Apteras Union ?

Aptera Community Aptera Discussions Apteras Union ?

Aptera Community Aptera Discussions Apteras Union ?

Tagged: 

  • Apteras Union ?

     John Malcom updated 3 weeks, 4 days ago 12 Members · 28 Posts
  • Daniel Crotty

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 8:31 am

    Can the Aptera workers form a union in order to get Tax cut qualified? Make it a $1 a month Union due. Then, have a Free lunch once a month with the dues.

    I understand and agree with supporting unions. This however punishes Tesla and Aptera purchasers. Shouldn’t we be encouraging them.

    I think we can encourage unions in other more justified ways.

  • Roshiyu

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 9:11 am

    I would much rather have Aptera aim for the larger than 40KW battery credit. As stated in the battery short, the sizes may not be exactly 25, 40, 60, or 100. So if the 40KW is say, 40.1-42-ish KWs in size?

    If Aptera does go for the union credit, then they might as well form a proper union.

    Not that US credits apply to me, but I wish you all the best. 😛

  • Joshua Rosen

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 9:23 am

    Three wheelers are a separate category, they only qualify for a $2500 rebate. The union provision is there to screw Tesla, Rivian, Lucid and all of the foreign owned American plants are collateral damage. Aptera is in a separate screwed category, three wheelers. The proposed law is a creation of Ford and the UAW, it’s not designed to help EVs it’s designed to help the UAW.

    Even if Aptera was considered a car I don’t think a house union would qualify. I’m not a lawyer let alone a labor lawyer but I can’t imagine that when the labor laws were written in the Roosevelt administration they wouldn’t have put in strong prohibitions against house unions.

    • John Malcom

      Member
      September 19, 2021 at 9:40 am

      Joshua, as in a previous post,I really wish you would keep your personal biases to your self. If you feel strongly about the provisions of the bill, express it to you national representatives and don’t vent here. If you don’t like the way they vote on a bill, vote for someone else

      • Joshua Rosen

        Member
        September 19, 2021 at 2:02 pm

        I have written my Congresswomen but it’s important that every one else do it too who cares about EVs. This is a miserable bill designed to help a couple of legacy companies at the expense of everyone else. Do you really think the government should be favoring 25 mile range plugins like the Prius over a 600 mile range Aptera, this bill does just that. As long as a plugin has a 10KWh battery, enough to get you to the supermarket and back assuming you ever bother to charge it, you get a $4K rebate. Congress is also repeating the mistake they made with CAFE standards. When those were introduced they wrote much weaker standards for trucks than for cars. What’s the result, the car companies stopped investing in cars and put all of their money into pickup trucks and SUVs built on truck chassis. Now instead of driving giant Buicks the country has switched to even bigger trucks and SUVs. They’ve set the rebate based on battery size rather that efficiency, that’s counter productive. Everything about this bill is dreadful.

      • Peter Jorgensen

        Member
        September 19, 2021 at 2:39 pm

        Joshua is right – A Chevy bolt gets an extra 10k off over an Aptera. And his post has nothing to do with voting…

        But I understand what you’re saying – It’s just a sticky situation and frustrating for all of us. It does some good and some harm and nobody is happy except the UAW.

      • George Hughes

        Member
        September 19, 2021 at 9:17 pm

        John:

        I wish you’d be a little less rigid in your definition of politics. Having played in that a bit, there is a difference between politics and policy. That we, as a society, have oddly jumped the shark to make these two terms synonymous when they should be much more distinct.

        For instance, my opinion is the way we’ve framed this issue, which dates to a decade ago, that the public provides subsidies for EVs, is simply the wrong frame.

        What would probably be a better frame for encouraging adoption of approaches to a low-carbon future would be advanced by an approach that subsidizes, by whatever means, high-efficiency, sustainable transportation.

        The best idea – i.e. first principle for government subsidies is to put the incentive in the right place for the goal you seek to accomplish.

        I actually think it a bit limited to suggest the scheme conjured in the current bill – an obvious expansion of the original EV tax credit – is particularly problematic in terms of accomplishing the stated goals.

