Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 268 posts

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#11

Post by camus2 »

mc32 wrote: post #10
camus2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dead weight Calling real people "dead weight" is insulting and dehumanizing.

I'm not classifying them as dead weight, Tesla is. If they are firing them, they must in some way believe they are dead weight in some context. It's not an indictment on the employees, it's an indictment of Tesla. On the other hand I believe these people are not dead weight and are redeemable with the right effort.

> I'm not classifying them as dead weight, Tesla is

Then use quotes, that's what they are for. Otherwise you are implying you agree with Tesla corporate vocabulary.

Let's not be hypocrites, at the end of the day it won't change people's fate, however they are still owed a minimum of respect as human beings, they are not mere cogs in the capitalist engine, no matter what Tesla's management thinks.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#12

Post by Analemma_ »

tedsanders wrote: post #3
mc32 wrote: post #2

Man, that's rough. I know there is good reason to get rid of dead weight, but two things: 1. I had no idea dead weight would be allowed to exist at Tesla. 2. I believe dead weight can be redeemable, if you put in the right effort --not the procedural PIP stuff (which is about improvement as much as incarceration is about rehabilitation) but I mean real effort to rehabilitate a worker. Maybe too much effort for a high…

Not to waste time pointing out what you already know, but I think it's worth adding that you can be fired without being dead weight. Many firms (especially in law or consulting) have chosen to have pyramid structures with up-or-out policies that fire half the employees every two years. Even if the fired employees are good, this keeps everyone motivated and allows you to churn through employees to find the really exce…

> Even if the fired employees are good, this keeps everyone motivated and allows you to churn through employees to find the really excellent ones worth developing. The system is not inherently good or bad, as long as all parties are aware of it.

Everything about these statements is wrong. Take it from someone who worked at Microsoft before and after they finally smartened up and ditched stack ranking: it's horrible. It creates an atmosphere of paranoia, where people sabotage each other at great cost to the company instead of working together towards common goals. Worse, contra your claim that it weeds out the worst and lets the best rise to the top, what actually happens is the best quickly get sick of the bullshit and leave, while the ones rising to the top are the ones most adept at politics and gaming the system.

Stack ranking has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and if that's really what Tesla is doing it's enough alone to make me more bearish on them. It's that bad.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#14

Post by jryle70 »

Analemma_ wrote: post #12
tedsanders wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to waste time pointing out what you already know, but I think it's worth adding that you can be fired without being dead weight. Many firms (especially in law or consulting) have chosen to have pyramid structures with up-or-out policies that fire half the employees every two years. Even if the fired employees are good, this keeps everyone motivated and allows you to churn through employees to find the really exce…

> Even if the fired employees are good, this keeps everyone motivated and allows you to churn through employees to find the really excellent ones worth developing. The system is not inherently good or bad, as long as all parties are aware of it. Everything about these statements is wrong. Take it from someone who worked at Microsoft before and after they finally smartened up and ditched stack ranking: it's horrible.…

I don't know if OP meant stack ranking, but I've definitely seen approx 20% annual turnover at a well known consulting firm, by design. Either you go up or you are out. Not stack ranking, just performance review. Cut throat environment, but the upside is the firm is able to keep the very sharp ones. Also the alumni usually end up at other firms that can potentially become future clients. Seems to work very well for this consulting company.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#15

Post by Joky »

mc32 wrote: post #5
tedsanders wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to waste time pointing out what you already know, but I think it's worth adding that you can be fired without being dead weight. Many firms (especially in law or consulting) have chosen to have pyramid structures with up-or-out policies that fire half the employees every two years. Even if the fired employees are good, this keeps everyone motivated and allows you to churn through employees to find the really exce…

My understanding was that tech (and I consider Tesla tech even if it's inherently auto) companies were getting away from the stack rank evaluations (save a few). So I'm a bit surprised Tesla is going in that direction. High demand workers have more opportunities and those that can (the good ones) will find a diff job that does not play this kind of churn game. So I'd thought.

