around the factory and stalked her.

The lawsuit is remarkably similar to several other cases that Tesla is currently facing. In fact, Turner’s allegations against the company are similar to “those in at least six other cases,” reports Reuters. Tesla is also facing lawsuits alleging that it tolerated “widespread racial discrimination” across its factories.
4th Gear: Mercedes Cancels Next-Gen Luxury EV Platform Over Slow Sales



There seems to be a never-ending stream of automakers canceling and delaying electric vehicle projects these days. First there were delays to GM’s electric switch, then Tesla canceled and un-canceled its affordable EV project, and now Mercedes has put its plans for next-generation luxury EVs on ice.

The German automaker has reportedly canned a new electric car platform that would form the underpinnings to next-generation EQS and EQE eclectic models, reports British outlet Autocar. The move is apparently due to slowing sales for Mercedes’ flagship EVs, as the site explains:



As first reported by Handelsblatt, development of the MB.EA Large platform has been canceled. The German financial publication says the decision has been made due to poor sales of the existing EQE and EQS models, citing information provided by four separate insiders.

The investment savings brought by halting the development and infrastructure changes at its production sites to accommodate the new platform are estimated to be between €4 billion and €6 billion (roughly £3.44bn and £5.16bn).

The updated large EV platform was set to join a medium iteration of the MB.EA platform that would have been used on new EQC sedan and SUV models. The larger platform had been earmarked for more luxurious offerings.

The move away from a luxury platform will free up funds and resources for new EV architecture that could underpin new electric compact models, sports cars and even commercial vehicles.

Tesla plans to cut 601 more jobs in California, notice to government says

Reuters
Updated Tue, May 14, 2024 

FILE PHOTO: A Tesla logo is seen in Los Angeles

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -Tesla plans to lay off an additional 601 employees in California, it said in a notice to the state government, as the automaker undertakes a series of job cuts globally that began a month ago amid falling sales and intensifying price competition.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on April 15 that the company would lay off more than 10% of its global workforce, which stood at over 140,000 in late 2023. The electric vehicle maker has conducted several rounds of job cuts since then, as Musk wanted to slash 20% of its headcount, according to people familiar with the matter.

The latest layoff plan would affect employees at Tesla's facilities in Palo Alto and Fremont, California, and will start during the 14-day period beginning on June 20, 2024, Tesla said in its Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN).


The electric carmaker said last month it would lay off 6,020 people in California and Texas, as part of the headcount cuts.

The global job reductions also included 285 employees at its Buffalo, New York facilities that house the labeling team for its Autopilot driver assistance software and which makes fast-charging equipment.

Musk disbanded Tesla's Supercharger team on April 30.

(Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin; Editing by Sandra Maler and Jamie Freed)

Tesla to cut 601 jobs in Bay Area, a sign of more problems for EV maker

Karen Garcia
Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:48 PM MDT·2 min read

An assembly line at Tesla's plant in Fremont, Calif., in 2015. (David Butow / For The Times)


In the fourth straight week of layoff announcements, Tesla said it is now concentrating on reducing staff at its Bay Area facilities as part of a larger move to cut jobs globally.

State filings show that Tesla is planning to lay off 378 employees at its Fremont facilities and 223 at its Palo Alto offices.

The layoffs will occur over a 14-day period starting June 20.

An email to Tesla officials requesting comment was not immediately returned.

The layoffs come as the company struggles with flagging sales, top executives fleeing, a declining stock price and quality problems with the new Cybertruck. The low-cost Model 2 recently promised by Chief Executive Elon Musk also appears to be dead.

It is not immediately clear which positions are being cut. The San Francisco Chronicle reported they would include technicians, electricians, software engineers, plumbers and athletic trainers.

Read more: The EV market is in trouble: The latest sign is Tesla's layoffs

On April 15, Musk announced in an email to staff that Tesla was cutting more than 10% of its workforce, citing job overlap and the need to reduce costs.

