Michigan to Tesla Motors: You're Not Welcome

[Destro]

" They get good reimbursement from the company. That's great for knowing your warranty work will be done and paid for."

After over 40 years in a GM service department, I can tell you for a FACT that the Dealer, nor the Tech gets "good reimbursement from the company"!!!

The Dealer, and in my case, the Tech, gets 1/3 to 1/2 the normal amount of Flat Rate Hours on the labor to do ANY Warrantee job.

The Company just tells the Dealer+the Tech-"That's the way it is", take it or leave it. If you sell our product, you will do warrantee work for a "Kick in your A$$"!!

This is the main reason that most warrantee work is done at such a "Half A$$ed" way...You get what you pay for....Bill.

a good friend is the service manager at a dealership, he hates warranty work, no $$$. All the latest recalls have been killing business

 

[Destro]

Preserving the dealership network is important for service including warranty work. In addition, asking dealers to compete with factory direct sales isn't a level playing field. The manufacturers can sell to the consumer for much less and dealers can't survive on service department revenue alone. Vehicle sales are an important ingredient in profitability. True for many more industries besides automobiles.

do you agree with that?

 

[ryknoll3]

Preserving the dealership network is important for service including warranty work. In addition, asking dealers to compete with factory direct sales isn't a level playing field. The manufacturers can sell to the consumer for much less and dealers can't survive on service department revenue alone. Vehicle sales are an important ingredient in profitability. True for many more industries besides automobiles.

It isn't asking them to do anything. They are free to run their business as they always have. Sure, they may have to incentivize customers to come there instead of a factory direct option, but no one's MAKING them change. State legislatures could also protect consumers while treading much lighter on company's like Tesla (requiring them to have service partners in the state to take care of warranty, etc...). OR, here's a novel thought.... let the market decide. How about the consumer research whether there are service options for the product they are going to spend a decent chunk or most of the salary they make that year on, and if there aren't nearby options, buy something else!

Why don't we extend this to every aspect of our consumer market. It's unfair to ask "Mom and Pop Quicky Mart" to compete with the likes of Walmart, so Walmarts shouldn't be allowed. I'm a residential remodeling contractor. Maybe the public shouldn't be able to buy building materials at big box stores because that cuts into my market share. Asking me to compete with DIY'ers, or some guy doing side work isn't fair!

 

[dusty88]

" They get good reimbursement from the company. That's great for knowing your warranty work will be done and paid for."

After over 40 years in a GM service department, I can tell you for a FACT that the Dealer, nor the Tech gets "good reimbursement from the company"!!!

The Dealer, and in my case, the Tech, gets 1/3 to 1/2 the normal amount of Flat Rate Hours on the labor to do ANY Warrantee job.

The Company just tells the Dealer+the Tech-"That's the way it is", take it or leave it. If you sell our product, you will do warrantee work for a "Kick in your A$$"!!

This is the main reason that most warrantee work is done at such a "Half A$$ed" way...You get what you pay for....Bill.

Thanks for clarifying, I was misinformed and apologize for the error.


My point is still that different business models can compete with each other. They only become unfair when one gets an unfair advantage by government or criminal activity, 2 things that often overlap.

 

[billybob44]

It's all good--Retired Now..HA HA..

Thanks for clarifying, I was misinformed and apologize for the error.


My point is still that different business models can compete with each other. They only become unfair when one gets an unfair advantage by government or criminal activity, 2 things that often overlap.

No problem, dusty..

Now, don't get me wrong, myself, and most all Service Techs do a good job on a customers car, no matter who is paying. The only thing is, if you know going into the job that you will receive 1/2 pay, you just go about it a different way???...Bill.

 

[firehawk1]

Sort of the same thing that was done to Preston Tucker isn't it?

 

[hooky]

You can buy one here in Indiana, there's a showroom in Keystone. Almost pulled the trigger there.

Sorry, you're right. Should have said that those were the only states where they were not fighting the direct sales model.

