Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Employees Detail How They Were Fired, Claim Dismissals Were Not Performance Related (cnbc.com)

New submitter joshtops shares a CNBC report: Tesla is trying to disguise layoffs by calling the widespread terminations performance related, allege several current and former employees. On Friday, the San Jose Mercury News first reported that Tesla had dismissed an estimated 400 to 700 employees. That number represents between 1 and 2 percent of its entire workforce. But one former employee, citing internal information shared by a manager, said the total number fired is higher than 700 at this point. Most of the people let go from Tesla so far have been from its motors business, said people familiar with the matter. They were not from other initiatives like Tesla Powerwall, which is helping restore electricity to the residents of Puerto Rico now. The mass firings, which affected Tesla employees across the U.S., had begun by the weekend of Oct. 7 and continued even after the initial news report, sources said. Among those whose jobs were terminated in this phase, some were given severance packages quickly while others are still waiting on separation agreements. Some terminated employees told CNBC they were informed via email or a phone call "without warning," and told not to come into work the next day. The company also dismissed other employees without specifying a given performance issue, according to these people. "Seems like performance has nothing to do with it," one Tesla employee told CNBC under the condition of anonymity. "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position," this person said, suggesting that the firings were driven by cost-cutting. That assessment was echoed by several others, including three employees fired from Tesla during this latest wave.

250 comments

  1. Bummer by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla does not have a union. Yet.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Bummer by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've yet to meet an underperformer who admitted that was why they were terminated. Not saying these people were, just something that I keep in mind.

    2. Re:Bummer by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Yes and apparently we're witnessing how it happens.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seeing how unions so effectively ruined the competitiveness and efficiently of the Big 3, which were already very strong, established and highly profitable companies, a union would be a death sentence for a relatively young and developing company like Tesla.

    4. Re:Bummer by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if 2% of Tesla's workforce was so bad it needed firing all at once, I'd say it's the management that was underperforming.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are witnessing what happens all right. Form a union and Tesla goes under completely. Musk can kill or sell that business and focus on others. Goodbye nice jobs because that's all unions do is end jobs for non union people and protect their made men.

    6. Re:Bummer by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, nothing can kill Tesla. Many slashdotters say it is so. If Elon is the business leader people seem to think he is, a union is nothing but a minor annoyance.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Look around the poker table, if you can't spot the chump, it's you.

      If you haven't worked with 'air thieves' you are one. It really is simple as that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Seems like performance has nothing to do with it," one Tesla employee told CNBC under the condition of anonymity. "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position,"

      Huh... why would Tesla be paying under-performers so much?

    9. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under-performing and terminated for it last year.

      There, you can never make that claim again.

    10. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've yet to meet an underperformer who admitted that was why they were terminated. Not saying these people were, just something that I keep in mind.

      Many who were terminated NEVER had ANY feedback before they were terminated or after. That's something YOU should keep in mind.

      And considering Tesla's horrible cash flows and inability to make a profit in it's entire existence - except one quarter thanks to some slick accounting.

      There is no excuse. "Ramping up" is just a bullshit excuse. It's been 14 years. If one of us used that BS excuse on OUR jobs, we'd be fired a LONG time ago.

      Musk has been making these hyperbolic claims.
          Model S sales are at best 80,000 units per year and he wants to make 500,000 cars? And sell them to whom?! The Model 3 looks like it'll do the same. See, Tesla stockholders are extrapolating the initial orders for the Model 3 made by Tesla fanboys. It won't happen.

      Tesla's bonds are selling at junk levels - meaning they are NOT investment grade.

      There are so many problems with Tesla that I could write a 50 page report on just the problems.

      But yet it's trading at over $350.

      Irrational exuberance. There is no rational reason for Tesla to be trading as high as it is. None. It's book value is about $28. And if you include Musk's hype - assuming it'll happen (*snicker*) - maybe Tesla is should go for $50 in this market.

      But $350+?!?!?!

      Tesla is values as if it's going to be a big and profitable as Toyota by 2020.

      Good luck with that.

      And let's queue up Musk's publicists and public relations people to post press releases and other non-sense to dispute my statement that are based upon SEC Filings and Auto Market Industry analysis.

      Tesla and Musk are Religions. And their followers make the Steve Jobs fanboys of the 90s look like completely rational people.

    11. Re:Bummer by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      Good analogy. At a poker table, it's all against all and in order for anyone to win, someone has to lose.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    12. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you could spot the chump in poker, then you're getting played.

    13. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And the loser can't know it, or (s)he will leave the game before being fleeced. If you know you have a bunch of tells, you don't play poker.

      Most underperforming employees don't know it either. In both cases, ego gets in the way.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re: Bummer by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing is for sure. Letting go of people without good cause is not how you keep away a union.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. If you're playing against me, I'm the chump. I typically don't play poker because I know I'm the chump, but every once and a while it's fun so long as I make sure to not put more money in than I'm willing to lose

    16. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not playing in this case means not having a job. I guess that is an option for those with a large savings or inheritance.

    17. Re:Bummer by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I highly doubt they'll ever have one. People have been totally brainwashed against unions. Companies tout over and over again how everyone needs to come together and be buddies. Prima donna rockstar IT guys and developers loudly proclaim that they would never stoop to the level of their peers. And people wonder why there's no job security.

      Things are going to have to get REALLY bad for unions to make a comeback. Bad enough for the average people to tune out the propaganda, like 50% unemployment bad. I personally have zero issues with seniority-based job security as long as the person is performing at an acceptable level. Too many people I know are getting thrown out of the IT field in their 40s and 50s, and it's nearly impossible to get rehired due to age discrimination. I think my next career move is going to have to be "cashing in my chips" and taking a lower-paying stable job.

    18. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at Tesla. I got a raise the same week that these people were apparently terminated. It was also the same week everyone got their performance evaluations.

      Hmm...

    19. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short the stock and make a fortune!

    20. Re:Bummer by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Meanwhile, Tesla has 2484 open jobs on its website. A rather curious strategy if they're trying to "disguise a layoff". Let's lay off "up to 700 people" and then hire 2484 new people to.... cut back on the workforce?

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    21. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way to play poker is to act like a chump, and then later exploit it. I've done this many times - sometimes purposefully and sometimes because I wasn't paying attention. It's always amusing at the end when you crush people.

    22. Re: Bummer by Rei · · Score: 1

      Just taking you at face value for the sake of argument (not meant to either cast aspersions, nor be naively trusting of a random AC): what do you think of UAW and their activities concerning Tesla?

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    23. Re:Bummer by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you are in a business where you don't have cyclical layoffs to purge the trash, then you need some kind of policy to weed out the poor performers. Maybe doing it in a giant wave like this is not a great idea, but it's better than not doing it. And frankly, it probably does make a lot of sense to do it in a wave. Performance reviews (or whatever metric is being done) are usually all finished at around the same time, so you'd know who your bad performers are all at once. Why wait? I wish the public schools would do something like this every year.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Bummer by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I think this whole discussion should pivot on what one anonymous Tesla employee says.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sad. You are underpaid.

    26. Re:Bummer by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Well, if 2% of Tesla's workforce was so bad it needed firing all at once, I'd say it's the management that was underperforming.

      Perhaps Management took their hands off the wheel, the autopilot nagged them about it, and they finally put down the coffee and morning paper and started paying attention again - before they entered an intersection with a crossing semi-truck.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    27. Re:Bummer by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well if you read the summary, the people they laid off were allegedly the highest paid people in their job categories.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    28. Re: Bummer by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So it's mismanagement if these people weren't notified at the performance evaluation that they would be laid off.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:Bummer by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Look around the poker table, if you can't spot the chump, it's you.

      Studies show that parents really do have a favorite child. Studies also show that if you have to ask, it isn't you.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    30. Re:Bummer by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd personally take a report from people who were fired about how they weren't deserving of being fired with a grain of salt.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    31. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's more or less, what all the good players are doing.

      But there are people that don't know odds, don't know what a pot ratio is etc. Just chumps.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re: Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is more than one kind of job in the world. Working at something you're not good at, isn't a winning plan.

      Maybe the fired employees will be great ditch diggers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems your ego is not the problem. Right?

    34. Re: Bummer by Chameleon+Man · · Score: 1

      I would argue these under-performance should know their weakness, identify their strengths, and move to a smaller stakes table.

    35. Re:Bummer by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Complete non sequitur.

      Ayn Rand argued in favor of those who produce. She argued that wealth is not a zero-sum game (such as the poker analogy); that wealth is created. And, if it is created, we ought to respect the creators of said wealth.

      The creators are more valuable to society than the redistributors - especially if the distributors end up shackling or killing the creators.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    36. Re:Bummer by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      2%? Is this supposed to be some enormous number that other companies don't hit? The only large layoffs I see from the company were in 2008, then last year when they bought Solar City.

