1,200 of 33,000 employees amounts to 3.6% of the work force. This level of action, 1 in 25 employees, gives managers an opportunity to release employees that looked good in the interview but did not meet expectations. Whether Tesla conducted this in a proper manner is open to debate and perhaps details will emerge if/when any former employees pursue Tesla in court. But any company needs to address the inevitable hiring mistakes and I don't see evidence that Tesla is doing any more than that.
> I don't see evidence that Tesla is doing any more than that
If the lack of promised performance reviews is accurate, that's the obvious issue - it implies a labor force decision disguised as a performance decision. This is a pretty common move in e.g. game development, so it certainly isn't unthinkable.
The point about total workforce size is well taken, though; this still seems like it could be as simple as "times are tough so we're cutting more stringently than we might otherwise".
Although I agree with you, you are also making an assumption that certain managers are not hiring mistakes as well. Managers can be just as bad as employees. Especially in a big company, bad managers can hide behind smoke screens by shifting the blame on employees.
> 1,200 of 33,000 employees amounts to 3.6% of the work force. This level of action, 1 in 25 employees, gives managers an opportunity to release employees that looked good in the interview but did not meet expectations.
That level of "firing" is rather suspect for an "new" company that is supposed to be growing.
> But any company needs to address the inevitable hiring mistakes and I don't see evidence that Tesla is doing any more than that.
If you are making that level of mistake where you have to conduct mass layoffs, then it doesn't bode well for tesla.
Sources said that HR department representatives told staff in one office they were being let go due to problematic "conduct with peers." When questioned, an ex-employee said, HR declined to specify any details about the alleged poor conduct, which had never been previously discussed.
I remember a while back some .com company laid off a bunch of their employees (more than 40%? 50%?). Firing that many people at once triggered a set of 'lay off' laws, which required certain behavior from the company (such as giving the employees X days notice, etc, etc).
This is pure speculation, but I wonder if Telsa is trying to do last-minute layoffs while avoiding whatever 'lay off laws' there are by claiming that each individual is totally being fired for totally legit individual reasons, for sure, yep.
Honest clarification request: Do you to suggest/worry that they are classifying "agitating for a union" as problematic "conduct with peers"?
(If so, I expect we'll hear if that's the case soon, with a chance of hearing that even if it's not the case. That is a storyline the media would be salivating to run.)
For cause terminated employees don’t get unemployment.
My guess is that since Musk companies don’t feel constrained by rules, they figure they’ll save money in UI taxes by forcing workers to adjudicate their UI benefits. They get the benefit of cooking their balance sheet as an additional benefit.
No it's preempting going broke. Especially since Elon is one of the combined companies biggest creditors and has his own personal finances deeply entwined with that of the company. (See also Sears / Eddie Lampert)
It certainly is suspicious that people were fired "for performance reasons" when the company is unable or unwilling to provide the performance data that would support that assertion.
But, on the other hand, these employees were probably "at will", so the company does not need to give any reason, or even to publicly justify the firings in any way. So it could be that "performance" is the lie that they believe to damage ongoing recruiting efforts the least.
Or it could be that they have determined individual performance assessments to be useless in the face of the more objectively measurable department-wide performance numbers.
All I know for certain is that I won't be sending them any applications or resumes until they can elucidate their motives behind this.
The simplest explanation is that the company isn't making money and investors are getting antsy about bankruptcy.
It doesn't seem impossible on the corporate side, but I'd be surprised if it was true and yet none of the newly-fired employees speaking anonymously to the media raised the point.
Couldn't Tesla / SolarCity just said, "Hey, company didn't do well, sorry, here's 2 weeks severance"? Why do this whole "bad performance review" nonsense.
That’s a great way to get sued. The point of performance reviews is to standardize rankings so that you can use them later to fire/promote without being sued for discrimination.
'Company didn't do well' translates to some higher manager up the chain performing badly. Its always easier to shift the blame on somebody else, and have them take the fall for the big shots.
This doesn't really surprise me. A few years ago we had lead generation software that catered to the solar industry. We had some decent sized clients and it did really well for about 2 years. Once the tax credits started going away and the power companies started killing off their rebates, a lot of these solar companies were not able to survive.
One of our larger clients who was heavily funded went bankrupt this year and many of the smaller/mid sized clients have folded within the last year too.
It is risky basing too much of a business on tax credits and rebates.