There is no stack ranking involved (as far as I know, at least in SW). That's why when an engineer is evaluated as under-performing this is really about their own (manager-perceived) performance vs the expectation, and there is no question about whether they'd be in an exceptional team. Now instead of a formal PIP that we know won't get anywhere, HR isn't shy about letting go dead-weight. My impression is that the default approach from HR when a manager rate someone as under-performing is that we should let them go, unless the manager wants to setup some sort of PIP.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#16

Post by caseysoftware »

mc32 wrote: post #2

Man, that's rough. I know there is good reason to get rid of dead weight, but two things: 1. I had no idea dead weight would be allowed to exist at Tesla. 2. I believe dead weight can be redeemable, if you put in the right effort --not the procedural PIP stuff (which is about improvement as much as incarceration is about rehabilitation) but I mean real effort to rehabilitate a worker. Maybe too much effort for a high…

While 300-700 people sounds massive, it's out of 33,000 or about 1-2%. It's not hard to believe that 1-2% of a company were bad hires, couldn't/didn't deliver, or weren't a great match for the job anymore.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#17

Post by Dylan16807 »

camus2 wrote: post #9
mc32 wrote: post #2

Man, that's rough. I know there is good reason to get rid of dead weight, but two things: 1. I had no idea dead weight would be allowed to exist at Tesla. 2. I believe dead weight can be redeemable, if you put in the right effort --not the procedural PIP stuff (which is about improvement as much as incarceration is about rehabilitation) but I mean real effort to rehabilitate a worker. Maybe too much effort for a high…

> dead weight Calling real people "dead weight" is insulting and dehumanizing.

Any term for being awful at your job (either in skill or motivation) is going to be insulting. What would you suggest to avoid being dehumanizing?

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#18

Post by jryle70 »

camus2 wrote: post #11
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not classifying them as dead weight, Tesla is. If they are firing them, they must in some way believe they are dead weight in some context. It's not an indictment on the employees, it's an indictment of Tesla. On the other hand I believe these people are not dead weight and are redeemable with the right effort.

> I'm not classifying them as dead weight, Tesla is Then use quotes, that's what they are for. Otherwise you are implying you agree with Tesla corporate vocabulary. Let's not be hypocrites, at the end of the day it won't change people's fate, however they are still owed a minimum of respect as human beings, they are not mere cogs in the capitalist engine, no matter what Tesla's management thinks.

They ARE deadweight as far as the employer is concerned. Nothing disrespectful to them. They may be very good in some aspects and decent human being, but they are at a wrong place.

Parting company should benefit both side. Layoff often come with severance package to give those who were let go time to find another job, at least I hope that's what Tesla does.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#19

Post by camus2 »

jryle70 wrote: post #18
camus2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not classifying them as dead weight, Tesla is Then use quotes, that's what they are for. Otherwise you are implying you agree with Tesla corporate vocabulary. Let's not be hypocrites, at the end of the day it won't change people's fate, however they are still owed a minimum of respect as human beings, they are not mere cogs in the capitalist engine, no matter what Tesla's management thinks.

They ARE deadweight as far as the employer is concerned. Nothing disrespectful to them. They may be very good in some aspects and decent human being, but they are at a wrong place. Parting company should benefit both side. Layoff often come with severance package to give those who were let go time to find another job, at least I hope that's what Tesla does.

> They ARE deadweight as far as the employer is concerned

no that's just how the employer qualify these people, it doesn't mean these people are responsible for Tesla's shitty management or them missing their financial objectives. They are scapegoats Tesla uses to save face in front of their investors.

Re: Tesla fires hundreds from headquarters, factory

#20

Post by mc32 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #16
mc32 wrote: post #2

Man, that's rough. I know there is good reason to get rid of dead weight, but two things: 1. I had no idea dead weight would be allowed to exist at Tesla. 2. I believe dead weight can be redeemable, if you put in the right effort --not the procedural PIP stuff (which is about improvement as much as incarceration is about rehabilitation) but I mean real effort to rehabilitate a worker. Maybe too much effort for a high…

While 300-700 people sounds massive, it's out of 33,000 or about 1-2%. It's not hard to believe that 1-2% of a company were bad hires, couldn't/didn't deliver, or weren't a great match for the job anymore.

Admittedly it's a small fraction. To me, while not a communist by any means, I do think that cos. often simply think about he employee-employer relationship as unidirectional: the employee owes the employer but I see more and the company owes society at large to support its workers, where it can. Not saying they should carry inept unqualified workers, but that they should make some effort to place mal-assigned workers. Make it work for everyone, in other words.
Post reply on HN