Preserving the dealership network is important for service including warranty work. In addition, asking dealers to compete with factory direct sales isn't a level playing field. The manufacturers can sell to the consumer for much less and dealers can't survive on service department revenue alone. Vehicle sales are an important ingredient in profitability. True for many more industries besides automobiles.

Not sure if my purple detector is busted or not.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Michigan has 145 legislators in the statehouse...and 144 voted to keep Tesla out. (Then Rick Snyder signed it as a formality). That tells you something about Michigan.

As much as you and I would think this stinks and reeks of stupidity, the citizens of Michigan know which side their bread is buttered on. Michigan is a plantation state and the Auto Industry owns everyone in it, to a greater or lesser degree. The state has vast swaths of rural, candle-dipping economy, punctuated by bursts of automotive revenue. Most there can still remember the wealth the old economy produced, and cannot envision the windmill economy arriving fast enough to do them any good.

The comparison to Indiana liquor stores is appropriate. When you offer the consumer a new choice, but have the laws and the legislators against you...and the additional consumer choice you offer is perceived as small and of limited salience...you're screwed. Want an electric car? Go live somewhere else. This is Michigan. Electric cars didn't pay for Uncle Bert's retirement, or the vacation cabin up north on the lake, or the boat, or the snowmobile/ATV, etc., etc.

Michigan is being run the way its citizens want, apparently. They are going to continue to dance with them what brung 'em.

Actually, you're wrong. On all counts. The legislature and governor voted the way they were paid to vote. Bought and paid for by business in an election year. It was either vote against Tesla or fight against the political clout the US manufacturers can buy. Citizens didn't vote on it nor were our voices listened to. Big business won.

 

[Twangbanger]

Actually, you're wrong. On all counts. The legislature and governor voted the way they were paid to vote. Bought and paid for by business in an election year. It was either vote against Tesla or fight against the political clout the US manufacturers can buy. Citizens didn't vote on it nor were our voices listened to. Big business won.

So, by your reasoning, we should expect to see the citizens of Michigan vote their legislature out, since they went 144-1 against their "voices?"

If it doesn't happen, we'll have to conclude that the voters of Michigan either don't care that much about this issue, agree with the result, or are just plant ignorant and/or apathetic.

 

[Roadie]

I wonder if Tesla is pushing for a bigger presence in Indiana? I know they recently used a local facility's wind tunnel for some extensive testing..

 

[Arthur Dent]

So, by your reasoning, we should expect to see the citizens of Michigan vote their legislature out, since they went 144-1 against their "voices?"

If it doesn't happen, we'll have to conclude that the voters of Michigan either don't care that much about this issue, agree with the result, or are just plant ignorant and/or apathetic.

Not at all. By your reasoning incumbents NEVER get re-elected when evidence shows that incumbents are virtually guaranteed to keep their job. Regardless of how ****-poor they do.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not at all. By your reasoning incumbents NEVER get re-elected when evidence shows that incumbents are virtually guaranteed to keep their job. Regardless of how ****-poor they do.

Poor politicians get re-elected all the time, but I think you're missing the numerical significance of this bill's passage in the legislature. It was 144 TO ONE, in the State Senate and House combined. Politicians don't want to lose their jobs. They have access to sophisticated polling data, and don't pass things by that kind of margin if they think there's any risk of public backlash against it. In legislatures, there's such a thing called "letting members off the hook" on controversial bills. If any significant segment of the public were truly, passionately against this bill, those pols would have made this look more like 25-13 in the Senate, for example, instead of 38-0, the two sides collectively letting 13 or so of their more vulnerable members "off the hook" to vote with their constituents, so as not to make them a target for challengers. But they didn't do that. The F'ers piled on. By my count there were only three abstentions, on the House side. When Politicians "pile on," it's because they know the issue doesn't hurt them in any significant way (or, is just flat-out popular with the public - a distinct possibility in a state like Michigan).

