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

Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#151

Post by lotsofpulp »

mulmen wrote: post #80
lotsofpulp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all people add value to an organization, and they might stop adding value too. Unfortunately, it's not possible to know this for sure prior to hiring, so the only realistic way to maintain the organization is with constant pruning.

I think this is a bit of a fallacy. You don't have to always be firing some percentage of your workforce. While hiring the best is not easy and you may need to let people go you also shouldn't just constantly be on the hunt for the next head to chop. I have seen the effects of stack ranking and it's not pretty.

I don't mean to suggest that there needs to be a set percentage that must be fired at some set time interval, but I do think that new hires don't always work out, and people can change from being a value adder to a value detractor, especially once you get to the huge numbers of employees that some companies have.

The process of evaluating the people that make up the organization should be under constant improvement though, and again, simply because of dealing with large numbers, there might be a few false positives, but on the whole as an organization, management should be on the lookout for who isn't performing.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#152

Post by lotsofpulp »

asveikau wrote: post #116
lotsofpulp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all people add value to an organization, and they might stop adding value too. Unfortunately, it's not possible to know this for sure prior to hiring, so the only realistic way to maintain the organization is with constant pruning.

It can be hard to correctly and objectively measure and determine who adds value and who does not. My experience in the workplace is that lots of people add value seemingly indirectly or through unexpected social connections that management is unaware of.

You're right, there is a balance to be struck. Just because we can't be 100% correct of the time objectively measuring who adds value and who does not, doesn't mean we should give up the endeavor. It also doesn't mean we should implement a policy of always cutting x% or people just because.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#153

Post by csours »

yellowapple wrote: post #143
csours wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No more than 3k would be working on the assembly operations, and maybe a good deal less (based on knowledge of other automotive assembly operations). That 3k would include line assembly workers, material delivery, quality inspectors as well as skilled trades like electricians, pipe fitters, tool and die makers (for stamping operations) Another 1-2k assembly staff (IT, Quality Engineers, Controls Engineers, Material C…

1k seems pretty low for sales staff if we really are including the showrooms. I'm counting ~100-110 showrooms listed on Tesla's website, so that would amount to 10 people per showroom. Doable, I guess, but still low. Are janitorial/maintenance staff considered to be employees in this count? Or are they contracted out?

Janitorial would almost certainly be contracted out at any other automotive company.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#154

Post by mattmcknight »

KirinDave wrote: post #132
mattmcknight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "absolutely spanked"? They have out delivered all the other brands you mention this year, by number of sales and dollars,in and have a huge backlog of pre-orders. https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Given that the Bolt premiered this year, was only available in California for the first 2 months, and had no pre-orders before December... those are extremely good numbers. Especially since: conspicuously absent from this list is the Model 3. What month is it again? What month was the Model 3 supposed to launch?

Not "absolutely spanked". Not in all three quarters. Make all the excuses you want, Tesla sold more EVs. When Model 3 production does ramp up, do you think it will be less than the Bolt?

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#155

Post by loeg »

alexasmyths wrote: post #129
loeg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism.

"Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism." No. It would be impossible to verify and to say with certainty the fact that Tesla was targeting Union folks - if this were true. Second - the journo is communicating the opinions of others, not his/her own. There would be Musk, and a very small handful of trusted lieutenants who would have been behind it (if it…

> But - one could look at the totality of those who are fired - and find that 'most of the vocal union bakers' were let go.

I don't object to statements like that. Your proposal actually make some attempt to quantify proportionality. The article did no such thing: "pro-union workers were among those fired this week." It doesn't say "mostly pro-union workers were fired" or "most vocal pro-union workers were fired." It isn't reflecting someone else's opinion. It's just an attempt to fit a narrative around zero evidence. If they had interesting evidence, they would report that instead!

> It doesn't prove anything - but it looks pretty bad, doesn't it?

No! Because they didn't actually make any interesting statements of fact. Just that some pro-union employees happen to be among the 1% of fired employees, like you would expect in a population of hundreds.

> And it would be irresponsible for the journalist to say 'Musk specifically targeted Union advocates' unless they had some pretty good evidence that this were true. Which would be very hard.

But they are suggesting it anyways. I think that is similarly irresponsible.

