Ask HN: Tesla is making us move or quit. Would I get severance? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Tesla is making us move or quit. Would I get severance?

259 pointsnikolaedison235 comments

Hello, I was hired as a remote full-stack engineer at Tesla during the pandemic. We were just told that remote employment agreements (mine was over email, not in my contract) are void, and we have to move to a Tesla office by August. This is essentially impossible for me until January 2023 (at which point I'd be happy to move). I need to make a decision by Friday. Do you think I would get severance if I tell them I refuse to relocate?

Edit: For context, Elon Musk sent company-wide emails last week about everyone having to go back to the office. A few days later, he announced layoffs. Many suspect the unexpected call for in-person work was a way to get people to quit and avoid paying severance for layoffs.

View on HN

(I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Speak to a lawyer.)

One thing I don't think you should do is quit. That will absolve Tesla of all unemployment responsibilities, potentially severance, etc. If they want to fire you, make them do it. I think you should save this email (print a couple of copies too).

You do not need to "make a decision" - just tell them you're happy to come to the office but due to personal obligations you cannot do so until January 2023 and leave it at that. Continue to reiterate this to Tesla. Tesla likely wants you to "make a decision" (and is pressuring you) so that you voluntarily quit and they don't owe you anything. Continue to do your job during your normal work hours. Respond to emails and instant messages. If you lose access to a system, send an email and ask to have access restored so you can continue to work. Document these interactions.

-edit-

Continue to work, even if they appear to "ghost" you. If you lose all of your system access, send emails and call phone numbers and document each of these interactions. Depending on how far you take this and how far things go, you may be able to recoup wages.

For example: (Thursday, June 9th 2022 8:55 am, called my manager's phone and asked if they could assist in restoring access to my email account).

Also, check out the HN Who is Hiring thread :)

One more note here, Tesla has also announced they want to drop 10% of staff. Normally this sort of thing involves severance packages, notifying agencies about upcoming reductions, actually making decisions, etc.

One view here is that if Musk can convince 10% of their staff to quit with this announcement he'll save lots of money (by not paying severance packages and other stuff)!

He's got lots of money, you don't need to save it for him.

Paying severance to staff you decide you don't want is much cheaper overall than losing staff randomly, which will include your higher performers.

It's not a plausible explanation for Musk's actions. I would be inclined to take his word at face value, that he genuinely believes that remote work is less productive than face to face work at Tesla.

No matter what’s your opinion on Musk, he’s very erratic and makes lots of decision on the spot, without or against data. It brought him huge wins (turns out people want cool electric cars) and huge headaches (FSD, factory automation, Twitter acquisition).

His engineering teams often learn about projects from his tweets. I’m pretty sure so does HR.

Musk doesn't feel this is random. The remote employees that don't want to come into work in the office are by definition not the higher performers to him.

The reality though is whether or not you announce it in advance, once you start laying folks off you will start to lose high performers who have the ability to get a jew job.

Yeah, I think everyone is assuming that the email and layoffs are causally related. That doesn't seem plausible. If he really wanted to use the work-from-the-office mandate to raise attrition, he would do that months PRIOR to announcing layoffs - not at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised if people who said they prefer not to come back to the office, will just be given the same severance package. OP should ask HR about it.

They probably are causally related, just not to each other.

High operating cost/productivity = layoffs + back to office.

It's usually not worth claiming it, but it seems like there is an argument for constructive dismissal here.

Why is it usually not worth claiming it? The payout is small if one succeeds in arguing it?

what would be the point?

Isn't constructive dismissal just a way to get unemployment, and you would get unemployment anyways with a layoff or involuntary termination?

That is the point: if an employee quits, they're not entitled to unemployment.

However, if they were "constructively dismissed" that is treated as a layoff/involuntary termination and the employee can get unemployment.

Note that the OP mentioned that their remote work agreement was voided. They weren't constructively dismissed, it sounds like they were actually terminated. (A company can't simply decide to unilaterally void part of an employment agreement without voiding the entire agreement. That's not how contracts work. )

My point is that I don't see how constructive dismissal would ever come up in this scenario.

Either they will either quit voluntarily (stupid) or they will be terminated.

They haven't been terminated because they are still working until August at least. It sounds like they were given until Friday to sign a revised employment contract without remote work or the company will take action.

Constructive dismissal usually comes up for hourly workers that stop being scheduled but aren't fired. For a salary employee it is usually cut and dry, either the employer is sending you a check or they aren't.

Not only has the employee been constructively terminated, but I would argue that they have been actually terminated if they were told that their remote work agreement was voided and they need to sign a new one.

It's not a 10% drop in staff. It's a 10% drop in salaried employees. So the numbers aren't as big as most are reporting.

That's true, though the original poster here is a salaried employee, so the pressure level is unchanged for them.

Don't know if it makes a difference but did they announce it? I thought it was a leaked e-mail to executives?

> He's got lots of money, you don't need to save it for him.

I want to nitpick you on this as I know you probably don't mean it but others might be confused by it. There is no way in which Elon Musk personally gets money from this. Elon doesn't have money other than the stock shares he sold. Most of his net value is still in the value of Tesla itself. His announcement of layoffs caused him to lose money.

Additionally if Tesla needed money, there would be no way to provide it as he doesn't have any money to provide it with.

In their employment capacity Elon Musk and other people who work for Tesla have an incredibly large budget. They can use that budget to downsize in a way that complies with the law.

I don't know what Tesla pay is like, but man, you really have to be guzzling the Kool-Aid to stay employed there. Crunching crazy hours, having some asshole guilt you for PTO, working for the world's unfunniest meme Lord, etc. Somehow, I have the feeling they're going to have no problem shedding 10% of their workforce this year...

Is it really hard to see why people would want to work there, morally? The goal of playing a part in sustainable/renewable energy is pretty noble.

That is such a freaking joke.

Personal automobiles are the worse possible thing for the environment. End cars. Let's get real public transit back. Hyperloop is a lie to kill existing public transit efforts. So many people have documented that so many things have issues. Yes electric cars are good, but not much better than Plugin Hybrids.

Entire countries have been developed around the car. It’s tone deaf to ignore that and think they’re going away anytime in the next half century, demanding public transportation replace them. Urban planning and refactoring takes significant time.

The US shrugs at such an idea and keeps buying 17 million cars a year. Even Norway buys cars (although most are electric cars now). When cars are sold, they should be EVs.

> End cars

I guess those of us that live in rural areas should just bike 100s of km everywhere then.

It's always amusing to see these hyperbolic, clearly unrealistic statements on here. I wonder what's going through the head of someone like you...

83% of Americans live in urban areas and 70% of annual vehicle miles are in urban areas. Rural communities are an edge case where cars would still make sense.