      I saw predictions 4 months ago that this would happen soon when Tesla released poor Q2 numbers. At that point, with inventory problems, it seemed inevitable that there would be a bit of turnover. What I've also found is that when a company has to cut costs, it often doubles as a way of cutting dead wood. That can be people who used to perform well but no longer don't, and their higher salary makes that problem even worse.

    37. Re:Bummer by Chameleon+Man · · Score: 1

      The people that surprise me more are people like yourself that seem to be so gung ho for Tesla to fail. Why? If you're so confident about the stock going into the shitter, then short sell it. That's right, you won't, because people like you have been spouting off the same thing year after year while Tesla's stock continues to rise. Get outta here with that Fox News bullshit...

    38. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does joe random employee know salary details of his peers?

    39. Re:Bummer by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "Seems like performance has nothing to do with it," one Tesla employee told CNBC under the condition of anonymity. "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position,"

      Huh... why would Tesla be paying under-performers so much?

      Salaries pretty much never go down. They only go up. The longer you've worked at the company, the more you get paid, regardless of actual performance.

    40. Re: Bummer by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Seeing how unions so effectively ruined the competitiveness and efficiently of the Big 3, which were already very strong, established and highly profitable companies, a union would be a death sentence for a relatively young and developing company like Tesla.

      Big 3 management was entirely incompetent as well. I know we love to say unions killed the big 3, but perhaps if they had good direction and knew how to react to what other automakers were doing to get ahead, they might have been fine.

    41. Re: Bummer by Chameleon+Man · · Score: 1

      So by your information, the Tesla employee who was laid off was much more likely to be a terrible performer.

    42. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid.

      Don't short the stock in any case. Margin call can kill you. If you think it's overvalued, buy out of the money put options. Sure they are bets that the company will fail in a specific date range, but your losses are limited to the premium you paid upfront. With the kind of volatility Testa stock has, that premium won't be small.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    43. Re:Bummer by Chameleon+Man · · Score: 1

      I personally have zero issues with seniority-based job security as long as the person is performing at an acceptable level.

      The issue here is that "acceptable level" is highly subjective depending on the company and the industry. If you're looking for job security, don't work for a volatile company that could succeed or fail in a matter of a few short years. Tesla is that company. Your "acceptable level" threshold is much higher there. For folks looking for job security and a lower acceptable level of work, look for a government job or work for a utility.

    44. Re:Bummer by s122604 · · Score: 2

      Instead of trying to work with put options, just go long on something you have confidence in

      Or better yet, just go with index funds, because if highly paid portfolio managers with research staffs routinely don't beat them, you probably can't either.

    45. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, if it isn't at least 10%, you're blind to the facts. It sucks to work for corporations today because of all the poor performers making your job harder that management is too scared to fire. I've had to order engineers to stay at their desk and sleep because the damage they did when they touched the design work was greater than the benefit and management wouldn't get rid of them.

      If someone isn't performing to the pay they are receiving, their pay should be lowered or they should be fired. Generally, you have to fire them because if you just lower their pay, they thank you for not firing them by spreading dissension in the ranks.

      Kudos to Musk for having the balls to do what most American managers won't though I'm sure he stopped a factor of four or five short of the break-even point (that point where the workers cost more than they produce) due to Tesla's current need to produce Model 3s at any cost.

    46. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're truly firing for performance reasons and normalizing performance expectations by pay, it is very understandable to fire highly paid employees. Managers and engineers that were hired with high expectations can underperform just as easily as anyone else.

      If it's true, the fact that highly compensated people were fired would indicate that there was an unusual amount of fairness in the review process. Usually, shit rolls downhill in modern corporations.

    47. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I know someone who make a medium sized fortune when Oracle cancelled their Christmas party. (20 years ago now)

      He knew what it meant. Ellison has his ego tied up in that party. Cancelling the party meant the earnings were terrible.

      Not insider trading either. The party's cancellation was public, he just knew the culture well enough to know what it meant. So many out of the money puts just after the earnings date. He ultimately had to explain to the SEC, but they just said 'clever'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    48. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that's not the point of the comment you are replying to. It is a well-known cost cutting strategy to fire senior employees and hire junior ones for no other reason than that itself. Nominally this is idiotic because, especially in hourly jobs, a junior employee is usually much less productive (makes more mistakes, doesn't coordinate with other departments, etc) than a senior one. But if you're measuring productivity by hours worked instead of quality of work or other metrics, then that difference doesn't show up.

    49. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, that's exactly why there's the saying "if you want a raise, find a new job". Because the people who have been there the longest make the most and raises always outpace wage increases in a sector. /sarcasm

    50. Re:Bummer by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla does not have a union. Yet.

      Unlike traditional *American* automakers. There isn't a single unionized foreign-owned assembly plant in the US.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    51. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a Slashdot username and use it to post regularly, you are DEFINITELY one.

    52. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they also refused to take a lower salary or refused transfer to another job within the company. Just because they were the highest paid, doesn't mean Tesla felt like they should stay that way.

    53. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ayn Rand argued...

      lol stopped reading right there

    54. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person who works in an organisation like they're playing poker, treating his supposed teammates like there is weak prey to "spot", is the "air thief".

      If you've never worked in an organisation that has good enough hiring practises not to have an "air thief", either you're too thick to work somewhere decent or you have not worked in many places at all. Your opinion on the average workplace is thus based on extrapolation and fantasy.

    55. Re:Bummer by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      actually, none of the car makers here have REAL unions, except the original American car makers. Some of the rest have weak unions here , but most do not.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    56. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cisco did the exact same thing last May. They terminated some 500 contractors. I was one of them. Yet the job I was training for was required by the Federal government, so here it is 5 months later and they've tried to direct hire the role and I've seen identical role descriptions for a replacement. With one exception--prior experience doing that sort of thing is required rather than having them do it all over again. I'd been warned about Cisco but I didn't listen. And this time, I passed.

    57. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seems like performance has nothing to do with it," one Tesla employee told CNBC under the condition of anonymity. "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position,"

      Huh... why would Tesla be paying under-performers so much?

      Have you ever thought about under-performance in the sense of the price Tesla is paying them? In other words, it is not worth paying them that much compared to getting the value back from them.

      Also those who said it could be management problem, then they should look at what positions are terminated. If all of those who are terminated are from operation only, then yes it could be management. Please don't jump the gun.

    58. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hazard to guess they would be terrible ditch diggers.

    59. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what I did after IBM put me out to pasture. I Went from IT into Accounting. If you know the database software and have experience, it's an easy sell. Steady job with no on-call, very rarely has Overtime and most companies (big and small) need accountants to balance the books. It pays a lot less than IT, but at this point in my career, I don't need the money as much as the benefits (Health, Dental, Vision). YMMV

    60. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And of course companies are always 110% trustworthy.

    61. Re: Bummer by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Not anymore.

    62. Re:Bummer by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a big difference between 2484 open job listings on a website and 2484 actual new hires.

    63. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think those 2484 jobs will be filled?

    64. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Larry wasn't so egotistical both the plan and the story to the SEC might not have worked. Clever indeed.

    65. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, salaries do go down.

      My experience has been that incoming folks tend to make more then the current residents. Unless the company has kept pace with inflation through raises and incentives while keeping pace with the fields commanding salary then you are sliding down. This is why people are jumping ship more often and administrative offices are only encouraging it.

      My salary never kept pace with my position and incoming hires regardless of me being the top performer. Isn't that funny? Only when you are ready to leave are people wheeling to deal and by then it is far too late. I always felt bad for the people who had been there ten years because I knew their salary was at the bottom of the trash pile. Occasionally, someone would confirm my suspicion.

      Even more hilarious was the fact there were rules in place preventing a huge salary fix. Even getting the max change year over year could never help someone unless a petition to the gods was answered. VPs are seriously the worst to try to convince that someone really does need a pay grade fix.

      Sad but true... good and bad talent needs to move around in order to keep pace with the industry pay standards.

    66. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should have re-written that piece and corrected numerous grammar issues. In my defense, I'm rather busy today.

      At least I'm an AC and I never read the replies. Come at me bro (grammar nazis)

    67. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have to concede musk ist a great rocketeer and a great phantast.

      You have to Cut him some slack for being a great Entertainer for all of us.

    68. Re:Bummer by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I know someone who make a medium sized fortune when Oracle cancelled their Christmas party. (20 years ago now)

      He knew what it meant. Ellison has his ego tied up in that party. Cancelling the party meant the earnings were terrible.

      Not insider trading either. The party's cancellation was public, he just knew the culture well enough to know what it meant. So many out of the money puts just after the earnings date. He ultimately had to explain to the SEC, but they just said 'clever'.

