I'm by no means a fan of pure capitalism, but in this case, what's the problem? What you want doesn't look like a free market. What you want is an external forc

I'm by no means a fan of pure capitalism, but in this case, what's the problem? What you want doesn't look like a free market. What you want is an external force (universal morality? government regulation?) prohibiting a company (Grohmann) from being bought by a company (Tesla) that apparently offered an enticing deal, and then trying to negotiate out of existing contracts (has anyone accused Tesla of not honoring existing contracts? THAT would be different). The stakeholders of Grohmann evidently wanted to sell, and that's the only thing that matters in a free market. Once sold, Tesla determines how Grohmann (re)negotiates with its customers, and how Grohmann resources are utilized. The companies Grohmann supplied have their existing contracts; if those contracts are not honored, THAT will be despicable, and those companies will then have legal recompense. If the contracts are negotiated away, there's no problem. If contracts are honored but those companies don't like future contracts (or lack thereof), that's on the other automakers for not forming a consortium and buying Grohmann when they had the chance. I view the labor issue as separate; labor's issues are only tangentially about whether Tesla is supplying parts to other automakers. Their concerns are primarily about the implications on salary, benefits, and particularly job stability. Labor is always free to do anything that's legal under labor law to improve or negotiate a better position, regardless of who owns Grohmann or to what companies it supplies parts.