Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Entire Supercharging Team Fired?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
News yesterday is that the entire 500+ person word-wide SC team has been let go. That is alarming. Why would Elon sack the execs and all the employees of this important part of Tesla's business? Could Tesla be selling the SC network off to a third party? Opinions? Other theories?

29226473368_d3a9e965d2_c.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
they weren't exactly forced... VW was forced to spend billions on charging infrastructure but I'm sure EA (which they founded) was run by motivated people. Point being - third party fast chargers *suck*.... EA / EVGo and who else. There's a reason Tesla saw the Supercharger network as competitive advantage. and not "offloading" charging to third parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhrivnak
I hadn't heard about that. Can you give a couple of details?
"As part of its court settlement with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the DieselGate scandal, Volkswagen agreed to invest $2 billion in electric vehicle infrastructure in the US."

 
Tesla as a whole is doing similar, they are doing layoffs to bring costs down closer to match with actual revenue. This is not the first time they did that either, here's a history:
Sawyer quotes 10% for layoffs in 2024 when it's already higher than that and Musk has stated closer to 20% is the goal. It's not just the normal media that is biased, you have to be careful of using these "OSINT" sources too. (side note, did Elon re-friend Sawyer? Why is he back to shilling for the company after he was excommunicated for sharing the SC firing story?)

If it was only 10% layoffs in 2024, why was Tinucci asked to lay off 20%? It seems a lot more logical that she pushed back.
 
they weren't exactly forced... VW was forced to spend billions on charging infrastructure but I'm sure EA (which they founded) was run by motivated people. Point being - third party fast chargers *suck*.... EA / EVGo and who else. There's a reason Tesla saw the Supercharger network as competitive advantage. and not "offloading" charging to third parties.
That's exactly what they were talking about, VW, which runs EA, was forced to build a network. EA is not an independent company, but rather a subsidiary of VW. That was one of the main criticism of the penalty. It was suggested it would have been more fair (and likely result in better networks) for VW to pay the $2 billion into a fund that would be distributed to other independent charge networks.

EA was ranked the lowest among the various large networks, with Chargepoint and EVgo ranking significantly higher.

As for hope for other charge networks, switching to NACS and wholesale adoption of plug-and-charge (which NACS supercharger access requires according to how it is rolling out, including requiring automaker/vehicle side payment authorization, not just charger side VIN authorization) would significantly improve connector reliability, usage (much less bulky connectors) and payment experience (no more messing around with payment touchscreen and broken card readers). Almost forgot to mention it also comes with charger availability API in the car UI (which likely can be modified to support third party networks, as Tesla is starting to do), which would reduce chances of drivers unknowingly going to full or broken chargers. Also there is now billions of NEVI funding available.

It's not like there are no changes to the charging landscape.
 
Last edited:
Sawyer quotes 10% for layoffs in 2024 when it's already higher than that and Musk has stated closer to 20% is the goal. It's not just the normal media that is biased, you have to be careful of using these "OSINT" sources too. (side note, did Elon re-friend Sawyer? Why is he back to shilling for the company after he was excommunicated for sharing the SC firing story?)

If it was only 10% layoffs in 2024, why was Tinucci asked to lay off 20%? It seems a lot more logical that she pushed back.
That was the first result in Google when looking up the history of layoffs. The exact number doesn't matter for my point.

Also that was a tweet from more than a month ago (look at the date) and half a month before Tinucci was fired. Since then, there have been a second round of layoffs. From the leaked info, Tinucci did 10% in the first round by cutting regional teams. The second round was the other 10% which impacted the HQ team and she pushed back on.
 
I'm still pissed nobody got jail time for that. When your company's behavior is that egregious there need to be serious penalties.
huh?

 
Yes, Elon’s orders got questioned by a woman so he canned 500 people to make a point to the rest of the org that he will not be questioned under any circumstances.
Not a very effective way to encourage your employees to speak up. A certain amount of discussion should be expected and firing the entire team has likely done far more harm than good. While Elon is very good he has also made mistakes as in the Boreing Company and Solar Roof tiles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJD and Seattle
Afaik they made the decision to create EA for their penalty, if you consider that “forced.”
VW did not "decide" to do this. They agreed to do it as part of their consent decree agreement with the courts and regulators. They specifically "agreed" to create an electric vehicle charging network, and if they had not, they would have had to negotiate a different settlement.
I mean, you can use the language "not forced" for any "settlement" you come to with a regulator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CSFTN and primedive
I'm still pissed nobody got jail time for that. When your company's behavior is that egregious there need to be serious penalties.
The EPA literally has a list of VW executives that are fugitives in the USA from dieselgate. It's just that they can't get them extradited from Germany:

We actually did catch Oliver Schmidt in 2017 when he came here for a vacation. 7 year sentence, and he was send back to Germany in 2020 to serve the rest of his sentence.

