
Tesla laid off my disabled veteran husband then cancelled his sign on bonus - inarrears
https://twitter.com/_kariedaway_/status/1086913043932446721
======
ordinaryperson
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.

~~~
geofft
> _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
> 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
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.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> 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.

But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law
without needing anything separate?

And sometimes you don't want that, e.g. you may have to stay in a hotel for an
indeterminate period of time because your house was damaged by a storm, but
still want be able to check out whenever you want instead of having to give
two months notice.

> 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.

Rents being sky-high actually _is_ a sign that landlords are unwilling to
participate in the market, but it's more likely caused by restrictive zoning
(causing _new construction_ to be unwilling/unable to participate in the
market) than some kind of lease requirements that may or may not exist there.

~~~
wyattpeak
> But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law
> without needing anything separate?

Contract law only really works for two people in similar bargaining positions.
Good luck to you if you have poor credit history or are barely making ends
meet and have to rent from whoever will take you.

If that's the only protection, then it's precisely the people who can't afford
to be kicked out suddenly who won't have protection against it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Contract law works for everybody. People in a better bargaining position get a
better deal, but the contract didn't create their bargaining position.

There are two lease contracts the landlord can offer you. One has a lower rent
but allows them to evict you at any time without notice, the other has a
higher rent and gives you two months notice. You can pass a law against the
first one, but then you're left with the second one. And then the person
barely making ends meat has to pay more in rent.

~~~
geofft
I would like law to fix their bargaining positions, because I think that's a
place that law is capable of working effectively and that it would be good for
society for it to do so. I am not personally a believer that the law should
treat the status quo as something sacred / "fair" and avoid interfering unless
necessary.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I would like law to fix their bargaining positions, because I think that's a
> place that law is capable of working effectively and that it would be good
> for society for it to do so.

There are ways to do that, but some of them are better than others. For
example, institute a UBI and the person barely making ends meat will be doing
better and be able to afford the lease with the notice.

In general, the policies that work are the ones that don't try to micromanage
anything or prohibit anything. If people are choosing something, assume it's
not because they're idiots. Give them more choices, not fewer.

For example, a great way to help the poor is to have tuition-free community
colleges, or encourage anything that lowers housing prices. But we don't
really have that. Instead we subsidize student loan interest and mortgage
interest, because that's more profitable to the banks who lobbied for it and
the for-profit colleges and existing landowners it allows to inflate prices
into the sky.

The problem with programs to help the poor is that the ones that actually do
are expensive and don't pass, while the ones that pass will claim to but
really do something else that most of the time makes things worse, completely
by design from the perspective of the people who proposed it because they
profit from it.

Better to have a UBI than subsidized loan interest, but better to have
_nothing_ than subsidized loan interest. Many "solutions" produce negative
progress.

~~~
petre
Instituting an UBI will only make rents more expensive and above the UBI
level. It happened with government guaranteed housing credit in certain EU
countries. The credit upper threshold was max 60k euros, so good luck finding
cheaper options because everything starts at 60k now, even old apartments. If
the gov't screws too much with the economy, it will screw people back.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
That's because it's a housing credit instead of a UBI. If you give people
money they can only use for housing, they use it for housing and the price of
housing increases relative to the price of everything else (including wages).

If you give them money they can use for anything, it doesn't increase the real
cost of anything in particular, it only reduces the relative disparity between
the rich and the poor.

------
timavr
Somehow the jobs which you want to do the most in tech screw you the hardest.

Like if you do back-end database boring stuff of moving data around at random
Enterprise X, then you can charge through the roof because they know that the
only reason you are doing this job is for the paycheck.

But if you are working on video games/Tesla/Other cool stuff and obviously
passionate about the mission, you get screwed on compensation and if things go
wrong, treated inhumanely.

Also, why treat people like shit when they get laid off. Can't just manager
meet with the person and say, hey our division got cut, I am sorry it turned
out that way, happy to help out with the job search.

~~~
schmookeeg
This is not just tech, it's life. Ever wonder why your plumber takes 2 weeks
and $150/hr to summon, but aspiring actors are on every corner parsing your
12-word coffee order for a thin fiver?

Macroeconomics is all around. :)

~~~
kamaal
The key to understanding this is to understand, that aspiring to work in
lottery'ish professions pays less than, predictable well established career
paths.

There are only going be a dozen Tom Hanks and Chritian Bale in a country at
any given time. If that is what you want to be you are going to have to settle
for something way way lesser than even the normal after a few years, because
you have no real skills, domain knowledge or experience compared to even the
most ordinary of jobs out there.

I think you are likely to live a good life if you understand that normal is
how most millionaires are made. Also don't run behind points. YouTube likes,
Instagram likes etc etc. Don't use imaginary internet proxy points to measure
your value, worth, or the value/worth of your work.

