Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government Politics

Michigan About To Ban Tesla Sales 294

cartechboy writes It's a story we've come to see quite often: a state trying to ban Tesla's direct sales model. It seems something sneaky just happened in Michigan where Tesla sales are about to be banned. Bill HB 5606 originally intended to offer added protection to franchised dealers and consumers from price gouging by carmakers, and was passed by the Michigan House in September without any anti-Tesla language. However, once it hit the Senate wording was changed that might imply the legality of a manufacturer-owned dealership was removed. The modified bill was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 2, and then sent back to the House that day where it passed with only a single dissenting vote. The bill was modified without any opportunity for public comment. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has less than a week to sign the bill into law. Of course, Tesla's already fighting this legislation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michigan About To Ban Tesla Sales

Comments Filter:
  • Wonder How Much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Forgefather ( 3768925 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @02:49PM (#48162301)

    Wonder how much the dealer franchises had to pay in bribes for a unanimous vote. Seems a bit overkill when you only need a majority.

    • by lister king of smeg ( 2481612 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @02:55PM (#48162351)

      Wonder how much the dealer franchises had to pay in bribes for a unanimous vote. Seems a bit overkill when you only need a majority.

      They didn't have to Michigan is the home of Detroit the "Motor City". Any one voting against it would have been shooting themselves in the foot come time for election funding.

      • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

        uh... have you seen the state of Detroit lately?

        • Re:Wonder How Much? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by schnell ( 163007 ) <me&schnell,net> on Thursday October 16, 2014 @08:49PM (#48165521) Homepage

          uh... have you seen the state of Detroit lately?

          "Detroit" is only nominally the home of the auto industry, and is maintained by Ford and GM as a brand of sorts to evoke classic American cars.

          Other than executive offices, all the big auto manufacturing plants are situated - and nearly all the workers live - well outside the city itself, in the suburbs where (other than being impacted by Detroit's implosion and the overall Great Recession decline) things are pretty good.

          So when you hear someone say "Detroit is fighting Tesla," thats not the case. Detroit couldn't fight Pawnee, Indiana and win two out of three. What they really actually mean is "Detroit" the brand/region, i.e. the corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters - and the suppliers/subcontractors/vendors to those companies, who probably employ as many if not more Michigan residents. So don't take Detroit's colossal f***up as any indication that the power of Ford/GM, its ecosystem and perhaps most importantly the UAW as being diminished in any way.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:32PM (#48162677)

        Here is where the logic fails

        1) Republicans control the House, Senate, and Governorship of Michigan.
        2) Republicans are "pro-business".
        3) Republicans believe in "minimal government".
        4) Republicans believe in "minimal regulation"

        It would stand to reason that people holding this philosophy would let the "market forces" take their course without government interference. However, this is not how they behave. Hmmm.

        • by x0ra ( 1249540 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:41PM (#48162789)
          3) and 4) are only valid in during election when it's time to manufacture consent. Trust me, they are very pro-government and pro-regulation if it goes in the interest of the companies paying their multi-millions campaign.
        • by asylumx ( 881307 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @04:07PM (#48163013)
          Republicans believe in states rights, which means minimal federal government. They do NOT believe in "minimal government" as you called it. Republicans in state positions are VERY heavy-handed.

          And yes, Republicans control Michigan which is not likely to change anytime soon. That said, even if they didn't, auto mfg is the big industry here and most politicians R or D are not likely to do anything that would harm that industry, especially right now after they have just recently "recovered."
          • Republicans control Michigan which is not likely to change anytime soon.

            The polls in the Michigan gubernatorial race are within the margin of error.

            It could change sometime soon, but who knows?

        • Rinos believe in small government when they are out of office.
          Like anyone else they believe they know whats best for everyone else when in office.

          Oddly enough this actually validates the position that government should be as minimalist as feasible.

    • Their voting is probably not motivated primarily by bribes - its Michigan jobs they are worried about.

      Ironically, the Tesla is more American made (roughly 55% domestic and a lot more when the batteries are made by the Gigafactory) than its Ford, GM, Nissan competitors (roughly 35% domestic)
      • On Slashdot, bribery and shadowy conspiracies are always the default answer.

