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

Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#61

Post by Jasper_ »

nraynaud wrote: post #50
rhino369 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, GM and Ford build a fuck-ton more cars and have better build quality (which is shitty by int'l standards). Seems like Teslas's problem is bigger.

Yes, but startups are shitty and wavy by nature, it stabilizes with time. While culling the contractors, they might lose sight of something important and get into the next crisis. I don’t think there is any other way around. Sometimes it’s even external factors like wars and financial crises like the dinosaurs of the automobile industry had.

Tesla is a public company founded in 2003, not a startup. It's a year older than Facebook.

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#62

Post by Consultant32452 »

solarkraft wrote: post #26
icanhackit wrote: post #12

Being a hard ass CEO isn't sexy, but it's what so many successful CEO's are. > Often, it is like a Russian nesting doll of contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, etc. before you finally find someone doing actual work. I'd also argue that these multi-level contractor setups are a major security concern. Ideally they should make it policy to have no more than one additional level between Tesla and the contractor…

It really makes me wonder: Isn't using contractors super inefficient? Why do companies, when they could do it in house, use them?

The government has penalized companies who hire full time employees with lots of expensive regulatory requirements and litigation risks. Hiring a person is one of the riskiest things any company does. It's foolish to do so unless absolutely necessary.

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#63

Post by nitrogen »

woodpanel wrote: post #55
mikeash wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having owned both a GM and a Tesla, I'm amused by the idea that GM's build quality is better. I actually liked my GM a lot, but quality was lacking to say the least.

Having driven Fords, GMs and a Tesla, I'd say GM isn't international standard either, but Ford is definitely.

In terms of driving experience, most Ford cars I've driven (Contour, Focus, and Taurus, probably all from early 2000s; they are probably better now) handle like boats; turning radius comparable to an oil tanker, unresponsive brakes and gas, etc. So there are tradeoffs among all makes and models within those makes.

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#64

Post by watwut »

zamalek wrote: post #40
olliej wrote: post #31

The bigger concern I have is that it encourages extreme nepotism — people vouch for people from their schools and prior jobs, and so risks introducing systemic bias against people from different backgrounds. Obviously gender and race are heavily represented in this kind of thing, but even basic stuff like west coast vs east university nonsense can start happening.

Your own reputation is put on the line by vouching for a contractor, according to the article. So if something bad happens down the line, your continued engagement with Tesla will be questioned too. Nepotism and bribes are going to happen, but I think there will be some fast lessons when Tesla axes employees for this behavior.

Which is exactly the situation when friends and former classmates get more advantage over someone you know for three months.

It makes it more clicky.

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#65

Post by [deleted] »

imnotadoctor999 wrote: post #38
sjwright wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Elon was pretty clear that he considers the situation to be seriously wrong, hence the extreme approach. It's a refreshing attitude; this sort of problem is common in most large companies.

I agree. Tesla is only worried about one thing right now: they are about to run out of money. If Elon has identified that contractors aren't providing the necessary ROI or at least traceability to the ROI, he's making a smart choice to let them go. Tesla is, in the view of some, on the brink of failure, where failure is defined as insolvency.

[deleted]

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#66

Post by doikor »

nitrogen wrote: post #63
woodpanel wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having driven Fords, GMs and a Tesla, I'd say GM isn't international standard either, but Ford is definitely.

In terms of driving experience, most Ford cars I've driven (Contour, Focus, and Taurus, probably all from early 2000s; they are probably better now) handle like boats; turning radius comparable to an oil tanker, unresponsive brakes and gas, etc. So there are tradeoffs among all makes and models within those makes.

All the things you mentioned are design decisions not build quality related.

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#67

Post by nraynaud »

solarkraft wrote: post #26
icanhackit wrote: post #12

Being a hard ass CEO isn't sexy, but it's what so many successful CEO's are. > Often, it is like a Russian nesting doll of contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, etc. before you finally find someone doing actual work. I'd also argue that these multi-level contractor setups are a major security concern. Ideally they should make it policy to have no more than one additional level between Tesla and the contractor…

It really makes me wonder: Isn't using contractors super inefficient? Why do companies, when they could do it in house, use them?

some jobs are really temporary, the electrician installing your painting booth has no future at your company, the guy making the tools for the press either. Some consultants are here to solve a painting adhesion problem, and they have no reason to be here when it is solved.

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#68

Post by [deleted] »

lsc wrote: post #8
analog31 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a regular employee, and I don't see it being any different. Figuratively speaking, my boss has to sign my paycheck every two weeks. If they don't like me, they can fire me.

see, I think there is a big cultural difference. Like, I always had that attitude as an employee, but I think that as an employee, it holds me back. I think the key is that as an employee, you are expected to act in the interest of the company in ways that are different from what you are expected to do as a contractor. My perception and experience is that as a contractor, I'm supposed to do what you tell me to do. If…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla reviewing contractors, firing everyone not vouched for by an employee

#69

Post by aerovistae »

WaylonKenning wrote: post #3

In the race for attention, is this article interesting because it's a new model for implementing and delegating work, or more the fact that a company has decided to rapidly cut down on contractors? Because there's lots of companies that rapidly cut down on contractors, and I doubt they'd all have an article written about them at the top of Hacker News. I'm neither here nor there about the company, but I note that it…

Exactly.
Post reply on HN