Tesla's Mass Firings Spread To SolarCity as Employees Say They Were Blindsided (cnbc.com) 272
Tesla has laid off over 200 employees from its SolarCity business for performance reasons, just over a week after firing hundreds more from its motor vehicle division. From a report: Employee dismissals at Tesla are continuing, according to six former and current employees, and have spread from its motor division to SolarCity offices across the U.S. Echoing reports from earlier this month, these 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. Earlier this month, Tesla began firing hundreds of employees after it announced a recall of 11,000 Model X SUVs. Tesla had already announced plans to lay off 205 SolarCity employees at its Roseville, California, office by the end of October this year. However, SolarCity employees across the country have been fired in the last two weeks -- not just in California, but also in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and beyond, according to these employees.
Happened to me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
you'll need more than that in Silicon Valley, find out what the cost of living index is for there (or anyplace else you'd relocate) compared to where you were
Claiming performance reasons without performance review or HR documentation of performance problems can be basis for lawsuit in many states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but i AM a $50k IT employee in California you insensitive clod!!
Re: (Score:2)
"but i AM a $50k IT employee in California you insensitive clod!!"
I you had a Master in music, you could get a job at Equifax.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually was wondering "why" Tesla and co was giving any reason for letting people go.
Aren't most states "right to work" states? In those states you can quit or be terminated for no reason at all, and in most cases, no formal notice time has to be given, although 2 weeks is customary.
Re: (Score:2)
although 2 weeks is customary.
Two weeks is customary for white collar workers working in offices in service industries, sure. Factory workers do not get that sort of thing, in most cases even if they're in a white collar job.
Firing somebody "no cause" is the same as a lay-off; they can get unemployment, and it is the company who pays unemployment insurance so their rates go up.
Obviously, you can fire people "for cause," as happened here, in every state and without any notice. Odd that the editors are so clueless that they would write "l
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty obvious reasons why. New company, lots of hires, all got a little out of control (one bag egg at a higher level can hire a dozens of others) and Tesla was falling behind schedule and was looking for reasons why, well, they found them and let them go. Typical teething problems for a new company with seeking lots of new employees. They will get a lot of bad ones.
Re: (Score:3)
"for cause," as happened here
Please. It's clear both incidents were mass lay-offs. In the Solar City division performance reviews hadn't even been carried out.
Re:Happened to me (Score:5, Informative)
"Right-to-work" is about union busting.
It is about having the choice to belong to a union or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about having the choice to belong to a union or not.
It's about the employer deciding whether you belong to a Union or not.
Re:Happened to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Union advocates often like to point out that they gave us the 40 hour work week. But wait... nobody has to belong to a union to get that now. Nobody pays dues to get it. See where I'm heading here? If there's no union, and you feel like your rights are being violated, you can use the political process and get laws pass via broader activism. The best part of all is that once the battle is won, you only have to pay the "dues" of vigilance to make sure the laws aren't repealed. It's a lower cost.
It used
Re: (Score:3)
Unions can be beneficial when key managerial employees are jerks too. They serve two purposes in these cases, first, to help reduce unevenness in assignments within a given labor pool, such that the boss doesn't get to play favorites as much as the boss might like, and second, to act as an advocate when a boss might be seeking uneven punitive action against an employee when that employee's behaviors are not statistically different than the rest of the workers.
Now, this doesn't mean that the unions always d
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, yes...I actually meant "at-will".
Been a long day....
Re:Happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"right to work" and "at will" are two very different concepts. Here's a brief summary of the difference:
https://www.employmentlawhandb... [employment...ndbook.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming performance reasons without performance review or HR documentation of performance problems can be basis for lawsuit in many states.
The claim is that Tesla hasn’t done any new performance reviews since they acquired Solar City. These folks may very well have been reviewed prior to the acquisition, in which case Tesla may be using those reviews as a basis for these firings... although at this point those reviews would be at least a year old, which would seem problematic if there hasn’t been any follow-up.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla may be using those reviews as a basis for these firings
Were they firings or layoffs? Big difference.
Most tech companies do this thing every couple of years where they "realign their business" which is code for layoff any bottom feeders without having to do the paperwork and avoiding possible legal action related to a firing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a big deal getting hired again when your previous employer argues that you were terminated for "performance reasons".
It's a good thing that businesses aren't allowed to ask your previous employer why you terminated then.
Re: (Score:3)
It's too bad that's completely untrue.
Re: (Score:2)
There has to be some advantage to them to do this.
Most likely to avoid the layoff notice requirements [shrm.org] in California law.