  • From the featured article:

    Get the Full Story: Digital + Print $12 for 12 Weeks. [ Subscribe Now ]

    Editors: You could at least warn us that we won't be able to participate in constructive discussion of the featured article without paying.

  • Silly Rabbit, Teslas are for the masses. You can fight with laws now, but where will you go when you are the only one of a handful of states that isn't selling teslas? You can't stop progress, just like you can't stop Uber, AirBnb or any other hip and dynamic companies.
    • Teslas are for the masses.

      I'm a big fan of Tesla. But I wouldn't exactly say that their $75k cars are "for the masses". I have a Nissan Leaf, which is less than half that price. It's a great car, but it's certainly no Model S.

    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )

      Tesla's car are for the upper 5% of the population, not for the manual worker who can't afford a car worth many years of his labor, who has not access to credit, and who will be stuck driving a 20 years old car, which has a terribly low MPG. There is no way electrical vehicle can ever be affordable enough for these people. Basically, Tesla are for the guy who's wondering if he should buy a Porsche or a Mazeraty, but whose wife convince he should jump in the green bashing era...

      • a Porsche or a Mazeraty

        Maserati.

        Try to avoid writing words you've heard but never seen written. it can make you look like a halfwit.

        Note that rest of your grammar will tend to do the same.

        Which is sad, because your point is good....

      • Actually I've noticed a decline in MPG in new cars I think it's the emission controls that holds that number down. I have had older cars from the 80s and early 90s that got much better than the advertised MPG of a similar new car and better than my current car.

    • Silly Rabbit, Teslas are for the masses.

      You must be insane. TrueCar [truecar.com] shows me that the base price of a Tesla 2014 S is $70,890, and the "performance" version is $94,390. Kelley Blue Book [kbb.com] puts the base price at $68,710 - $73,429. A car for the masses? A car for the lower end of the 1% more like it.

  • Very well, let them. Nobody in Michigan can afford one anyway.

  • The rationale for enforcing a car dealership model is obsolete. Now these laws only protect special interests who support politicians and are at odds with the interest of the vast majority of the American public.

    I'm all for state's rights, but I think its time for the federal government to step in and eliminate this unconstitutional restraint of interstate commerce.
    • by agm ( 467017 )

      I don't understand how the state can prevent one man from selling his goods to another. Land of the free indeed.

      • I don't understand how the state can prevent one man from selling his goods to another. Land of the free indeed.

        Shall I see this as a statement that the corporation called "Tesla" is equivalent to a person?

        • by agm ( 467017 )

          No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla. That salesman should be able to sell his product to anyone who is willing to buy it without government involvment.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:19PM (#48162555)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • s and futuristic car designs they probably stole from us!!

      They pretty clearly copied Aston Martin's exterior design. But Ford only owns a small minority of Aston Martin.

  • by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:20PM (#48162563)

    According to this map [marketwatch.com], state bans on Tesla sales are a Republican thing.

    The Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, is a Republican. The Michigan State Senate has a 26-to-12 Republican majority and in the House a 59-to-50 Republican majority. With control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, it is certainly Republicans who are accountable for revoking the freedom to purchase a Tesla in Michigan.

    By the way, it is election season, and I have noticed signs in my neighborhood stating, "For freedom, vote Republican."

    • by tomhath ( 637240 )

      state bans on Tesla sales are a Republican thing.

      Your chart doesn't support that statement. Blue states are almost evenly split with the majority allowing sales; Red somewhat less even against allowing direct sales. But it's hardly what anyone would call a "Republican thing".

    • by CoderJoe ( 97563 ) * on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:42PM (#48162805)

      And for the irony, aren't the Republicans usually all for the free market and against restrictions? But here they're pushing for the opposite: restrict the market to block out competition and support the entrenched.

      • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @04:20PM (#48163173)

        And for the irony, aren't the Republicans usually all for the free market and against restrictions?

        No. In general they don't like big government, but that's not the same as no regulation.

        In this case it's not clear if the driving force is dealers or the UAW, probably both. Odd bedfellows and all that.

    • by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:45PM (#48162853)

      The Michigan State Senate has a 26-to-12 Republican majority and in the House a 59-to-50 Republican majority. With control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, it is certainly Republicans who are accountable for revoking the freedom to purchase a Tesla in Michigan.