      Wow!!

      What a great story!! Thanks for sharing and good deal for that guy who figured that out and made a small fortune!!

      I love to hear a good story where someone makes a lot of $$ using observation and being clever (indeed).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    69. Re:Bummer by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Just because they're advertising doesn't mean they're actually filling them.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    70. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they all have unions in their home countries.

    71. Re:Bummer by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I've yet to meet an underperformer who admitted that was why they were terminated. Not saying these people were, just something that I keep in mind.

      I've also yet to meet an asshole fired for misbehavior who understands that being an asshole is poor performance. They almost invariably believe their performance was so divine that they have a Special Right of Asshole.

      I'm guessing a lot of the people who claim that "no performance reason was given" were in fact told a performance reason related to behavior and they just can't comprehend that anything other than widgets per hour is a performance metric.

    72. Re:Bummer by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, if 2% of Tesla's workforce was so bad it needed firing all at once, I'd say it's the management that was underperforming.

      Exactly! When I saw that it said many of them were the highest paid for their positions, I instantly thought "team leads/managers." Exactly what you'd hope to see at this stage in the process when they were hiring so fast for so long; a culling of lame middle managers from every department. You can't cull the dud workers until after you cull the dud managers, or the dud managers will end up firing all the good workers to cover their own asses. This is a sign of good governance.

      The whole concept of a "layoff" at a company that has pre-sold their entire manufacturing output for years and whose growth is only constrained by manufacturing output, it's just too silly for words. Are there really "nerds" this stupid, or do we have a lot of fake nerds around here these days?

    73. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my 70s the only low paying stable job is shovelling shit. Not the kind HR types and PR types get paid to move.

    74. Re:Bummer by retchdog · · Score: 2

      The quote in the article is from a "Tesla employee", without qualification as "former Tesla employee" as used elsewhere in the article. Also, I'd take a report from the people doing the firing that it was merit-based and not a cost-cutting measure with a grain of salt as well.

      Of course, it's all highly speculative at this point and in some sense I don't even see how it really matters, apart from as an indicator of Tesla's short-term economics.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    75. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can believe two things.

      Part is good ole boys club in management and trying to make year end numbers look good. The other part is likely high salary employees who could be replaced 2 for 1 for the same amount of money.

      In my experience nearly all management and executives fail upwards. Its rare to find ones who truly understand or have hands on experience doing the work being done by those beneath them as you climb the management ladder.

      I've been on both sides of that situation. I've quit jobs over having to fire people, or move them to other cost units to make numbers look better for some idiot director, VP, or C-level exec up the chain because of some performance goal in their performance review for their yearly bonus.

      I've also been on the receiving end of being paid more than my Director or VP while delivering results that paid for all our salaries and another 50 employees while making those members of the good ole boys club look bad across the board. Once we automate ourselves out of a job, its easy to let people go rather than apply their skills to other functions and groups in the business because then that management group will look bad and lose their jobs. Those good ole boys clubs form, the top of the ladder that fails upwards to bonuses looks out for each other tooth and nail.

      Good companies who invest in their employee's and promote a proper work life balance and value the human behind the role and growing those employees and diversifying their skills are few and far between.

      This current tech bubble has killed off most jobs and destroyed most companies and jobs that people used to hold for entire careers. People who go to companies that follow the cultures of Amazon or Google or Tesla are just idiots in my opinion.

      Look at this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bus...

      Note the companies with the highest turnover compared to the ones with the lowest. Sure that's from 2013. Those number have not changed much and are indicative of the changing job market and lack of loyalty between employers and their employees in both directions. If you dig deeper. Its the people up the management chain that keep their jobs longer because they get to decide who gets fired.

    76. Re:Bummer by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Or that Tesla is "over-valued" and the "correction" is kicking in, possibly (just possibly...) having something to do with a changing political climate.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    77. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the public schools here in California did that, half the teachers would be gone. It amazes me the level of incompetence that is allowed to fester in our school system here.

    78. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. My company does this to lower the costs of development. They hire and fire by the thousands.

    79. Re:Bummer by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You said the "R" name. That's another no-no here.

    80. Re:Bummer by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More likely the paid for attacks by the fossil fuellers and the other automotive manufacturers, will continue, especially the fossil fuellers ones. It doesn't seem to be working but they keep on doing it, American main stream media, the global bull puckey channel, any lie you can pay for will be told, just buy the right amount of ad space. This fits in the category of oh noes Stalin and the KGB used Pokemon GO to hack the planet (undead douche baggery). You just don't know what to believe coming out of US main stream media anymore but the safe bet is probably believe none of it. Any kind of news you want can be bought in the US, absolutely anything, start wars to kill competing businesses, who pays the most, wins that particular main stream media battle.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    81. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm yet to meet someone who isn't expendable. Not saying you are a top performer - but you aren't as good as you think you are.

    82. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely the paid for attacks by the fossil fuellers and the other automotive manufacturers, will continue.

      You're imagining things. Yes, Tesla builds electric cars for the wealthy and you (inexplicably) love them for that, but the fact is that they are incredibly over valued and would not be profitable without government incentives.
      On top of that, they appear to be ran just like most other companies - poorly, and with shady business practices.

      It's OK. They are a business - you don't have to love everything about them.

      Let it go.

    83. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between 2484 open job listings on a website and 2484 actual new hires.

      Reminds of the factory I worked at. They had a permanent "Now hiring CNC machinists" sign out front, even when we were downsizing or just having a two week layoff period.
      I was told that was mostly there to remind us all that we were easily replaceable.

    84. Re:Bummer by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      So fire 2% of the management then? To even it out?

    85. Re:Bummer by wkwilley2 · · Score: 2

      2% of the workforce is not that large.

      Also, look at the bright side. If the company routinely lets go of under-performers, it makes everyone else work harder to keep from being the next person let go.

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    86. Re:Bummer by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Not the brightest bulb, are you? If you've been living under a rock or are too lazy to research the subject, you may miss the fact that stack ranking has consistently produced results opposite to what you're belching about.

      In any work setting that requires cooperation (you know, like a company), forcing everyone to look over their shoulder constantly makes the work force to become a bunch of backstabbing jerks.

    87. Re:Bummer by jcr · · Score: 1, Troll

      Most people who rail against Ayn Rand have never read anything she wrote, they only know the standard denigration from the pseudo-intellectual left wing academics.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    88. Re:Bummer by jcr · · Score: 1

      Tesla is values as if it's going to be a big and profitable as Toyota by 2020.

      Meanwhile, Toyota is shipping hydrogen cars. They're the biggest seller of hybrids. Maybe they know something about battery cars that Musk doesn't want to admit.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    89. Re: Bummer by jcr · · Score: 1

      Big 3 management was entirely incompetent as well.

      Yes, they kept knuckling under to the mobsters posing as union officials.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    90. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The listings are there so that they can get H1Bs to undercut the green card holders and American citizens.
      Shit like this gets Trump elected.

    91. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh... why would Tesla be paying under-performers so much?

      Standard procedure in every company. Under-performers get paid more than everyone else, get their own office, maybe a company car and get to show up at 11 AM and leave at 2 PM.

      The rest of us know them under the derogatory term "managers".

    92. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy to guess...

      That guy has his own office, a company car and never does anything around here the three days a week he actually bothers to show up.

      He must be paid more than me.

    93. Re:Bummer by Megol · · Score: 1

      I know it just doesn't make sense. That's okay, I've never seen any ideological fantasy that makes sense when applied to the real world.

      Oh, and the writing is crap. I'd rather read Das Kapital in the original German (which would be pure torture BTW).

    94. Re:Bummer by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Her writing wasn't crap but instead of comparing it to your favorite novel compare it Plato's Republic, or Thomas Moore's Utopia or Hobbes' Leviathan. It's intended to entertain but it's also a philosophical treatise. Or, better put, it's a philosophical treatise wrapped in more digestible form than say Lockes Second Treatise of Government.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    95. Re:Bummer by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but rarely you do see something approaching that. I've seen a couple of instances where people were fired effectively on that basis ("you're getting too big for your boots") and both times it turned out very badly for the company because it was a small market and noone else who could do the job wanted to go near it after seeing how the guy who got fired was treated. The individual filling the position may have been replacable but the cost to the company of having literally noone in the post for a long time was enormous.

    96. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard core Progressives run the school system in California. What do you expect, a meritocracy?

    97. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If stack ranking occurs every single year then you do see the perverse outcomes you mention. But if it happens every 5+ years, the still employed people will say stuff like: You know serbanp was a sanctimonious, argumentative, annoying jack ass. I'm glad he's gone.

    98. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VW workers soundly REJECTED the UAW in a recent vote. And, that with Management recommending a YES vote.
      What does that say? Unions are not seen as needed.
      Oh, then there is the Wisconsin issue. The state stopped taking out Union dues from employee paychecks, making members have to pay separately.
      Union membership took a major drop.