        Aptera is based on first principles and the key principle that inspired the Aptera is adherence to hyper-efficiency in transportation. Given policy is one avenue for gaining broad acceptance, it is counter-productive to avoid talking about policy.

        Given the challenges posed by climate change and the communication burdens necessary to counter gross efforts to misinform, it seems to me it would be impossible to get there if speaking about plans, programs and policies is prohibited.

  • Ken Bolinsky

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 9:29 am

    No one is “being screwed”: There’s a basic incentive and then an ADDED incentive if the vehicle is Union-made.

    • Peter Jorgensen

      Member
      September 19, 2021 at 2:41 pm

      I’d say with Aptera having to fight a 10k disadvantage against a Chevy bolt that the Aptera is getting screwed.

      Either way it’s going to have to sell on its merits over other cars regardless of rebates.

      • Ken Bolinsky

        Member
        September 19, 2021 at 10:41 pm

        The Chevy Bolt is a five passenger, 5-door hatchback – it’s not going to cross-shop against the Aptera.

        Aptera will be competing against other 2-seat EVs – of which there don’t seem to be any. So maybe it will cross-shop against the Jaguar F-type, the Mercedes Benz SLC, the BMW Z4, the Porsche Cayman and the Chevrolet Corvette? 😉

      • Peter Jorgensen

        Member
        September 20, 2021 at 7:09 am

        Kenneth I’m cross-shopping against the Tesla Hatch, Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, Ioniq 5, Model 3…

        And my current Kia Niro EV. They all have 5 doors and 3 back seats. I don’t need the back doors or back seats so they are wasted extra stuff for me – So Aptera is more efficient and optimized for that. But it’s still in contest with all the others. It’s a clear winner on range/value to me but still cross-shopped. 10k is a big difference.

        Ps: I’m a young adult with no kids and don’t need back seats.

  • Dan Roberts

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 6:20 pm

    Remember folks this is a startup. Usually employees of startups enjoy stock options and get to participate in the growth of the company. I don’t know what Aptera has in mind in this regard but from what I have heard from the founders employees would probably benefit much more from stock options than having a union shop. Unions typically do not enjoy stock options. Regardless of political leanings, I am confident Aptera will treat there employees fairly without the drag of legacy unions.

  • Philip Raymond

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 7:10 pm

    As a union member myself for most of my 40 year career (CWA, not UAW) , I can all but guarantee you Aptera is way too small (in a good way) to interest the UAW to organize. The UAW is far more interested in organizing companies like Tesla and other non-union EV companies with traditional manufacturing assembly lines that require many more people to assemble just one vehicle than Aptera’s much more simple-4 main parts assembly. As long as Aptera treats its employees well with things like stock options and an inclusive work environment, I doubt there would be any internal interest in unionizing either. That’s pretty much the game plan Honda, Subaru, Toyota, BMW, Volvo, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan and Volkswagen have used for several decades, to keep their plants non-union. I think I left one or more out, but you get the idea.

    • Peter Jorgensen

      Member
      September 20, 2021 at 7:10 am

      Do you think they would want to unionize as a “token union” for some extra benefits to lower the product cost to customers? If it came to that of course?

  • Fanfare 100

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    I believe in the right to form and/or join an union. I have been in unions and proudly. But I also believe in the right to not have one if one is not needed. The reason for unions was for collective bargaining to offer a way to air grievances and more effectively collectively bargain against an employer who would otherwise have the upper hand and might have established the precedence of abusive and/or unfair labour practices.

    But if an employer is fair and the employees are happy, enjoy a positive rapport and feel that they are well and fairly compensated for their efforts there truly is no need for an union and often the workers will not feel inspired to form or join one and rightfully so.

    In such cases, penalising a company for having happy workers is also unjust. I know of some workplaces where the labour practices in union shops are not as favourable as those in union shops.

    Therefore, incentives should not be doled out simply if a company employs an union, but rather, after an independent assessment of fair and well-regarded labour practices, regardless of union status or not. Companies should also be penalised for attempts at union-busting as well. But, to my knowledge that has also not been the case at companies such as Tesla or Aptera.

