11 ms·

It's possible her husband got railroaded, however it's also possible he did not. Impossible to tell from this tweetstorm. First, being a disabled veteran does

It's possible her husband got railroaded, however it's also possible he did not. Impossible to tell from this tweetstorm. First, being a disabled veteran does not preclude you from being laid off. And as many others in this thread have pointed out, the "sign on bonus" she appears to reference apparently vests over 4 years, which is not that uncommon. She says: > "We’re shattered. Devasted. And fucking broke. @Tesla, shame on you. I know lay offs are a part of life, but you really took the low road and kicked your loyal employee in the balls when he was down." Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial situation of the employee? Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? Look -- this is not a judgment on her, her husband, or their family. Maybe what happened to this couple is a complete travesty, maybe Tesla is some horrible evil mega-corporation and they should feel ashamed over the situation. However it's also possible her husband was in a department that was no longer needed or maybe even he underperformed his colleagues -- there's no way of knowing from this tweetstorm. What I dislike is this presumption on HN that just because someone tweeted out his/her spouse got laid off by a tech giant that it's automatically some immediate miscarriage of justice. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. There's no way of knowing from the evidence in front of us. I wish the mods of HN were more judicious in accepting these kind of one-sided screeds.

Apocryphon 8y ago
> Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? One would presume that much of the current agitation in the body populace regardless of political stripe would be mollified by such an attempt. The life expectancy may even rise.
threeseed 8y ago
Redundancies are a natural part of business and working life. It's how you do them that is important and it revolves around treating people with dignity. Give them notice, allow them time to say goodbye to others, don't escort them out the building, don't make them sign NDAs etc. Most companies do not have the spouses of former employees jump on Twitter to complain. So the mere fact it has happened means something went wrong from Tesla HR.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  If her husband was simply being "made redundant" (i.e. laid off for business purposes) then you're right, it's inconsiderate to the employee to give less than 2 week's notice of such a change. My point is, however, we can't know if that's what happened here. Imagine for a second (and I'm NOT saying that's what happened here) her husband was terminated for sexual harassment. Should the company have given him 2 weeks? The problem is we don't KNOW what happened, and for legal reasons Tesla won't respond (nor would any other company, probably). A firing, layoff, termination -- without detailed, explicit evidence it's very hard to assign blame. This person has given us little detail so I think we should be cautious about how outsiders evaluate the outcome. It's disappointing however to see this on the front page of HN as some sort of implicit acknowledgment that what Tesla did was wrong when we don't have a full, independent accounting of what happened. Just put yourself in the shoes of a company or manager that's had to let someone go for legit reasons -- would you publicize them? We need more data but this tweetstorm doesn't really provide it, IMHO.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Er, just to check, are you aware that Tesla announced layoffs of 7% of the company two days ago https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-company-update https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-company-update ? Are you claiming that the poster is speaking of an unrelated layoff? Or that Tesla swept up sexual harassers in the 7% layoffs?
    - ordinaryperson 8y ago
      Of course. But do you have specific knowledge that the 7% layoffs was the explicit reason this employee was let go? You don't know. I don't know. So why are we passing judgment? If the tweetstorm was about why it's misguided corporate governance for Tesla to lay off 7% of its workforce, OK, let's have that debate. But that's not what this thread discusses -- it specifically blames Tesla for laying off 1 person. But we can't possibly know the specifics of this individual's situation.
      - 8y ago
caseyf7 8y ago
One should also be careful of how the bonus is structured. If a “sign-on bonus” vests over time, it’s just a bonus and at-risk. Real sign-on bonuses are paid when the offer is signed or in the first paycheck.
- gpm 8y ago
  Likewise with a "2018 performance bonus". If it's a "2018 performance bonus" you don't get to take it back because he is laid off (or even quits) in 2019. I'm sure there is legalese behind the bonus that backs up Tesla's interpretation of both. More likely than not they would win in court too. But calling it something it isn't still strikes me as fraud.
  - refurb 8y ago
    I looked up the severance package for my company - amazingly they do pay out the annual bonus, even if you leave mid-year, it's just prorated based on how much you worked that year. However, I think there is some exception if you worked less than a month that year. Seems pretty fair.
    - gpm 8y ago
      If you're referring to your own companies bonus structure, I would tend to agree. That would be taking part most/all of his 2019 bonus if you're talking about OP though, not his 2018 one. Presuming at all reasonable (i.e. not deceptive) terminology.
geofft 8y ago
> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial situation of the employee? Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? Sure, why not? This is common practice in lots of pretty successful and pleasant countries. It's also common practice in systems like academic tenure. It's got its downsides, but so does at-will employment. The primary reason I can think of to not do it is that it makes life tough for small employers like startups, who simply may not have the resources to pay out people for an extended termination period. So have it kick in once you hire N employees or make more than $M in revenue. (We do the same with plenty of other protections with social justice overtones, like anti-discrimination / anti-harassment laws.) Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance continue.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  > Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance continue. Wait, how did you make that determination? In Musk's most recent letter to employees he said Tesla made a 4% profit in Q3 2018 and the forecast was lower for Q4 -- you think companies should be obligated to pay for employees they don't want or need? Just because they're a big a company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee? I don't understand this POV at all, can you explain?