    99. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Inexplicably."

      I "inexplicably" liked when they started making flat screen tvs when they were $8000, too. So please go fuck yourself.

    100. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I wish I could mod this up. Got a good chuckle out of that.

    101. Re:Bummer by dywolf · · Score: 1

      however it is common when a company combined stacked ranking with firing/replacing whomever is in the bottom 10% or so.

      also, how bad that bottom 10% is doesn't really matter in that setup. they get dumped anyway, to scare the people who remain, and pit them against each other so they never organize.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    102. Re:Bummer by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What I read was a talk she gave at a University about philosophy, and I have no idea in the world why she wasn't laughed out of the room. She made sweeping claims, some false and some merely unsupported, had neither good arguments or real coherency for her theory of ethics, and in general did not know what she was talking about. Ever since then, I get twitchy when thinking about reading anything else of hers.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    103. Re:Bummer by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

      If your argument was worth its salt, you wouldn't need the generic insults to get your point across.

      In this line of work, you have to cooperate in order to achieve your goals. That means working with your neighbor and having your manager be a leader instead of a boss. In this type of environment, everyone looks out for one another and If you have people that are lazy, they will isolate themselves. There will always be a bell curve to describe a staff. I use one for my employees in order to gauge strengths and weaknesses on my team.

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    104. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much like your mom knuckles under to my dick

      -a right wing faggot (but I repeat myself)

    105. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if 50% of people are unemployed then they'll support unions because the magic union fairy creates jobs out of nothing, while forcing companies to pay workers more than the company can afford to stay in business?
      I'm against unions because I've worked places that were unionized. Unions put management and workers in an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. They slow down productivity, protect bad workers and punish high productivity workers (because they make other workers look bad.)

    106. Re:Bummer by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      "Unions put management and workers in an unnecessarily adversarial relationship."

      That's what people don't get -- there has to be an adversarial relationship on both sides. It's the only sustainable way to do things. Sooner or later, management is going to try to take away a benefit or get yet another helping of free work out of employees. And workers are going to do everything they can to get out of doing it. Without the union brokering the negotiations, and each side limited to a set of rules they agree on, employers will encroach too far on the employee side of the equation because they have the power to do so. Individual workers and management don't have equal bargaining power, and they should definitely not get into a buddy-buddy relationship.

      I would certainly like to hear examples of how bad unions are in environments you've worked...or are these just talking points?

    107. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I worked at one, it grew rapidly, 'professional HR' was hired. The air thieves were everywhere inside a year.

      The key, while it lasted, was identifying and kicking the air thieves while under probation. About 1/3 of new hires were kicked. There is no way to keep them out with just interviews. Good bullshiters are good bullshitters. As soon as the organization stops accepting that 'mistakes will be made in hiring', it's over.

      If you think you work someplace without air thieves the odds are 99.99999% that you are one, not that there are none. No large company has no air thieves. None. A few small shops don't, but that generally doesn't last. For it to last the big cheeses have to grow slow, leaving 'money on the table'.

      You've obviously never had to assemble a team. Who gets stuck with 'Atul' is _always_ an issue.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    108. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a rapidly growing company kicked out losers during probation. Seems like HR were doing a great job then doesn't it.

    109. Re:Bummer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Didn't have 'HR' during the good time.

      Professional HR came on at about the same time that rapid growth became THE priority. Fucked everything up (par for HR). Became, more or less, impossible to fire anyone. Short of being caught doing something criminal. Hired many 'seat warmers'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Firings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The firings will continue until morale improves around here.

    1. Re:Firings by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

      ... totally different meaning if heard at the NRA.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Firings by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Or the post office...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Firings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Given the NRA has a range at it's HQ, no doubt using it is a fantastic way to boost moral: https://nrahqrange.nra.org/

    4. Re:Firings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh hey Rip Van Winkle!
      It's hasn't been about stressed out overworked 'Nam vets flipping out and shooting up the post office for going on twenty years now.

      Now it's stressed out overworked white guys shooting up the place because their privilege is being encroached upon.

  3. All employees think they perform above-average by geschbacher79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Illusory superiority is something we probably all have mentally: We all think we're above average employees, when obviously that's impossible.

    One thing I've noticed working at a few major companies is that nobody ever really gets bad performance reviews: Instead, they all range from satisfactory to excellent. But in reality, those who get satisfactory are getting bad reviews, it's just more polite to NOT say "you stink".

    1. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So if they were below average, how did they get hired as the "highest paid in their position" ? At the very least, it is HR incompetence.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      I consider the equivalent of "unsatisfactory" to be termination of employment.

      "Satisfactory" can (unfortunately) mean anything from "it isn't yet worth the trouble of replacing you, so we're going to try and get you to improve before we fire you" to "you're a great employee but not particularly special".

      It'd be lovely to have a more exact scale, but people told they're heading to the chopping block sometimes choose to sabotage the company instead of either finding a way to satisfy the company's expectations or finding alternate employment.

    3. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes me think scale is a part of the problem. The largest organization I've ever worked for was maybe 50 people, and generally speaking, when someone's underperforming, they've usually been let go before too long.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's one newly fired employee's claim. Huge grain of salt required.

      Do they even know what other employees make? Not most places. Sure you know what they project (car etc), but that's usually high interest financed bullshit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: All employees think they perform above-average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position,"

      Sounds like he's not talking about himself. So no, not just 1.

    6. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      I have seen roughly the same. While we have a somewhat bigger company, the "IT Part" is about 15-20 people.

      about 8 of them, including me, have been in the company about 15-20 years. Then we have a few people "rotating through", to see if we find some additional "good" people. But, never, ever was someone "fired" one-sided.

      When, after 2-3 years and 4-6 "performance reviews" (which, in our case are both a feedback of the manager on how the employee works out, AND a feedback by the employee on how the manager works out) it was somewhat obvious that it wasn't working out in one of the directions, all the people who left left on amiable terms.

    7. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      So if they were below average, how did they get hired as the "highest paid in their position" ? At the very least, it is HR incompetence.

      The probably weren't hired as the highest paid, but worked their way into it. Perhaps they then became under-performing, or perhaps Tesla is simply greening their workforce -- the latter is usually unlawful and almost always short-sighted.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re: All employees think they perform above-average by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      One employee making the claim you halfwit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best people ever to 'rotate through' a place like that, leave in a week.

    10. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      That's one newly fired employee's claim. Huge grain of salt required.

      I'm sure that guy has a lot to spare.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    11. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My wife is an engineer. She does book club with her companies Accountant and the Admin people. She gets 99% of the dirt in the company from this book club (after some drinks start flowing). Including who gets paid what, bonuses that are paid out, employees that have garnishments against them. All of that fun stuff.

      Just saying.

    12. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by mark-t · · Score: 1

      One thing I've noticed working at a few major companies is that nobody ever really gets bad performance reviews

      Here's the thing... people *DO* get bad performance reviews, but those people don't generally stick around for very long afterwards, if they aren't actually fired for not doing their job correctly, or at all.

    13. Re:All employees think they perform above-average by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Illusory superiority is something we probably all have mentally: We all think we're above average employees, when obviously that's impossible.

      Studies have shown that incompetent people are actually supremely confident in their own abilities and highly competent people express some doubts about themselves as they are smart enough to recognize how things could be better. So it really is quite possible that the people who got fired have inflated and incorrect opinions of their value to Tesla.

  4. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is paying for your retardation?

  5. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla is just staging the ground to hire some h1b replacements for cheap.

    govt welfare money doesn't cover regular employees.

  6. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Let's test your theory.

    Global warming is real.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  7. Performance reviews are an excuse to fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Performance is PRETEXT used to fire undesirables before stock vestment. Especially if they're let go all at the same time!

    Your opinion is being played for a fool.

    This is systemic bullshit in our industry.

  8. NLRB should file an complaint! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    NLRB should file an complaint!

    1. Re:NLRB should file an complaint! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The NLRB doesn’t just up and file complaints on their own. Someone has to walk in the door and file a complaint against Tesla claiming that their termination violated the NLRA. The fact that a number of the people targeted were alleged to be attempting to form a union would definitely be something the NLRB would get involved with. However, if the firings were performance based, or even cost-cutting measures, that’s perfectly legal.

      The NLRB would only get involved if one of the people fired was attempting to form a union, OR they were discussing the terms and conditions of employment and that was the reason they were fired.

      The DFEH and EEOC would only get involved if someone was fired because of their race, gender, or disability, or if someone was fired for sticking up for, or assisting, someone being targeted for reasons enforced by those agencies.