    My belief is that this has become a political matter based on the magnitude of political contributions made by certain groups

    May fairness prevail and not simply the word of the highest bidder.

  • rich garlick

    Member
    September 19, 2021 at 9:58 pm

    Unions are a relic of the past. This is just pure Socialism. Joe is just repaying donors who supported him for 50+ years. I personally don’t see the big three making it through this decade intact. I am happy with $2500 off of an Aptera. Should it be more, absolutely ! Shameful and pathetic for sure. This is about Tesla and trying to harm them. Build the Aptera! People will see the Genius. Then there will be 2 Great American car companies that actually make cars in the U.S. Name 1 thing our Government does well. I’ll wait….

    • Ken Bolinsky

      Member
      September 19, 2021 at 10:50 pm

      You must know a definition of “socialism” that I do not: The idea of a government spending tax money to stimulate a segment of the economy or to press forward an agenda is pure and utter capitalism.

      • Joshua Rosen

        Member
        September 20, 2021 at 8:06 am

        The purpose of this bill is to protect legacy auto makers it’s not to stimulate the market or the technology. The original Bush era tax credit had the rationale that a subsidy would help to jump start the technology, at the time batteries were $1000/KWh and at that price a mass market for EVs was an impossibility. But a dozen years later the mission has been accomplished, the cost of batteries has fallen by a factor of ten and they continue their downward trajectory. The technology has a momentum of it’s own, it doesn’t need a subsidy or mandates any more. We are at the point where we’ve reached price parity with everything except the bottom end of the market. The F150 Lightning starts at $39K and in general is priced very equivalently to the ICE F150. When you take total cost of ownership into account it will be cheaper. Objectively an EV is better than an ICEV in every way except roadtrip fueling, home fueling is actually vastly easier. The performance is noticeably better, instant response, no gear hunting, quiet, and no tail pipe emitting smoke. The cost of fuel is much less even on states with high electricity prices, I’m paying 25 cents/KWh (about twice the national cost) in Massachusetts and my Model 3 still costs me about the same per mile as a Prius but it has the performance of a BMW. The reliability is higher because there is so much less to go wrong and in the future it should be even better. I’ve had a Model 3 for two years and it’s never been in the shop, I’m 67 and in all of my life I never had an ICE car that didn’t need work in it’s first year.

        The way to get the best possible EVs in the future is to let the free market operate freely. There may be a role for the government in accelerating the availability of charging at rental properties. Private homes need no subsidy, installing an EVSE is the same cost as the paint option on a Tesla.

        • Peter Jorgensen

          Member
          September 20, 2021 at 8:33 am

          Well said.

          Unpopular opinion: Tax vehicles based on their damage to air quality.

          • Joshua Rosen

            Member
            September 20, 2021 at 9:48 am

            We will have to move to a non-gas tax means of generating road use taxes. A mileage tax for all cars, not just EVs, that scales for emissions (actual for gas cars and virtual for EVs) makes sense. The gas tax effectively does that now, MPG directly translates into the tax revenue per mile. If you applied this new tax to all cars it could start out fairly low and then scale up as the fleet moves from gas to electric cars.

            • Peter Jorgensen

              Member
              September 20, 2021 at 10:07 am

              Most of the infrastructure dollars don’t come from gas tax – they come from state grants and property tax/income tax.

              As for an EV tax – we already do that in Utah – I pay $120 a year additional fee for my Niro EV registration. The state legislature tried to raise it to $500 a year but there was a lot of outrage. $120 is about the same as I paid in gas tax before. But I’m not contributing to our terrible air conditions. Salt Lake City has really bad air in the winters with a nasty inversion.

            • Joshua Rosen

              Member
              September 21, 2021 at 6:57 am

              The current set of EV taxes are clearly designed to discourage EV ownership not as a revenue source. There aren’t enough EVs on the roads at this point to significantly effect gas taxes. Also what all of the current EV taxes have in common is that they are at a fixed rate, unrelated to mileage or weight. Gas taxes don’t work that way, they are based on the miles driven/MPG. Heavier less efficient vehicles pay more which accounts for both their higher tail pipe emissions and their road damage. A fair tax would replicate the gas tax. States already have the miles driven from every car because of the annual inspection or alternatively could be obtained from the automakers because all modern cars report their telemetry over the Internet. The weight and EPA MPGe is also known for each car model. It would be easy to replicate the gas tax and include it in the annual excise tax bill.

