backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Mar 14 at 7:14 AM

Tesla will have to stop selling its cars directly in the state starting April 1

Tesla Motors called New Jersey out yesterday for introducing a new rule that would block the automaker's ability to sell electric vehicles directly to customers, but it didn't seem to do much good as the state went ahead and voted in favor of it. 
 
According to CNBC, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission voted in favor of the ban of direct auto sales in the state on Tuesday. This means that Tesla must stop selling its electric vehicles directly to customers in the state beginning on April 1, 2014. 
 
Tesla already operates two stores in New Jersey, and had plans to open more before this new rule. It's possible that Tesla could use them as showrooms now, where customers can look at the Model S, but must go buy them from dealerships or online. 
 
New Jersey is now the third state to ban Tesla's direct sales model. Arizona and Texas were the first two states to give Tesla the boot. 


Tesla CEO Elon Musk

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s administration proposed the new rule earlier this week, which requires a person to have a franchise agreement with an auto manufacturer in order to be granted a license to sell. 

Following the announcement of that rule, Tesla went to its website to make its opposition known. 

"Unfortunately, Monday we received news that Governor Christie’s administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature," said Tesla in a statement. "The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla’s sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state."

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said in the past that he'd be willing to take the auto dealership battle to a federal level if needed. 

Source: CNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 2:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is a joke of an analogy, and you didn't reply the last time I called you out on it.

Unions negotiate deals with companies. They don't outlaw non-union companies from doing business in the state. This has nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with protectionism.

If Ford dealers want to stop Ford from selling direct, they can make an alliance and tell Ford that they will stop buying cars (i.e. strike) unless they have exclusive rights to sell Ford vehicles in an area (you see this from distributors all over the economy). Ford will then weigh that option against the cost of opening its own network of thousands of stores from scratch, and would likely choose the dealers. That's how unions work, and there is no legislation needed.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 2:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
You are applying some silly definition of a "union" that doesn't apply in the real world, then formulating false arguments based from that.

quote:
Unions negotiate deals with companies.


"The National Automobile Dealers Association (often abbreviated as NADA) was founded in 1917 by a group of dealers determined to lower the luxury tax on automobiles from 5% to 3% by lobbying congress in Washington, DC. After the success in Washington, the group decided to form a permanent union and represent the nation's 15,000 automobile dealers. In July 1917, 130 dealers met in Chicago where they elected George Browne of Milwaukee to be NADA's first president."

Sounds like a union to me!! Hello?

quote:
They don't outlaw non-union companies from doing business in the state.


What the...WHAT? Do you even know what "union" state means. It absolutely means they've blocked competition from non-union sources!!!

This happens ALL the time, wake up!


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 2:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Big surprise! New Jersey is a forced-union state.


RE: Yet Again
By KOOLTIME on 3/12/2014 4:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
They key point Tesla is making though is not about the union, its what NADA is forcing them to do business their way.

AKA to sale in state = must "Franchise"

They cant franchise because franchises are public, and Tesla is a privately owned company.

Thats why the key wording in the ruling about "MUST FRANCHISE" is whats killing the whole deal.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 8:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "union" thing wasn't even a big point of mine.

LOL really? Only one line in your entire post was unrelated to unions.

quote:
Do you even know what "union" state means.

I challenge you to name one of these supposed "union states" where it is ILLEGAL for a company to sell goods if they're not unionized.

Don't chicken out yet again.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 9:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I challenge you to name one of these supposed "union states" where it is ILLEGAL for a company to sell goods if they're not unionized.


There ARE states where non-union companies cannot bid for jobs, or sell their product, in certain situations. Usually when it comes to government jobs. This is one example of the anti-competitive nature of unions. Kind of shocked you aren't aware of this practice.

You seem to be extremely confused on unions. Labor unions aren't the ONLY kind of union, you know?

Again you've yet to convince me the NADA isn't a union. They're a big money union, and New Jersey has been in the pocket of the unions since before we were born.

For some reason, however, you had a problem with me stating this.

Mint, I know this Tesla situation is painful to you. Because it challenges your Liberal ideology of free market = bad and unions = good. But don't blow a gasket.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 9:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There ARE states where non-union companies cannot bid for jobs, or sell their product, in certain situations.


Yeah, because the union is in a contract with the company or gov't in question. Never is it encoded in law that they cannot bid. Never are they prohibited from doing business in the state with consumers.