I was thinking this myself. For all of Musk's braggadocio about not needing, and even being hurt by, subsidies, Tesla, whose profits only become more negative every quarter, has had its sales decimated in the countries that ended tax breaks for electric vehicles.
With the specter of a major tax overhaul and massive spending cuts, a major recall, and still not enough strength to stand on its own, Musk has to be at least a little worried about Tesla's future and the futures of his other pet projects.
> It is risky basing too much of a business on tax credits and rebates.
This is/was an open secret not only in the solar industry but the entire renewable/clean energy industry ( wind, geo, etc ). These solar companies existed solely because of government support and everyone knew that once the government support was pulled, these companies would immediately be bankrupt.
The first solar companies to fall were those based in germany/uk/spain when european governments pulled the solar subsidies. Followed by the solar companies in the US. Even the chinese solar companies are struggling now.
But the biggest problem going forward for the solar/wind/etc industry is low oil/gas prices. But even with the most optimistic projections, solar would be a relatively small portion of global energy source even by 2050.
I am pretty pro-union. However, in the case of Musk's enterprises, where there is this larger goal that is finally seeming to become possible, I am torn. I feel that anyone that works at these places should know and be a zealot for the Cause...but I suppose that Elon Musk probably should share his stakes with them a bit more, in that case.
edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?
> edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?
I assume because this same argument, if you took it to ridiculous extremes, could be used to justify a whole range of terrible shit. Watch:
"I believe workers should not be enslaved, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."
"I believe Musk should not torture underperforming workers, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."
I don't think you are actually willing to torture or enslave people so that humanity can get to Mars, but the way you constructed your argument leads in that direction, which is probably why it's being met with resistance.
> However, in the case of Musk's enterprises, where there is this larger goal that is finally seeming to become possible, I am torn. I feel that anyone that works at these places should know and be a zealot for the Cause...
While critics often mock the “cult” of Musk, his defenders usually deny the characterization. You rarely see such an explicit acknowledgment and endorsement of it.
The honesty is refreshing, I guess, even if the content is appalling.
While I do commend Musk's role in getting change within industries, it can't be argued that his biggest strength over the last decade has been only PR (and I mean only!). Do some digging and see how he chooses to release news bits, diversions etc and holds on to the mastermind billionaire ideal that people bestowed upon him.
Any other company making false promises ("Auto"pilot), providing factually incorrect data (Model 3 "mass" production), mass firings ("performance" layoffs) would not survive in the world. Musk just dumbs down science to his cult and they swallow it up.
Remind you of anyone else? (hmmmm... Trump - different audience of course but similar cult following characteristics).
Tesla responding to lawsuits by former employees claiming they suffered racial discrimination and anti-LGBT threats (in The Guardian): “There is no company on earth with a better track record than Tesla.”
Trump, March 2016: "Nobody knows more about trade than me."
Don't think any other person/entity give out such absolute statements routinely.
> SolarCity employees say they were surprised to be told they were fired for performance reasons, claiming Tesla had not conducted performance reviews since acquiring the solar energy business.
Is it possible the performance reasons cited may have been in reference to performance in sales rather than performance in work? Otherwise it does seem odd to dismiss over employee performance if reviews has yet to be conducted by Tesla.
Does anyone know if the reason Tesla gave is interfering with the newly fired collecting unemployment? There are certain types of firing that would stop someone from being able to collect unemployment.
I wonder if the ideas of centralised layoffs based on performance reviews is even a good idea at all, especially for anything other than manual labor and the like.
If there was one division at Tesla that deserved lay-offs, surely it was SolarCity?
I remember how everyone was talking about what a bad move Tesla made in acquiring SolarCity, because the company was a mess and unprofitable.
I've also heard stories about how aggressive and pushy SolarCity's sales people were with customers, which ended-up giving the company an increasingly worse reputation.
Solar City was doing fantastic here in Las Vegas. There sales people were BY FAR the best when they came door to door.
But Warren Buffet's power company changed the laws last year and basically screwed everyone who had solar. We have completely disincentivized putting solar panels up.
Now the company doesn't do well, and no sales people come door to door from any company. If you are putting up solar in Las Vegas this year, its because you are an extreme environmentalist and willing to pay the penalty that comes with it.
This seems at minimum possible. The general consensus at the time of the SolarCity acquisition was something like "that's a failing venture, but the products and manufacturing capacity are relevant to Tesla". And now we've seen Powerwall synced up with SolarCity tech, but no major leaps forward for SolarCity itself.
Would it be all that surprising if this was a move to quietly wind down SolarCity as a separate concern in favor of using it as a smaller feed-in to Tesla?
