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.
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?
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".
"Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position," this person said, suggesting that the firings were driven by cost-cutting.
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.
... 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.
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.
Let's test my theory:
Wubba lubba dub duuuuuuuub!
I need that Szechuan sauce, Morty!
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.
> Global warming is real.
Unless declared integer.
"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.
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.
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.
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.