Yes, the company saves money by firing people vs lay-offs. Yes, some companies do that to save money.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hundreds of Dismissals this week
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Yes, the company saves money by firing people vs lay-offs. Yes, some companies do that to save money.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The passage you quote is from a bad review (2 stars and not recommended) not a good one. Seriously misleading the way you characterized it. I would give your post a disagree if I was the type to give it, but I'll just have this comment here and let others give you that disagree.
This is again a story that comes down to the question of whom to believe. Hundreds of firings for performance at one time sounds a bit odd and will make for a fun performance review next year. Then again, it could be an order from the higher ups to clean the ranks of underperformes. That is not impossible.
On the other hand, a company could have reasons to avoid layoffs and opt instead for performance firings such as stock price (if assumed a sign of trouble, otherwise investors of course love layoffs), unemployment costs and possibly silent goals such as unionization crackdowns. Again, whom one believes will surely be based on one's position on one's Tesla love-hate spectrum.
Personally, I think these firings are a mix of many reasons. Some good, some less so.
On the other hand, a company could have reasons to avoid layoffs and opt instead for performance firings such as stock price (if assumed a sign of trouble, otherwise investors of course love layoffs), unemployment costs and possibly silent goals such as unionization crackdowns. Again, whom one believes will surely be based on one's position on one's Tesla love-hate spectrum.
Personally, I think these firings are a mix of many reasons. Some good, some less so.
Almost always, no. Firing for cause, i.e, theft, destruction of company property, assaulting a colleague, chronically late to work, etc, can result in no unemployment benefits, but just being the lowest decile performer is not cause for no unemployment benefits; those folks will no doubt receive unemployment benefits.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on the state. In California, the only way you get disqualified for unemployment benefits is if you were fired for misconduct. But as you note, firing for low performance does not disqualify for unemployment benefits.
Collecting Unemployment Benefits in California
Absolutely. And yes, the point is well taken that not all of the firings/layoffs were in California.
That's assuming they ponied up $ for a reservation. Not everyone wants sausage after they see how it's made. And, not everyone there is well-compensated vs. the cost of living in/around the Bay Area.
I'd imagine of the subset that did pony up deposit $ and still want a Model 3 after being canned might be moved into the regular customer line.
Last edited:
That's rather old school thinking and generally doesn't work well in the long run. There are some employees who are low performers because they are lazy or incompetent. Getting rid of those people usually improves morale because their coworkers probably saw it long before management did.
But some people are low performers because they have a turkey of a project, don't have the right resources, or are lacking some key piece of knowledge to get the job done. Firing those people tends to destroy morale and turn the workforce against management. Their coworkers knew why they were struggling and usually feel management is being vindictive.
I've seen both scenarios play out. I once contracted at a company that was hyperactive about firing people. Morale there was awful and the company ended up folding.
Another company was led by a literal fascist. He had been born in Argentina in the late 1940s to parents to left Italy in 1945. The place was run much like Mussolini would do. That was probably the most chaotic place I've ever worked. People were downright paranoid and were scared to share even the tiniest scraps of information. My team needed some key information from another group and I could only get the information by befriending someone from that group and basically becoming her Psychological therapist for a few days. They are also out of business (I think their assets were bought by some larger company) and there was a website up for a while for survivors of that place.
I've also seen some people under-perform because they were incompetent. I was on a team of three with one of these people once. I was the programmer and the other two were the hardware people. She screwed things up so badly I had to step in and save the hardware side. When the other hardware person got a bad performance review, I went to my manager and told him why things got screwed up. He was unaware the two of us were carrying the third. She got transferred to a less demanding project.
This woman graduated with her sister at the same time and both came to work for my company in the same group (different departments). I worked with both of them. One knew her stuff and had the makings of a top notch engineer, but I think the other sister had skated through school cheating off her sister. She didn't know the basics and it showed when she actually had to do some real work. I wish they had transferred the competent sister to my group. She would have been a big asset, but we ended up having to limp along short and engineer until I left.
Paul O'Neil who was George W Bush's first Treasury Secretary had worked in and out of government and in the private sector. In the private sector he was known as kind of a marvel at turning around companies in trouble. His biggest achievement was turning around Alcoa who had terrible worker relations. He realized that was one of the biggest problems the company had and the company became very successful during his tenure as CEO.
Ron Suskind wrote his biography after he left office as Treasury Secretary. It's called the Price of Loyalty and it goes into O'Neil's thoughts on management. When he was in business and had to deal with other companies, he always watched how a manager treated their immediate staff. If they were courteous and decent, he usually found the company well run. If they treated their staff like slaves, the company was usually a mess with poor morale throughout.
These stories about Tesla do concern me. Most companies, especially young companies, are extensions of the ego of the CEO. And Tesla is that way. I don't think Elon thinks himself inherently superior to others based on his position, wealth, or whatnot. He hated Apartheid and still has a difficult relationship with his father due to his father's racist views.
But Elon does have a superior intellect to just about everyone he knows and I think that makes him very impatient. He sees everything very deeply and broadly at the same time. I suspect he carries around some pretty detailed maps of where Tesla and SpaceX are headed and all the steps necessary to get there from here. The problem is other people just can't hold that much information in their heads at the same time, and even if they could, they don't know everything Elon knows.
He gets impatient because he sees so much those around him miss. It probably makes him terse and angry sometimes. He's not exactly a people person to begin with and his management has always been a weakness in all his companies. He projects this down from the top and as they say the stuff flows downhill. Management tends to channel Elon (probably without fully understanding why) and it makes for a rough work environment.
