Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
1–10 of 185 posts
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#2Sources 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.
Is this pre-empting a union push?
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#3Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
Not clear as to whether those were SolarCity or Tesla (direct) employees.
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#4Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
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)
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#5Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
"Is this pre-empting a union push?"
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.)
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#6Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
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.
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#7Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
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 th…
The provision you're referring to is called a WARN notice. Employers with 100 or more employees typically are required to give 60 days notice.
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#8Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
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.
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#9Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
"Is this pre-empting a union push?" 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.)
Honest clarification request: Do you to suggest/worry that they are classifying "agitating for a union" as problematic "conduct with peers"?
That's the way I read it.
Re: Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity
#10Sources 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. Is this pre-empting a union push?
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 damag…
California is at will but they do have specific laws and procedures for mass firings and layoffs. I think Tesla is trying to skirt these by calling them performance related instead of layoffs. (And to protect their stock price from having to admit they can't afford all their workers.)