------
ojn
Ex-Tesla employee here. I'm not going to comment on any of the statements
because I know nothing of it, but I wanted to give one angle to the
"performance bonus not paid out":

Like most employers, Tesla gives out a mix of raises, bonuses and equity
renewals at times based on reviews/merit/etc. Some of them, like equity, vest
over 4 years.

That's normal, etc. But, Tesla is the only employer I know of where you had an
option to pick stock, options, or _cash_ , as the vesting entity. Cash wasn't
always offered, but I know it to have been an option at least once.

I don't know if that's what happened here, but it might be part of why someone
thought of it as "earned bonus with delayed payout" when in reality it might
not have been. I can't tell, but I wanted to mention the possibility.

~~~
droithomme
> Some of them, like equity, vest over 4 years. That's normal, etc.

It is absolutely not normal to have raises and bonuses "vest over four years".
I've never encountered that or heard of that at any company at all. The only
reasonable way to describe that would be "highly abnormal", not normal.

~~~
ojn
I said that there was an option to get retention grant as stock, options or
cash (usually just the two former but at least once all three were available).
Nothing about raises or bonuses being over 4 years.

I actually can't remember getting any bonuses, just salary adjustments and
retention/equity refresh.

------
rdl
I'd argue for paying at least pro-rata signing bonus in the event of a not-
for-cause termination like a layoff. Probably for letting the employee keep
the entire signing bonus in this case. (More likely yes if it's a lower level
employee, less likely if it's a very senior executive and a larger amount, but
those are more often in equity or explicitly to make up for lost options in a
previous company.)

Otherwise, yes, termination and NDA/non-disparagement are fine. She has every
right to be upset, but isn't really helping her case with irrelevant details.
DV status is irrelevant to civilian employer.

Performance bonus would depend on the terms. Was it a 2018 bonus for work in
2018, with a payout date in 2019? In that case, if terminated for cause (or
quit), sure, don't pay, but they should pay for a layoff. Again, above the
legal requirement, so making it conditional on NDA/nondisparagement is fine.

~~~
cowsandmilk
> More likely yes if it's a lower level employee, less likely if it's a very
> senior executive and a larger amount, but those are more often in equity or
> explicitly to make up for lost options in a previous company.

The thing is, the higher level employees are the ones most likely to have
brought in a lawyer to review their employment agreement and to have
negotiated explicitly for getting a clause for this type of payout if they are
let go. These are often referred to as a golden parachute or golden
handshake...

Basically, fire someone near the top, whose mismanagement is likely
responsible for problems, you have to pay out the nose; fire a low level
employee, you pay next to nothing.

------
wavee
But what's her actual point? They're not allowed to fire disabled veterans?
You get to keep receiving bonuses after firing?

"A signing bonus or sign-on bonus is a sum of money paid to a new employee by
a company as an incentive to join that company.

To encourage employees to stay at the organization, there are often clauses in
the contract whereby if the employee quits before a specified period, they
must return the signing bonus."

~~~
threeseed
Did you even read what she wrote ?

She has a list of grievances not just the signing bonus. I think if Tesla had
shown her husband a bit more respect she likely wouldn't have posted it.

Giving someone 0-day notice and physically escorting them out of the company
is simply unacceptable.

~~~
tylersmith
Unacceptable how? They had no responsibility to do otherwise. They no longer
wanted the employee so he was removed immediately. Are they supposed to give
him notice even when he has no value to them?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
It's unacceptable on the level of treating people with appropriate
acknowledgement of the inherent fuzziness of society- employees need time to
get hired elsewhere, and employers need time to find a replacement- thus it is
courteous to give notice on both sides of the relationship. By not
acknowledging this fuzziness of human society, one is also giving the message
that people will not be treated with what is the standard understanding of
human dignity.

------
vjeux
It sounds like the sign on bonus she’s referring to vests over 4 years. Unless
I’m mistaken, this is an initial stock grant and you only get the full amount
if you stay with the company for 4 years.

~~~
mygo
It always bothered me when people who wanted me to join their startup were
bothered by me not wanting wait for something to vest that long. So you mean
to tell me I can do all the work you need me to do right now, and then just
get rid of me before it vests and I don't get it?

I really think there should be 2 different vesting terms \- 1 in case I quit
(can be longer term in this case) \- and another in case I get fired (shorter
vesting period IMO). Call it early termination.

~~~
underwater
So now everyone who wants to leave the company will be a negative force,
hoping to be fired. Not such a great idea.

Vesting is fine as a concept. Just understand that whatever dollar amount to
they're telling you is something you have the chance to earn over a period of
time. It's not a bonus.