I haven't conducted a scientific poll of Michigan voters on this issue, and I doubt you have, either. But politicians _do_ have access to polling and act accordingly. And I think we're going to have to accept that although we don't like cronyism, our views might not be shared by very many folks in Michigan. It could be that the voters of Michigan are fine with electric cars, but want to make sure that marketing of them stays within the control of traditional market players. Or maybe they just don't give a damn either way, since it's a nice product at this point. Or, more to the point...maybe they just don't pay attention.

But this idea that the issue was balanced on a razor edge, with substantial, engaged public opposition, and corporate money subverted the public will? It just doesn't wash, given the numbers. Corporate money was no doubt involved; lobbyists never sit-out things like this...but you're not allowing for the possibility that the public can agree with it (or, simply not care). Until I see more data, like this issue getting put to some kind of public initiative and going the other way, I don't think we have enough evidence to say that corporate money committed a travesty of democracy here.

Just that a few of us in Indiana don't agree with it.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Poor politicians get re-elected all the time, but I think you're missing the numerical significance of this bill's passage in the legislature. It was 144 TO ONE, in the State Senate and House combined. Politicians don't want to lose their jobs. They have access to sophisticated polling data, and don't pass things by that kind of margin if they think there's any risk of public backlash against it. In legislatures, there's such a thing called "letting members off the hook" on controversial bills. If any significant segment of the public were truly, passionately against this bill, those pols would have made this look more like 25-13 in the Senate, for example, instead of 38-0, the two sides collectively letting 13 or so of their more vulnerable members "off the hook" to vote with their constituents, so as not to make them a target for challengers. But they didn't do that. The F'ers piled on. By my count there were only three abstentions, on the House side. When Politicians "pile on," it's because they know the issue doesn't hurt them in any significant way (or, is just flat-out popular with the public - a distinct possibility in a state like Michigan).

I haven't conducted a scientific poll of Michigan voters on this issue, and I doubt you have, either. But politicians _do_ have access to polling and act accordingly. And I think we're going to have to accept that although we don't like cronyism, our views might not be shared by very many folks in Michigan. It could be that the voters of Michigan are fine with electric cars, but want to make sure that marketing of them stays within the control of traditional market players. Or maybe they just don't give a damn either way, since it's a nice product at this point. Or, more to the point...maybe they just don't pay attention.

But this idea that the issue was balanced on a razor edge, with substantial, engaged public opposition, and corporate money subverted the public will? It just doesn't wash, given the numbers. Corporate money was no doubt involved; lobbyists never sit-out things like this...but you're not allowing for the possibility that the public can agree with it (or, simply not care). Until I see more data, like this issue getting put to some kind of public initiative and going the other way, I don't think we have enough evidence to say that corporate money committed a travesty of democracy here.

Just that a few of us in Indiana don't agree with it.

Big business won the day, plain and simple. It most certainly subverted the public will, it was never put up for a vote by the people. I work in the auto industry and I saw or heard nothing about this until AFTER the fact, and I pay attention since this has an impact on where I work. It was kept on the QT. GM and the auto dealers probably donate more to campaigns than Tesla has in revenue. It was a law bought and paid for by big business. It's a GOP wet dream. Big business influenced politics just the way it's supposed to.

To say such things as "Michigan is a plantation state and the Auto Industry owns everyone in it, to a greater or lesser degree" is very ignorant.

 

[Twangbanger]

...To say such things as "Michigan is a plantation state and the Auto Industry owns everyone in it, to a greater or lesser degree" is very ignorant.

To be sure, it's a bit of an over-generalization. But you know what's really ignorant? People who think that up until two weeks ago, Tesla could sell cars in Michigan, and now as a result of this bill, they can't. When the actual fact is, the protectionist Franchise Laws that keep companies like Tesla out have been on the books for DECADES...without public outrage, without any significant response from the voters whatsoever.