A week later, Telsa said it was laying off 3,332 workers at its facilities and offices in Fremont, Palo Alto, Burbank and Lathrop.

Including the latest cuts, Telsa has announced 3,933 layoffs this year in California.

“As we prepare the company for our next phase of growth, it is extremely important to look at every aspect of the company for cost reductions and increasing productivity,” Musk wrote in the April email.

“As part of this effort, we have done a thorough review of the organization and made the difficult decision to reduce our headcount by more than 10% globally,” he continued. “There is nothing I hate more, but it must be done.”

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Tesla to rehire some of its laid-off Supercharger team: BBG

Seana Smith and Brad Smith
Tue, May 14, 2024

Tesla (TSLA) appears to be backtracking on its recent workforce reduction strategy, as Bloomberg reported the electric vehicle giant is rehiring some of its Supercharger team. This move comes just a month after CEO Elon Musk laid off nearly all of its employees on the Supercharger network team.

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Morning Brief.

This post was written by Angel Smith
Video Transcript

All right, let's talk about another turning ticker here on Yahoo Finance.

And that is Tesla, reportedly starting to bring back some of the employees that they let go not too long ago.

And now remember, this is the group that EO Elon Musk laid off part of the supercharger unit.

That was just last month.

This is according to a report here from Bloomberg.

Now, among those being rehired is Tesla's director of charging for North America.

And this comes on the heels of what seems to be a massive reversal here under Musk, initially making headlines last week just about the plans to pretty much dismantle the entire group.

Now it looks like he is bringing some of those key former employees back.

We talked to I. I spoke to the CEO of Blink, charging on the show yesterday and was asking him what exactly this means for his business, whether or not he would potentially be interested in some of these Tesla employees that had been let go.

And he essentially said yes, right?

It could be very.

It could be very beneficial for his business, given their experience, given their knowledge within Tesla.

So I think as you see this quick reaction from others within the industry looking to capitalise on what Tesla had seemingly left behind, at least for a couple of days.

But again, this reversal under must I mean, you can go so many ways with this conversation.

One if you want to focus on the super charging business itself and that industry.

But two, I think.

And maybe the more interesting part of this conversation.

It's just a dysfunction that seems to be playing out right now inside Tesla and exactly what that culture is, and maybe potentially a toxic culture, as some former employees are calling it right now.

I mean, many employees have come out in the past, whether it be the toxic workplace environment, whether it be allegations of discrimination within the workplace.

I mean, you just continue to file this under file this away under what the heck is happening at Tesla as of right now, and it really comes back to what the leadership team is doing to actually push back on Elon Musk and if they feel like they actually have enough weight when they're lending their own opinion or their own mindset towards what management is looking like what it's doing on the delivery of so many of the vehicles that this company has promised and now lagging some of the expectations once they put it into the market Looking at you cyber truck.

Also, you think about the ultimate investigations that are still taking place and on going into full self drive.

A major marketing point for Tesla.

That's still a large question mark.

And then it comes down to the culture that you mentioned in Dove into a moment ago.

This company has had question marks around its culture swirling around it for the better part of the last 78 years.

Let's just sum it up as that.

And so all these things considered it can be a hit on talent acquisition in the future.

If you have people highly skilled, very smart people who don't want to go work for Tesla or Elon Musk.

What does that do for the profile and for the valuation in terms of factoring in any type of growth prospect for this company to eventually get to the same type of production standards sentiment standard as some of the large behemoths within this, um um motor vehicle landscape that yes, have pulled back on some of their own ambitions for electric vehicles in this near term, given some of the waning demand but still have far more expertise in operating and making sure that they can scale up when the time is necessary.

Tesla Sued For Spewing Toxic Pollutants From California Plant

Andy Kalmowitz
Tue, May 14, 2024 

An environmental non-profit group is suing Tesla, alleging CEO Elon Musk’s automaker violated the federal Clear Air Act hundreds of times because its factory in Fremont, California was emitting harmful pollutants. This lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, adds to mounting pressure on Tesla to improve the air quality around its flagship Fremont plant.