~~~
deathanatos
Then vest over a reasonable period of time, like weekly or monthly, and not
annually?

~~~
underwater
That seems reasonable. But from my understanding the complaint was that
someone was promised $x over four years and then let go after two years, and
lost $x/2.

------
Gustomaximus
Side points;

\- Justified or not his wife might be jeopardising her husbands future
employment with her tweets. Any new employer has to consider what if I have to
fire him again for whatever reason. You're risking angry wife dragging
you/company through the media. No-one wants that regardless of being in the
right or not.

\- She says 'I'm not covered by NDA' and brings up information about about
pay/benefits etc. She might be creating an issue here if Tesla wants to push
back. It pretty obvious he husband told her those things so while its normal
to discuss with your wife, is that an NDA breach on his behalf?

I think this is a good lesson in biting your tongue and focusing on the end
game. Howl at the moon but not social media. She can't possibly think this
rant will help him keep his job, get a better payout or get a new job.

~~~
cryptonector
Maybe she thinks that she can cause Tesla a PR event. If she can, she may well
get what she's after (an apology? the 2018 bonus? the rest of the as-yet-
unvested sign-on bonus?).

------
stevenjohns
It's pretty crazy to see rationalizations here for reversing the signing bonus
and annual bonus.

I can't in good faith ever do that to a high-performing employee I'm making
redundant.

~~~
the_narrator
> I can't in good faith ever do that to a high-performing employee I'm making
> redundant.

How virtuous of you. What about a mediocre performing one?

~~~
Traster
A mediocre performing employee shouldn't be getting an annual bonus.

------
daveFNbuck
> They took his laptop 10 minutes after he found out and he couldn’t save his
> personal files.

I have a hard time understanding why people put personal files on a company
laptop, much less ones that you don't also have stored elsewhere. This is what
you should expect to happen.

------
travisoneill1
Disabled veterans should be given generous benefits. These benefits are owed
to them by the government for the services they provided to the government.
Private companies have no responsibility for this.

~~~
tylersmith
And from the government they should get exactly what they signed a contract
for. Nothing more or less.

------
xenadu02
Tesla seems to be working very hard to cultivate a really poor reputation.

They could find it more difficult to hire in the future. Maybe that doesn’t
matter for assembly jobs but software engineers don’t grow on trees.

~~~
smileysteve
The context of the layoffs should have every tesla employee and owner worried.
As the spring debt comes due, without more investors or more profitability,
the company is very likely to change.

Also consider that gm, Ford, fiat aren't in a market or cash position to
consolidate. The best hopes for Tesla may be Toyota, VW, or Aapl right now.

------
dmode
I think companies should be allowed to lay-off people. The lay-off process
should be fair. A few months of salary to sustain, paid off bonuses due, RSUs
about to be vested etc. Don’t cancel perf bonus or RSU vesting by laying off
people a week before they are due. That is just straight up evil.

------
tibbydudeza
>Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant >employees as some form
of social justice or obligation?

Well that is an American point of view where companies are there for
shareholders profits only.

Fortunately here and elsewhere in the world we have good laws in place where a
company needs to notify an affected employee or section of an impending layoff
so that you have at least time to find alternative employment.

We also get one week of pay for each year worked as part of your redundancy.

------
acroback
People get laid off all the time. Business is not hostage to your performance.

In the end we all are just numbers of the XL sheet. Treat your company just
like one.

All the talk about mission reeks of naivety. Seriously, I can understand the
emotional outburst but it is unnecessary.

------
i_am_nomad
The last bit about having to sign an NDA sounds very legally questionable.

~~~
shereadsthenews
If he got no consideration for it, he’s not bound by it. Never sign anything
when you’re being fired unless they offer you money and in that case ask for
much more than they open with.

~~~
Reedx
> ...and in that case ask for much more than they open with.

Have you (or anyone reading this) done that? What was the result?

~~~
simplecomplex
What’s the downside? If someone is fired giving the company _anything_ for
free is throwing money away.

I had a boss at a startup let me know I was being let go with two weeks
notice. I immediately asked for $20k or else I would walk out without helping
anyone transition.

He gave me the $20k (1/5th of my salary!!)

------
purplezooey
It's sad, though, how we need to build a lot more housing so the rent is not
in the stratosphere for everyone. We don't need a green new deal, we need a
housing Manhattan project.

~~~
jswizzy
How? You can't build too densely in an earthquake zone. And you can't move
because the thing that makes Silicon Valley special is that CA's constitution
makes non compete clauses null and void so that venture capitalists and
startups can form with little worry of being sued by the companies that they
are trying to disrupt. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
compete_clause#California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
compete_clause#California)

~~~
intopieces
>You can't build too densely in an earthquake zone.

And yet Tokyo exists.

