"Made in the USA - Banned in Texas" T-shirt reprinting

[TexasEV]

In preparation for Tesla day at the Capitol on March 6, the Austin/San Antonio Tesla owners group is taking pre-orders for a reprinting of our "Made in the USA - Banned in Texas" T-shirt from the 2015 legislative session. Exact price will depend on how many orders are received, but they will be sold at cost and as an approximation the original ones were $6.82 plus postage.

If you haven't already pre-ordered through the Austin/San Antonio group, please PM me with you name, email address, quantity, and size. When they're ready you'll be contacted with payment instructions. DEADLINE FOR PRE-ORDERS IS SATURDAY FEB. 23.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Pretty good. You might also point out that Chinese EV maker Candi is going to be able to sell in Texas (they bought a dealership), but made-in-America Tesla can’t.

 

[TexasEV]

Pretty good. You might also point out that Chinese EV maker Candi is going to be able to sell in Texas (they bought a dealership), but made-in-America Tesla can’t.

I saw that report today but it doesn’t make any sense. Car manufacturers are prohibited from owning dealerships in Texas. That’s the direct sales issue— if manufacturers could own car dealerships, Tesla would have its stores licensed as “dealerships”, but they can’t.

 

[Boourns]

Got a pic of the shirt?

 

[Prunesquallor]

I saw that report today but it doesn’t make any sense. Car manufacturers are prohibited from owning dealerships in Texas. That’s the direct sales issue— if manufacturers could own car dealerships, Tesla would have its stores licensed as “dealerships”, but they can’t.

I thought the issue was a dealership had to be a member of TADA, with all their rules and regulations. Tesla didn’t want any of that.

 

[TexasEV]

I thought the issue was a dealership had to be a member of TADA, with all their rules and regulations. Tesla didn’t want any of that.

No, the law doesn't mention TADA. It's the state that has rules and regulations, not TADA (that's just the lobbying group which protects the cartel). The law says a car manufacturer can not own a dealership. It was passed decades ago to protect the "small business" franchised dealer against the mighty Big 3 manufacturer-- so the manufacturer couldn't start selling cars directly in competition with its dealer, or in place of its dealer-- but is now being used to prevent a manufacturer (Tesla) from selling cars even though it never had franchised dealers.

 

[Firewired]

Yes, and they are using twisted logic to protect their dealership monopolies by saying that by allowing Tesla to sell they would be allowing a monopoly. This is the response I got from my representative when I emailed asking him to support allowing Tesla to sell in Texas this season. To me it looks like it was likely cut and pasted from the TADA talking points:

"To address your comments about auto manufacturers’ ability to sell directly to consumers, those who support existing law contend that the dealership model works to effectively prevent monopolies and promote competition in vehicle pricing, while providing for the efficient distribution of vehicles and service throughout the state, and it protects customers by providing access to vehicle services and parts.

Further, conditions within the auto industry are never certain and product recalls, reliability concerns, insurance costs, and safety issues can all lead to the demise of a vehicle or an entire brand. With the current system, consumers have access to service, warranty and recall work in the event a manufacturer goes out of business. Ultimately, if the law were changed and a company like Tesla were to fail, its customers would be left without outlets for repairs and maintenance. This describes the reasoning behind the challenge in changing this law."

 

[Prunesquallor]

Wow. Just wow. I’m so glad Texas is looking out for my best interests.

Luckily it seems Tesla found a process that circumvents the cartel, at least for now.

 

[Big Earl]

Regarding the representative's comment about dealerships providing access to warranty and recall work in the event a manufacturer goes out of business, I don't believe that's actually the case. As I understand it, the dealership bills the manufacturer for all warranty and recall work. If the manufacturer goes out of business (e.g., Saab), the dealership is under no obligation to provide product support, free or otherwise, unless you have an additional warranty from the dealership itself.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Firewired]

I think you are absolutely correct. This is the same argument dealership associations have employed not only in Texas, but in other states. I don't think it is a serious sincere argument. Just one to make so they can continue making providing political contributions.

 

[rhumbliner]

Regarding the representative's comment about dealerships providing access to warranty and recall work in the event a manufacturer goes out of business, ...

In 2014, while living in Las Vegas, I purchased a Nissan Leaf from my local Nissan dealer. In 2015 I tried to make an appointment for the Nissan-mandated annual inspection and was told, by the dealer, that it was no longer economically feasible for them to provide service for my Leaf. They just suggested I look for another Nissan dealer in the valley. Another reason I hate dealerships.

 

[TexasEV]

Yes, and they are using twisted logic to protect their dealership monopolies by saying that by allowing Tesla to sell they would be allowing a monopoly. This is the response I got from my representative when I emailed asking him to support allowing Tesla to sell in Texas this season. To me it looks like it was likely cut and pasted from the TADA talking points:

"To address your comments about auto manufacturers’ ability to sell directly to consumers, those who support existing law contend that the dealership model works to effectively prevent monopolies and promote competition in vehicle pricing, while providing for the efficient distribution of vehicles and service throughout the state, and it protects customers by providing access to vehicle services and parts.

Further, conditions within the auto industry are never certain and product recalls, reliability concerns, insurance costs, and safety issues can all lead to the demise of a vehicle or an entire brand. With the current system, consumers have access to service, warranty and recall work in the event a manufacturer goes out of business. Ultimately, if the law were changed and a company like Tesla were to fail, its customers would be left without outlets for repairs and maintenance. This describes the reasoning behind the challenge in changing this law."

My response to this argument last session was to ask if the dealers were willing to accept financial responsibility for warranty repairs if the manufacturer went out of business, and to have that liability written into the dealer law. When GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, were the dealers going to support their customers if warranty protection wasn't a part of those companies bankruptcies? Didn't think so. And not even considering the warranty, just where does this rep think the dealers would get parts from if a manufacturer actually went out of business?