  • pistonboy

    Member
    September 20, 2021 at 2:05 pm

    I can hear it on the evening news now:

    “Aptera workers not wanting to join a union but wanting to give buyers the extra $2,500 EV incentive if unionized, have decided to join unions. Some have joined the Ladies Garment Workers Union while others have joined the California Fruit Pickers Association. This is obviously a snub to the United Auto Workers Union (UAW). It is reported that the US President is fuming.”

    • George Hughes

      Member
      September 20, 2021 at 8:37 pm

      Pistonboy:

      Your vision of Aptera employees joining a union in order to provide Aptera buyers a shot at the public trough is, what one would call, ‘gaming the system.”

      My enthusiasm for Aptera is based on its first principles approach to making a car.

      Most folks don’t realize how revolutionary Aptera is. It is literally about re-writing the rules for making cars from simplicity of production to ultra-efficient operation.

      The fact is, in broad terms, the challenge “We the people” face is how to put the incentives in the right place(s).

      That encompassing idea was recently expressed by Ezra Klein in this column in yesterday’s NYT:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/opinion/supply-side-progressivism.html

  • John Malcom

    Member
    September 20, 2021 at 8:03 pm

    A lot of esoterical concepts and words here without much substance. In my 75+ years of experience, going this route gets you nothing In the end. The process of give and take on concrete, time limited proposals, even if you have to compromise with the devil achieves “Something” in the end. It appears this process may produce some concrete incentives to move forward the US’s lagging adoption of EVs. (Catching up with China and Europe)

    Another guess. You have never lived in a socialist country so really don’t know what practical socialism is maybe even believe the ” Socialism rhetoric” exposed lately here in the US. I have lived and worked for 20 years of my adult life in both socialist and communist countries. Incentives being proposed bares no semblance to socialism.

    Personaly, I would rather see something done, even if not perfect, that sit around and pontificate about how it should be. Actions speak louder than words

    • George Hughes

      Member
      September 22, 2021 at 10:18 am

      I can claim only 70+ years of ‘experience’ but I know that the Aptera represents a paradigm shift in auto making in much the same way that making changes in how we as a people address the massively critical issue of climate change and carbon reduction needs reform.

      I understand how the influence of established power of both the legacy auto industry including its worker institutions have written the laws to aid their specific interests.

      That said, I support the current proposal and scheme in large part because it carves out a budget allocation for the task.

      Still, objectively, there are better ways to accomplish the stated goals; ways that provide more bang for the buck in the expenditure of yours and my tax dollars. That long experience tells me that it is always easier to reallocate appropriations than get them passed in the first place.

      Certainly, the current law – assuming it can even be passed – is better than what we have now but won’t get us where we need to go. In automotive terms, it is at best a 20-mile range Prius hybrid in the road to electrification when what we really need a 1000-mile Aptera that runs totally on power from the sun.

      Reminds me of a ditty from my childhood. “Good, better, best, never let it rest, ’till the good gets better and the better gets best.”

      • John Malcom

        Member
        September 22, 2021 at 10:41 am

        Thanks for this George!

        I agree, “Continuous improvement” is necessary. I am a Six Sigma Practitioner and that is one of the mantras for the Six Sigma discipline. We do need to start somewhere though even if it is not an ideal starting point and unpopular. Rather than strive for the “Best” to start with, starting with “Not so good” but achievable is necessary. It is better to have “Not so good” than nothing. How do you eat an elephant, “One bite at a time”

        The current proposed legislation certainly is not ideal. but right now there may be a chance to pass it. I suspect, if we don’t, the opportunity for anything may be lost for some time as we will move on to other priorities and to an election that may result in a governance makeup not at all friendly to EV incentives.

        Then we can “Nickle and dime” them to where we want to be 😀

Viewing 1 - 10 of 10 replies

or to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now