Dealers have no contract with Tesla, and no contract with the general consumer. It is not a labor union, nor anything like it. They issue here is that they are a grossly successful lobbying entity.

Any talk about non-labor unions is just a strawman from you that has nothing to do with right-to-work. If you are going to use such the term so broadly, then the whole country is a union, un-unionized companies are in unions, the GOP is a union, etc...


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 9:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
*yawn*

Okay you win, this is so goddamn boring I don't care anymore.

If you can't be bothered to comprehend and not put words in people's mouths, I don't see why we should continue.


RE: Yet Again
By Just Tom on 3/12/2014 8:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Texas is a right to work state and has similar rules. Is it because they are also slaves to their union masters?


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 9:10:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Is it because they are also slaves to their union masters?


Nope. It's because the NADA has a huge lobby and threw money at lawmakers to rig the game in their favor.


RE: Yet Again
By Just Tom on 3/13/2014 5:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, something we agree on. However, I am betting the same thing happened in Jersey. Christie is no lover of unions, but who doesn't love lots and lots of money?


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 9:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
A "forced-union" state does not mean every business is mandated to be a union, you halfwit.

It means unions are merely allowed to be in a contract with individual companies where membership is forced. That's due to negotiation between a union and a company. If you want to start a non-union company to compete with them, you are free to do so .

BTW, right-to-work is a regulation. It explicitly prohibits union-employer agreement that mandate membership. I thought you don't want gov't meddling in business?

Dealers prohibiting an independent business from selling cars through law has nothing to do with unions.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 9:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A "forced-union" state does not mean every business is mandated to be a union, you halfwit.


Of course not. Wtf did you see me say that?

Stop twisting EVERYTHING!

quote:
BTW, right-to-work is a regulation. It explicitly prohibits union-employer agreement that mandate membership. I thought you don't want gov't meddling in business?


Har har..Jesus H.. That's an example of GOOD regulations. Unions are ran by organized crime. They are thugs and their track record of forcing businesses against their will is beyond established. Right-to-work PROTECTS businesses from these shady and underhanded tactics.

Are you so stupid to believe I think any regulation is evil?

quote:
Dealers prohibiting an independent business from selling cars through law has nothing to do with unions.


What the hell...I never said it did!

I simply said they are why New Jersey came down the way they did on this.

If you think otherwise, you're being willfully ignorant.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 9:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
A "forced-union" state does not mean every business is mandated to be a union, you halfwit.
Of course not. Wtf did you see me say that?

Do you even read your own posts? When I said, "They don't outlaw non-union companies from doing business in the state", you told me I'm wrong and gave that forced-union link as proof.

My only conclusion is that you think forced union is proof that unions do outlaw non-union companies from doing business.
quote:
Right-to-work PROTECTS businesses from these shady and underhanded tactics.
What's shady and underhanded about that? Do businesses not engage in the same tactics with employees, prohibiting them from working for a competitor with non-compete agreements?

Businesses can say no to unions and if they have balls they'll win, especially in this economy. Who's going to hurt more? 100 newly unemployed with poor job prospects or a rich business owner?

quote:
I simply said they are why New Jersey came down the way they did on this.

And you're completely wrong. There are more right-to-work states prohibiting direct auto sales than forced-union states. It an orthogonal issue, and if anything, the correlation is the opposite of your harebrained theory.

Unions are about collective bargaining. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

NADA does not bargain with anyone. Not with the public, and not with Tesla. Christie passed this law without it going through the legislature, and without public comment.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 11:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you're completely wrong.


That's clearly your opinion, and you have a right to it.


RE: Yet Again
By Just Tom on 3/12/2014 2:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After the success in Washington, the group decided to form a permanent union and represent the nation's 15,000 automobile dealers


quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Using your logic the entire of the United States is a union.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 3:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh no, that's just silly.

Troll.


RE: Yet Again
By Just Tom on 3/12/2014 4:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the troll?

NADA is an association of owners of dealerships. They are in no way, shape, or form a union.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 4:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Association...Union..

Tomato tomatoe.

quote:
They are in no way, shape, or form a union.


Prove it then.


RE: Yet Again
By Just Tom on 3/12/2014 7:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Tell you what, I'll accept NADA as a union when you accept that most Fortune 500 companies are unions. Heck, under your logic Google is a member of a union since it belongs the Internet Association among others.


RE: Yet Again
By kingmotley on 3/12/2014 6:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
There are many types of unions. You are probably thinking of an employee union. There are quite a few others out there.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm waiting for one of these geniuses to figure out there's more kinds of unions than just labor unions...