  - geofft 8y ago
    Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period. I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Is this POV comprehensible to you? In that same letter, Musk wrote, "we grew by 30% last year, which is more than we can support". I think that it is good for society and good for people and good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring.
stevenjohns 8y ago
> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial situation of the employee? That forms part of an unfair dismissal case in Australia, yes. It is considered when evaluating how "harsh" a dismissal is.
ajcodez 8y ago
It’s true we don’t have context. It’s also possible she’s lying. But, it has to be read in the context of spending billions to bail out SolarCity which Elon owned with family. It is no wonder his generosity towards himself and unfeeling layoffs for employees will cause some people to question his moral character. Which again, in the context of a tobacco company is not interesting, but for save the world Tesla it is a real story.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  Even before evaluating the merits, the fact that "this is impossible, they have competent and professional Human Resources" doesn't apply is a massive failure on both the company and the executive management.
- repomies68 8y ago
  I would guess that job security and other benefits are actually much better in tobacco companies, than in cool and hyped tech companies like Tesla. Tobacco companies have trouble attracting talent and make good easy profit.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> the "sign on bonus" she appears to reference apparently vests over 4 years, which is not that uncommon At least in finance, nobody claws these back unless someone quit in bad faith.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  I don’t think it got clawed back. I think future promised but not paid amounts were just not paid. Which seems a logical reason to pay out bonuses slowly.
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    Ah I thought they yanked all the bonus back. I guess it's more fair if it's only proportional, but at the same time it seems a bit underhanded to only give part of a signing bonus because you closed the position. I can see both sides I guess.
fardin1368 8y ago
Nobody says corporations should not lay off. But they should give a severance package that can help the employee and his/her family go through the transition period and find a new job.
fixermark 8y ago
Just to play angel's advocate for a bit: why the hell does getting laid off put you in such disastrously dire straights in the country that is, by most metrics, the wealthiest in the world?
- skh 8y ago
  Quite a few Americans have a haunting fear of a poor person getting something they don’t deserve. Hence, our social welfare system is not on par with what one expects in other rich nations. There is also what I call the Daniel Boone image that Americans tend to possess. We like to think of ourselves as self reliant and if government just got out of the way of taking our money via taxation then people wouldn’t be in any sort of predicament not of their own choosing.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  It doesn't put you in dire straits. You have unemployment insurance and can get continuing equivalent health coverage under COBRA (and this is probably a qualifying life event under the ACA, so they can apply for much less expensive coverage). Beyond that, you are living beyond your means if you don't several months of rent and utility expenses saved up. She literally admits they were living beyond their means. That is poor judgement and it's their fault. I am very, very sympathetic to their situation but I also don't think Tesla wronged them.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    80% of Americans are apparently living paycheck-to-paycheck, so I'm not sure it counts as living "beyond your means" when 80% of a country is doing it.
rorykoehler 8y ago
>what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees This is pretty much the situation in Europe. Very hard to lay people off and therefore companies don't hire as freely.
occamrazor 8y ago
While I agree on the basic argument that companies should be free to disregard the personal economic situation of their employees, it seems to me that in this case the revocation of the signup bonus is unfair. It would seem fair that any unvested benefit should vest immediately if the contract is unilaterally terminated by the employer.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  If you want such a deal, negotiate it before you sign the deal, not after.
damm 8y ago
Actually being disabled should give you some protections. Companies are required to work within your disabilities if you are still able to perform your job. However it's very _COMMON_ for company's to just fire someone who is disabled and hire someone else who can do the job without needing a babysitter. Most people don't see a problem with this until it's their child; then they will be angry. Lastly normally when a good company fires you go because of downsizing or problems that employee is given an exit bonus. Sure it might not be a lot; maybe a months salary. Might not happen for everyone. Lastly we need to be real about the problem of loosing your job and getting back on your feet. Those of you (like me) who get right back up and get a job the next day or next week... I congratulate you. It's hard. Those of you who don't understand; you should try having over 100 different jobs before you are 23. Really fucks with your self esteem.
adetrest 8y ago
> Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? A lot of developed countries have it: its called employment insurance. Not sure about how it works in the US or if there is any there but that's pretty much what you're describing.
altmind 8y ago
> And as many others in this thread have pointed out, the "sign on bonus" she appears to reference apparently vests over 4 years, which is not that uncommon. Its also prevalent, that you receive accelerated vesting in case the company terminates the worker(such as layoff or merger)

