4 ms·

Make that popcorn. Elon’s going to try and dodge all those laws and rules about layoffs, severance, etc. The only thing he might end up hiring is lawyers.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Musk’s return to office directive is likely a mechanism to force quits and avoid the WARN act and paying severance to thousands of workers. Edit: If you’re looking for SWEs, I’ve spoken to three at Tesla who are looking for new opportunities. They’re an org to target for talent acquisition.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Yeah, his directive seemed obviously aimed at getting people to quit. As I have understand it, legally, that's transparently the same thing. Hence his very public hiring of lawyers whose qualifications are "fighting" to discourage employees from seeking what they are owed.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    I think it's not legally the same thing. Since doing things to get people to quit have to be larger than you need to work at your place of employment. It's moving them across the country, making them work unsocialable hours, etc. Not returning to the office, which the goverment actually wants. Remote work is bad for the economy.
    - Silhouette 4y ago
      Remote work is bad for the economy. I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends? For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving. Maybe people don't stop in big stores on their way home from work but home delivery services are thriving. Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better? It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        It's probably bad for cities in general, whether inner city coffee bars or office (and probably residential) real estate. And that may (or may not) be bad for people who want to live in cities. My observation though based just on traffic patterns is that debates about remote work are something of a bubble at this point. When I've had to go into the relatively nearby city a couple times lately rush hour traffic seemed as bad as ever although train/subway seemed relatively light.
      - that_guy_iain 4y ago
        > For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving. People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches. People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better. > Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better? This talk of having good and bad managers makes no real sense. Companies aren't just going to fire managers. That would be unfair. > It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out. Too early? Two-years in?
        ghaff 4y ago
        >Too early? Two-years in? Yes. It's been two years when so many other things haven't been normal though--and to some degree still aren't. And it takes time for people to, for example, commit to working remotely on a more or less permanent basis, e.g. by moving to a location that doesn't have good local job prospects. Remote work is also mostly a topic for a relatively limited number of "knowledge workers." If anything, it looks like the change will be less than some were expecting. (Though even relatively modest changes can, at scale, have fairly significant knock-on effects.)
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure a bunch of people over the past two years were explicitly hired as WFH or allowed to transition to formally WFH. So they would have to move across the country. Also, as others are pointing out, the facility isn't designed to hold some of the departments that went on a hiring binge over the last two years.
    - ryanbrunner 4y ago
      The particulars of whether something is good for bad for the economy, or even good or bad for Tesla is irrelevant. If there was a reasonable understanding or agreement by both parties that you would be able to work from home for a certain period of time, and you're forced into the office, that's an arguable case for constructive dismissal.
      - that_guy_iain 4y ago
        > The particulars of whether something is good for bad for the economy, or even good or bad for Tesla is irrelevant. It very much matters when a Judge who is politically appointed as they are in the US has to decide if you're right or wrong. Then what is better for the economy and for corporations will win out.
        ryanbrunner 4y ago
        I'm not going to deny that political bias plays a role, but we're talking fairly low-stakes things here that in all likelihood going to be heard by an arbitrator anyway. It makes more sense for any company to settle and give you severance if you raise a stink about something like this.
rossdavidh 4y ago
1) you're likely correct, the "return-to-office" was in part a stealth layoff 2) given that this sort of thing is very common during a downturn, I think Tesla's lawyers probably have a well worked out method on how to do it; I'm not saying it's kosher, but it's common. The only reason this gets so much press is that it's Elon Musk.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Musk’s return to office directive is likely a mechanism to force quits and avoid the WARN act and paying severance to thousands of workers. Edit: If you’re looking for SWEs, I’ve spoken to three at Tesla who are looking for new opportunities. They’re an org to target for talent acquisition.

HWR_14 4y ago
Yeah, his directive seemed obviously aimed at getting people to quit. As I have understand it, legally, that's transparently the same thing. Hence his very public hiring of lawyers whose qualifications are "fighting" to discourage employees from seeking what they are owed.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  I think it's not legally the same thing. Since doing things to get people to quit have to be larger than you need to work at your place of employment. It's moving them across the country, making them work unsocialable hours, etc. Not returning to the office, which the goverment actually wants. Remote work is bad for the economy.
  - Silhouette 4y ago
    Remote work is bad for the economy. I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends? For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving. Maybe people don't stop in big stores on their way home from work but home delivery services are thriving. Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better? It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      It's probably bad for cities in general, whether inner city coffee bars or office (and probably residential) real estate. And that may (or may not) be bad for people who want to live in cities. My observation though based just on traffic patterns is that debates about remote work are something of a bubble at this point. When I've had to go into the relatively nearby city a couple times lately rush hour traffic seemed as bad as ever although train/subway seemed relatively light.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      > For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving. People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches. People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better. > Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better? This talk of having good and bad managers makes no real sense. Companies aren't just going to fire managers. That would be unfair. > It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out. Too early? Two-years in?
      - ghaff 4y ago
        >Too early? Two-years in? Yes. It's been two years when so many other things haven't been normal though--and to some degree still aren't. And it takes time for people to, for example, commit to working remotely on a more or less permanent basis, e.g. by moving to a location that doesn't have good local job prospects. Remote work is also mostly a topic for a relatively limited number of "knowledge workers." If anything, it looks like the change will be less than some were expecting. (Though even relatively modest changes can, at scale, have fairly significant knock-on effects.)
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure a bunch of people over the past two years were explicitly hired as WFH or allowed to transition to formally WFH. So they would have to move across the country. Also, as others are pointing out, the facility isn't designed to hold some of the departments that went on a hiring binge over the last two years.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    The particulars of whether something is good for bad for the economy, or even good or bad for Tesla is irrelevant. If there was a reasonable understanding or agreement by both parties that you would be able to work from home for a certain period of time, and you're forced into the office, that's an arguable case for constructive dismissal.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      > The particulars of whether something is good for bad for the economy, or even good or bad for Tesla is irrelevant. It very much matters when a Judge who is politically appointed as they are in the US has to decide if you're right or wrong. Then what is better for the economy and for corporations will win out.
      - ryanbrunner 4y ago
        I'm not going to deny that political bias plays a role, but we're talking fairly low-stakes things here that in all likelihood going to be heard by an arbitrator anyway. It makes more sense for any company to settle and give you severance if you raise a stink about something like this.

rossdavidh 4y ago

1) you're likely correct, the "return-to-office" was in part a stealth layoff 2) given that this sort of thing is very common during a downturn, I think Tesla's lawyers probably have a well worked out method on how to do it; I'm not saying it's kosher, but it's common. The only reason this gets so much press is that it's Elon Musk.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]