      The California labor commission would get involved if Tesla didn’t pay final wages immediately upon being fired, was paying men and women differently for substantively similar work, or imposed a rule preventing employees from discussing wages or working conditions. Based on the blurb, Tesla’s going to end up paying some nasty fines if people are still waiting on their final pay.

      I’m not sure if it would be the labor commission or the employment development department (unemployment office) who would investigate if Tesla was violating the WARN Act, or its California equivalent.

      California is an at-will state, so with very few exceptions you can be fired (or quit) at any time for any, or even no, reason. Your boss could come in with a massive hangover and fire you for talking at a normal volume, which was too loud for them. They could fire you because they don’t like the color of your shoelaces.

      I agree, that the EEOC, DFEH, NLRB, and similar should be advocates for the employee instead of “neutral fact finders.” Companies like Tesla effectively have unlimited resources if any of those fired employee sues, so can get away with things simply because you and I can’t afford to pay for a legal battle that could drag on for years. However, I can wish for that all I want, but the reality is that they aren’t advocates for employees. Unless you or I can provide a smoking gun email or a metric shit tonne of circumstantial evidence all pointing in the same direction, we can basically expect those agencies to politely listen to our story and then say there’s nothing they can do.

    2. Re:NLRB should file an complaint! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      what about have more EU like rights in the usa?

    3. Re:NLRB should file an complaint! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works for me too, but I suspect that unless there's a massive wave of very progressive Democrats being elected in the upcoming mid-term elections, that you'd have zero chance of ever getting anything like that implemented. Just changing the NLRB and EEOC from "neutral" to "employee advocates" would get branded as a "job killer" because that's what we do now; hand over any power we might have for just the hope of jobs being created. We've entered a second gilded age with people like Trump as the modern day Robber Barron. That's not intended to be a comment about the Trump Admin, he's just the single most recognizable member of the Robber Baron class.

    4. Re:NLRB should file an complaint! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be nice. In the multi-national company I worked at, the German employees were exempt from any dashboard or tool that would associate performance based metrics with their name. Any person, any metric. It was one of their workplace protections.

  9. Key line by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position," this person said, suggesting that the firings were driven by cost-cutting.

    1. Re:Key line by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Well if they're the highest paid, and their performance is only average, then by definition they're under-performing. Being highly paid doesn't exclude a person from under-performing. Unless a person is some kind of all-star, having a higher pay is almost certainly going to push them into the under-performing category eventually. Maybe they were great at some point in the past and over-performing, which is why they got such a pay bump to start with. However, management doesn't really care how many home runs you hit five seasons ago.

    2. Re:Key line by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So why would they hire average people at a higher salary? That's mismanagement at the least. If a person doesn't have anything special coming into the company, then don't pay them more. It's that simple.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Key line by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says they did? They could easily have been hired at a lower salary and received raises in response to over-performing, until such time as they stopped delivering in line with their higher salary. Maybe they burned out, maybe they got complacent, maybe they started a family and stopped putting in 100-hour weeks, maybe they got promoted into a position outside their area of excellence. Lots of reasons someone might stop being as valuable as they used to be. And for better and worse pay cuts in excess of those automatically applied by inflation are generally considered to be ill-advised.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Key line by DarthVain · · Score: 2

      So by that argument the message being sent is to try to avoid over-performing and getting raises as that will eventually get you fired once you are paid too much. Workers should strive for mediocrity and never perform more than they have to in order to avoid getting pay raises and eventual termination... Slow and steady wins the race I guess...

      As soon as I saw the headline the other day the first thing that came to mind is that they are cleaning house of all the union seekers, perhaps lumping them in with a bunch of others to hide the fact. However this will probably end up polarizing workers to unionize rather than to drive it out I would think as a result.

    5. Re:Key line by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I'd love to know how this random anonymous fired person could say this with any certainty. You have to be *very* careful about taking the word of recently-fired employees as gospel. Obviously, they're not going to be feeling very happy about Telsa at the moment. Even those who knew they were slacking off at work or not getting along with peers won't admit that to anyone else. In fact, those types of people are probably the most likely to slander your company after they're fired.

      Granted, it's not like we should take Tesla's word as gospel, but if they actually are getting rid of poor performers or troublemakers, it will result in a healthier and stronger company. Done poorly, (like evaluations via stack ranking), it can have the opposite effect, but as harsh as it sounds, a company has a duty to consider the welfare of the greater good over that of an individual, especially if that individual is causing more harm than good.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:Key line by Immerman · · Score: 1

      For job security, reliable and otherwise uninteresting middle-of-the-pack performance does seem to be the safe path. Alternately you might excel, but turn down raises, promotions, etc. that would push you out of the relatively secure "worth more than they're paying me" niche.

      None of that will help your bottom line of course - but it seems to be an unfortunate reality that "climbing the ladder" is a risky game, especially within larger corporations where top executives are largely unaware of the individuals getting the work done on the ground. There was a time when hard work and loyalty would put you on an upward path - but that time is mostly past.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Key line by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Reading between the lines that means that one or more people who hadn't worked in the job as long as him were not fired.

    8. Re:Key line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So by that argument the message being sent is to try to avoid over-performing and getting raises as that will eventually get you fired once you are paid too much. Workers should strive for mediocrity and never perform more than they have to in order to avoid getting pay raises and eventual termination... Slow and steady wins the race I guess...

      Frequently yes. You should work the way you want to keep working.
      In almost all cases I VASTLY prefer a consistently mediocre worker to one who is a superstar 70% of the time and a burnt out stub 30% of the time. It's far easier to manage the former than it is the latter.
      If you can maintain the "superstar" level of performance 100% of the time that is fantastic, but my experience is very few can. If you're plan is to work hard until you get "the good job" and then let up you're in line for a bad time.

  10. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not trolling to mod off-topic posts to -1. Complain about it on a climate change story, it has no place here. Yeah yeah I know, "it's too important, we have to spread the word everywhere" says every zealot about every issue. Keep it on topic. If your screed has nothing to do with the story, then it should be modded down to -1, every time.

  11. Underperforming? by bobbied · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, underperforming on a work to cost ratio... The higher you get paid, the more profit you have to make..

    Tesla has how much profit? Um... Can we say nearly nothing?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Underperforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Tesla reinvests nearly all of its profits. Just because they have no profits doesn't mean they are losing money.

    2. Re:Underperforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how it works.

      If you don't understand accounting, don't make uninformed statements.

  12. When you fire someone... by Dracolytch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... especially in an at-will state, it's always legally in your best interest to not state a reason for the termination. For an at-will state, you are often not required to provide a reason, and if you do provide one it can come back to bite you in a lawsuit if they can show evidence otherwise.

    --
    This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    1. Re:When you fire someone... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Tesla has publicly stated that these were for-cause firings. If they told the employees that it was not for-cause in their severance notice, now they've got a different kind of problem.

    2. Re:When you fire someone... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      To contrary, having performance reviews and putting employees on notice when they are under-performing is the best defense. More documentation is always better, especially if the employee might be part of a protected class.

    3. Re: When you fire someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they could just write "he was rude to me personally" and they don't have to prove shit.

    4. Re:When you fire someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general there are two kinds of terminations--for cause and not for cause.
      If the employer says it's "For Cause", the employee gets no benefits and the employers doesn't have to refill the unemployment insurance kitty (premiums).

      It's up to the employee to show they were terminated because of membership in a protected class, for exercising your civil rights, or something else. This is *very* difficult to prove.

      As far as laying off 2% of the workforce because of underperformance--ever hear of stacked ranking?
      From the company's point of view, "We fire the bottom 2% and replace them with new folks. Repeat every period; eventually we have a team of the best people.".

    5. Re:When you fire someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For cause" doesn't mean underperformance. "For cause" means insubordination, theft, etc.

    6. Re:When you fire someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine how much better world those companies could create just by not lying. But that would require the middle management to take responsibility for their bad operative decisions.

  13. Is anyone fired purely for performance? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3

    Maybe I'm lucky, but I've generally worked in places where they've never fired anyone for poor performance. Like the summary suggests, firings are usually based on salary and it's just a dumb HR thing. Are performance-based firings really a thing?

    Just to be clear, I don't work exclusively with rockstars either. There are plenty of mediocre performers. But I've never experienced having someone get so bad at their job that they had to be removed.

    There's no easy fix either...you basically have to not be the top guy on the salary spreadsheet when they decide to cut.

    1. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes, absolutely, "performance improvement plans" are used all the time when people aren't cutting the mustard. PIP means update your resume and get out.

    2. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Krishnoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A person is fired for performance reasons. 2% of the workforce, fired and not laid off, with zero notice -- there's another underlying reason.

    3. Re: Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having fired folks for performance, yes, in orgs where execs are trusted to cull the dead wood without being asked, it's a thing.