Re: (Score:3)
"Performance review" is a controversial management practice that most companies in the world do not do. It is not some sort of required step.
Most companies do not add things up and then review them later in that way; they evaluate your performance whenever it comes up. If your numbers are chronically low and your supervisor notices, that might result in a notation in your file, and a conversation with you about your work practices, and you'll probably be asked to reaffirm your commitment to the job. The emp
Re: (Score:2)
The employee has no right to access to their file; they don't know if HR has something recorded about them, or not. It isn't "their" file, it is their employer's file that merely talks about them.
If you're going to say "in the world" then I'll add "your jurisdiction may vary". At least here in Norway there's no "at will" work relationship, every termination needs a legitimate cause. Employers have been severely punished for terminating employees that are sick, pregnant, unionized or simply "bothersome" or disliked in some way. In broad terms the valid reasons either involves company performance requiring downsizing or relocation or employee performance regarding the performance of your job duties or
union issues as well (Score:2)
You can't fire someone for talking about starting an union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he meant, "startling a unicorn".
Re: (Score:3)
"You can't fire someone for talking about starting an union."
Not quite. You can't _tell_ a person you fire that it is because he tried to start a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming performance reasons without performance review or HR documentation of performance problems can be basis for lawsuit in many states.
I don't think that holds true in at-will employment states like California
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To prove "fraud" you would have to prove that they not only made false statements, but that they knew they were wrong. You'd have to be claiming to have knowledge of facts that would prove their intent just to get into the courtroom; that's not going to happen!
Also, it is a stupid idea. What would they need to know, in this case? They'd need to know that they actually thought your performance was good! That seems an unlikely thing to be able to prove. Keep in mind, everything that happens at work is part of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see why this is news. It is common for large companies to dump their bottom 5% of performers annually. Some even dump their bottom 10%. Of course, this is no fun if you are one of the ones impacted.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We believe you it was a cosplay party, we just think there are other important details.
See also: The Rule of Goats.
Re:Happened to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't GE famous (or infamous) for doing this?
I always wondered if it achieved anything truly productive. 5% is a big enough number that it would seem to have a pretty negative effect on the company -- termination processing, new hires, training, and the general chaos on teams/departments when there's a bunch of change.
I can even see side effects, where people who do well in a job get management positions, become "low performers" and get canned. Sure, they've cut a low performer but they also lost someone good at their original job because, basically, they fired the original manager. Now they need two employees.
I would also think it created a pretty toxic atmosphere and a lot of just people trying to meet goals versus actual productivity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a very large corporation with a lot of dead weight morons, running such a program (properly) for a few years will clean up the mess and make the company more functional. However, such a program cannot be run in what is essential perpetuity as was the case with Jack Welch. You get to a point where every worker you have is good and you're not going to find better people consistently.
There comes a point where if a company is constantly firing 5% of its employees, the people that really need to be fired are
Re: (Score:2)
There was a very good look at this effect a few years back. Mirosoft emulated GE's technique of laddering everyone and cutting the bottom rungs. The problem wasn't a specific layoff but rather how this rolling layoff poisoned the climate. People were focused on their own survival rather than any team goals. This is long but worth reading...
https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't GE famous (or infamous) for doing this?
I always wondered if it achieved anything truly productive. 5% is a big enough number that it would seem to have a pretty negative effect on the company -- termination processing, new hires, training, and the general chaos on teams/departments when there's a bunch of change.
I can even see side effects, where people who do well in a job get management positions, become "low performers" and get canned. Sure, they've cut a low performer but they also lost someone good at their original job because, basically, they fired the original manager. Now they need two employees.
I would also think it created a pretty toxic atmosphere and a lot of just people trying to meet goals versus actual productivity.
Not only a toxic atmosphere for current employees, but one in which it is difficult to attract talent. GE is the 800 lb gorilla in my field of work, but they are infamous for layoffs. Recently in my field of work, they laid off a whole division, created a new subsidiary, and gave the laid off employees offers for about 1/2 of what they used to be making. I would have to be either desperate or given a very good offer to even consider working for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that he's implying that people who got laid off were replaced by non-laid-off people, either transfers or promotions.
I think the top performers left because they saw it for what it (probably) was, a bullshit system that advanced people merely because of terminations and sniped at higher level employees, probably because of compensation.
The more I'm exposed to "management systems" the more I think they're nonsense. They all seem to share common traits:
1) Intimidate employees into working more fo
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't see why this is news. It is common for large companies to dump their bottom 5% of performers annually. Some even dump their bottom 10%. Of course, this is no fun if you are one of the ones impacted."