The Environmental Democracy Project says Tesla’s Fremont factory has been exposing nearby residents and workers to excessive amounts of nitrogen oxides, arsenic, cadmium and other harmful chemicals, according to a report from Reuters. The toxins are mostly coming from the Austin, Texas-based automaker’s paint shop. Maybe that’s why the Cybertruck is unpainted. The group is looking for an injunction to stop excess pollution in addition to civil fines of up to $121,275 per day for violating the Clean Air Act.

Earlier this month, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District said it was looking for an independent hearing board to get Tesla to reduce harmful emissions from its paint shop operations. So much for electric vehicles being environmentally friendly. Am I right, folks?

The Fremont factory operates under what is known as a Title V air permit, which is governed by the BAAQMD (I don’t know if they really use that acronym, but I like it). It found that Tesla’s operations violated that permit more than 160 times between 2012 and 2024, according to Bloomberg Law.

Here’s a little more on the history of Tesla’s environmental woes, from Reuters:

It said that Tesla’s emissions abatement system breaks down “repeatedly,” and the automaker has since 2019 racked up 112 notices of violation, opens new tab, each accounting for as much as 750 pounds of illegal air pollution.

In February, Tesla agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit by 25 California counties that claimed it mishandled hazardous waste at locations across the state.

The Environmental Democracy Project said it has authority to file a “citizen” lawsuit under the Clean Air Act because Tesla “has violated or in violation of conditions imposed by an operating permit for major sources of pollution.”

Listen, I don’t know much about anything – but for a company that exclusively produces “eco-friendly” electric vehicles, this is not a good thing to be doing. Again, I don’t know. I’m certainly not an expert.

Watch Crews Blow Up The Baltimore Bridge

Owen Bellwood
Tue, May 14, 2024

Bang! And the bridge is gone. - Gif: WUSA9 via YouTube

More than six weeks after it struck and destroyed the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore, the Dali container ship has finally been freed after engineers blew up remnants of the bridge. Explosives experts from the U.S. Army were called in to explode a remaining bridge section, which had pinned the ship in place.

Local authorities announced last week that plans were in place to carry out a controlled demolition of the remaining bridge section. Blowing it up would allow engineers to refloat the Dali container ship and return it, and its crew, to port for inspections.

The trigger was finally pulled yesterday afternoon, reports the BBC, after the body of the sixth and final victim of the crash was finally recovered last week. As the site explains:

A loud explosion was heard shortly after 17:00 Eastern time (21:00 GMT), and pieces of the bridge fell into the water.

Officials said they used the controlled detonation to make precision cuts, hoping to free the Dali, which will return to the Port of Baltimore.

The port, which handles a variety of goods and is the busiest in the country for car shipments, was closed after the collapse, although some shipping has resumed through temporary channels. The US Army Corps of Engineers said it aims to restore full capacity by the end of May.

Footage of the explosion was streamed online by local news outlet WUSA9 News, which had a chopper on hand to watch the whole process unfold. In the footage, which you can see below, one section of the bridge remains propped on the bow of the Dali.

At around the 25-minute mark, the explosives go off and the remaining span is shrouded in a cloud of dust and smoke. Then, the span crumbles off the bow of the bridge and into the water below, where it joins an estimated 4,400 tons of debris that fell into the Patapsco River.

As the smoke from the explosion clears, you can see that the ship is now free from its bonds. As the footage continues, small ships pull up alongside the Dali so inspectors and construction workers canboard the massive container ship once again. Close up shots also show that while the superstructure of the bridge has been successfully removed, a section of the roadway remains perched on the bow of the ship.

With the majority of the bridge now removed from the Dali, workers are now hoping to remove the stricken ship over the next two days. Workers will then assess the condition of the shipping channel and hope to have it reopened to cargo soon.