If the lack of promised performance reviews is accurate, that's the obvious issue - it implies a labor force decision disguised as a performance decision. This is a pretty common move in e.g. game development, so it certainly isn't unthinkable.

The point about total workforce size is well taken, though; this still seems like it could be as simple as "times are tough so we're cutting more stringently than we might otherwise".

Concerning the performance review: would expect that after acquisition, SolarCity would adjust to Tesla's performance standards. So even if they were based on prior performance reviews, still seems like a reasonable action and level to me.

As much as I try to squint, I'm having troubles seeing the smoking gun here.

> Expectations should be so clear that anyone in the aforementioned bottom tenth of your firm knows they'll be there before the ranking and yanking starts. "Anybody who is fired and surprised? That's the bosses' fault," Welch said on Bloomberg TV in 2015.

Contrast the GE description to what happened here with Tesla: absolute blindsiding where the employees were not given any performance feedback before getting axed.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14315785/1/how-to-fire-peopl...

There's been a lot of rants about the utility of stack ranking and this sort of "fire the worst performers because everyone else is better" attitude. Namely wrong incentives.

You have John Carmack and a clone of John Carmack working on your game engine. You have stack ranking. Which one should you let go during review season? Should you hire some extra people to protect your good people?

Jack Welch was simply doing long pending layoffs.

You mean, getting rid of people who had been promised deferred compensation, before having to make good on it? That was the deal with old-skool companies, remain loyal for 30 years then ease your way into retirement. GE got the loyalty then shafted those guys.

In India many old people got shafted both the ways being asked to take voluntary retirements and being subjected to high inflation rates at the same time.

Well, you can, or no obligation means anything anymore. Why should a company even pay you your wages if things are a little tight this month, by that logic?

Its just people woke up to the fact that socialism wasn't a feasible model anymore.

These are debt obligations at the level of a country. On 'your' investments.

This is totally different than saying a person should be given a job, even if they don't work.

Ummm airlines and automakers in the US do, or did. Lots of companies/countries are the same.

I'm not able to provide evidence, so my assertion that their firings were a lot of bullshit isn't going to carry much weight. I'm ok with that. But likewise, you might want to consider waiting for evidence that they did in fact cut underperformers, because I don't think you will see that either.

Any signs this is what tesla did? Lowest 2% is fine. Lowest 2% per team is not fine, means you need a scape goat for each team.

> "Mass layoff" is defined by the United States Department of Labor as 50 or more workers laid off from the same company around the same time.

Context is important, though. The term can be simultaneously technically correct in the context of US Department of Labor terminology and misleading to a general audience. I think that is happening here.

Your "bigger company" example is just an example of scale, there's just lots of individual events.

Instead, here is SolarCity firing 1,200 employees on the same day and saying that it's all just coincidence on their individual performances, not a unified decision.

It does qualify. My argument is that the statement out of context is misleading.

> Your "bigger company" example is just an example of scale, there's just lots of individual events.

Yes. It's an example of how using the term "mass firing" to describe "any 50 employees of a company being terminated around the same time" as the headline has done is misleading.

> Instead, here is SolarCity firing 1,200 employees on the same day and saying that it's all just coincidence on their individual performances, not a unified decision.

No, former employees estimate Tesla is firing a total of 1,200 employees, some of which are SolarCity employees. And there was no statement it was a coincidence or not part of a coordinated effort (of course it was). That's not mutually exclusive with legitimately culling your low performers.

In SolarCity case, that means 0.15% of their workforce.

firing an entire team of 10 or so for malfeasance I could buy - btw collective punishment of employees is allowed under common law

Either way you're out of a job, so in that sense there's not much difference.

Laid off generally comes with a severance package that is consistent across the laid-off employees. The reason for the employee termination is (at least outwardly) the companies fault due to the company not having a use for that subset of employees - department closure, cashflow, product cancellation etc. In the UK a company must announce it is going to go through a lay-off some weeks before actually terminating employment contracts.

Firing someone puts the 'blame' on the employee. Generally the company has to document the reason for firing the employee. Even in places with 'at will' employment law a company will want documentation in place in order to defend against wrongful termination or discrimination claims.

Companies will often offer some cash sweetener to a fired employee in return for them signing a termination contract that makes future legal claims more difficult (or costly).

That level of "firing" is rather suspect for an "new" company that is supposed to be growing.

> But any company needs to address the inevitable hiring mistakes and I don't see evidence that Tesla is doing any more than that.

If you are making that level of mistake where you have to conduct mass layoffs, then it doesn't bode well for tesla.

I completely understand the latter issue about taking off randomly for wild reasons, but why is working agreed-upon hours a bad thing?

No, but seriously, if a job is asking more than 9 to 5, they're asking you to put out sub-standard work while stealing your time needlessly.

So many people here forget 12 hours pay for an 8 hour day was a rallying cry for organized labor at one point, and that all these terrible labor practices that seem common at smaller tech firms (and Tesla) are very bad and create bugs, sickly workers and hurt everyone involved. Not that management is smart enough to realize that!

"in the U.S. most professional jobs don't have set hours, it's more you work until the task is satisfactorly completed within defined time constraints."

Then the company won't mind if I leave early when I have my work done right? Oh, you mean this relationship with the company is only supposed to go one way - to the company's benefit?

[Twirling my mustache] Wouldn't it be great if we could convince an employee (that we are exploiting) that the reason he has to work late is because another employee didn't donate labor to the company (and not that the deadlines are unrealistic)?

I think employers and employees sometimes forget that this is a value for value, business relationship. Think of what's implied in the common phrase "I gave him a job." An employer doesn't "give" someone a paycheck anymore than an employee gives the employer his labor - it a value for value trade.

It's foolish, I don't know what to tell you. I don't consider that an ad hominem attack. Certainly not more of one than you calling people who put in standard work hours "freeloaders".