I've worked for a fair share of companies that don't respect their employees in one way or another and right now I'm working for a very well run company. I'm currently 7 years in on a 6 month contract. They keep paying me and seem to be happy with my work, so I keep chugging along. They get good work out of people because everyone is respected. Another person on my project has been underperforming lately and the first question from my manager has been "what's going on?" rather than attacking.
Sometimes underperforming people do need to go, but it's in everyone's best interest to save those who are drowning for reasons beyond their control. Getting rid of the latter without figuring out what's wrong just shows everyone that management is clueless to the real problems and makes everyone twitchy and scared.
One thing to consider... Tesla has been hiring like mad. Inevitably you get a collection of folks that (being positive here) don't fit well into the company culture. Some are duds, but some just don't fit the company requirements at that time, and may fit just fine elsewhere.
Keeping those folks on is destructive to the company. You need to pull them out, for the good of the company, and often for the long term good of the employee.
Keeping those folks on is destructive to the company. You need to pull them out, for the good of the company, and often for the long term good of the employee.
While it's not a pure math equation, the math often does get it correct. Of course it's based on a performance evaluation mechanism and an an environment that provides resources. It's actually not old school thinking, but more honest thinking. For every point you make about lack of resources, knowledge, know-how, and project content, I can make a point that people can help overcome some of these challenges by being willing to innovate, improve, research, and overcome. You'd be surprised how many people who won't do an internet search, crack a book, take a course, or ask for help. They expect to be spoon-fed.
Morale? Generally the negative feedback in these cases come from the next 10% at the bottom of the pile. Seriously, it does. Some also come from the gentle souls who would rather carry and compensate for their weak co-workers, for misplaced altruistic reasons, than see them terminated for poor peer performance.
And actually, if you manage it properly and measure it, it can work really well in the long run.
Tesla's overall 3.4 rating doesn't exactly scream "awesome to work for". Even the positive 4-5 star reviews mention long hours, hectic schedules, hard for family life, etc.
Tesla has a 3.4 rating after 1.2k reviews. (Tesla Reviews | Glassdoor)
For comparison, General Motors has a 3.8 rating after 2.6k reviews (General Motors Reviews | Glassdoor)
Ford has a 3.9 rating after 2.6k reviews. (Ford Motor Company Career Overview | Glassdoor)
Is it so hard to believe that working at Tesla, where the CEO himself has stated they are going through "production hell" currently, is not the greatest place to WORK at? Especially when you read that hundreds of employees were let go at the same time for "performance" issues in the middle of "production hell"?
”In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. This act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy on, harass, or terminate the employment of workers because of their union membership or to retaliate against them for engaging in organizing campaigns or other "concerted activities," to form company unions, or to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees. ”
The right to organize to a labor union is a basic human right.
A common misconception.
Technically, for most manufacturing tasks, a human can yield superior quality but at a higher long term cost. Normal robotic equipment even those with tactile, laser, or video sensors lacks problem solving skills and common sense. Part has a glaring defect? It ignores it if does not affect it's op. Part slightly out of the position, but good? Rejected at as defective. And robots are programmed. The operation is only as good as the programmer.
I used to be a robot salesman in the Bay Area. A company called me to improve their productivity. So we fitted them out with robots.
I stopped by a week later and asked how it was working. The CEO said, "Great, but there is a minor problem. The robots are so shiny that they blind people who are in the shop."
I looked around and in the corner I saw a common sight, dozens of boxes of Hillary in 2016 bumper stickers. "Put these on the shiny spots, and you should be fine." And I left.
I get a call a week later, "We need you to remove all the robots."
"Wait. What?"
"Yes, I want them all gone."
"Can I ask why?"
"After we put the stickers on, the next day only half of them would work, and the rest spent their time fighting each other."
K-MTG
Sunshade Captain of TMC
Brando
Active Member
What is the percentage? 400 to 700 of 33,000
Then compare to - (google search will verify)
2013 Total Employee Turnover Rate by Industry (U.S.)
All Industries 15.1%
Banking & Finance 17.2%
Healthcare 16.8%
Hospitality 29.3%
Insurance 10.4%
Manufacturing & Distribution 13.3%
Not-for-Profit 15.3%
Services 15.2%
Utilities 7.2%
OK, 1.2 to 2.1 % for those less trained in arithmetic.
Does this qualify as fake news??
Then compare to - (google search will verify)
2013 Total Employee Turnover Rate by Industry (U.S.)
All Industries 15.1%
Banking & Finance 17.2%
Healthcare 16.8%
Hospitality 29.3%
Insurance 10.4%
Manufacturing & Distribution 13.3%
Not-for-Profit 15.3%
Services 15.2%
Utilities 7.2%
OK, 1.2 to 2.1 % for those less trained in arithmetic.
Does this qualify as fake news??
Brando
Active Member
Great comment, well worth reading. Now let us compare to other industries - first calculate the % of job losses.
2013 Total Employee Turnover Rate by Industry (U.S.)
All Industries 15.1%
Banking & Finance 17.2%
Healthcare 16.8%
Hospitality 29.3%
Insurance 10.4%
Manufacturing & Distribution 13.3%
Not-for-Profit 15.3%
Services 15.2%
Utilities 7.2%
1.2 to 2.1 % sounds awfully low to me. You??