      So wait, 49 of the 50 democrat reps vote for this and all 12 democrat senators vote for this and it's a Republican thing?

      you must be trolling.

    • Are you colour blind?!! From the very map you cite, it looks like an even break between red & blue states.

      With the exception of a few states, this looks more like a Western (non-coastal) state thing.
      Western : Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas.
      Plus a scattered handful : Arkansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey & Delaware.
    • .... this is Michigan you are talking about. Ford, Chrysler, and GM country.

      You can be it is them and their dollars doing this, and it would be happening regardless of what party was in power.

  • Now people will just go out of state to buy Teslas, and thus the tax revenue will go to another state.

    This is a case where someone didn't think things through.

  • Never mind Tesla. I don't even want to deal with dealers for conventional cars. I would rather order the thing online direct from the factory (or Amazon) and just have it delivered. There is so much crap an nonsense you have to deal with at a car dealership, it's not even funny.

    This "upselling" thing is a sickness that seems to have infested everything.

    • I would rather order the thing online direct from the factory (or Amazon) and just have it delivered. There is so much crap an nonsense you have to deal with at a car dealership, it's not even funny.

      Having to ship it back to get warranty repairs would kind of make warranties useless. I much prefer being able to drive it to the dealer and telling him "it isn't working, fix it." Also to deal with recalls. (This is a lesson I learned after many years of buying commodity PCs. I've had to drive 60 miles to take one back that wasn't working, and I much prefer walking into the local shop and dropping the problem in their lap.)

      As for "nonsense", you just need to find a good dealer. They exist. I went to a lo

  • by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:34PM (#48162703) Homepage Journal

    I have 2 questions I'd like answered by someone who's not financially nor emotionally invested in the whole "Tesla vs the Gobermint" debate:

    1) For what reason would a state legislature want to make it illegal for a manufacturer to own their own dealership?

    2) For what reason would a manufacturer not want to franchise their dealerships?

    Thanks (to the probably 2 out of 100 responses that will actually fit my criteria) in advance.

    • Re:2 Questions (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:53PM (#48162925)

      1) So the manufacturer cannot give their own dealership an unfair advantage over franchised dealerships. This is what happened back in the early 20th century when Ford and others were trying to strong-arm their franchisees.

      2) So they can sell direct to consumers. They feel that existing franchised auto-dealerships will not give them a fair shake. They'll steer customers unfairly to buy the Ford, Chevy, Nissan, whatever else they're selling if Tesla doesn't give them a bigger commission. Think of the last time you visit a commission based electronics store (ABC Warehouse as an example), the salesmen will push a consumer to purchase the goods which give them the biggest commission. It doesn't matter what the consumer needs, they want a bigger payday, and honestly with that model it's hard to blame them.

      Using the electronics example, Tesla is taking the Apple approach, where they want to control the presentation of their goods and who sells them. Apple might not get the greatest shake from the salesman at ABC Warehouse if Samsung is offering a higher commission. However when you go to an Apple Store, you get a salesman who is not paid on commission and their job is to solely educate you about Apple products. Tesla wants the same experience, come to a store where the salesman knows everything about a Tesla and can sell it to you in an environment catered to it. These are niche products that won't get a fair shake from the existing dealerships without a good bribe, just like our Congress in Michigan has shown.

      • They feel that existing franchised auto-dealerships will not give them a fair shake. They'll steer customers unfairly to buy the Ford, Chevy, Nissan, whatever else they're selling if Tesla doesn't give them a bigger commission.

        Can't believe that to be the case, because that would mean the people in charge of Tesla's Marketing Department are complete morons - never has a new car salesman tried to "steer" a potential sale to their competitors.

        Ever.

        • Can't believe that to be the case, because that would mean the people in charge of Tesla's Marketing Department are complete morons - never has a new car salesman tried to "steer" a potential sale to their competitors.

          Remember - most dealerships sell multiple makes. If one of their makes gives the dealership more kickback - the dealership pushes that make. Also, dealerships sell many models. They push the models they want - instead of simply answering questions, informing the consumer, and helping the

    • by larien ( 5608 )
      I'm not involved as I'm in Scotland....