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 9:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
And yet labor unions are precisely and exclusively what you are referring to in your rants about liberals, NJ, and right-to-work.

"more kinds of unions" apply to republicans/independents, un-unionized companies, right-to-work states like Texas, etc. None of your pointless ramblings above apply to non-labor unions.

Once again you wind up invalidating your own argument...


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 9:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Okay keep clouding the true argument.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and that's exactly what you Liberals want on this Tesla issue. Either you're for the free market or you're not.

Mint the only time you've ever supported Capitalism here is when it's convenient for your ideology. And that goes for a LOT of people here.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 10:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not this BS again. How many imaginary posts of mine have you conjured in your head?

I have never been anti-capitalism. I am only against pure, unregulated capitalism. I am pro-democracy: If people want gov't spending or a regulation, they should get it, and they deserve all the good and bad things that come with it. It's up to public discourse to guide democracy in the correct direction, and determine what that direction is.

You accused me of being pro-Obamacare, and then chickened out when I challenged you to find a single post of mine supporting (or even about it).

You recently called me a green party environmentalist. I'm pro-nuclear, pro-Keystone, pro-GM-food, anti-Greenpeace, against solar/wind subsidies, and against drastic action to combat AGW. That makes me a shill for environmentalism? Riiiight...

You even resorted to labeling me a fake scientist, when DT itself happened to report on my peer-reviewed research.

Take your meds and tone down the paranoia, buddy.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 11:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Dude please! You even think something as simple and harmless as RC planes need to be regulated by the FAA!!

You say you're for freedom and all this great stuff, sounds good on paper, then as soon as a DT article is posted about something you ALWAYS pick the big Government side.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/13/2014 11:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you bringing this up here instead of the drone thread? Every time you lose an argument you just change the subject.

RC planes are not harmless. Look at Ars's article about it:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/faa-can...

quote:
The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), which lobbies for "model aviators" and acts as a liaison to the FAA for them, was also taken aback by how close Pirker’s remote aircraft—flown in first-person view mode from a distance—came to buildings, ships, bridges, and a national landmark. In a statement for the AMA, spokesperson Rich Hanson said, “The nature of the flight was outside the realm of recreational aeromodeling activity as defined by the AMA Safety Code and posed a significant threat to people and property.”


That's a pro-RC lobbying group.

The problem is that with wireless internet now letting you operate one from potentially hundreds of miles away, there is no way to prosecute a law-breaker. Someone could spy on your family, damage your car, injure/kill you, etc, and authorities would have no way of tracking them (unless you let the NSA crank up the internet spying by a factor of 100). All he'd have to do is just burn the mobile device after the deed is done. In a few years, they'll be unbelievably cheap and easy to operate, too.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2014 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
See what I mean?

Whenever an issue comes up, you automatically look for a reason to justify Government involvement, more regulations, etc etc.

You even use the SAME nanny state absurd arguments Liberals make, no surprise, you are one.

Someone using an RC plane to "spy on my family"? Really? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the only ones doing that ARE in our Government! The chances of a regular citizen doing this to "my family" is so stupidly low it's not even worth thinking about.

The chances this Government, which you think is interested in protecting my rights, spied on me and my family is 100%!!! Get a clue.

You know what, I honestly don't think you realize what a hopeless Liberal you are. Please do yourself a favor and take a political Litmus test, and be honest. Unlike how you're being now.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/14/2014 7:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The chances of a regular citizen doing this to "my family" is so stupidly low it's not even worth thinking about.
Typical Reclaimer, cherry-picking four words out of my post. Spying is one of many issues, but I'll bite.

I'm not talking about regular law abiding citizens, genius. It only takes a fringe 0.1% of people to be a serious problem. It could be a perv looking to catch your wife or daughter naked through a window (revenge porn and voyeurism is already a problem), an angry parent looking for revenge against your bully child, kids looking for gossip material, a thief trying to observe a credit card or PIN code, or a million other things. Are you so naive as to think there is zero malice among the populace?

As I've already mentioned, this isn't about new nannying. It's about assigning liability so that existing laws can be enforced. You can't just sit by and let anonymous automation circumvent the justice system. Law enforcement cannot work without the ability to track drones to an operator.

Imagine if cars were unregulated, and you lost an arm when hit by an unmarked and unmanned automated delivery truck. Who are you going to sue?


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki