This company decides to fire 35000 employees, 20,000 agree to end…, no connection with Mukesh Ambani, Narayana Murthy, Noel Tata, Sundar Pichai, company is….
Automaker companies have also jumped into the massive layoff spree, with global automaker Volkswagen deciding to lay off as many as 35,000 employees in Germany by 2030. The significant job cuts are a part of the company's cost-cutting program amid the ongoing tariffs introduced by former United States President Donald Trump, looming over the German automotive industry, reported local news portal Bild. Notably, over 20,000 workers at Volkswagen have agreed to end their contracts early and take voluntary retirement. The reports cited a works council meeting at Volkswagen's Wolfsburg headquarters.
The job cuts will be made at the German plants of the company. Volkswagen is focusing on performing reductions in an acceptable manner, with the employees agreeing to the terms. Volkswagen's Severance Package
A German car manufacturer will provide severance payments to employees impacted by cost-cutting measures. The amount will vary depending on tenure, with potential payouts reaching USD400,000. While the total cost of these severance packages remains undisclosed, this information comes from a company staff meeting. Reduction In Apprenticeships
To reduce costs, the German automaker will cut 1,400 apprenticeships to 600 annually, beginning in 2026. Combined with significant job reductions, these measures are projected to save the company approximately €1.5 billion annually in labour expenses.
Apart from voluntary resignation, about 13 lakh employees in the company's core team are ready to accept the payment freeze. The automaker is also planning to give a five percent salary hike paid in two stages. Tariff Woes
As per an earlier report by Reuters, which cited the Ifo Institute, the German automotive industry further impacted last month following a fall in the business climate index after Trump tariffs.
'The confusion surrounding the U.S. tariffs is causing problems for the automotive industry in Germany,' Reuters quoted Anita Woelfl, Ifo sector specialist.
Facing weak European sales and intense foreign competition, Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are negotiating with the US government to mitigate the effects of tariffs. Meanwhile, a recent report reveals declining business confidence in May 2025, with the business expectations index falling to -28.3 points from -25.2 points in April, and the business climate index dropping to -31.8 points from -30.7 points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
Tapestry Plummets With Tariff Costs Weighing on Profit Outlook
(Bloomberg) -- Tapestry Inc.'s annual outlook for a key profit metric missed analysts' forecasts due in part to tariffs, a sign that Wall Street is still adjusting to the full cost of duties for US companies. The owner of Coach and Kate Spade said it's expecting earnings per diluted share between $5.30 to $5.45 in the current fiscal year. That would be a 4% to 7% increase versus the prior year. Analysts in a Bloomberg survey were expecting the profit metric to reach $5.49. The difference likely lies in tariffs. Tapestry's EPS outlook includes a negative impact of 60 cents from higher duties, the company said in a statement Thursday. It's not clear that Wall Street has fully accounted for those costs. Shares of Tapestry fell 17% in premarket trading. The stock had gained about 74% this year through Wednesday's close. That hit tariffs represents about $160 million in extra costs in the current fiscal year, Chief Financial Officer Scott Roe said in an interview. The 'new information' on tariffs, he said, will have a 'significant' effect in the current fiscal year. Still, Tapestry has 'strong confidence in our ability to mitigate the impact of tariffs over time.' The handbag maker's outlook for the year is 'prudent given the backdrop,' Roe added. Tapestry is forecasting revenue of nearly $7.2 billion in the current fiscal year that's expected to end in June, slightly above analysts' expectations of $7.12 billion. That excludes sales from shoe brand Stuart Weitzman, which Tapestry sold after it didn't generate much revenue. That figure would be a mid-single-digit percentage increase in sales versus the prior year, the company said. Offloading Stuart Weitzman will enable Tapestry executives to spend more time and resources on increasing sales at Coach and turning around Kate Spade. Revenue at Coach rose 13%, excluding currency fluctuations, and fell 13% at Kate Spade in the most recent quarter that ended on June 28. 'Coach outperformance continues,' Tapestry Chief Executive Officer Joanne Crevoiserat said in the interview. 'We're well ahead of the industry and we're doing that at exceptional margins.' Sales at Coach have accelerated in the current quarter, she added. At Kate Spade, Crevoiserat said, 'the work to reset the brand is underway.' Coach was listed as the fifth hottest fashion brand as of June, according to the closely watched Lyst Index. Its Tabby and Brooklyn bags are top sellers and have been spotted on celebrities, while its cherry bag charm is a popular and less expensive purchase for shoppers. Most of the brands at the top of the Lyst Index are European fashion houses such as Miu Miu, Loewe, Prada and Moncler. Coach and Ralph Lauren, at No. 11, are among the few US names on the list and have been able to successfully compete with more expensive European luxury labels even as the two companies have consistently raised prices in recent years. Both brands' prices are cheaper than many of their European peers, which makes their high-end products more accessible to a wider range of shoppers, helping to boost sales, executives have said. The brands' popularity 'suggest a healthy outlook to support market-share gains and operating margin via full-price sales, even amid increased price sensitivity, low consumer confidence and tariff risk,' Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Deborah Aitken and Andrea Ferdinando Leggieri wrote in a recent research note. (Updates with shares in fourth paragraph.) More stories like this are available on
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
US threatens more tariffs on India ahead of Trump–Putin Alaska talks; New Delhi responds
The United States has been relentless on its Donald Trump induced tariff war, as US treasury Secretary has warned another spate of secondary tariffs on India over Russian oil trade. Washington has accused New Delhi of 'fuelling' the war machinery of Russia, by buying their oil at discounted prices. This comes as US President Donald Trump is headed to Alaska to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin to seal a deal to 'stop' the Ukraine war. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that secondary tariffs could be raised depending on the outcome of President Donald Trump's high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Wednesday, Bessent said Washington had already imposed secondary tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil, and further measures were on the table if negotiations with Moscow failed to produce results. 'We've put secondary tariffs on Indians for buying Russian oil. And I could see, if things don't go well, then sanctions or secondary tariffs could go up,' he remarked. The warning comes against the backdrop of strained India–US ties, fuelled by Delhi's rising imports of discounted Russian crude since the start of the Ukraine war. Russian oil accounted for 35–40% of India's total crude imports in 2024, a sharp increase from just 3% in 2021. India has defended its buying strategy, citing the need to secure affordable energy for its vast population amid volatile global prices. During a press briefing on Thursday, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal described India–US relations as a comprehensive global strategic partnership, grounded in shared interests, democratic values, and strong bilateral ties. He noted that the partnership has endured various transitions and challenges in the past, expressing hope that it will continue to advance on the basis of mutual respect and common interests. He further stated, 'We have already issued our statement and would draw your attention to it.' Trump and Putin are set to meet in Anchorage on Friday in a bid to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The US president has warned of 'severe consequences' if Moscow refuses to agree to a peace deal. Bessent urged European nations to align more closely with Washington's sanctions regime, saying, 'The Europeans need to join us in these sanctions. The Europeans need to be willing to put on these secondary sanctions.' Trade negotiations between the two nations have been ongoing for months but remain stuck on key issues, including India's high tariffs on agricultural and dairy products. The tensions have deepened after Trump announced a new 50% tariff rate on Indian goods, due to take effect on 27 August — a move some analysts have likened to an informal trade embargo. The higher tariff would make India the most heavily taxed US trading partner in Asia, dealing a potential blow to key export-oriented sectors such as textiles and jewellery. Economists warn it could shave as much as 0.5% off India's GDP growth. The US administration has framed the tariffs as part of a broader plan to 'make global trade fairer' and to narrow America's $45 billion trade deficit with India. Trump has repeatedly accused India of being a 'tariff abuser' and is keen to use trade policy as leverage in both economic and geopolitical negotiations. US trade envoys are expected to arrive in New Delhi on 25 August to resume talks — but with the Alaska meeting looming, the outcome could hinge on a separate stage entirely.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Tourist tax on cards? Why London may mimic Paris in charging visitors
Taxes have always been as inevitable as death. In Rachel Reeves' Britain, it's looking like tax increases are now as unavoidable as the grim reaper. The chancellor must find billions of pounds to fill a black hole in the public finances before the autumn budget. So far, she has proven unable to cut public spending thanks to a series of rebellions by Labour MPs. And Keir Starmer's 'defining mission' of making the sums add up by turbocharging growth has also been stymied, partly by Reeves' move to hike national insurance for employers in her last budget. GDP figures out Thursday came in at a relatively anemic 0.3% increase for the second quarter of 2025. That leaves taxes and, having ruled out increasing the burden on 'working people,' Reeves and her team are spending the summer eying other sources of cash. One idea being pushed by some in Westminster is a tourist tax. It's worth taking seriously, both for the potential to raise some much-needed revenue and as a driver of growth. A stroll around the center of London on a warm August day this week confirms there's plenty of scope. Crowds were 10 deep outside Buckingham Palace and, inside, visitors of various ages and nationalities were glued to audio guides as they gawped at the King's riches before stopping off for a cream tea in the cafe. London was the third most popular destination in the world in terms of international arrivals last year and third for tourist dollars spent in 2023. An estimated 43 million foreign visitors are expected this year and are anticipated to collectively spend £33.7 billion ($45.7 billion), according to VisitBritain. That's not including business travelers and domestic visitors, who may or may not be caught by a potential tax, depending on how it's levied. Among the most world's most popular tourist destinations, London is rare in not already levying a tax on hotel stays. From Tokyo to Barcelona, New York to Amsterdam, the additional nightly charge is a familiar, if mildly irritating, sight on hotel bills. As Sadiq Khan, London's mayor who favors a tourist tax, put it, most travelers: 'don't really mind paying the few extra euros' when they visit cities such as Paris and Berlin. Reeves is said to disagree, reportedly squashing proposals by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to introduce measures in the Devolution Bill, currently going through Parliament, that would allow local authorities to impose a tourist tax. She should reconsider. There are different ways of imposing levies on tourism, but the most common is a nightly charge, often with varying rates depending on the standard of the hotel or as a percentage of the final bill. Assuming a stay at a 4-star accommodation, analysis by the Telegraph suggests the most expensive popular European tourist destination is Amsterdam, at the equivalent of £16 a night, down to £3.40 for Lisbon, with Venice, Paris and Rome coming in at just over £8. Given the sums I saw being handed over for Buckingham Palace-branded merch, including a £10 jar of honey and £17 socks, a similar tax in London seems unlikely to break the bank of the average overseas visitor. The fear for a hospitality industry with fresh memories of Covid is that any tax would inhibit visitor numbers and make alternative, cheaper destinations more attractive. But given most major cities already have a tax, that argument doesn't stack up. In any case, a recent report by the House of Commons Library into the potential impact of a tourist tax pointed out that currency fluctuations and the strength of the pound appear to have little impact on arrival numbers, suggesting that so long as the rate is set at a comparable figure to other cities, it's unlike to put travelers off. What about the effect on destinations that may prove less of a lure for visitors? England's beleaguered seaside resorts would be particularly loathe to adopt any measure that would further put off holiday makers. The solution to that is to make a tax optional, with local authorities choosing whether one might suit their particular local circumstances. That's the model favored by mayors including Manchester's Andy Burnham, who I discussed tourist taxes with recently, as well as Khan and Steve Rotheram in Liverpool. Local councils across London are supportive, along with the Institute for Government and the County Councils Network, although the trade body UK Hospitality described such a move as 'deeply misguided,' pointing out that Britain charges a higher rate of VAT than most countries, which is included in hotel bills. Maybe so. But Manchester and Liverpool have already taken advantage of a loophole in the law to introduce hotel charges as part of scheme allowing hotels to band together in 'Business Improvement Districts' to raise levies, without any impact on visitor numbers, according to analysis by the journal Tourism Management. Manchester's £1 nightly fee is estimated to have raised around £2.8 million in its first year, but the scheme is voluntary for hotels and limited in geographical scope and the mayors want to go further. Scotland has adopted similar powers and Wales is expected to follow suit next year. Given how skewed international travel is toward the capital, which attracts more than half of all visitors to the UK, a tourist tax would have to be be introduced in London to have a significant impact on the nation's finances. That seems fair. Londoners love tourists — but visitors shouldn't get a free ride. As protests in cities around the world highlight, locals suffer from the impact of tourism, in terms of congestion and the added strain on services. Buckingham Palace's coffers may benefit, but Londoners go uncompensated for tourists drinking their water supply, walking their well-lit streets, leaving litter or slowing down their commute. A recent YouGov poll found 45% of Londoners would support a tourist tax compared with 37% who opposed — this feels more tolerant than the Barceloni, who have taken to shooting visitors with water pistols. Many taxes, including those in Manchester, are designed to be reinvested in the tourist industry, making them a potential driver of the precious growth Reeves is seeking. A broad definition of what constitutes the industry, such as allowing spending on transport that tourists also utilize, would free the chancellor up to divert money elsewhere. And here's another idea. Unusually for a global city, most of London's leading tourist attractions (although not Buckingham Palace) are free. That means tourists get to glory in the treasures of the British Museum, the National Gallery, the National History Museum and the rest without paying a penny. How about introducing fees for non-residents, as New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art does, with locals allowed to 'pay as you wish' (they must produce a credit card with a New York billing address to qualify)? The savings could be pocketed by the Treasury in terms of reduced grants to the nation's cultural institutions — the British Museum alone received £43.2 million in government funding last year. Reeves is right to be leery of imposing any more pain on a hospitality industry already struggling with the national insurance and minimum wage increases. But by being smart about how a levy is introduced — limiting it to areas such as London and the wealthy tourists who can afford it — estimates are that she could raise £500 million a year (on a nightly bed tax of £12). That won't fill her budgetary black hole — but it would be a start.