You might want to look up how the US Census Bureau defines urban. My 7,000 person town with orchards and farms is considered an urban area. This makes some sense as it's loosely part of a greater metropolitan area but it's not remotely an area that could be served to a significant degree by public transportation.

17% of Americans is not an "edge case" by any stretch of the imagination. That's 57 million people.

OK? You ignore the larger point by disagreeing with the terminology I chose. Reducing car usage in the US by 70% would be an absolutely massive win

And Musk sending employees back to the office is the opposite of reducing single occupancy vehicle use.

Not to mention the fact that a large part of those 83% would like to be able to occasionally travel outside the urban area.

There are also planes and trains, and, if you're travelling to a remote location without access to either of those, rental cars. But most people in an urban area are primarily travelling within that urban area.

>It's always amusing to see these hyperbolic, clearly unrealistic statements on here. I wonder what's going through the head of someone like you...

If the edge cases mostly only affected people you didn't like how much would you care about solving them.

Exactly.

Well said. It's equally hyperbolic and unrealistic to require poor people to buy and maintain an automobile, which is basically what has happened because our public transit sucks.

Hey, that's easier than razing and rebuilding US cities that were built under the assumption everyone has a car.

(Among other things, they have road topologies that make buses and bikes completely infeasible.)

> Among other things, they have road topologies that make buses and bikes completely infeasible

If the hilly San Francisco can have lots of bikes and buses (…and cable cars and street cars and light rail and commuter rail) then so can most cities.

Hills aren't the problem. Urban sprawl is, and so are irregular road grids with uniform density everywhere.

SF is compact, and has a few main drags where it makes sense to have trollies / bus lines. It also has a well-defined city center, so a hub and spoke transit system mostly works there.

In contrast, public transit doesn't even really make sense in South Bay. It was (mostly) laid out when public transit was common, but now there are multiple mini-downtown areas without train service, and many of the tracks have been ripped out.

I hardly see any bikes in downtown SF, I can't imagine anyone is riding them elsewhere.

You should see the rest of the country, there’s even fewer bikes in most places.

But downtown doesn’t need bikes. There’s amble public transit and everything is close by. Most people I know who bike use it for longer distances, eg the base of Bernal Heights to downtown via mission+market. Or going from Caltrain to sunset.

We already razed the cities once to build the roads.

If it's that easy to end personal automobiles and increase funding for public transit by 10000%, why don't you just wave your magic wand and do it?

Getting a job at Tesla to accelerate electrification of cars is a lot more within someone's personal control than somehow enacting the political will to change legislation and funding away from personal vehicles and towards public transit.

But I guess just making HN comments about it is a more feel-good easy solution.

Presumably because it's not possible to wave a magic wand and do it. I know I would if I could. It would be great to be wealthier as a country (US-centric here), have far fewer c02 emissions for mostly no good reason, have fewer people dead or harmed because of car accidents, and have healthier people because they get out move around more.

I'd also suggest examining your perspective. Highways and roads are also public transit. It's a non-sequitur to suggest that highways aren't public transit yet something like bikes or bike lanes are.

Unfortunately we've been convinced by big government that we need highways, highway builders, giant departments of transportation, car insurance, tires, gasoline and gas stations, the actual cars themselves, oil changes, AAA, and all of these other industries at the scale that we have them now. It's just a giant jobs program.

If we built medium-density, mixed use neighborhoods you wouldn't need a gasoline or electric car to walk a few blocks to a local grocery store. It's manufactured spending. That's why there are so many advertisements and BIG GOVERNMENT programs.

If we cared about being efficient or cost-effective we'd just build things differently. But we don't care about that. While electric cars are "better" for c02 emissions than gasoline powered cars (and more fun to drive IMO), it's like doubling down on a solution for a problem that we can just not have by not driving so much and having cars.

It's really frustrating when I read comments where people act incredulous at the idea of not spending billions and billions of dollars every year on cars and associated government programs when you could just walk down the street instead. Can you still have a car to drive to the countryside? Yea definitely. Do we literally need to design society around a gigantic SUV so you can drive to Costco and pretend you are saving money buying in bulk? No.

This is satire, right?

> Let's get real public transit back

You forgot the tiny detail that public transit sucks bad in most countries (and you won't fix it with government and unions) and it won't get you where you need to go unless you live in the very center of a city.

Cars aren't going anywhere. This is simply delusional. Cars existed long before there were any subsidies in the form of government road development. They're not going away even if you take any kind of funding away for car infrastructure and build lots of other infrastructure.

I suggest exploring outside cities and widening your horizons. You apparently don't know much about the world.

Also even if implemented, hyperloop isn't for transport inside cities. It's for intermediate distances that are only a little too short to travel by plane with but too far for rapid travel on train/car. Elon was never interested in implementing hyperloop anyway. So this is a red herring.

Cars gained popularity in America with the rise of road systems that allowed for suburban life.

Car companies has a huge history of damaging public transit infrastructure goals in cities to further their cars. In LA car companies literally bought rail car lines and turned them into buses.

Hyper loop is absolutely an interest of Elon but yes it is a red herring. He’s doing it to distract from other goals so more people want teslas. Eg the Las Vegas tunnels that use teslas instead of train cars.

https://inhabitat.com/what-happened-to-los-angeles-streetcar...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elon-musk-s-boring-c...

> Hyper loop is absolutely an interest of Elon but yes it is a red herring. He’s doing it to distract from other goals so more people want teslas. Eg the Las Vegas tunnels that use teslas instead of train cars.

I said he had no interest in implementing it, not that it wasn't an interest. He doesn't have the time and the level of interest in his other tasks is much higher.

In theory, public transit seems like it would have less impact on the environment, but in practice (in the US at least), public transit has all-in unsubsidized cost (and therefore environmental impact) per passenger mile often greater than private cars.

If cost is equal to environmental impact, are you arguing that Tesla helps the environment?

$60k+ luxury cars with $12k DLCs aren’t going to change the world. Tesla morphed long time ago from sustainable energy transformation to car manufacturer/AI hype company. Even Musk says their future is in AI/Teslabot/whatever he comes up with next.

It appears that the cost of Tesla's cheapest car is trending down. The original roadster was 100k in 2008. The cheapest model 3 is currently just under 50K [1].

[1] https://www.tesla.com/model3/design

Without Tesla we would have not much better than a Nissan Leaf or a Renault Zoe.

They contributed it it, and likely sped it up, sure. But government regulations were/are much bigger driver of it.

If you're going to take credit from Tesla here on this front and give it to the government, then it's only fair to also mention that government regulations were/are a big driver of fossil fuel subsidies and c02 emissions which is creating a problem.

Personally I don't find this to be super constructive. It's similar in some ways to taking credit away from the founder of a company and saying that a VC firm was a much bigger driver of the company's success.

I agree but in Norway, most of the government incentives for electric cars were in place 10 to 20 years before the car manufacturers started to sell good electric cars.

Hard to justify developing totally new types of cars for a country with just 5 million people living it.

True. Many countries had incentives before the industry reacted to the Tesla model s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_pl...

There's no evidence of that. I could just as easily make the claim that without Tesla we'd have had those cars sooner.

Solar, Powerwall, Megapack, Autobidder?

All of them are either shrinking/stagnant or VC level pitches.

Based on? From their quarterly reports, they seem to be headed in the opposite direction (up).

Tesla’s solar is down almost 4x compared to high of Solarcity.

Tesla is a noble bet that the performance/price curve of batteries is relatively predictable. Notice how lots of companies are able to make big expensive batteries?

People have worked for worse companies who's stock hasn't done nearly as well. See Facebook.

Rofl in terms of workplace Facebook has been the best by far for myself. Given the most trust and responsibility, everyone I met was helpful, honest, and blunt. People came from wildly different backgrounds.

Anytime I had a question about a random area I’d get to meet the lead engineer for 30 minutes to an hour and they give an in-depth breakdown of how their tech work. I was always encouraged to help others and it reflected well in performance review.

When I had my interview with Tesla, the engineer sounded incredibly burnt out and was honest about how horrible it was.

The Kool-aid is powerful; I don't blame you and the pay is probably great. It makes it all that much easier to ignore the external harm Facebook causes. I'm not playing moral judge; just that someone can list a bunch of reasons why it's awesome to work for Tesla and mention none of the downsides.

Except at the end of the day facebook is morally bankrupt and you supported that by working for them. At least Tesla's mission is noble and is having a positive effect on human civilization and the planet.

Facebook may be evil, but I've never heard anything but good things about the work culture

bUt ThE mIsSiOn BrO

(Make Elon/Bezos/Zuc/etc Richer)

This is very excellent "non-advice". OP would do well to take it. Document everything, keep hard copies, and don't quit.

-- edit --

Your employers EAP program should typically offer free legal consultations with a lawyer they recommend. EAP calls are typically keep private from your employer.

EAP Legal programs almost always have specific clauses preventing their use against the employer. Get your own lawyer. A prepaid legal plan can be a cost-effective way to start this.

I would not use an EAP program for an employment dispute. While it is supposed to be confidential there have been cases of confidential information getting back to the employer. Considering we're talking about Tesla and Elon Musk I think the last thing in the world I would want to do would be to go up against them with a lawyer that was paid and recommended by Tesla.

Oh sure, you'll likely lose the case - but you're going to give Elon Musk and Tesla a black eye in the process. It's a PR nightmare Tesla would be wise to avoid, but Elon Musk is capricious so who knows?

This is the money advice. I had an issue vaguely like this with an employer. The advice I received was, don’t tell them you have a lawyer unless the lawyer says to, don’t quit or let them make decisions for you, and if you are unsure draw things out.

While doing these things you should probably find a lawyer to help you out.

“One thing I don't think you should do is quit.”

Second. Under most circumstances, if you quit a job, you are not entitled to state Unemployment Insurance.

Not sure if this is what you’re referring to as ‘severance’ (what I usually think of as granted by the largesse of the employer).

Also start interviewing elsewhere. Life is too short to work at a place like that with your talents. There’s many other companies that would happily put your skills to use under better working conditions.

Agreed, don't quit.

It sounds like you have an actual employment agreement saying your position is remote. If that's the case, and your agreement has suddenly been "voided", then technically you were just laid off, and Tesla owes you severance (if that was part of your agreement).

The point of Elon Musk demanding that everyone work from the office is to try to make it the employee's decision to leave the company, rather than the company laying them off. Because if the employee leaves, the employee is not entitled to unemployment (or severance, if that is part of their employment agreement).

However, terminations by the employer are covered by state and federal labor laws, and generally Tesla would owe unemployment for all terminated employees, and severance if that is part of their employment agreement. (And mass terminations such as this one are additionally governed by the WARN Act.)

I wish I would have read this advice years ago...

You're probably better off posting over on reddit in /r/legaladvice they've got a pretty good pool of properly qualified people who will point you in the right direction. This is highly likely to come down to details about what is in your contract or any agreements you made with your employer as well as the jurisdiction. Talking to a lawyer is going to cost you much less than getting screwed by Tesla, so highly recommend going to one for some advice. Outside of legal avenues, I would suggest to you that saying to your boss "I'm willing to locate, but I need flexibility to push that date from August back to January" is most likely going to work if they really do want you back in the office. It's not going to work if (as has been widely suggested) the back to office order is just a pretense for getting people to quit without paying severence.

The other thing to do obviously is talk to them about how it's industry standard for companies to provide financial help for relocation- that should also give you a good idea how serious they are.

Not sure if I'd agree with /r/legaladvice being full of properly qualified people... IMO, it might be better to ask a lawyer.

I believe that to be true, but it's a fact that it's impossible to tell the real lawyers apart from the 12 year old armchair ones. It's probably safer to avoid that place.

FYI: Its a good idea to pool your cash with some colleges in the same situation to pay for the legal advice, i have done this before, if you have all have the same questions and scenario there is no need for you all to pay multiple times for the same advice.

I agree. I've been in some strange stock option situations and 3 of us hired a tax accountant to investigate everything and help us file the additional paperwork properly. It cost us about $500 but it was better advice than the questionable advice we were getting from our startup's finance person.

Good advice, also done this myself.

I think this is good advice, I'd also start finding and backing up any emails, call logs and other documents that discuss your contract/agreements for remote work as they're likely some of the first things a lawyer would ask to see

Be very careful with this. An engineer uploaded company files to his personal Dropbox his first week and they fired and sued him. They monitor aggressively.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-tesla-suing-an-ex...

I'd say downloading your contract and employment logs and downloading 26,000 files is a different thing.

Your contracts aren't company property.

If you have a signed NDA, it may cover disclosure of agreements such as employment contracts.

The key word there being “disclosure”, if you aren’t telling someone else, you aren’t violating an NDA.

So don't put them up on Facebook. We're talking about keeping a copy of your own contract.

NDAs don't exclude legal review by a lawyer.

You can always take a picture with your personal phone.

Thank you. I do have generous relocation expenses in my contract. It's just the timing that they are trying to change. They have been stern that there is no flexibility in relocating after August, but I will bring that up again.

Sounds like they are really trying to force you to quit to avoid severance.

Personally, I wouldn't want to work there anymore, but would force them to lay me off.

I definitely wouldn't post on legaladvice. Too popular of a sub; too many people playing lawyer; because this is Tesla and Musk, too many polarizing talking points.

Spend the money; get a real lawyer.

How do I contact a lawyer on short notice with relevant expertise? Should I look for lawyers where Tesla is based or where I am based remotely? Google isn't helping much.

If you can get a referral that's probably best, but if you can't, Google "employment lawyer" and look for someone with good reviews. You want someone in the state your employment agreement is governed by. It should say in the agreement. That failing I'd start with someone where they are based. When you call to setup an appointment they will ask if there are any deadlines and try to fit you in if they can.

I'll also note the state bar can refer you to one, but they probably charge a fee, and can be relatively slow.

Second the suggestion to try the State Bar. In some states lawyers will do a low cost (set fee) (short) initial consultation. Generally called Lawyer Referral Service and within a Public section of the state bar's website.

No fee to use the service in my state.

Finding lawyers is surprisingly hard. I had to find one for a land dispute in California and this was my starting point: https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-findlawyer.htm?rdeLocaleA...

Ymmv, but it’s got some good general recommendations (eg contact the bar assoc) along with California specific ones. Good luck!

Your local bar association almost certainly has a referral service. First consultation is under $100 around here.

Whatever decision you make, don't quit voluntarily - this is a way to get them out of paying unemployment or other benefits; Tesla is trying to do layoffs without satisfying the legal obligations of layoffs by tricking people into voluntarily quitting.

As others have also suggested, talking to an employment lawyer who can do a close reading of your contract would be Useful in this case too.

I'm curious how the email about "not showing up to the office would be interpreted as a resignation" plays into the layoff scenario. Is there any grounds that could realistically be considered a notice of resignation or is it just a blow-hard email?

Presumably, the original-poster here should keep working responsibly.

He won't show up to the office in August, but promises to do so by January. Until then, he keeps programming as he always has. If they want to fire him, that's fine, let them fire him so that he gets the full severance package (unemployment benefits, etc. etc.)

My contract specify how a resignation is to be done before it is binding (in writing). It that not normal in the states?

most employment in the US is "at will" and has no real contractual obligations. you can quit at any time (and be fired at any time), for any reason. severance is essentially a benefit, completely optional, although it is required by law in some mass layoff situations regardless of at-will employment.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm writing about an employer telling employees that an specific action (not showing up) will count as a resignation. It seems so weird to me that this isn't in the contract.

Doesn't seem weird to me.

If you were my employee and I said you had a shift at say 8am and you never showed up then I'd just fire you _with cause_. There's no need for it to count as a resignation.

The point is that being terminated, as opposed to resigning, has implications for unemployment and other benefits. It therefore matters if an employer is free to simply interpret an arbitrary action or non-action as resignation.

A better interpretation of unemployment insurance is you are no longer able to work through no fault of your own. That varies a little between states, but most places you are able to quit for cause and collect UI. A few examples is if your pay significantly drops, or your job duties change significantly, or your place of employment moves to an unreasonable commute. The flip is also true, you may be ineligible for UI if you're fired for cause. Quitting vs resigning isn't a direct correlation to collecting UI, though they often rhyme for general cases.

I don't think UI really cares about resigned vs quit.

Looking at Texas's site [1], they explicitly say if your employer asks for a resignation it counts as being fired. There are also a bunch of ways for quitting to be eligible (i.e. "Significant changes in hiring agreement").

[1]: https://www.twc.texas.gov/jobseekers/eligibility-benefit-amo...

UI cares whether you resign voluntarily, vs your employer demands that you no longer work there. Tesla is trying to get employees to say "I quit", meaning they forfeit their rights. OP needs to get Tesla to say "You are no longer employed".

I don't remember ever seeing a policy specifically requiring a writing resignation. But I just assumed it was better for all involved to have an official email after an in-person discussion just to formalize it

No it's not. You can be fired for not going to work or doing your job. Your company can change your job roles and responsibilities

Yes ofc you can be fired. That not the question. It is if your employer can tell you what they will take as an resignation. For me only a written notice will count. Any employer can tell me that they fire me if I don't show up, they would still have to write me an official firing when I don't show. Being fired is not resigning tho. Non of this has anything nothing to do with at-will or not.

I think in this case I it is a difference without a distinction. " take as an resignation" means the company initiates your resignation paperwork.

The employee will often need to sign a statement of resignation (Termination by mutual agreement), but the employer can absolutely initiate and send them the paperwork.

If you refuse, the resignation paperwork goes away and is replaced with firing paperwork, which you are not required to sign.

Here is some additional info: https://swartz-legal.com/what-are-the-different-types-of-sep...

deleted

In most places, moving your place of employment such that it requires relocation would be considered constructive dismissal and therefore effectively termination.

You are eligible for unemployment in California if your employer significantly changes the terms of work, that includes changing locations to an unreasonable commute.

Isn't the point of their tactic that they are going to consider it you quitting if you don't show up to work in person? So it will be voluntarily quitting whether you voluntarily quit or not. Still, probably better to force them to pay you as long as it takes them to figure things out.

They can "consider" it whatever they want, but it doesn't matter. We have established labor law about what is considered voluntarily resignation vs constructive dismissal / being fired / being laid off.

> Whatever decision you make, don't quit voluntarily - this is a way to get them out of paying unemployment or other benefits; Tesla is trying to do layoffs without satisfying the legal obligations of layoffs by tricking people into voluntarily quitting.

This, at worst you can claim UI while you look for a new role if they terminate your contract and lay you off; I think Elon just revealed his hand to anyone who thinks he is some sort of benevolent environmentalist playing the VC game--he is a tech oligarch and just like all of them will use whatever talking point to serve and ensure he achieves his end. I'm sure there are reasons that are not clear to those of us outside of Tesla Execs for why they are enforcing this, my guess is real estate losses are starting to take a toll as the stock price keeps dropping, but from what I'm hearing is that they are still busing people in from Woodland Park to Fremont because of the lack of parking spots in Fremont which has been a problem since Model 3 deployment, what exactly are they trying to achieve here?

Not just that, but just the unnecessary use of fossil fuels to ensure people commute into the E. Bay is so absurd especially for a company who's very mission statement is to transition out of it. And if they really felt this was a mission critical thing then offer significant employee discounts on used/old Tesla inventory and offer free super charger access to offset the energy impacts that this will incur.

I've always said and commended that Elon is more PT Barnum than he is Edison or Telsa, and it's clear that this move is a strategic one just like when they laid of ~14% of the entire work force during the disastrous Model 3 launch. This is also why I think that unionizing Tesla was a mistake during Model 3 but I have come to the realization that after the horrid safety record and intimidation tactics that have been in practice ever since for those who have been trying to unionize that it likely will have to happen.

It's crazy because in Giga-Shanghai, during the lockdowns no less, he was able to get people to show up and work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week [0].

I fear his megalomania has really gotten the best of him and he thinks that he can do this in California, too. Texas will probably let him and I fully anticipate that Giga Austin will probably be the new HQ where they will replicate the assembly lines of S/X/3/Y they built in Fremont which will likely be eventually phased out of vehicle production as a result of favourable legislation in TX because he can define what 'just cause' terminations are since it's an at-will State and Abbot is a total political-whore: see NRA stance.

I was onboard with Tesla's mission during COVID and supported Fremont remaining open during all that drama, but something went really wrong when Giga Shanghai started to set the new benchmark and US standards on labour were now somehow supposed to reflect what is essentially slave labour based working conditions.

0: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-giga-shanghai-housing-second...

I would suggest that you can probably play the game a bit. Tell them you intend to move (you do). Delay coming into the office unless there is an ultimatum. Once that happens, book a hotel and show up on site for a week. Talk with your manager in person. Tell them about your difficulty arranging the move. Go back home. Delay, stall, use your pto, make them let you go.

The idea here is that this policy is likely going to become flexible quite rapidly. There are going to be lots of non-manufacturing employees, way more than the 10% they want gone that will not be able to deal with an emergency move on short notice. Exceptions will start to trickle through. Eyes will be averted. Quite arrangements will be made. You just have to hang on in the meantime.

Oh yeah, and talk with a lawyer, but the simple fact is that employee protections are quite weak in the US.

I agree with this approach. I once had a CEO try to get me to quit by changing my responsibilities in a way that appeared to be a demotion. Instead of getting angry, I said "sounds great". I didn't quit until I found a job that I like a lot better.

You should speak to your Trade Union representative.

Not in a TU? Now you know why people join!

A Trade Union is run by - and for - its members. Even if you're not in a traditional "blue collar" role, it's worth being a member. Your employer has many more lawyers than you do - by teaming up with other people in your industry, you can get access to top quality employment law advice.

Yup. If only there was some way that employees, recognizing that a company cannot easily fire all of them, could work together to demand a seat at the table when companies make big decisions like this. This would allow engineers to win durable benefits when the market is hot and prevent employers from suddenly going back on their word when the market is cooler. Imagine if in order to make a sudden and huge change to working conditions Musk and the board needed to consult with and negotiate with representatives working explicitly for the benefit of the employees.

If only this existed in the US. (I've been a member of a few of the big national unions; they've always actively worked against employee interests, from what I've seen).

I wonder why it is so hard to establish the "Tesla Fremont Factory Workers Union" and "Tesla White Collar Union" as completely independent (from UAW and CWA) entities. That would allow the sorts of negotiations you are talking about.

It is indeed the case that unions often fail their members. Democratic control does not guarantee success. But virtually zero employers actually care about employee interests.

I do not personally know why it appears to be so difficult to create small unions in the US.

Yet another organisation built to shaft everyone that doesn’t belong to it.

For all the data driven ethos that execs tout, this is one area where decisions seem to be made at the whim rather than derived from data. I've seen many places where the business performance equals pre-pandemic years, with no discernable change to engineering velocity and hiring applications only increasing (albeit with a hit on conversion, go figure) and yet the execs stubbornly insist on return to office because "we believe it is better for all of us", "we need to bond and build community", "we need to see each other's faces" or some shit like that.

Tesla's case is different. It's been widely speculated and with good reason that "getting rid of 10% of the workforce" and "everyone back to the office or they will be considered having abandoned their jobs and fired" are strongly connected.

Would kind of suck for the guy to relocate, then get laid off later.

I think “everyone back in the office” was to control the narrative ahead of the “layoffs at Tesla” announcements that is pretty fucking damning when demand for electric cars is so high.

It worked beautifully.

> For all the data driven ethos that execs tout, this is one area where decisions seem to be made at the whim rather than derived from data.

Having worked at places that take the data-driven ethos to an extreme, there are very straightforward pitfalls to ignoring other kinds of reasoning. Those other kinds of reasoning have pitfalls too, obviously (hence the popularity of data-driven decision-making). But this is exactly the type of thing where I wouldn't expect data to be especially helpful. People keep trumpeting studies claiming to measure productivity increases from WFH, and I do believe there's some signal there, as I've been a big proponent of hybrid workplaces my entire career.

But the idea that productivity can be measured in a meaningful, complete way, and that that applies broadly to every company, particularly creative knowledge work, is facially ludicrous and not (yet) supported by the data. A decade from now, researchers run careful comparative analyses on companies that went full-remote, along with trying to build narrower measures of productivity, and hunting the data for natural experiments. The idea that we already have data-driven certainty around this is laughable.

As an example of how this works: I work at an applied research firm, and as much as I enjoy some of the QoL changes from full-remote, there is no question that my and my colleagues' ability to collaborate creatively has significantly suffered. How do you meaningfully measure the change in our "productivity"? I'm sure we're all shipping more code, but since when is more LoC better? How do you immediately measure the cost of a system with less innovative experiments, and how do you incorporate stochastic and time-lag factors?

These factors are very opaque to industry-wide data-centric analysis, so we can't be dismissive of other forms of reasoning, particularly those that understand each data point more intimately (if less rigorously).

Does your contract or the email specifically contain a flexibility or mobility clause that might allow them to unilaterally change the location of your work? I'm guessing it does as if it did not there would be more brouhaha in the press about it, It might not be a bad idea to have a real lawyer take a look at your contract and other correspondence.

Musk does not strike me as the kind of person to offer severance and Tesla is looking to reduce it's workforce by 10%. Unfortunately, I think this is likely a shitty way to consider you to have abandoned your job rather than having to fire you outright.

I would not recommend moving for a job for a company that 1) is directly breaking an agreement they made when you were hired and 2) has announced a future 10% layoff for salaried employees.

What if you move and are still laid off?

Unless it’s a place you want to move to anyway that seems like a risky move.

Either way I would take this moment to consider your options. Maybe the job is great and they will let you stay remote. Maybe the move is one you want to make anyway. But don’t bet on the new, hastily changed situation being now stable and reliable.

I had a forced move for work a few years back - they imposed a deadline of a few months but after talking to the other managers and HR, I was able to push it back ~3 months. Basically I said I'm willing to move but I need more time to get it done (put house on market, etc.)

I think if this requirement is in good faith (well, as good as it can be given they are changing their minds on remote employment) and all you need is a few months before you can move, they could add some flexibility to this entirely self-imposed deadline.

On the other hand, I'd also start looking for another job.

This is a real problem with the American corporate model: employees don't get board representation. If you were working with VW in Germany, this would never fly, as the worker's union get seats on the VW board. In fact, this is why Germany is pushing back on Tesla's move:

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-tesla-musks-office...

> ""Whoever does not agree with such one-sided demands and wants to stand against them has the power of unions behind them in Germany, as per law," Birgit Dietze, the district leader for IG Metall in Berlin-Brandenburg-Sachsen, said. Employees at Tesla's plant in Gruenheide, Germany, elected 19 people to its first workers' council in February, setting the plant apart from others run by the carmaker in the United States and elsewhere without union representation, which Musk has fiercely resisted."

As far as practical matters, if they're going to do layoffs anyway then push for severance by not quitting and negotiating politely i.e. will they pay for a hotel room, make accomodations, etc. Legally, if they're not acting in good faith that's a strike against them, but labor protections are pretty weak in the USA.

Note that continental mode of corporate governance uses two boards, executive board and supervisory board, and employees have guaranteed seats just on supervisory board, which generally have less power than US-style single board.

I wish we had the same system in France too...

Probably a very hot take, and not directly at OP - but now that we're at the divide of WFH - I'd imagine that tech workers being unionized would help on the leverage.

Unionize software would be a complete disaster. Not because unions are always bad, but because good contracts would be impossible to write and impossible to maintain.

In a trucker's union both sides can somewhat agree on standards like miles driven, cargo weight. With software a login screen could take anywhere between 30 minutes to 10,000 hours to build depending on integrations, scale, testing, language support, competency of the team, clean requirements from management.

You will quickly run into disagreements on who is at fault for a project running over schedule and have to litigate over the contract.

>because good contracts would be impossible to write and impossible to maintain

Airline pilots have notoriously complicated union contracts, but it seems to work for them.

Edit: An example...~500 pages: https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.as...

Police unions might be a good counter example for your idea that it might get too complicated. There's no contract clauses there related to the quality of their work, crime rates, etc.

Police Unions are a good example of contracts being a disaster for the customer "tax payer".

Yeah, I wasn't saying they were good for society. But they do seem to be good for individual police officers.

Yes, the downside for the average person is that they cannot get any of those jobs because the union only hires via corruption or nepotism

Their “customers” deal with monopoly, that you’ll be imprisoned for life or killed if you’d like to challenge it.

There’s 0 value in comparing police to tech workers.

>There’s 0 value in comparing police to tech workers.

It's a little more nuanced than that. The point was that a union doesn't necessarily need to please the company/agency, so contractual language around project completion, etc, may not be needed. Company pleasing language/rules/etc in a union contract would only be there because the union didn't have leverage for it not to be.

Dunno, I've worked twice as a unionized worker - and both times the unions were very hidden and non-intrusive. The only times they became visible, were when:

1) Discussions around raise.

2) Discussions around working hours and workplace conditions.

3) Stuff like insurance.

So, all in all a very positive experience. And I worked in a white-collar profession both times.

(Should be mentioned that I lived in Scandinavia, where unions are the standard - and very integrated)

This sucks and perhaps if you talk to your manager they’d be willing to accomodate to your specific case. If no other option remains open, rather than quitting by Friday you could play along and quit when the move deadline comes close in August. This will give you more time to look for something else. Good luck to you and others in this situation.

During the pandemic I worked from home for about a year but had to return to office eventually (and got covid-19 twice, luckily it wasn’t too serious). However, some folks were accomodated to work remotely permanently depending on their situation though a few were forced to quit.

>This sucks and perhaps if you talk to your manager they’d be willing to accomodate to your specific case.

I can assure you that no manager is going to contradict Elon Musk's demands on behalf of a an employee. That's a shortcut to a pink slip.

Before you do anything, talk to a lawyer.

Do not quit and unless they make it worth your while ($$) look for another job. Do you really want to stay with an employer that treats its employees with disdain if you don’t have to. If they offer severance and it’s enough to cover your needs and you’re confident you can find something comparable, I would then consider it.

A cynical take, Tesla has a great financial position - albeit with an extreme P/E ratio. A few years of growth should absolve any need to reduce headcount, reducing headcount while under high growth may be counter productive.

My bet is that Elon decided that people need to go to the office, and simultaneously decided that the only way to make this happen was to announce headcount reductions and instill fear into managers, and employees alike. Most companies have been in a prisoners dilemma where they want to bring people back to the office, but can't due to the risk that a large number of staff leave voluntarily. TSLA is effectively saying that they will take a headcount reduction in order to go back to the office.

If I were in this boat, and I needed to work remote - then I'd look around for another option. Organizations that manage via fear tend to turn toxic in a hurry.

Absolutely talk to a lawyer instead of the internet!

I'm the internet and nal, but probably you mean "talk to a good lawyer well versed in the field of labor law in the context of large corporations and tech employees".

Not everyone has ready access to such a lawyer. In that situation posting here seems quite reasonable as an alternative vs consulting a random lawyer.

It's really cool when your CEO effectively lays you off via drunken Twitter rant. I'd be running for the exits if I were at that company.

At what point do we expect people to know they’re in for some nonsense if they work for a musk company?

Perhaps the instant he accused someone of being a pedophile without any basis. I don't know how anyone could stand enriching him through their efforts after that.

Yup

constructive dismissal is the name for the thing that is being done to you.

sorry you have to lawyer up but you have to lawyer up.

100% lawyer up. In a constructive dismissal, time is of the essence here. If you wait too long, Tesla can make a claim that the fact you stayed on for a period of time after, their RTO is not a case of constructive dismissal.

Agreements over email are still agreements. Make sure you have a screenshot of that email; take it with your phone rather than using the screenshot utility of your computer in case they're watching you.

Aside from that, I agree with everyone else, talk to a lawyer today. Based on what I am reading I think this looks like a potential constructive dismissal situation.

The fact that you're willing to relocate by Jan also shows you're willing to play ball with them. If that is in fact how you feel, it's possible that your lawyer will encourage you to tell them so, as if they refuse they start to look unreasonable (and hence, just disguising the dismissal).

Still, talk to a lawyer today.

So it sounds like Tesla is ok for you to stay remote until August 2022, and you are happy to be local from January 2023. So really you only have a four month gap.

One option is to call their bluff. But you should only do this when you have a fallback, so you should be able to push for a few week extension to make a decision. Since they'd expect you to move by August, there is surely some wiggle room for making a decision. And then start interviewing elsewhere, and tell them "I'm not moving" when you get an offer, and see how they proceed. They might say "ok", in which case you can review the benefit of staying vs. taking the offer. They might fire you, in which case you can take the offer and push for a payout from Tesla.

You could also propose a solution where you travel regularly (say 1-2 times a month) to a Tesla office between September and December, in advance of a January move. It's important that you are clear that this is approach must be funded by Tesla - flights, hotels, per diem. They might not accept it, but at least it potentially kicks off a negotiation conversation.

Regarding severance - it really depends on your employment agreement (which might specifically call out severance) + jurisdiction of employment. You may live in an at-will jurisdiction but have a contract that guarantees you a notice period / severance. Your contract also may say you are an at-will employee with no severance, but live in a jurisdiction where employees are protected (in which case the contract clauses may be void). All of this is highly dependent on your individual situation and for that you should seek legal advice.

I am not a lawyer - you need to speak to one - a really good one, specializing in employment law in your state and probably also in California/Texas or whatever state your management/'official site is located. Things get complicated in a hurry and you'll want to preserve your options.

In general, as others have advised, do not quit voluntarily as that basically gives away the store — Tesla will have no obligation whatsoever for severance, unemployment comp, etc. It appears that this is also why Elon tweeted something like "if you don't show up we will assume you quit" - that's a classic employer's line to evade any responsibility for terminating your employment, and put you at best in a situation of arguing about 'constructive termination' before even arguing about for cause, etc.

I also second the advice to keep doing your job to the fullest, attempt to work around any obstacles such as system access removed, etc., and *document everything* (on non-company property and paper).

Do not try to cheap out on this, do some research, get some good recommendations for a real expert focused on that area of law. It'll be worth every penny.

Given https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/24/tesla-loses-bid-to-sh... (yes, factory worker, yes, sexual harassment... however...)

> Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stephen Kaus ruled Monday that the female worker who filed the complaint can proceed with her case — even though she signed an arbitration agreement giving up her right to sue.

I would assume that engineers have similar arbitration agreements. Talking to a lawyer would be the first thing to do, but be prepared that until it moves out of arbitration they may be rather powerless to do anything.

The OP seems to have received great advice here. So I'd like to ask a related question: has anyone here been laid off and received unemployment benefits?

I was laid off pretty early in my career due to "restructuring." I was unable to receive any UE benefits because the state unemployment office forced me to apply to jobs that were paying substantially less than the one I lost (hourly, minimum wage +20% or so), and since I was a qualified candidate, I'd get offers that I'd turn down. The unemployment office never actually gave me anything because I kept turning down offers. After like two weeks, I found another job, so the situation became moot.

This experience has colored my opinion of unemployment for tech workers such that I think it doesn't really exist for us. So I'm curious if my experience was normal or not. It seems better to leave on one's own terms rather than trying to collect a meager severance and non-existent unemployment.

Get your contract. Read it over. Find out exactly what it spells out with regards to your obligations and theirs in this regard.

If your contract allows them to obligate you to work in a physical office, you could be fired with cause. It could allow them to deny you severance. And it's a whole bag of worms concerning unemployment, etc (depending on where you live).

So, yeah. Read your contract. Read that email. Do your best to interpret it as literally as possible. Try to determine what it plainly says. Then interpret it in the worst way possible for you. Then interpret it in the worst way possible for them.

Then go to a lawyer, explain your situation as simply as possible. You were hired for remote work, they are mandating you go back into the office, you cannot until at least January 2023. Give them a copy of your contract and that email. Let them read it. Then ask what are your options.

If you acceptance of the contract was based on the agreement reached in the email, let the lawyer know that as well.

A question that was posed in the reddit version of this post...

Are there any arbitration agreements that were signed as a condition for employment? If so, what do they say about where any issues are resolved and who resolves them?

For context, while this is for factory workers I would be surprised if there isn't similar paperwork for engineers. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/24/tesla-loses-bid-to-sh...

Brining this up will likely need to clear the first hurdle of "move this from arbitration to courts" and then win in the courts too.

Why not turn the choice back around on them? Tell them you're staying full remote. Let them lay you off or give in.

Do not quit, but discuss your situation with your manager. Things might not be so bad as Elon makes them appear. As you say, you are willing to move, just 4 months later. I can hardly imagine that your manager wouldn't be willing to find some solution for this. Unless he already wanted to get rid of you anyway of course.

I think this is the correct answer. If you are willing to move say you will but need a temporary accommodation for your specific reasons

> Do you think I would get severance if I tell them I refuse to relocate?

that's entirely dependent upon the people enforcing this. They're absolutely not required to give _anyone_ severance _ever_. As this is a complete [redacted] move I would proceed with the assumption that they're going to screw you over as thoroughly as possible regardless of how you respond.

However, it is very important that you _do not quit_, and carefully word anything you respond with to not make it sound like "i'm leaving if i can't stay remote" because if they're going to get rid of your job you want them to fire you because then you can get unemployment insurance while you look for a new job. It won't be bad on your resume because you can honestly just say you were laid off when they forced everyone to move and no future employer will care.

Just find another job from a remote friendly company. It is not like it is hard to find these days. You don't need to quit until you have found it, just work as you always did and state that you can't move until next january.

You have virtually no risk anyway, the market is on your side.

One thing that you can definitively do that doesn't require legal advice is: update your LinkedIn. Maybe apply to posts with some Tesla competitors. Maybe do some interviews. Just to see. Maybe they are more flexible with the remote thing.

>>Would I get severance?

Severance is almost always an agreement between the employer and employee. It is not mandated at the federal level[1].

But certain states may mandate minimal severance under certain conditions.[2]

[1] https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/severancepay

[2] https://www.hrdive.com/news/new-jersey-becomes-1st-state-to-...

Be very clear in written form that you do not want to resign from your position and would prefer to relocate in January 2023 as that is the best time for you and your family. If they reply back that this is not possible then ask HR about severance as part of your termination and layoff process. Use all these terms in written form to make sure it is documented and very clear where you stand.

Speaking as someone who worked for Tesla before they will absolutely ghost you if you give them an inch to do so. Make sure you have your contacts and e-mails properly documented and stay in constant communication.

Talk to a lawyer in your area, and don't quit. Make them fire you.

Whether you will get severance really depends on the company and (more importantly) where you live. None of us can answer the question for you.

I know that, where I live, I wouldn't have any recourse or rights to severance if I were fired by Tesla for not relocating. State laws here basically say that the company can fire me at any time for any reason as long as they don't make it absolutely obvious they're doing it because of a protected status (e.g. race or age). But that's where I live. Not where you live.

Of course, I'm not in your situation, so I'm not sure how exactly I would react. But what I think I would do is:

* Let HR/management know that you are unable to move until January 2023 due to personal constraints and the fact that you were promised a remote role when hired.

* Simply ask them for an exception to keep your employment but allow you to move back to the office in January 2023 and not by August 2022.

* If they disallow the exception, ask them if you will be receiving severance pay.

* In any of the scenarios, start looking for a new job that doesn't treat you like this.

Elon did say that there would be provisions for exceptional employees. Tell management you're onboard to be fully in office by X date (January 2023) and ask if you can make up for this with a few scheduled in office time periods between now and then, meaning you spend a week in the office and stay at a hotel. If you're a employee that's delivering value and kicking ass they should accommodate you and if they don't there are better jobs out there.

You’re typically an at-will employee. Meaning anyone can leave the agreement at any time for almost any reason. In this case, they made a business decision to have work in-office, they probably don’t have to give severance (though shitty if they don’t).

That said, don’t quit. Explain (in writing), but what was agreed during hiring. Further explain when / how soon you can move and express willingness to comply, but short term obligations can’t be adjusted so rapidly.

Serious question: Why would you want to work at a company that treats their employees like this? Is the prestige of working at Tesla really worth it?

> Many suspect the unexpected call for in-person work was a way to get people to quit and avoid paying severance for layoffs.

I think they are 100% correct. IBM did the same rug pull on remote workers years ago (despite pioneering it) and AFAIK it was just a way to reduce headcount. I would just move on and find a company that sees that remote work is the future and here to stay.

Severance in which outcome? If you refuse to relocate, and get fired? Or if you refuse to relocate, and continue working until August?

You are missing all sorts of important information in this post. For example what country and or state do you live in? Really though you should go find a local employment lawyer and talk to them, as even if your contract says that you must do X that doesn't mean you actually have to do said thing depending upon your area's laws.

Look at your contract and search for keywords like "remote", "(re)location", "mobility", and "flexibility" to see what it says about relocation.

Do you have a good relationship with your supervisor? Maybe this is something you can ask them.

But your safest bet is getting a lawyer to read over the contract, as others have suggested.

In addition to the comments people have left, if ANY of the the reasons are medical or risks to your family from the pandemic, make sure to immediately make your manager aware of those in email as part of the why.

(There is very high legal risk to a company for firing someone with medical issues.)

Ignore what Elon says. His reasons for putting things out there for people to read are almost never what they appear to be. He's a master of manipulating the media (and therefore the stock market), and his intent is (probably) not what you think it is.

Talk to your line manager.

Look, do the right intelligent thing; instead of taking someone's advice on internet get a decent lawyer as they will be able to tell you whether you have case as sometimes communication not in the contract actually becomes part of the contract.

Explain that your SO is in school/??? etc and you will not be free to move until DDD date

Make up a sign, "tesla Inc remote stack office" for your residence.....make it visible online only, web site etc....

> Explain that your SO is in school/???

Elon's history has shown that he thinks work is more important than relationships

Elon seems to make a lot of irrational errors lately?

Just for my own clarification as there's been a lot of misreporting on this subject, but has your own manager told you that you need to come into the office or did you only see Elon's email?

Why is this a question that Hacker News and not HR or your manager?

He's trying to collect objective information on what his options might be. Probably from more resources than just Hacker News.

I think it would be a terrible idea to telegraph his issue of not being able to comply with their timeline right now, with no information other than what Tesla shared.

My point is all of this information is useless because they haven't determined the basic facts of their situation. Garbage in = Garbage out.

Severance is a company specific policy unless you are talking about unemployment. Only Tesla has answer this question and a lawyer will ask you the same questions

As an aside, it feels remarkable how Tesla can be revolutionary and scummy at the same time by trying to make their employees resign instead of laying off. How?

Whatever the problem is that is preventing you from moving, tell you boss about it and have him fund the move/get you out of your lease/etc..

Ask an employment lawyer & don't sign anything until you do.

I don't think your employer can just unilaterally declare a contract is all of a sudden void.

I don't have advice, but sorry you have to deal with this frustrating circumstance. Hope you're able to get a new job quickly.

Look at the contract. No doubt is says employment-at-will. 99.9% chance they are not legally bound to pay you a severance.

Speak with them and let them know you can move in January. If they value you they will be willing to make an exception.

People I’ve seen get laid off are only getting 1 weeks pay. And no extra stocks vested.

Have you talked to your manager?

Yeah surely contact an employment lawyer for sure. This is tricky. Good luck!

Be careful, Tesla and Elon Musk aren’t known for handling employee disagreements well. There are multiple reports of rage firings, intimidation, wire tapping employee phones, and even SWATing a whistleblower.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-ruthlessly-f...

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/tesla-bla...

Personally, I would get a lawyer for this. This is horrifically scummy.

Check you contract and maybe get a lawyer involved.

Agreements usually can’t be voided just like that, no matter how smart elon musk thinks he is.

Does Tesla pay for relocation?

Any chance you can share the text in the email that says you can work remote? It might not matter but depending on that wording you may or may not have something to work with.

This is not the solution you prob want but if you are interested in a remote okay, top 15 levels.fyi comp role hit me up and let’s see if we can get you in where I’m at. Email in profile

Off topic but does this mean the pandemic is over? I’ve had a concern in the back of my mind that next winter we could end up back into lock downs. I really don’t want to be right, I would rather my employer force me back in than have this go on any longer.

However, luckily my employer seems to be committed to allowing us to work flexibly remote.

This really means that Tesla wants to reduce their workforce by 10% ;)

OTOH, the pandemic is probably over as a big public health problem, which doesn't mean we won't have local, short-lived lockdowns in the USA.

>Off topic but does this mean the pandemic is over?

Barring a variant that substantially evades vaccine immunity protection from severe outcomes, pretty much yes.

Even the federal government is making its workers come in despite being a close covid contact (like yours kids are actively sick) unless you test positive (which they won't pay for).

Don't quit. Make them fire you. It's a lot harder to collect unemployment benefits if the state thinks you left voluntarily.

certainly don't quit - but also create and curate a helpful paper trail - to reduce the likelihood of credibly being accused of job abandonment.

you usually get 1 month severance if you agree to voluntary separation. Otherwise, if you are fired you can get unemployment. Some companies note that you were fired in their employment records.

edit: why is this downvoted. I was given this choice in two places, lol.

Don't post on Hacker News. Ask your manager and HR.

It's not a pleasant development for the original poster, but as a side note, I, for one, would take any opportunity to work for Tesla if I could, and being separated from SO for a few months would not be a reason not to accept the offer or quit.

You should apply because many will leave.

To me it is foolish to work for a toxic employer who would do this. I wouldn't buy one of his cars either. If this is what they do to employees I would hate to see what they do to customers if something goes wrong.

This seems crazy? Why would you want to work for Musk and leave SO for months? For what? You want a chance to be laid off via twitter?

My SO would not easily be able to deal with me being gone for four months. She only somewhat manages to deal when I'm away for a few days for conventions, and often needs to have family over to visit while I'm gone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com