      In orgs with weak managers, a regular culling is typical. Smart managers leave firing fodder around for those cullings.

    4. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Lucky? I'd expect a place that never fired for performance to be a 100% dysfunctional hellhole.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I worked at a company that had a policy of firing the bottom 5% on a regular basis.

      This wasn't actually done in any consistent manner and often the bottom 5% were merely unliked by management, while their performance was actually OK. All kinds of things can lead to a single bad performance review, few of them related to the person's actual capability.

      The idea originates with Jack Welsh at GE (he proposed firing the bottom 10% in any year).

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re: Is anyone fired purely for performance? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Orgs with regular scheduled cullings (rank and rate etc) end up with employees spending large amounts of effort to game the metrics.

      If you're going to do something like that, you have to not publish the metrics, but then the employees infer them and game it anyhow.

      There is no substitute for managers with a clue, rare as they are.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re: Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Scheduled cullings are a well-known way to kill your company in its tracks. Not only do people game the metrics, as you say, but good workers will get out as fast as they can find another job. As a result you just end up with a bunch of workers trying to game the metrics and not much else who have essentially no interest in the company's well-being because they are being treated like cattle.

    8. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CEO of my company has an attitude very similar to Musk's. My role in the company is 'Internal Projects Manager', which includes everything from implementing SAP to designing new processes for production and non-production employees.

      For the last 3 weeks I have been sent to one of our branch offices to basically get it running as our CEO and COO expect it to run. Since being here, I promoted an Assistant Branch Manager to Branch Manager, demoted the Branch Manager to Assistant Branch Manager of Repairs, fired the Assistant Branch Shop Manager, fired 2 shop workers, and hired 3 shop workers.

      Why were these changes made? Because my Processes weren't being followed, or those who were following them correctly weren't in the proper position to fully carry them out. I absolutely loathe having to fire someone, and love the chance to reward someone who is performing at a high level, but at the end of the day, when you are getting paid, you perform our Processes or you are done dragging down the company. Lead, follow or you will be moved out of the way.

      You've never experienced someone getting fired for not doing their job (following well structured processes) and letting things turn into utter chaos, to the point an executive member of the company has to spend a month getting things back to normal? Sounds like you've only worked under upper management without a finger on the pulse of the company.

    9. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've done none of those things. You're a troll.

    10. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Are performance-based firings really a thing?

      Yes. Sometimes by policy e.g. Stack-Ranking firing the bottom x%: See GE, Honeywell, Oracle.
      Sometimes by value performance: e.g. Fire everyone without x billable hours: See every consultant every.
      Usually though it's just used as a way to get rid of really poor people: e.g. consistent fuckups who shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

      There are a few companies (usually some of the larger monsters) that take the view of a failing employee is a failing in management and they move their dead weight from department to department trying desperately not to replace the worthless because the HR process sucks and "oh they have company knowledge so they must be good at *something*".

      Or on the opposite end of the spectrum: "You did what to the production server? Go home and don't come back!"

      Companies come in all sorts. Management textbooks describe all these forms of HR management. Unfortunately what is clear in all management material is that nothing is good or bad. What works in one case doesn't work in another, and there's never a right answer (though you find out the wrong answer when you sink the company).

    11. Re: Is anyone fired purely for performance? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Scheduled cullings are a well-known way to kill your company in its tracks. Not only do people game the metrics, as you say, but good workers will get out as fast as they can find another job. As a result you just end up with a bunch of workers trying to game the metrics and not much else who have essentially no interest in the company's well-being because they are being treated like cattle.

      GE is a prime example. They are the 800lb gorilla in my industry but I would never work for them. They just had their 2nd of 3 planned major layoffs just in the 2nd half of this year. I have a friend who works there as a manager, and the number of people he has had to personally let go is staggering.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    12. Re:Is anyone fired purely for performance? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Deep inside we all are.

  14. If you want this to stop by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you have to pay unemployment for any reason. And yes, that means some people who don't desperately need it will get it. It also means your wages won't get depressed by them competing with you in the job market.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:If you want this to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also means that getting a job would be much harder. See France's unemployment rate for a good example.

    2. Re:If you want this to stop by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Stop what? Unemployment is already available in most if not all states including CA where Tesla is located. The problem with unemployment is that it makes it harder to compete for low-wage jobs. High-paying jobs don't care much about unemployment, if I were on unemployment for too long, I wouldn't be able to afford my lifestyle, then again I've never been without a job for more than a month.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:If you want this to stop by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      France doesn't follow this model - it makes it almost impossible to fire people, to the extent that moving people to a different country for a couple of years in order to fire them at the end of that is actually a money-saving strategy which is used occasionally.

      The Nordics (Sweden/Norway/Denmark) come a bit closer - it's easier to hire and fire (not quite at-will but nothing like Germany or France) but with generous social benefits paid for out of general taxation (ie not by the company hiring/firing). To pay for this though, income taxes are very high (although interestingly investment/capital are taxed lightly i.e. interest, dividends, capital gains, corporate profits). All in all I think it's better than France but does push people in some sectors to leave the country which is negative for the economy.

  15. This. "Cost" here means "measure of performance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a difference without a distinction, as they say.

    When will people learn that money is a measure of resource allocation? These people represented misallocated resources.

    That being said, I really wonder why companies cannot just reduce people's pay, and either let them stay on or leave of their own accord.

  16. sloughing off hiring too quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a meh story. McAfee did this on a regular basis pre sale to Intel. It was a non issue as the numbers were smaller, and unlike Tesla, no one really cared about a security company built on acquisitions.

    That said, my heart goes out to those who were fired and their families. In this market, unless they're complete numnutz, they'll be working again quickly.

  17. Meh, captialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is precisely the scenario Marx was trying to fight, so everything is as it should be here. Nothing to see, capitalism at work, move along. If you don't like it, move to Europe.

  18. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Technically, your post is off-topic too - just sayin'.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  19. Without warning? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Some terminated employees told CNBC they were informed via email or a phone call "without warning," and told not to come into work the next day.

    I'm fairly certain they didn't throw their belongings in the trash. But otherwise, yes, that's generally how it happens.

    1. Re:Without warning? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The time I was laid off, ten of us were called into a conference room and told we were being laid off, and our computer access was disabled while we were in the meeting. Even when contracting, I've never been told not to come in except in person. (At one gig, I was called into the manager's office, told I was doing a very good job, and informed that they had to cut costs, so I would be let go after two weeks. It was the first time in a few months I'd be confident that I'd still be making money next week.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Re:Protesting against STUPIDITY and misinformation by sexconker · · Score: 1

    #notmypresident !!!!!

    #actually...

  21. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's test my theory:

    Wubba lubba dub duuuuuuuub!

    I need that Szechuan sauce, Morty!

  22. Robots by ajedgar · · Score: 1

    Because robots. Please stick around to assemble and train the robots....
    https://electrek.co/2017/04/25/tesla-model-3-robot-production-line-pictures/

  23. R. B. Trary was let go by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Some co's fire the bottom of the stack, others fire the top. This suggests a madness to the method.

  24. Here's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they went through payroll and fired people who got paid more than their peers but did not perform better.

  25. Yes, at GE by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to work at GE, they did occasionally try to fire someone for poor performance. It was always a major hassle documenting the reasons, discussing the problem with the employee, etc. But it did happen once in a while when the person was truly a non-performer and sometimes resulted in a lawsuit against the company.

    Much more common was a RIF - Reduction In Force. Those involved a large number of people (like this one at Tesla) and usually effected older employees, poor performers, and people with the misfortune to be in a poor performing business group. Yea, it's illegal to layoff older employees in order to cut salaries so they always threw in a few younger employees to make it look like a mix.

    There were usually a few really poor performers around before a RIF. We called them "canaries", because like a canary in a coal mine, as long as they were around you knew you were safe.

  26. The truth by HBI · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The truth is that the Big Three automakers were (and are) unable to respond to competitive stresses caused by places with lower wages being able to export into the US market. The lame management was a given - though there were only three things the management could do:

    1) Cut costs sufficiently to compete - I rate this as nigh-impossible as a practical matter, as things like transport, raw materials, and infrastructure cost more here, too, and the automakers couldn't remake the whole economy all on their own. That said, this is where unions hurt the most.

    Unions are rather shortsighted beasts and they cause more harm to manufacturing workers in the long run than they help. If you take a year-long or five year view, they are great. Look over a career's length, and the evidence is equivocal. Over 100 years, the union will kill any manufacturing business dead. The objective of the union is to maximize return for the union members and to control/limit access to the labor market in that industry in the interest of maintaining scarcity toward maximizing union member return. This is rarely congruent with the interests of the manufacturer, most obviously in times of competitive stress. Unions are great at getting workers stuff when the going is good, but when it is rough, they are unwilling to give anything back. Unions most typically force the manufacturer to reach the edge of bankruptcy and total dissolution before the union is willing to negotiate in good faith and with urgency, and by then it is much too late.

