Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Bankruptcy! Woo!
Hope so. They’ve been trying to undermine the Swedish job market here, and even fucking stalked their employees. Horrible company.
Wait what? Can we give more details? What do you mean by stalked?
Idk about Sweden, but in Germany middle management visited sick employees at their homes to check whether they were really sick.
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/tesla-hausbesuche-krankschreibungen-100.html
Holy fuck. I’m sorry, if I take a sick day I take a sick day - you might see me out shopping for groceries to survive the day, but I am by no means well.
I don’t know if it was all the sick workers, but a lot of those workers hadn’t been to work all year (around September at the time).
Apparently it’s not abnormal for people to abuse the system there and do things like this.
There was some stuff about patterns of a subset of workers taking Fridays off sick as well.
So it doesn’t actually seem as outright bad if they were investigating abuse. However, if it was just a random person being sick, that would be very bad.
Edit: This is a terrible source I’m sure, but just an example that its a prevalent problem and there’s even a business up about finding out if people are cheating the system - https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2024/12/30/germanys-sick-leave-detectives-are-on-the-case-as-absenteeism-hits-records-and-company-pocketbooks/161436
the thing is: the employer has absolutely 0 say on if a person is sick or not. If a doctor says a person can’t work: that’s it. The company 0 in the matter.
In fact, the company isn’t even allowed to ask why a person is sick. An official note from the doctor is all that matters
In Germany it’s legal for an employer to visit an employee. The employee is under no obligation to open the door, however.
As this article covers, it doesn’t really make sense to visit an employee, as the issue might not be visually apparent.
Well clearly there’s something that’s allowed to be done as that article is about a guy that has a business determining if its legit or not?
But that’s an investigator, not the employer, so maybe that makes a difference?
Here’s an article. It’s in Swedish.
The jig is up
Hopefully, this amounts to a fraud investigation and shareholders dump their stocks and cause Musk to fall below the margin call and then he liquidates and Tesla goes to rock bottom.
Doesn’t he only own like 13% of the stock in Tesla? His wealth is barely affected by Tesla going bankrupt
Option 1: Tesla fraudulently filed rebates
Option 2: Tesla filed a backlog of rebates when they realized they had to
Both are possible, but everyone is jumping to conclusion that it’s option 1, while option 2 is the easier answer.
Also the government said they’re going to let all the other rebates that this pushed out at the last minute get the rebate regardless of if these were legit or not.
Option 2 should be easy to prove, so why didn’t they do that already, like literally the same day they were accused of it? Then their funds wouldn’t have been frozen.
I imagine they probably don’t want to release the information that would prove it if they could, and if they did it’d be redacted enough that no one would believe it anyway. It also costs money to fight endless things like this.
Ultimately, if the government comes back and says its legit, then people will believe it. If it’s fraud, there should be punishment.
That whole 1.5 billion accounting fraud story last week, I don’t think Tesla said anything official about it or done anything at least to specifically disprove it, but the FT has now retracted the story saying they made a mistake.
They probably had their families threatened. That’s what fascist regimes do.
The story explains what their mistake was that others pointed out to them.
Maybe they shouldn’t have kept a backlog then? That certainly sounds like a ‘them’ problem though, doesn’t it?
Doesn’t strike me as very efficient either
I don’t think I’d ever call behemoth corporations efficient.
So I’m cruising through the rules surrounding Canada’s iZEV program and contrary to all of the media coverage I can’t find any requirement that the vehicle be “delivered”… It’s even described on the official Transport Canada website as a “Point of Sale” program. Delivery at the time of sale doesn’t seem to be a requirement.
Further if you look at the process, which also references this as a “Point of Sale or Lease” program, and the e-forms the end purchaser IS involved with this and consents to Transport Canada contacting them about their purchase.
The number of vehicles does seem high but only in the context of individuals however the iZEV program allows for Fleet Sales and some entities could claim up to 50 vehicles. Now all of a sudden what would need to be 8,000 individual sales could theoretically be as low as 160.
After reviewing the process and the forms it seems believable that Tesla slammed a bunch of legitimate sales into the system at the last minute. It’s a LOT less believable that Tesla made up all of these sales as the documentation requirements mean they’d certainly be caught the minute anyone checked.
Maybe keep your shitty politics out of your shitty product next time, and then you won’t face political consequences.
Trump calling this “Domestic Terrorism” and threatening Tariffs in response in 3… 2…
after what US has done tariff wise I’m surprised that they haven’t blocked all US companies from it.
Canadians taking on the Nazis they should send canned food to tesla next.
What’s going on in Quebec?
The federal government is following the same strategy as some provinces. British Columbia has recently banned Tesla products from its EV charger rebate. Nova Scotia just announced that it has excluded Tesla from its $2,000 rebate at the purchase of a new EV.
Quebec just relaunched its own EV incentive program today. It will come into effect next week, and so far, Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y vehicles are still included in the list of eligible vehicles.
Put local parasites in prison…
Claw back all the payments