Somebody seems to think it's 'news for nerds' I presume.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you trying to unionize? That was the claim made the other day.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have a $50,000 per year job for me in Silicon Valley in IT?
If you are good I'm sure you can find a $50k / yr job. The problem is you'll need at least twice that to live here. Even at $100k a house is probably out of the question.
Re:Happened to me (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone have a $50,000 per year job for me in Silicon Valley in IT?
Does it have to be in IT . . . ? Otherwise $50,000 per year is what a good housekeeper in Silicon Valley expects.
Your experience at Tesla will be a big plus, since potential employers will think that you are capable of washing their model S . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Why DO so many ACs have such a massive obsession with creimer?
Not a surprise Tesla is winding down SolarCity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not a surprise Tesla is winding down SolarCity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. The only time you can be denied unemployment is if you were fired for misconduct ( stealing, lying, failing a drug or alcohol test, falsifying records,etc.). Poor performance is not misconduct.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there is some place where that is true, but I'm going to guess it isn't even in the USA. ;)
Certainly in my State you don't get unemployment if you were fired "for cause," and that means any cause. Poor performance is not only included, in the USA an employer has a right to fire you without penalty for poor performance. An employer even has a right to fire you for cause if they discover that you have a personal dislike for your employer ("contempt of boss") because the courts have found that the employ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. The AC described something that is criminal in every jurisdiction I've ever heard of.
Re:Not a surprise Tesla is winding down SolarCity (Score:4, Interesting)
He also promised re-usable rockets. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He promised a fully automated drive from coast to coast by the end of this year. That's the closest promise that will be broken.
Re: (Score:2)
He promised a fully automated drive from coast to coast by the end of this year. That's the closest promise that will be broken.
It's doable with current tech. Just hop on the I40* and time it so you hit any major cities (and I think they're relatively small anyway) and you can get almost all the way from coast to coast without ever leaving the interstate. The existing autopilot could pretty much do that route with a little care in timing.
* I think I've remembered my interstates right
Re: (Score:3)
I got the impression that Musk saw potential in SolarCity as aligning with his claims that electric cars are more environmentally-friendly. If you don't use alternative energy sources like solar to charge the cars up, you run into the issue where you're just drawing power from power plants often still burning coal or oil. Furthermore, if that's the usual scenario for charging stations, it dis-incentivizes adding them where they're most needed. (EG. Parking garages people use in big cities all day while at t
Re:Not a surprise Tesla is winding down SolarCity (Score:5, Insightful)
you know what will fix this high demand issue... more firings.
Re: (Score:2)
lol how are people this dumb in the age of information
Information glut combined with a lack of filtering methodology.
Re: (Score:2)
The stated reason for the acquisition was "synergy" of sales, Powerwalls, solar panels and electric cars. For instance, the "fake solar tiles" are actually in production and being installed on houses for customers with electric cars and Powerwall batteries.
I should have been more clear. The tile Musk was holding during his presentation was fake. I don't doubt there are tiles being installed on select houses for PR purposes. But the solar tile was already tried and abandoned by other companies who are much better at it(e.g. Dow). It's easy to be sold out for years when barely any are being made with no real plans to increase production - check out the status of the Riverbend factory in NY.
How To Make Your Company Toxic 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot see Tesla's long view in their reasons here. They are a high-profile set of companies (Solar City, Tesla, Boring Co. and SpaceX among others) and this news has hit major outlets - not just niche industry rags. It would be in their best interest to get out in front of this and provide some detail; but they have not. The arbitrariness of the reasons given for firing employees en masse is now what is in the history books for them, and this will surly dissuade talent from desiring to work for a Musk company in the future. Uber is another big-name entity that is walking this same line due to the narrative around its work environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The arbitrariness of the reasons given for firing employees en masse is now what is in the history books for them, and this will surly dissuade talent from desiring to work for a Musk company in the future.
I'll turn over in my grave if my great grandson is reading about Elon Musk in a history book.
Re: (Score:2)
You can read about John Blunt in a history book. And if you don't know who John Blunt is, you should get a history book and read about him.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like conserving cash and focusing energy to me... although my perspective might be biased.
For SolarCity, that business needs laser focus if it is to grow in volume and generate profit. Residential rooftops are not where it will find the cash flow it needs. While I have no idea what positions were eliminated, I am guessing they can't afford to touch anything smaller than 500kW now, and fewer, larger installs would eliminate many positions.
For Tesla, it looks to me like it is either union busting, p
Re: (Score:2)
Companies who pre-sell their whole output should not be presumed to have cash flow problems. ;)
Also, firing low performing employees does not reduce production unless the remaining employees think the company is going to collapse. See above and pre-sales.