    You need only look at what happened to US Steel, if the automakers aren't convincing enough.

    2) Diversify - which was done, but was insufficent to stop the bleeding. Think, say, investments in Mazda by Ford, or in Isuzu/Suzuki by GM (Geo line).

    3) Push their political masters to restrict trade to protect their market. This is what was ultimately done. You didn't think all those foreign car makers built plants in the US for their health, did you? They were compelled to. All that free trade talk is bullshit once your ox starts getting gored.

    So, those who blame the unions and blame the management have lots of details to pick from to support their view. My view is that we should just accept that free trade is a phantom and stop pretending that we don't have a corporatist, protectionist regime. It's the only way the old-fashioned US economy works on a macroscopic level. Even the internet companies are starting to feel the pinch and are going to become part of this old school economy before long.

    Why is so much of politics today pretending we don't believe in what we actually do believe in?

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:The truth by dj245 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the other trick- unique safety standards.

      There are reasonable rationales for having different safety standards for each country (Germans always wear their seatbelts, so the airbag can be smaller), but there is a cost to having unique standards. At a minimum, the development costs aren't spread out on a larger volume. At worst, consumers are forced to spend more for features that they may not want. Reversing cameras are a neat feature but the cost/benefit of having one on my compact car with excellent visibility isn't very good.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outsourcing and Offshoring were a ploy to destroy the social contract between people and business; you remember Roosevelt's new deal? Unions came about due to things like the Triangle Shirtwaste factory fire; if management isn't reminded from time to time that they can't treat human beings like animals, they will. And people will accept it, for a time, until a whole bunch of them end up dieing or society ends up collapsing. Unions were a very good response to the treatment and very constructive for society.

      An ancillary effect of outsourcing and offshoring was destroying american institutions, such as Ford, GM, and Chrystler. And they were institutions; they helped us win the war and they were attacked by outsourcing and offshoring by companies whom did not have labor standards, safety standards, pension obligations, or R&D costs. They were competing in the market just fine before all these other players came in.

      Also, you cannot force those countries to democratize or act like us by fining them or through tarrifs or trade. China might want to become a superpower, and god bless them and I hope they are successful because the more superpowers there are in the world the better. But they are handling their scaling problems hamfistedly and they are going to find themselves knocking heads with other countries military if they don't smarten up. I'm very skeptical about their ability to do so, it takes time to build up wisdom in a culture and they have worked as hard as possible destroying theirs to make Iphones.

      About the only comforting thing about our situation is our bourguesse are literally at the point they've been doing this for so many generations that they can't concieve of any other way to do business.

    3. Re:The truth by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Informative

      The truth is that the Big Three automakers were (and are) unable to respond to competitive stresses caused by places with lower wages being able to export into the US market.

      Not so much a truth when at the time Germany made twice as many cars while paying their workers twice as much money.

      So, no. What happened to the Big Three was their bottom lines resting on high-margin, gas guzzling vehicles, and that line fell apart after Katrina pushed gas prices over $4 a gallon. Same thing that happened to them in the 80's when the oil embargo hit and Japanese manufacturers ate their lunch.

      Unions are rather shortsighted beasts and they cause more harm to manufacturing workers in the long run than they help. If you take a year-long or five year view, they are great. Look over a career's length, and the evidence is equivocal. Over 100 years, the union will kill any manufacturing business dead

      Bullshit. The long term well-being of the union and its workers is inseparable from the the long term well-being of the company. As opposed to corporate executives, who are happy to give themselves raises and golden parachutes while driving the company into the ground. Just ask Marisa Mayer and Carly Fiorina, just to name two.

      Unions are great at getting workers stuff when the going is good, but when it is rough, they are unwilling to give anything back.

      Bullshit. Unions don't give themselves massive pay increases while the company is failing, you're thinking of corporate management. Management who talk the union into accepting pay and benefit cuts while secretly securing golden parachutes for themselves in the event of bankruptcy.

    4. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Unions kills any manufacturing dead, how come the majority of the top 10 Productive countries in the world have strong unions? Could it just be that corruption in the US unions is the problem, not the unions as such?

    5. Re:The truth by jcr · · Score: 1

      Unions are rather shortsighted beasts

      The entire purpose of unions in the USA, for at least the last eight decades, has been to skim workers' paychecks and shake down corporations to buy hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:The truth by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Unions are great at getting workers stuff when the going is good, but when it is rough, they are unwilling to give anything back

      And what is this... "giving anything back" supposed to look like? Pay cuts? A sacrifice by low-wage earners so that the company can limp along for a few years?

      The union philosophy is that the company is not more important than its employees. If the company can't exist without screwing over its workers, then the company doesn't need to exist.

    7. Re:The truth by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or Option 4) Make better cars. For a long time, US cars were very comfortable, but they were unreliable gas hogs. Given a choice of buying American or buying something economical and reliable, lots of people went with the economical and reliable, and the Big 3 just couldn't cope with that. US mechanical quality has come way up from those days, but the public by then was used to buying Japanese or German or Swedish cars.

      It's not the union's fault if the company can't design cars people want.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:The truth by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Could it just be that corruption in the US unions is the problem, not the unions as such?

      What corruption is that - you know Hoffa's been dead for a couple of years now? Then there's the fact that the worst union corruption you can name is a drop in the olympic swimming pool of corporate corruption.

  27. Dotard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pffft!! That's nothing!! We've got an underperforming moron in the White House whose got a $1B LOSS under his belt.

    1. Re:Dotard by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Well.. Heck, if 1 billion in losses is all he's done, we are doing great.. The last guy was losing more than a trillion a year.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  28. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Exhibit A why fans of any pop culture phenomenon are retarded.

    Please mod into oblivion.

  29. I was told that I was average. I proved them wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I looked for another job. Took their tests and was hired - with a 40% increase.

    I PROVE it by walking for more money.

  30. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by fredrated · · Score: 2

    All of us.

  31. Does the reason matter? by Gabest · · Score: 2

    If it does, it is only for the shareholders.

  32. Musk's working hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if Musk would make better decisions if he didn't work 100 hours a week. He's intelligent, but not getting enough rest can really mess up your judgement.

  33. Re:This. "Cost" here means "measure of performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because people's job performance goes down when you reduce people's pay. There is every reason to expect that if pay was reduced to be fair for the work they were doing before having their pay lowered they would still be overpaid for the work they perform after.

  34. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Global warming is real.

    Unless declared integer.

  35. Tomorrow's headline by Brockmire · · Score: 2

    Apple hires 700 new engineers.

  36. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by wjcofkc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Slashdot is supposed to be a place free of censorship and it is time that the censorship of global warming skeptics stops."

    You must be new around here. We "censor" ourselves. Majority rules on Slashdot.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  37. Re:This. "Cost" here means "measure of performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you'll be thanked with a lot of grumbling and undermining that is bad for everyone.

    Truthfully, in this market, the people fired are probably better off. At least some of them will rethink what they are good at and find appropriate work that will likely lead to greater success.

    I once reduced a 48 man engineering team to 30 by layoff. The ground rules of the layoff were to lay off the lowest performers. After the layoff, we were still able to get our multi-year project completed on time.

    The real interesting lesson for me was that every single one of those let go were better off a year down the road, some extravagantly so. They went in a variety of directions, but none were still traditional engineers. I had advised every one of them that engineering was not the profession for them and suggested better professions for those that were obvious.

  38. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    And I'd be fine getting modded down for it, I certainly wouldn't bitch and moan in other /. stories because some mod gave a -1 to my off-topicness.

  39. Stop riding Tesla's cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the reacharound post-hoc justifications used to excuse mass layoffs.

    Clearly, all their actions are worthy of defense.

    1. Re: Stop riding Tesla's cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy who has a job sorting Tshirts by size.

      If you were responsible for 10,000 people's jobs and you wouldn't fire 700 to keep the company running, you're both an idiot and being an asshole to 9300 other people.

    2. Re: Stop riding Tesla's cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were responsible fir 10,000 people and you'd let things come to a poibt where you have to fire 700 at once to save the company, make sure you're one if that 700, because you haven't been doing your fscking job in the time leading up to this.

  40. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    And I'd be fine getting modded down for it, I certainly wouldn't bitch and moan in other /. stories because some mod gave a -1 to my off-topicness.

    Sure, I get it - I was just injecting some humor. Things get mis-modded all the time here and it can be annoying -- mostly so when "flamebait" or "troll" is applied simply because the moderator disagrees with the opinions (or facts) in the post -- and this happens a lot with certain topics. Such mis-moderation injects the moderator's viewpoint into the thread - which makes it commentary, not moderation. Also annoying is when a post is modded "off-topic" when it's topic-adjacent or otherwise weirdly connected (often in an attempt at some humor) which shows a lack of imagination on the part of the moderator.