Apocryphon 8y ago

> Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? One would presume that much of the current agitation in the body populace regardless of political stripe would be mollified by such an attempt. The life expectancy may even rise.

threeseed 8y ago

Redundancies are a natural part of business and working life. It's how you do them that is important and it revolves around treating people with dignity. Give them notice, allow them time to say goodbye to others, don't escort them out the building, don't make them sign NDAs etc. Most companies do not have the spouses of former employees jump on Twitter to complain. So the mere fact it has happened means something went wrong from Tesla HR.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
If her husband was simply being "made redundant" (i.e. laid off for business purposes) then you're right, it's inconsiderate to the employee to give less than 2 week's notice of such a change. My point is, however, we can't know if that's what happened here. Imagine for a second (and I'm NOT saying that's what happened here) her husband was terminated for sexual harassment. Should the company have given him 2 weeks? The problem is we don't KNOW what happened, and for legal reasons Tesla won't respond (nor would any other company, probably). A firing, layoff, termination -- without detailed, explicit evidence it's very hard to assign blame. This person has given us little detail so I think we should be cautious about how outsiders evaluate the outcome. It's disappointing however to see this on the front page of HN as some sort of implicit acknowledgment that what Tesla did was wrong when we don't have a full, independent accounting of what happened. Just put yourself in the shoes of a company or manager that's had to let someone go for legit reasons -- would you publicize them? We need more data but this tweetstorm doesn't really provide it, IMHO.
- geofft 8y ago
  Er, just to check, are you aware that Tesla announced layoffs of 7% of the company two days ago https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-company-update https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-company-update ? Are you claiming that the poster is speaking of an unrelated layoff? Or that Tesla swept up sexual harassers in the 7% layoffs?
  - ordinaryperson 8y ago
    Of course. But do you have specific knowledge that the 7% layoffs was the explicit reason this employee was let go? You don't know. I don't know. So why are we passing judgment? If the tweetstorm was about why it's misguided corporate governance for Tesla to lay off 7% of its workforce, OK, let's have that debate. But that's not what this thread discusses -- it specifically blames Tesla for laying off 1 person. But we can't possibly know the specifics of this individual's situation.
    - 8y ago

caseyf7 8y ago

One should also be careful of how the bonus is structured. If a “sign-on bonus” vests over time, it’s just a bonus and at-risk. Real sign-on bonuses are paid when the offer is signed or in the first paycheck.

gpm 8y ago
Likewise with a "2018 performance bonus". If it's a "2018 performance bonus" you don't get to take it back because he is laid off (or even quits) in 2019. I'm sure there is legalese behind the bonus that backs up Tesla's interpretation of both. More likely than not they would win in court too. But calling it something it isn't still strikes me as fraud.
- refurb 8y ago
  I looked up the severance package for my company - amazingly they do pay out the annual bonus, even if you leave mid-year, it's just prorated based on how much you worked that year. However, I think there is some exception if you worked less than a month that year. Seems pretty fair.
  - gpm 8y ago
    If you're referring to your own companies bonus structure, I would tend to agree. That would be taking part most/all of his 2019 bonus if you're talking about OP though, not his 2018 one. Presuming at all reasonable (i.e. not deceptive) terminology.

geofft 8y ago

> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial situation of the employee? Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? Sure, why not? This is common practice in lots of pretty successful and pleasant countries. It's also common practice in systems like academic tenure. It's got its downsides, but so does at-will employment. The primary reason I can think of to not do it is that it makes life tough for small employers like startups, who simply may not have the resources to pay out people for an extended termination period. So have it kick in once you hire N employees or make more than $M in revenue. (We do the same with plenty of other protections with social justice overtones, like anti-discrimination / anti-harassment laws.) Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance continue.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
> Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance continue. Wait, how did you make that determination? In Musk's most recent letter to employees he said Tesla made a 4% profit in Q3 2018 and the forecast was lower for Q4 -- you think companies should be obligated to pay for employees they don't want or need? Just because they're a big a company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee? I don't understand this POV at all, can you explain?
- geofft 8y ago
  Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period. I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Is this POV comprehensible to you? In that same letter, Musk wrote, "we grew by 30% last year, which is more than we can support". I think that it is good for society and good for people and good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring.