Firing low performing employees often improves the morale of higher producing employees, especially if you follow it up with production bonuses!
China is the biggest car market in the world, and Tesla is biggest electric car company in China with no close se
Re:How To Make Your Company Toxic 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
It's interesting how few people are buying the "low performer" claims. The claims don't really make sense on their face; why would Tesla suddenly discover that its ranks are shot through with masses of people who need to be *immediately fired*? How could things have got so out of hand to require such a drastic immediate step? And how would those management culture problems suddenly be found in completely separate organizations that had been acquired a year ago?
Here's my theory: Tesla has figured out that sometime in the not-quite-near future cash is going to get tight because of its portfolio of buck rogers projects. How far in the future? Well, far enough that an outsider wouldn't see it in the quarterly SEC filings but near enough that they can see it coming. In business cash is like your air supply. If I cut off your air supply you'll be in distress in one minute and unconscious in three. If a business runs out of liquidity to meet current demands it starts coming apart in a month and is unable to operate after a quarter. This can happen even if the business is making a profit; meeting immediate cash demands has surprisingly little to do with turning a profit.
So what you do when you discover cash is going to be tight is look for cash outflows you can trim, and almost always payroll is going to be the biggest one. You start looking for people you can manage without. Low performers are an obvious choice, but if you've been doing your job all along you don't have a lot of those heads to chop. So you also look for people who simply pull down the larger salaries than others doing the same job. If my hypothesis is true, both Tesla's claims and the fired employees counterclaims could have a kernel of truth in them.
But why not simply tell people that this is what they're doing? I think because a lot of Tesla's value is based on an aura of invincibility it has cultivated -- despite or perhaps even because of its past missteps, people believe in this company; they think it will succeed and they want it to succeed. But again if this is what's going on it's risky to in effect libel thousands of workers you've let go for financial reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem in understanding is that you drank some bad juice cocktail beverage and believed a bunch of hyperbole as fact, even though no misconduct happened and nobody gave you information that would suggest it did; all you heard were bare pejoratives, and you presumed there must be facts behind them.
Also, please shut the fuck up about what the history books are going to write, OK McFly? You can't claim to know that, and any such argument would be based on facts you don't have access to.
When did the definition of "mass" change? (Score:4, Insightful)
200 people out of (according to Wikipedia) 15,000 (that's 1.33%) is in no way shape or form a *mass* firing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mass" in this case just means "a whole bunch at one time," for example "mass mailing" refers to sending a bunch of pamphlets to a bunch of people all at once; It doesn't imply any particular percentage.
FWIW, canning 200 people at once is a lot to do in one fell swoop, regardless of company size.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, canning 200 people at once is a lot to do in one fell swoop, regardless of company size.
That's so wrong, it almost makes me want to weep for the future of Western civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, lets just fire him for low performance and let him do the weeping. Oh, wait, he's a volunteer. Darn.
Re: (Score:2)
regardless of company size.
If your argument about scale is regardless of size, and with a fixed number of firings, then I don't even need to weigh the details to know your idea doesn't add up.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the picked folks based on their BMI? Gather the top 2% based on BMI and let hem go and I'll bet it's massive... Got to save some on that health plan..
Ok. Ok.. It's a joke.... And I can make this joke because my BMI is too high..
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and a "mass shooting" in a stadium is nothing if they don't hit at least 10% of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But that assumes it's 200 people from a specific subdivision. A few firings here and there, adding up to 200, isn't en masse.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is, if done as part of a single action.
Re: (Score:2)
The language gods, were they to exist, would have smitten you by now.
Re: (Score:2)
"assumes it's 200 people from a specific subdivision."
Everyone being laid off is part of the same subdivision (in the literal, not business, sense) of the company, the underperformers. Nothing in the meaning of "en masse" would even imply they would all have to be from, say, the accounting department. It's the firing of a specific group of people as a single action - i.e. "en masse."
Not sure if they were all really blindsided (Score:4, Informative)
I have an acquaintance that worked for Solar City in the Roseville area, who had been told this was coming and was offered either a severance package or a job at Tesla in NV. This person isn't someone with a super unique skill set either and seemed to speak like it was common knowledge this was coming soon.
Really, not that newsworthy. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.doleta.gov/program... [doleta.gov]
Solar bubble popping maybe? (Score:3)
Everywhere I've worked, companies go out of their way to try to avoid firing people purely for performance. It's hard to stop vindictive individual managers from singling people out for...special attention...but I've never worked in mandatory-firing environments. This is most likely a cost-cutting measure. Everywhere I've been, people have been more than made aware of their poor performance before being let go...no one doesn't see it coming. Once you get put on a performance improvement plan, you're on notice that it's nearly time to leave.