(If anyone actually knows more internals there, I'd be fascinated to hear.)
- It's not mass firing. It's not even 4% of the workforce.
- So, employees were "surprised". As most people who are fired, ever, in any company and epoch. How is this news at all?
- Recalling 11,000 units might not at all be connected with layoffs. Implying otherwise is a cheap yellow press journalism.
- "Citing fears of retaliation from Tesla". Yeah, because Tesla definitely is known for pursuing people like they're some kind of a cold-war era vengeful spy agency. Sure.
- Some layoffs came 2 weeks early. Wow. Scandalous!
- Somebody made the mistake of over-stating how much personnel a new office is gonna have. Surely, this is news-worthy, right?
- Exact number of people laid off is unknown so hey, I have a genius idea, let's listen to the former employees who are now negatively biased against the company. I mean, they can't be wrong, could they?
And then the company tries to minimize the chance of former employees suing them. That's relatively normal if somewhat scummy, sadly it's a pretty classic state of affairs. Hardly exclusive to Tesla, though.
This "tech reporter" would do well to work with paparazzi. It'll match her journalistic expertise.
Most employees aren't surprised when they're fired.
Thats indicative of terrible management.
In a healthy organization managers let individual contributors know when they're falling behind, and give them the opportunity and guidance to get on track.
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|8 years ago|reply
If the lack of promised performance reviews is accurate, that's the obvious issue - it implies a labor force decision disguised as a performance decision. This is a pretty common move in e.g. game development, so it certainly isn't unthinkable.
The point about total workforce size is well taken, though; this still seems like it could be as simple as "times are tough so we're cutting more stringently than we might otherwise".
[+] [-] hellbreaker|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moduspol|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eighthnate|8 years ago|reply
That level of "firing" is rather suspect for an "new" company that is supposed to be growing.
> But any company needs to address the inevitable hiring mistakes and I don't see evidence that Tesla is doing any more than that.
If you are making that level of mistake where you have to conduct mass layoffs, then it doesn't bode well for tesla.
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|8 years ago|reply
<tin foil hat> Is this pre-empting a union push?
[+] [-] MikeTheGreat|8 years ago|reply
This is pure speculation, but I wonder if Telsa is trying to do last-minute layoffs while avoiding whatever 'lay off laws' there are by claiming that each individual is totally being fired for totally legit individual reasons, for sure, yep.
[+] [-] jerf|8 years ago|reply
Honest clarification request: Do you to suggest/worry that they are classifying "agitating for a union" as problematic "conduct with peers"?
(If so, I expect we'll hear if that's the case soon, with a chance of hearing that even if it's not the case. That is a storyline the media would be salivating to run.)
[+] [-] Spooky23|8 years ago|reply
My guess is that since Musk companies don’t feel constrained by rules, they figure they’ll save money in UI taxes by forcing workers to adjudicate their UI benefits. They get the benefit of cooking their balance sheet as an additional benefit.
[+] [-] jmcgough|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YurtleTheTurtle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|8 years ago|reply
But, on the other hand, these employees were probably "at will", so the company does not need to give any reason, or even to publicly justify the firings in any way. So it could be that "performance" is the lie that they believe to damage ongoing recruiting efforts the least.
Or it could be that they have determined individual performance assessments to be useless in the face of the more objectively measurable department-wide performance numbers.
All I know for certain is that I won't be sending them any applications or resumes until they can elucidate their motives behind this.
The simplest explanation is that the company isn't making money and investors are getting antsy about bankruptcy.
[+] [-] dver|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whatok|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seibelj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aslkdjaslkdj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cacti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanDrake|8 years ago|reply
What they did is basically slander with real economic consequences to those fired and they should sue.
Being fired with cause impacts their ability to collect unemployment, which most these people deserve.
It also puts a bad mark on their employment history, unless they lie about how they where fired.
[+] [-] kamaal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 20years|8 years ago|reply
One of our larger clients who was heavily funded went bankrupt this year and many of the smaller/mid sized clients have folded within the last year too.
It is risky basing too much of a business on tax credits and rebates.
[+] [-] jack6e|8 years ago|reply
With the specter of a major tax overhaul and massive spending cuts, a major recall, and still not enough strength to stand on its own, Musk has to be at least a little worried about Tesla's future and the futures of his other pet projects.
[+] [-] matt_wulfeck|8 years ago|reply
I purchased PV because the cost with a 20-year loan comes out to be 13c kWh, meanwhile PG&E charges 29c kWh. And the loan interest is tax-deductible.