stevenjohns 8y ago

> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial situation of the employee? That forms part of an unfair dismissal case in Australia, yes. It is considered when evaluating how "harsh" a dismissal is.

ajcodez 8y ago

It’s true we don’t have context. It’s also possible she’s lying. But, it has to be read in the context of spending billions to bail out SolarCity which Elon owned with family. It is no wonder his generosity towards himself and unfeeling layoffs for employees will cause some people to question his moral character. Which again, in the context of a tobacco company is not interesting, but for save the world Tesla it is a real story.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
Even before evaluating the merits, the fact that "this is impossible, they have competent and professional Human Resources" doesn't apply is a massive failure on both the company and the executive management.
repomies68 8y ago
I would guess that job security and other benefits are actually much better in tobacco companies, than in cool and hyped tech companies like Tesla. Tobacco companies have trouble attracting talent and make good easy profit.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> the "sign on bonus" she appears to reference apparently vests over 4 years, which is not that uncommon At least in finance, nobody claws these back unless someone quit in bad faith.

brianwawok 8y ago
I don’t think it got clawed back. I think future promised but not paid amounts were just not paid. Which seems a logical reason to pay out bonuses slowly.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  Ah I thought they yanked all the bonus back. I guess it's more fair if it's only proportional, but at the same time it seems a bit underhanded to only give part of a signing bonus because you closed the position. I can see both sides I guess.

fardin1368 8y ago

Nobody says corporations should not lay off. But they should give a severance package that can help the employee and his/her family go through the transition period and find a new job.

fixermark 8y ago

Just to play angel's advocate for a bit: why the hell does getting laid off put you in such disastrously dire straights in the country that is, by most metrics, the wealthiest in the world?

skh 8y ago
Quite a few Americans have a haunting fear of a poor person getting something they don’t deserve. Hence, our social welfare system is not on par with what one expects in other rich nations. There is also what I call the Daniel Boone image that Americans tend to possess. We like to think of ourselves as self reliant and if government just got out of the way of taking our money via taxation then people wouldn’t be in any sort of predicament not of their own choosing.
throwaway5752 8y ago
It doesn't put you in dire straits. You have unemployment insurance and can get continuing equivalent health coverage under COBRA (and this is probably a qualifying life event under the ACA, so they can apply for much less expensive coverage). Beyond that, you are living beyond your means if you don't several months of rent and utility expenses saved up. She literally admits they were living beyond their means. That is poor judgement and it's their fault. I am very, very sympathetic to their situation but I also don't think Tesla wronged them.
- fixermark 8y ago
  80% of Americans are apparently living paycheck-to-paycheck, so I'm not sure it counts as living "beyond your means" when 80% of a country is doing it.

rorykoehler 8y ago

>what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees This is pretty much the situation in Europe. Very hard to lay people off and therefore companies don't hire as freely.

occamrazor 8y ago

While I agree on the basic argument that companies should be free to disregard the personal economic situation of their employees, it seems to me that in this case the revocation of the signup bonus is unfair. It would seem fair that any unvested benefit should vest immediately if the contract is unilaterally terminated by the employer.

skookumchuck 8y ago
If you want such a deal, negotiate it before you sign the deal, not after.

damm 8y ago

Actually being disabled should give you some protections. Companies are required to work within your disabilities if you are still able to perform your job. However it's very _COMMON_ for company's to just fire someone who is disabled and hire someone else who can do the job without needing a babysitter. Most people don't see a problem with this until it's their child; then they will be angry. Lastly normally when a good company fires you go because of downsizing or problems that employee is given an exit bonus. Sure it might not be a lot; maybe a months salary. Might not happen for everyone. Lastly we need to be real about the problem of loosing your job and getting back on your feet. Those of you (like me) who get right back up and get a job the next day or next week... I congratulate you. It's hard. Those of you who don't understand; you should try having over 100 different jobs before you are 23. Really fucks with your self esteem.

adetrest 8y ago

> Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation? A lot of developed countries have it: its called employment insurance. Not sure about how it works in the US or if there is any there but that's pretty much what you're describing.

altmind 8y ago

> And as many others in this thread have pointed out, the "sign on bonus" she appears to reference apparently vests over 4 years, which is not that uncommon. Its also prevalent, that you receive accelerated vesting in case the company terminates the worker(such as layoff or merger)