SolarCity might be trying to shed workers as the solar bubble dries up. We looked into solar systems for our house recently, and all of the companies are charging way too much for them, for any purchase option (loans, leases, outright purchase.) They're relying on the tax breaks to cloud the real cost of the equipment and maintenance, and (IMO) banking on the fact that most people don't know how their taxes are calculated. They just see they're getting a "huge" tax credit, resulting in a "huge" tax refund, and not taking the calculation to the next level and seeing how much the equipment cost is marked up. When the tax credit goes away, only a few of these companies are going to survive. The whole bubbly nature of this shows too -- you can tell that some of the local companies are these fly-by-night outfits with owners who jump from scheme to scheme and are just latching onto the latest way to make money.
I like the idea of solar, but I'm not going to pay massively marked up rates for a system. Most people just shovel a shoebox full of receipts to their "accountant" and can't figure out their own taxes, or just punch numbers into TurboTax. I think the solar companies have run through these people and are having trouble selling/renting solar panels to the rest of the homeowning population.
Firings will continue... (Score:3)
It totally works.
Re: (Score:2)
Investors should sell everything Musk related NOW!
Oh come on... Sell everything Musk related now? How wrong you are..
You should have already divested yourself of anything Musk about a year ago...
Now... I got to go put some limit orders in to catch so cheap stocks that you folks are dumping.... What's that saying? Buy on bad news?
My guess is that because the adults in the room are actually in control enough to start managing these companies expenses, it might be a situation where these companies will start turning a profit soon. Layoffs can be a good
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it is probably good news to investors, so yeah, limit your orders carefully.
Layoffs would be a very bad sign for a company that pre-sells their entire output, but luckily these were firings related to performance.
Re: (Score:2)
The short sellers have been consistently wrong on Tesla for years now. It's cost them a bundle.
Re: (Score:2)
The short sellers have been consistently wrong on Tesla for years now. It's cost them a bundle.
Yea, but now we have layoffs happening.... This is new for Tesla. Of course, profits would be new for Tesla, as would actually selling cars in sufficient volume to remain viable would be new too. This is only going to get worse until they start selling cars...
I'm guessing their ability to raise cash to keep paying their labor costs is starting to become an issue and somebody in management took the adult role and started to readjust their cost structures. Cash flow is king, and more profitable business fail
Re: (Score:2)
People are being fired for performance reasons. These are not layoffs.
Tesla loses money every year and people with no business training think think this means they can't make a profit.
Tesla makes a profit of about 25% on each car they make (and they sell every car they make even with production increasing).
Business 101: What is the difference between business investment and production costs?
Re: (Score:2)
You never want to let employees know that you are going to fire them... leads to all kinds of problems.
Best to just fire them and "thank you for your service".
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at a company that wanted to fire me for illegal reasons; they offered to do it "no cause" but instead I called their bluff and put in a 2 week notice. My co-workers gave me light duties, and the management was petrified, the production manager ended up having to audit all my activities (while trying to be secret about it) for the whole two weeks to make sure I didn't sabotage anything. It was funny as hell, way more fun than hiring a lawyer. It was a food product company, so there was a lot of equi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily it wasn't a plant closure or layoff!
Re: (Score:2)
So I looked it up, since I assumed you were too stupid to do it yourself before claiming it was relevant, and it turns out that not only does it not cover firings, even if it was a layoff it wouldn't be covered because it is in the "50-499" employees range, and it is way less than the additional threshold of 33% of employees at the site.
And it says right in the text of the statute:
Re: (Score:3)
I've worked in places like this... Horrible places to work.
I worked at a now defunct Telco that routinely let the bottom 5% or so go each year, depending on how the numbers looked. Where it was good to dump the chaff, they often didn't consider the whole picture when they did this. I helped maintain the software for their telemarketing efforts and I knew one of their representatives who for three quarters had blown the doors off his "plan". In fact, as % of his plan he was their highest producer for 9 mo
Re: (Score:2)
Federal subsidies subside, layoffs begin... (Says the news at 11)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX seems to be actually making money, though being privately held it's hard to know... So I'm guessing it won't be as bad there.
There is also the possibility of doing an IPO, though I think at this point they know the investors wouldn't make enough back to cover their investment. However, if you see an IPO with less than a billion in market capitalization, THEN be worried because the ax is going to fall.