> dead weight
Calling real people "dead weight" is insulting and dehumanizing.
Calling real people "dead weight" is insulting and dehumanizing.
>No need to label and insult them on their way out
You never need to say when someone didn't do their job, but it's not a terrible thing to do so either. Don't go out of your way to be insulting, but if the basic facts of the situation are insulting, then so be it.
>when you have to tighten your company's belt.
They stated very clearly that it was not about belt-tightening at all. Do you think they're lying?
> Do you think they're lying?
No, no, I implicitly trust all communications from corporate authority figures, of course.
I think it's relevant in a discussion of why a firing occurred. (And that overall discussion has a lot of upvote weight.)
> No, no, I implicitly trust all communications from corporate authority figures, of course.
That's a total deflection. Lack of trust does not let you figure out if any particular statement is true or not. Even dumber than blind trust is to assume everything a corporation ever says is a lie.
So is it your evaluation of the situation that this particular statement is a lie?
I never said that statement was a lie (your word not mine); I have no reason to take their claims at face value either.
So by all means, let's continue talking about how much those loser dead weights who got fired must have sucked.
But corporations are usually very reticent to say negative things about people, so for them to specifically call these people out as bad employees at least makes it plausibly true.
Why do you say that? Of course there are (were?) bad employees. If they did indeed fire the worst performers, some of them were quite likely bad employees.
> But corporations are usually very reticent to say negative things about people, so for them to specifically call these people out as bad employees at least makes it plausibly true.
Also plausible that it's misdirection or that they're assholes. =)
On the other hand I believe these people are not dead weight and are redeemable with the right effort.
Then use quotes, that's what they are for. Otherwise you are implying you agree with Tesla corporate vocabulary.
Let's not be hypocrites, at the end of the day it won't change people's fate, however they are still owed a minimum of respect as human beings, they are not mere cogs in the capitalist engine, no matter what Tesla's management thinks.
Parting company should benefit both side. Layoff often come with severance package to give those who were let go time to find another job, at least I hope that's what Tesla does.
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.
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.