It's just like the liquor laws in Indiana. I think they're dumb; you probably do, too. But they've been there basically "forever," and thanks to public apathy, probably will be for a long time to come. People have simply adjusted to buying their liquor at other times/places, and it's no longer on their "Give a Sxxt" radar screen. Just like the dealer franchise laws in Michigan. And about everywhere else. Hopefully somebody like Tesla being on the scene will change people's apathy; but I'm not betting the farm on it.

In a society that solves things democratically, special interests are simply not going to sit on the sidelines and let a small grumbling minority like us have our way. If we want anything changed, we have to "Give a Sxxt," and convince a lot of others to do the same. Otherwise, nothing changes. This recent Michigan law strikes ONE WORD from the franchise laws, affecting who has standing to bring a lawsuit under the law. Tesla couldn't sell cars there using its business model before that change...and it still can't, after the change. And the legislators are banking, by 144-to-1, that no significant number of people are going to get off the couch and care about this little tweak.

They're betting everybody is just going to go back to checking how their Fantasy Football teams did this weekend.

And they're probably right.

 

[Arthur Dent]

To be sure, it's a bit of an over-generalization. But you know what's really ignorant? People who think that up until two weeks ago, Tesla could sell cars in Michigan, and now as a result of this bill, they can't. When the actual fact is, the protectionist Franchise Laws that keep companies like Tesla out have been on the books for DECADES...without public outrage, without any significant response from the voters whatsoever.

It's just like the liquor laws in Indiana. I think they're dumb; you probably do, too. But they've been there basically "forever," and thanks to public apathy, probably will be for a long time to come. People have simply adjusted to buying their liquor at other times/places, and it's no longer on their "Give a Sxxt" radar screen. Just like the dealer franchise laws in Michigan. And about everywhere else. Hopefully somebody like Tesla being on the scene will change people's apathy; but I'm not betting the farm on it.

In a society that solves things democratically, special interests are simply not going to sit on the sidelines and let a small grumbling minority like us have our way. If we want anything changed, we have to "Give a Sxxt," and convince a lot of others to do the same. Otherwise, nothing changes. This recent Michigan law strikes ONE WORD from the franchise laws, affecting who has standing to bring a lawsuit under the law. Tesla couldn't sell cars there using its business model before that change...and it still can't, after the change. And the legislators are banking, by 144-to-1, that no significant number of people are going to get off the couch and care about this little tweak.

They're betting everybody is just going to go back to checking how their Fantasy Football teams did this weekend.

And they're probably right.

You can take solace in knowing that Michigan isn't alone like this.

 

[mrjarrell]

So, which political party holds the reins of power in the Michigan legislature? Oh, wait....it's the guys that are friendly to business and a "free market". Talk certainly is cheap.

Michigan Legislature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Arthur Dent]

So, which political party holds the reins of power in the Michigan legislature? Oh, wait....it's the guys that are friendly to business and a "free market". Talk certainly is cheap.

Michigan Legislature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "free market" worked exactly as it is supposed to. It kept competition out.

 

[dusty88]

The "free market" worked exactly as it is supposed to. It kept competition out.

I assume that was sarcasm.

There is no free-market competition when the government prevents someone from competing.

 

[zippy23]

anything that would hurt GM in michigan wouldnt happen. Its a wacked up state, mainly because of Detroit. I do wonder though, why sell a car without having a dealership? i sure wouldnt wanna just pick it out from a picture, i would like to visit a place, drive the car, drive different onces, see what the colors look like, see what the interior looks like in person. I was told be a friend they have stores like an apple store. I dunno, dont care, i wont buy a car without driving it around, comparing it with others. Plus, a dealership is free advertising(kina) since people drive by all day. Why wouldnt they want a dealership?

 

[Captain Bligh]

... Why wouldnt they want a dealership?

The dealership takes a cut for handling the transaction, hence it drives up the cost of the (already pricy) car. You can test drive a Tesla at a company store, just not at a dealer network.

As for Michigan...I guess their belief in the free enterprise system only applies to THEIR enterprise.