The CEO of VW is up for trial in Germany at the end of this year as he's been able to delay for "health issues."

You should read the Wikipedia article on the consequences around the world. It's fascinating how different countries handled it, and the USA took it much more seriously than other countries, but it's been hard as most of the criminals are in Europe and they "handled" it there with financial fines and hampered the USA's investigation and extraditions. Huge fines on the corporate structure that does operate in the USA was all we could really do:
 
Last edited:
VW did not "decide" to do this. They agreed to do it as part of their consent decree agreement with the courts and regulators. They specifically "agreed" to create an electric vehicle charging network, and if they had not, they would have had to negotiate a different settlement.
I mean, you can use the language "not forced" for any "settlement" you come to with a regulator.
I’m not trying to be tricky with language, IMO they were “forced” to pay for their dieselgate actions, they “decided ( or chose)” to create EA to comply with the verdict. Perhaps they could have decided/chose to simply pay the money to the EPA or another agency. Creating EA at least had the potential to increase VW EV sales and sell power for profit.
 
to create EA to comply with the verdict.
The language here is the problem. There was no "Verdict" - there was a settlement, and part of that settlement was creating EA. They didn't get "convicted" and then after that decide to comply with that conviction by creating EA. They specifically offered the creation of EA to the regulators as part of the overall settlement, and the regulators accepted that.

In the USA you don't get to get "convicted" of something and then go "umm, how about I create a electric car charging network instead of paying the EPA money?"

You can only have a "verdict" if the case goes to trial, and it did not in the VW case. VW settled with the EPA and CARB with a bunch of agreed actions, including EA, but also including stuff like recalling every car.
 
The language here is the problem. There was no "Verdict" - there was a settlement, and part of that settlement was creating EA. They didn't get "convicted" and then after that decide to comply with that conviction by creating EA. They specifically offered the creation of EA to the regulators as part of the overall settlement, and the regulators accepted that.

In the USA you don't get to get "convicted" of something and then go "umm, how about I create a electric car charging network instead of paying the EPA money?"

You can only have a "verdict" if the case goes to trial, and it did not in the VW case. VW settled with the EPA and CARB with a bunch of agreed actions, including EA, but also including stuff like recalling every car.
sounds like they got off pretty easy if part of the language of the settlement was.. "create a crappy charging network"
 
sounds like they got off pretty easy if part of the language of the settlement was.. "create a crappy charging network"
Plus billions in fines, having to recall all the cars, and criminal indictments for some people which Germany shielded from extradition.
Not saying they didn't get off easy for such a crazy conspiracy, but creation of EA was a small portion of the consent decree and people should understand the overall scope of that, not just say they got off easy, or nobody went to jail, or that EA was all they had to do.

But to bring this back around, this is actually the point- VW hardly cares about EA, and that's the kind of charging network you get when the parent car company sees it as an annoyance, not a primary product, even if it is a "billion dollar business." And that's the concern here with the way Tesla appears to be treating supercharging in 2024, and is what we are left with if Tesla leaves this up to other charging companies.
 
Creating EA at least had the potential to increase VW EV sales and sell power for profit.
Exactly why this was the result of that negotiation. A very large sum got invested into a US charge network instead of being available to invest elsewhere in the world or given to shareholders. I would all that a hefty win to the US for a not inconsiderable inconvenience to VW, but don't forget the win!

And there were direct fines.

So a slap and a tickle. Nobody got off completely but the US has a smile. Result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomer0056
I hadn't heard about that. Can you give a couple of details?
All you need to know is in the Dirty Money series on Netflix. Season 1; the episode is called Hard NOX. It explains all about the Dieselgate scandal that VW was involved in. The part that is maddening is that they were caught cheating, asked questions about what the authorities knew, and then tried to improve their cheating based on that information. They deserved to be shut down...