[+] [-] eighthnate|8 years ago|reply
This is/was an open secret not only in the solar industry but the entire renewable/clean energy industry ( wind, geo, etc ). These solar companies existed solely because of government support and everyone knew that once the government support was pulled, these companies would immediately be bankrupt.
The first solar companies to fall were those based in germany/uk/spain when european governments pulled the solar subsidies. Followed by the solar companies in the US. Even the chinese solar companies are struggling now.
But the biggest problem going forward for the solar/wind/etc industry is low oil/gas prices. But even with the most optimistic projections, solar would be a relatively small portion of global energy source even by 2050.
[+] [-] calvinbhai|8 years ago|reply
Not sure why this should be surprising in the case of Tesla + Solar City.
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|8 years ago|reply
edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?
[+] [-] CobrastanJorji|8 years ago|reply
I assume because this same argument, if you took it to ridiculous extremes, could be used to justify a whole range of terrible shit. Watch:
"I believe workers should not be enslaved, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."
"I believe Musk should not torture underperforming workers, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."
I don't think you are actually willing to torture or enslave people so that humanity can get to Mars, but the way you constructed your argument leads in that direction, which is probably why it's being met with resistance.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
While critics often mock the “cult” of Musk, his defenders usually deny the characterization. You rarely see such an explicit acknowledgment and endorsement of it.
The honesty is refreshing, I guess, even if the content is appalling.
[+] [-] fallingfrog|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gilrain|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamsea|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xvikram|8 years ago|reply
Tesla responding to lawsuits by former employees claiming they suffered racial discrimination and anti-LGBT threats (in The Guardian): “There is no company on earth with a better track record than Tesla.”
Trump, March 2016: "Nobody knows more about trade than me."
Don't think any other person/entity give out such absolute statements routinely.
[+] [-] smaili|8 years ago|reply
Is it possible the performance reasons cited may have been in reference to performance in sales rather than performance in work? Otherwise it does seem odd to dismiss over employee performance if reviews has yet to be conducted by Tesla.
[+] [-] msoad|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcadam|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] protomyth|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dirlewanger|8 years ago|reply
WOW. Great place to work. Yet gives a shit when their stock is like 60% up YTD, right? /s
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
I remember how everyone was talking about what a bad move Tesla made in acquiring SolarCity, because the company was a mess and unprofitable.
I've also heard stories about how aggressive and pushy SolarCity's sales people were with customers, which ended-up giving the company an increasingly worse reputation.
[+] [-] ghostbrainalpha|8 years ago|reply
But Warren Buffet's power company changed the laws last year and basically screwed everyone who had solar. We have completely disincentivized putting solar panels up.
Now the company doesn't do well, and no sales people come door to door from any company. If you are putting up solar in Las Vegas this year, its because you are an extreme environmentalist and willing to pay the penalty that comes with it.
[+] [-] Bartweiss|8 years ago|reply
Would it be all that surprising if this was a move to quietly wind down SolarCity as a separate concern in favor of using it as a smaller feed-in to Tesla?
(If anyone actually knows more internals there, I'd be fascinated to hear.)
[+] [-] thejerz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] montyboy_us|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdimitar|8 years ago|reply
- So, employees were "surprised". As most people who are fired, ever, in any company and epoch. How is this news at all?
- Recalling 11,000 units might not at all be connected with layoffs. Implying otherwise is a cheap yellow press journalism.
- "Citing fears of retaliation from Tesla". Yeah, because Tesla definitely is known for pursuing people like they're some kind of a cold-war era vengeful spy agency. Sure.
- Some layoffs came 2 weeks early. Wow. Scandalous!
- Somebody made the mistake of over-stating how much personnel a new office is gonna have. Surely, this is news-worthy, right?
- Exact number of people laid off is unknown so hey, I have a genius idea, let's listen to the former employees who are now negatively biased against the company. I mean, they can't be wrong, could they?
And then the company tries to minimize the chance of former employees suing them. That's relatively normal if somewhat scummy, sadly it's a pretty classic state of affairs. Hardly exclusive to Tesla, though.
This "tech reporter" would do well to work with paparazzi. It'll match her journalistic expertise.
[+] [-] gowld|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awakeasleep|8 years ago|reply
Thats indicative of terrible management.
In a healthy organization managers let individual contributors know when they're falling behind, and give them the opportunity and guidance to get on track.