In a significant escalation of labor tensions within the German automotive sector, Tesla’s Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg has firmly rejected demands from the powerful IG Metall union regarding the implementation of a 35-hour workweek. The dispute highlights a deepening ideological and operational rift between the American electric vehicle giant and traditional German labor practices. As the facility moves toward a critical works council election in 2026, the outcome of this standoff threatens to influence not only the working conditions of thousands of employees but also the future trajectory of Tesla’s expansion plans in Europe.
Factory manager André Thierig has publicly drawn a “red line” regarding the union’s push for reduced hours, signaling that the company is prepared to stand its ground to maintain its current operational flexibility. This development marks a pivotal moment for the Grünheide facility, which has been a focal point of industrial interest since its inception. The conflict juxtaposes Tesla’s Silicon Valley-style management approach—favoring agility, direct communication, and performance-based incentives—against the highly structured, collective bargaining model championed by IG Metall, Germany’s largest industrial union.
At the heart of the conflict are diverging views on compensation, working hours, and the bureaucratic structures governing the factory floor. While the union argues for the security and standardization of a collective agreement, Tesla management contends that their independent model yields superior financial results for workers. Thierig’s recent comments suggest that the stakes are incredibly high, with the potential for the company’s leadership in the United States to reconsider capital investment in the region depending on the labor climate that evolves over the coming years.
The Red Line: Rejection of the 35-Hour Workweek
The concept of the 35-hour workweek is a cornerstone of the German metal and electrical industry, a standard fought for and maintained by IG Metall over decades. It represents a work-life balance benchmark that characterizes much of the country’s automotive manufacturing sector. However, for Tesla, attempting to ramp up production and maintain high efficiency in a competitive global market, such a restriction is viewed as a significant impediment. André Thierig’s declaration establishes a clear boundary in the ongoing negotiations and public discourse.
“The discussion about a 35-hour week is a red line for me. We will not cross it,” Thierig stated emphatically.
This statement is more than just a rejection of a specific policy; it is a defense of Tesla’s operational philosophy. The company relies on a high-intensity production environment to meet its ambitious targets. Reducing the workweek without a commensurate drop in output would require significant shifts in staffing levels, shift patterns, and productivity expectations—changes that management appears unwilling to entertain under the pressure of a union mandate. Thierig’s comments underscore a belief that the flexibility currently enjoyed by the plant is essential for its success and that adopting rigid industry standards could erode the competitive edge Giga Berlin has worked to establish.
The “red line” metaphor suggests that while there may be room for negotiation on other topics, the duration of the workweek is non-negotiable for the current leadership. This sets the stage for a protracted struggle, as IG Metall is unlikely to abandon one of its primary value propositions to potential members easily. The union views the 35-hour week not just as a perk, but as a fundamental right within the sector, essential for protecting worker health and ensuring fair compensation for time committed to the assembly line.
The 2026 Election: A Pivot Point for Future Expansion
Looking ahead, the timeline for this dispute converges on the works council election scheduled for 2026. This event is shaping up to be a referendum on Tesla’s future in Germany. The works council plays a crucial role in German corporate governance, representing employees’ interests in discussions with management regarding working conditions, hours, and dismissals. Currently, the balance of power within the council is a contested space, and the 2026 election will determine whether IG Metall can secure a dominant influence.
Thierig has linked the outcome of this election directly to the strategic decisions made by Tesla’s headquarters in the United States. He warned that a shift toward a union-dominated works council could have severe repercussions for the site’s growth.
“(The election) will determine whether we can continue our successful path in the future in an independent, flexible, and unbureaucratic manner. Personally, I cannot imagine that the decision-makers in the USA will continue to push ahead with the factory expansion if the election results favor IG Metall.”
This ultimatum places a heavy burden on the workforce. The implication is clear: a vote for IG Metall could be interpreted by Tesla’s top brass, including CEO Elon Musk, as a signal that the German environment has become too hostile or bureaucratically encumbered to warrant further massive investment. Giga Berlin has ambitious expansion plans aimed at doubling its capacity and establishing a massive battery cell production facility. Thierig’s comments suggest that these plans are not guaranteed and could be paused or scaled back if the company feels its operational independence is compromised.
The threat of halting expansion serves as a powerful lever in the debate. It appeals to the workers’ desire for job security and the region’s economic interests. By framing the union’s influence as a potential block to growth, management is positioning the upcoming election as a choice between the status quo of rapid development and a potential stagnation brought on by traditional labor relations.
Wage Dynamics: Performance vs. Collective Bargaining
A central pillar of the dispute involves the comparison of wages between Tesla’s internal pay structures and the tariffs negotiated by IG Metall across the wider industry. The union has consistently argued that without a collective agreement, Tesla workers are earning significantly less than their counterparts at Volkswagen, BMW, or Mercedes-Benz. IG Metall District Manager Jan Otto has been vocal about these discrepancies.