    In this case, the original post was way off-topic and I would have modded it as such, instead of troll.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  41. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    When I mod, I judge whether the Gentle Reader would benefit from reading shit posts like yours.

    -1 Offtopic, Irrelevant, Troll, Flamebait

    Fuck you and your claim of censorship and your tribalism, asshole.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  42. Build them faster and better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I'll get one!

    Can't justify spending $100k on something that has poorly aligned body panels and squeaks.

    1. Re:Build them faster and better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poorly aligned body panels and squeaks.

      You want properly aligned body panels and squeaks?

  43. Rack and stack? by mpercy · · Score: 2

    Maybe they started using the old GE strategy of firing th bottom x% of the workforce as a matter of preventative maintenance?

    "Stack ranking, also referred to as forced ranking, where managers across a company are required to rank all of their employees on a bell curve, has been a controversial management technique since then GE CEO Jack Welch popularized it in the 1980s.

    "Only a small percentage of employees, typically about 10%, can be designated as top performers. Meanwhile, a set number must be labeled as low performers and are often fired or pushed out, giving the system the popular nickname "rank and yank."

  44. Disguising a Layoff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds exactly like what happens when a company decides to downsize - they call it a layoff. Performance doesnâ(TM)t come into play when you get rid of a division of team.

    I would, however, be interested if the positions or individuals let go weâ(TM)re trying to unionize. Still, how does this break right to hire laws?

  45. Bigger fraud: Elon Musk or Julian Assange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  46. But they don't have to fill those openings by dfm3 · · Score: 1

    Putting on my cynical hat here... although the laws vary by state, it looks really bad if you as an employer were to fire employees for reasons like "low performance" and then neglect to attempt to fill those positions. The former employees would then have a really strong case for unemployment benefits (which they might not otherwise be entitled to if fired with cause, but again, that varies by location), or maybe even wrongful termination if they can make a convincing case that their former employer used bogus reasons to avoid calling the terminations "layoffs."

    But, there's nothing that says you (the employer) actually have to fill those openings... just leave them open, interview someone every once in a while to put up appearances, and you can then make a claim like "well, we've been interviewing, but haven't been unable to find any good candidates" without ever actually filling the position that you want to cut.

  47. Not about the cars, it never was about the cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was never about the cars Tesla has bigger fis to fry than a bunch of overpriced cars. No Tesla is all about the batteries, in cars, in homes, everywhere. They want nothing more than to blow up the central generation model of electrical generation and thus own the heart and soul of the modern world. We may end up driving any make of car but it will be Teslaâ(TM)s batteries that is in them all and Musk will collect a tidy sum from each one. The cars were a means to an end not the end itself.

  48. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convinced?

  49. Trash and weeds by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah, it's just a metaphor, but it speaks volumes with respect to thought processes.

  50. At will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CA is an at will state. You can hire from a competitor within a year even with sensitive info, and can be fired at will. They were fired at will. Too bad so sad.

  51. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Never use a series 9,000 on a Rick. (Nothing wrong with a bit of humor.)

  52. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    I never thought of that glass thing - I gotta use it!

  53. What does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does any of what you say mean?

  54. Biases truth by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The FULL truth is that firm have the short, medium and long term goal of maximizing profit, even at the cost of being horrible to worker if needed. You forget the context in which union were born : as a counter balance to that. The result in the end were labor laws which were not done at the behest of firm , since they could not care less and came to even build horrible stuff like company scripts, child labor, not care about worker protection (what if a few worker are mangled by a machine "he, whatever") etc... Since then it has been a push/pull between firms and union. Sometimes the balance get in favor of union, sometimes not. But even in countries with load of social protection and strong union (think germany) it has NEVER been so out of whack that it destroyed manufacture. And they definitively caused more good than harm in the long run you specify. The reason US steel is dying , is because as a whole it is too expansive to produce, even if you paid worker zero and enslaved them. The reason is that steel production is resource intensive, and the major cost is not worker for a steel mill, it is the matter and the energy by a major factor. That is why even in the US, mini steel mill which use scrap steel and arc furnace produce cheap enough that they are profitable. Furthermore the major problem of the steel worker is that it is VERY easy to automate a lot of steel production. The union have NADA to do with that. Nowadays you can per worker count around 1500 tons of steel produced per year. And then the cost of steel dropped through the basement, the amount rose over capacity etc... NONE of those problem have anything to do with union, unless you are one of those person which pretend that getting paid under the cost of living is an option.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Biases truth by HBI · · Score: 0

      You're avoiding the reality that the unions were a short term cudgel until progressive-era laws were put into place to prevent the abuses you refer to. Once political power was in the hands of a Teddy Roosevelt, let's say, or his nephew, things changed rapidly. In the Gilded Age, sure, a union was your best bet, but that hasn't been for almost 100 years now. In the meantime, unions do kill businesses and they restrain trade, to the detriment of workers who would otherwise be productive, but have to take employment at below the maximal wage that would be available had not everything but the service jobs fled overseas.

      As for steel - it should be clear enough that if the steel workers unions were interested in the well being of their workers, they'd figure out a way to cooperate with the management to maximize employment for the longest period possible. That isn't what happened, in practice. Basically, management would keep fighting with the unions until they took a decision to close a plant, which tended to end the labor difficulties in one fell swoop. The decision was often driven by such factors. I don't blame the workers, but I do blame the false idea that collective bargaining is necessarily good for workers. That's just bogus.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Biases truth by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You're avoiding the reality that the unions were a short term cudgel until progressive-era laws were put into place to prevent the abuses you refer to. Once political power was in the hands of a Teddy Roosevelt, let's say, or his nephew, things changed rapidly.

      Riiiiight. Companies that exploits workers limb from literal limb are a thing of the past, like racism, sexism, and forest fires.

      But even if there weren't happy to let your dumb bootlicking ass die in a fire to save a few bucks, unions are also a necessary pushback against corporate greed. Like when companies in the midst of all-time-high profits lay off thousands of workers or demand they take pay cuts so the stockholders can make even more obscene amounts of money.

  55. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by jcr · · Score: 1

    I'm no tree-hugger, but I'd mod you down for posting anything that's OFF TOPIC. This isn't a global warming story, it's a Tesla story.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  56. Hoodwinked by Elon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla is one of the biggest paper tigers in the history of business. Elon Musk is laughing all the way to the bank, but his investors will be left holding the bag when it all comes crashing down.

  57. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    To iterate is human, to recurse, divine.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  58. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just, shut up.

  59. Re:PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm sure it must be complex as some say there is also an imaginary component involved

  60. Re: Not about the cars, it never was about the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may be a valid point. If it is not about building cars then there is no need for all those people on the car side of the company. Notice they did not lay off anyone from the battery side of the business.

  61. More Hoodwinkery by tmjva · · Score: 1

    I'm agreeing with the above post.  I keep saying in my last two posts on the Muskovites, I'm guessing they can't pay their bills.  And if you can't make payroll, that's a big legal hit.  Better to avoid the problem than be hit by mandatory liability.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  62. Welcome to the High Tech World by DrChandra · · Score: 0

    Why is this a surprise? Tesla is a High Tech company. After working in the High Tech world for most of my career, I've come to expect layoffs. Fully half of the companies I've worked for have laid me off, never for cause. I don't think I was ever singled out because of the expense of my salary. It was always because the company had made a business decision to downsize or close a business unit. Most of the individual leaders I worked for tried to hire me into the next place they landed, and were sometimes successful. This business is speculative. Sometimes the money is there, sometimes not. Sometimes your product sells, sometimes it does not. Look at the statistics on the success of start-ups. Most of them fail. If you're working for one that fails, you get laid off. Other times the revenue is just not there to support a large business, so the owners decide to make it a smaller business, to fit the new revenue model. They don't owe you a living. This environment does not produce jobs for life. The best thing to do is learn to read the warning signs, have an exit plan, and have some money set aside for when the time comes. Maintain your employ-ability by learning the latest marketable skills (on your own time if you have to). Be ready, be valuable, be well networked with your work community. This is how it is.

    --
    Words, words, words ... Buz, buz! - Hamlet, Act II, Scene II
  63. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Al's+Hat · · Score: 1

    I try hard not to call people names but for you I will make an exception. You are an idiot.

    If you want to rail against global warming claims, fine. Take the time to research ocean acidification and then tell us why increased atmospheric CO2 levels are okay.

  64. Re: PROTESTING AGAINST CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just realised that I should have unsubbed a long time ago.

    Majority rules is great until the average IQ drops below 95.