4 ms·
> 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 fo
by camus2 9y ago
> 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.
- zaroth 9y agoI wouldn't qualify them as that, and neither did Tesla. Not everyone is the right fit for the job they are currently working. People can struggle with a job for any number of reasons. Companies will very rarely propose a pay-cut, but more likely they would just rather find someone else. Because they have specific jobs that needs doing and can't afford to have something done poorly. Even if hiring was perfect there would still be rational reasons to fire sometimes. And hiring is far from perfect.
- thegayngler 9y agoI agree they are scapegoats for bad management. They should start firing the CEO. He over promises and then grossly under delivers. Making people work in bad conditions will turn good people into bad employees/DEAD weight. They were DEAD weight because people need rest and time away from work to maintain optimal performance.
- tankenmate 9y agoYou seem so sure of your conclusions without any evidence (if you do have evidence then please provide it). I firmly believe in workers rights. I also firmly believe in evidence. California has some of the most employee friendly employment laws in the US. Germany some of the most in the EU. As long as these employees have reasonable severance and Tesla followed the law I don't see much room to complain. If however they were treated badly or illegally then I'm reasonably certain that a lawyer will help them on a contingency basis.
- thegayngler 9y agoI'm not so sure of anything. That's the way it looks to me from reading the article. The way it looks to me from reading the article is that these employees were labeled as underperforming simply so the company could avoid triggering any sort of legal scrutiny. I could be totally wrong. It's likely that I'm not considering people walked in without any PEP or any notice and were let go even according to another poster on HN.