Probably they don't want to spend the time gathering statistics before they rush to be the first to publish on this story, but in preliminary reporting like this, I think they should be hesitant to suggest a narrative they haven't made any attempt to confirm.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#156

Post by KirinDave »

mattmcknight wrote: post #154
KirinDave wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the Bolt premiered this year, was only available in California for the first 2 months, and had no pre-orders before December... those are extremely good numbers. Especially since: conspicuously absent from this list is the Model 3. What month is it again? What month was the Model 3 supposed to launch?

Not "absolutely spanked". Not in all three quarters. Make all the excuses you want, Tesla sold more EVs. When Model 3 production does ramp up, do you think it will be less than the Bolt?

Every Bolt sold now is a model 3 that won't be sold. Every Prime is a model 3 that won't be sold. You might even make an argument Volts are in that category, but I've yet to see any solid data there.

I know I jumped off that stupid waiting list, I paid less and I got a great car that doesn't require I own and partially remodel a home for best experience.

Every Tesla owner I know (and I know a few, I'm part of an EV modding community that Tesla owners show up at) is jealous of some core aspects of Bolt, Spark, Volt, and Leaf owner's experience. The fiat people maybe less so, but they like to point out they paid 10% and it's way easier to mod the acceleration curves so they get a pass.

But it's true, we lack gull wing doors and the S's stock configuration is really fun to drive. We also paid less than half the price for more than half the upside. So.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#157

Post by asveikau »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #152
asveikau wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be hard to correctly and objectively measure and determine who adds value and who does not. My experience in the workplace is that lots of people add value seemingly indirectly or through unexpected social connections that management is unaware of.

You're right, there is a balance to be struck. Just because we can't be 100% correct of the time objectively measuring who adds value and who does not, doesn't mean we should give up the endeavor. It also doesn't mean we should implement a policy of always cutting x% or people just because.

Yep, just wanted remind of this. In today's corporate culture, people can get religious about performance reviews and ranking top people, and confuse it with the truth. In reality they just tend to favor one set of social biases at the expense of another, often to their own detriment.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#158

Post by mulmen »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #151
mulmen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a bit of a fallacy. You don't have to always be firing some percentage of your workforce. While hiring the best is not easy and you may need to let people go you also shouldn't just constantly be on the hunt for the next head to chop. I have seen the effects of stack ranking and it's not pretty.

I don't mean to suggest that there needs to be a set percentage that must be fired at some set time interval, but I do think that new hires don't always work out, and people can change from being a value adder to a value detractor, especially once you get to the huge numbers of employees that some companies have. The process of evaluating the people that make up the organization should be under constant improvement t…

I disagree with the adversarial approach to management you seem to advocate at the end of your comment. I think it can create a toxic environment where management focuses on failures and ignores success. If someone has to be let go that is a failure at the management level or at the recruiting level and the goal should be to minimize it.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#159

Post by alexasmyths »

loeg wrote: post #155
alexasmyths wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Be bold. Make the claim, or don't make the claim. Half-heartedly making the claim is shoddy journalism." No. It would be impossible to verify and to say with certainty the fact that Tesla was targeting Union folks - if this were true. Second - the journo is communicating the opinions of others, not his/her own. There would be Musk, and a very small handful of trusted lieutenants who would have been behind it (if it…

> But - one could look at the totality of those who are fired - and find that 'most of the vocal union bakers' were let go. I don't object to statements like that. Your proposal actually make some attempt to quantify proportionality. The article did no such thing: "pro-union workers were among those fired this week." It doesn't say "mostly pro-union workers were fired" or "most vocal pro-union workers were fired." It…

Journalism is hard.

They're not paid a lot, and they have to churn out stories.

They don't have the resources to hire PI's and do interviews, follow people around.

It's just a dude (or dudette) who might have time to ask a few questions, and then put out a story.

So that's it.

I wish it could be more, but what they've done is within reason, so long as it's valid and they're not making it up.

Re: Tesla fired hundreds of employees in past week

#160

Post by a3n »

wokeland wrote: post #74
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #4

It’s interesing that the company can just decide not to report this as a mass layoff. While the performance reasons for letting someone go may be true, it seems like an easily exploitable loophole. Model 3 production rates were missed by a wide margin, so at least a few people should have known that management would react.

The word “layoff” appears nowhere in this report. The words used are “fired” “dismissals” and “firing”. This is a completely different activity than laying off.

So they say. I imagine straight termination for "performance" reasons (even people who self-report as never having previous bad reviews) differs from layoffs in any company-declared or regulatory obligations. Unemployment insurance might be one.
Post reply on HN