Otto told the German news agency DPA that Tesla’s wages remain below industry standards. He specifically criticized the company’s defense of its pay structure, which often references the lowest pay grades to demonstrate competitiveness. Otto countered this by highlighting a discrepancy in how these grades are utilized.
“The two lowest pay grades are not even used in car factories,” Otto noted, implying that Tesla’s comparisons may be misleading by benchmarking against theoretical minimums rather than the actual entry-level wages paid by competitors.
However, Tesla management vehemently disputes the narrative that their workers are underpaid. They argue that their non-unionized status allows for faster, more responsive wage adjustments that outpace the sluggish negotiation cycles of collective bargaining. To prove this, Thierig pointed to recent salary adjustments.
According to the plant manager, if Giga Berlin were bound by the current collective agreement, workers would have seen a modest wage increase of only 2% this year. In contrast, operating outside of that framework allowed Tesla to double that figure.
“There was a wage increase of 2% this year in the current collective agreement. Because we are in a different economic situation than the industry as a whole, we were able to double the wages – by 4%. Since production started, this corresponds to a wage increase of more than 25% in less than four years,” Thierig stated.
This “25% in four years” statistic is a key talking point for Tesla. It portrays the company as a dynamic employer that rewards its workforce generously and rapidly, without the need for union intervention. The argument is that Tesla’s “different economic situation”—likely referring to its growth phase and lack of legacy costs compared to traditional automakers—enables it to offer better immediate financial incentives. By framing the collective agreement as a limiting factor (a 2% cap vs. a 4% raise), Tesla attempts to demonstrate that unionization might actually slow down wage growth for its employees.
The Union Perspective: Structural Discrepancies
Despite Tesla’s figures, IG Metall maintains that the lack of a collective agreement leaves workers vulnerable. The union’s argument extends beyond simple percentage increases to the structural integrity of the compensation package. Collective agreements in Germany typically cover not just hourly wages, but also holiday pay, Christmas bonuses, shift differentials, and protection against arbitrary changes in working conditions. The union contends that while Tesla may offer sporadic raises, the overall package lacks the consistency and enforceability of a union contract.
Jan Otto’s comments regarding the pay grades shed light on the technical aspects of this disagreement. In the German automotive industry, the classification of roles determines pay. If Tesla is utilizing lower pay grades for production roles that would be classified higher at a competitor’s plant, the base salary comparison becomes skewed. The union is essentially arguing that Tesla is misclassifying work to make their wages appear competitive when, in reality, a worker performing the same tasks at a different factory would be in a higher bracket.
Furthermore, the push for the 35-hour week is intrinsically linked to hourly wages. If workers are required to work 40 hours to earn a salary that a peer earns in 35 hours, the effective hourly rate is lower, even if the monthly gross looks similar. This nuance is central to IG Metall’s campaign, as they seek to standardize the value of labor across the sector.
Clash of Corporate Cultures
The friction at Giga Berlin is emblematic of a broader clash between two distinct corporate cultures. On one side is the Silicon Valley ethos: fast-paced, disruptive, skeptical of bureaucracy, and focused on direct relationships between management and employees. This culture prizes agility and views unions as third-party intermediaries that introduce friction and slow down innovation. Tesla’s success globally has been built on this model, allowing it to pivot quickly and scale production at unprecedented rates.
On the other side is the “Rhineland capitalism” model of Germany: built on consensus, co-determination, and strong social partnerships between employers and unions. In this system, stability and long-term worker welfare are prioritized, often codified in complex legal frameworks. The works council is a manifestation of this, legally requiring management to consult with worker representatives on many issues.
Thierig’s insistence on maintaining an “unbureaucratic” environment is a direct appeal to the American model. He fears that introducing the full weight of IG Metall’s influence will import the rigidities that plague legacy automakers—rigidities that Tesla was founded to disrupt. Conversely, the union sees Tesla’s approach as an erosion of hard-won labor standards, fearing that if a major player like Tesla successfully sidesteps these norms, it could set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the industry.
Conclusion
As the 2026 works council election approaches, the rhetoric from both sides is likely to intensify. Tesla’s “red line” on the 35-hour week and the threat to halt expansion plans represent a high-stakes gamble. Management is betting that the promise of continued growth, combined with competitive wage increases like the recent 4% hike, will persuade the workforce to reject the union’s overtures.
However, the allure of the 35-hour week and the security of a collective agreement remain potent tools for IG Metall. The outcome of this dispute will have far-reaching implications. A victory for the union could force Tesla to adapt its global playbook to fit European norms, potentially altering the economics of Giga Berlin. Conversely, if Tesla succeeds in keeping the union at bay while maintaining high worker satisfaction through direct incentives, it could challenge the hegemony of IG Metall in the German automotive heartland.
For now, the lines are drawn. Tesla has made its position clear: it views the union’s demands not just as economic costs, but as existential threats to the agility and independence that define the company. Whether the workforce agrees with this assessment will be the deciding factor in the years to come.