      1) The state legislature is run by people. People are (a) greedy and (b) want to stay in power. When car company lobby groups see potential competition, it's cheaper for them to bribe, sorry, "provide campaign funds" to a pet politician than to actually compete. Those people take the money and decry the horrible, horrible Tesla company for daring to defile the hard working people who they've been speaking to (read - taking wodges of cash from).

      2)There are some re

      • 1) "Because politicians are greedy!" is exactly the sort of emotional response I was looking to avoid.

        2) Good link; I was expecting a "Tesla == teh shit" fluff piece, but the guy actually did have some legitimate bitches about the process of buying straight from the manufacturer, and well-reasoned explanations for why a dealership model would have been impossible for Tesla in the beginning, and would still be unprofitable today.

    • by Sowelu ( 713889 )

      1) It forces dealerships to price things locally and in competition with other dealerships, instead of based on the manufacturers' global strategies. Dick pricing moves are therefore local rather than global, prices aren't fixed everywhere across the country, sales actually happen. Also, a third-party dealership is more likely to want to sell you a used car. Manufacturer owned dealerships have a huge incentive to push new ones. If third-party dealerships had to compete with first-party ones, they would

      • 1) It forces dealerships to price things locally and in competition with other dealerships, instead of based on the manufacturers' global strategies. Dick pricing moves are therefore local rather than global, prices aren't fixed everywhere across the country, sales actually happen. Also, a third-party dealership is more likely to want to sell you a used car. Manufacturer owned dealerships have a huge incentive to push new ones. If third-party dealerships had to compete with first-party ones, they would all get priced out of the new car market very quickly and likely go out of business, and then the used car market would suck.

        Well said.

        Also, theoretically anyway, it should protect some smaller manufacturers. If a big manufacturer had the infrastructure to do direct sales to everyone, but a smaller manufacturer had worse infrastructure and had to go through dealerships, then the big manufacturer would take its lack of a middleman and price the smaller one out of business. The market doesn't seem to be working like that right now though.

        Can't really answer 2).

        I think you just did.

  • Bill HB 5606 originally intended to offer added protection to franchised dealers and consumers from price gouging by carmakers, and was passed by the Michigan House in September without any anti-Tesla language. However, once it hit the Senate wording was changed that might imply the legality of a manufacturer-owned dealership was removed. The modified bill was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 2, and then sent back to the House that day where it passed with only a single dissenting vote.

    It's prob

  • by Livius ( 318358 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @03:58PM (#48162947)

    Okay, I've always assumed that the stereotypes about the honest of car dealers were true, but I never suspected that they were this much of an entrenched monied special interest group.

    Well if people are getting this rich off of essentially retail, then there are bigger things wrong with this picture than we thought.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RaySt ( 1089705 )
      If they had competitive cars to sell, they probably wouldn't mind so much - they'd just buckle down, and emphasize the value they bring to the table (perceived or real). But they don't have ultra-high-tech, hyped cars to compete, and now their lifeline is at risk. I'm not surprised they go this route.
      But Tesla is in a better position here I think. First, nothing says "this product is awesome" than competitors trying to ban it. Second, they can up the game. I was an evil strategist, I'd start by building
  • The US has decomposed into a state where anything wonderful and new will be attacked and maybe crushed. We need to arrest congress people who vote for things like restraint of trade and we need Tesla to receive billions of dollars from states that have tried to crush them. We do not allow people who are in a house or senate to break the law and restrain trade and conspire to give advantage to more established companies. That is criminal in nature. So how about we drag Michigan into the federal co
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Anyone else slightly concerned that we can bait-and-switch bills like this? You can't just push a process past all the reviews and then modify the document at the last second in the hope no-one will notice. If it could be proven that the change was in support of a specific goal (as this one looks to be) then this is horribly dishonest. ...oh wait, we're talking about politics, sorry I forgot.

  • by namhash ( 556133 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @04:11PM (#48163065)
    I think this works in Teslas' favour. Nothing better than making something illegal to get the attention of everyone and make them want it more.
  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Thursday October 16, 2014 @10:25PM (#48165973)

    in history managed to fuck with the system in suck a positive way? It's so frereshing.

  • by synapse7 ( 1075571 ) on Friday October 17, 2014 @07:54AM (#48167869)

    How about a link to the Tesla article.

    http://www.teslamotors.com/blo... [teslamotors.com]

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Working...