~~~
carlivar
And Mexico City

------
rajman187
hindsight is 20/20 but:

\- believing in Elon Musk \- having 0 savings and wanting to immediately spend
any theoretical savings \- wanting to live in NYC and then SF despite no
savings \- having a child despite the above 2 \- apparently not reading an
employment contract before signing it \- venting on twitter in the hopes that
hashtag-shaming of Musk will achieve anything

------
hailhash
This twitter account has all the classic signs of troll/bot. Wonder how it
made it to hacker news.

After years of read-only mode, having to create a new account to bring this to
people’s attention. Please check the Twitter timeline for yourself before
jumping to conclusions. I hate Tesla as much as the next guy, but this story
needs to be checked out before upvoting.

------
mactyler
Just to clear up a specific point that I see a lot of people getting wrong
here about the bonus stuff. I can at least say for the performance bonus it
seems weird but thats how it works. Even though its money to reward your
performance in “the past” so you’ve effectively “earned it”, if you quit like
I did or get fired apparenty if it hasn’t hit the date that it gets paid to
you yet you don’t get it. I think most people get surprised by this fact but
since that specific situation is fairly rare I don’t think theres much effort
to change the policy. I don’t even know what the policy really is, but just
wanted to say that part at least of losing the entire performance bonus
happened to me. But since I quit I think it’s more reasonable to lose it,
that’s pretty lame to lose it when you’re fired since I had the time to factor
that into my decision making knowing I would lose it where when you are fired
and blindsided like that you are effectively losing a lot of money that you
had already accounted for. I know corporations aren’t really dictated by
emotion, but man it sure seems like there’s a lot of “bad luck” all at once
here... that is really unfortunate. Maybe some rules could be changed to
prevent certain things overlapping up like this. Getting fired is one thing,
but getting fired and losing money you had already accounted for and
technically “earned” is definitely putting you in an even harder spot. Really
wish him the best. Also this isnt like tesla is going out of their way to
screw this guy, these are just standard industry practices, but hearing
situations like these definitely makes you wonder if they should be.

Also just to clear up some lingo for people that I still see people getting
wrong:

Signing bonus Cash sum you “recieve” for accepting the job.

Performance bonus Cash sum you recieve several months after you’re latest
performance review based on your “rating” for that half or year.

Equity (RSU) is seperate from both of these things but you can receive them in
both situations. They then follow a vesting schedule that when you leave
before the various vest dates its obvious that you wont receive the
compensation.

------
droithomme
The lady needs to consult with a labor attorney as soon as possible. They
should not sign anything until after that meeting.

------
longcommonname
Theres a very good chance Tesla got a large tax break for hiring vets. This
has been true for a while. They could be trying to abuse this be having a
rolling hiring of vets. But anybody saying that Tesla owes nothing doesn't
realize that there are employee protections out there.

------
notus
It is not very surprising when companies behave this way. They act in their
own interest which oftentimes aligns with employee interests, but not always.
I'm pretty sure the only way to guarantee more ethical behavior is to regulate
it.

~~~
hoaw
Unfortunately I don’t believe regulation would work in this case. Not because
it wouldn’t be effective, but because it wouldn’t happen. People tend to
wonder why e.g. Nordic unions are so strong. It is because they have real
power. They have organizations, newspapers, building, cash and everything else
that you need. The prime minister of Sweden was even recruited directly from
being the head of a union, because of that unions long standing relationship
with the party.

This is why I always smirk a little bit when Americans speak out against
unions like they actually would have a choice to form a an organization that
would take power from the corporations and politicians.

Eh, I don’t know what my point was. I guess I wouldn’t expect a solution
anytime soon because it is a power issue.

~~~
unreal37
But this is also why Silicon Valley didn't happen in Norway.

~~~
hoaw
No, it isn’t. SV didn’t happen anywhere in Europe, very likely because of
WWII. Norway is mostly concerned about oil these days, but Sweden have been
doing very well in tech for its size. Second most unicorn per capita in the
world after SV is what people like to say.

~~~
monksy
Not even close. It's all down to culture and where their priorities lie.

If WWII is any indication, the Germans would be very good at developing new
tech. (They did it during the war)

I believe that the reason why Europe has not had a good chance at a SV:

1\. They don't rely on credit for the most part. Using Debit/EC cards are more
previlent.

2\. High taxes and cheap sources of labor: Most tech is outsourced to Eastern
Europe. There is some seriously good talent there, but there's a heck of a lot
that isn't great. The treatement of talent is used as a cheap cog in the
machine. Hard to hire the best talent when the wages are at a particular
level.

3\. Strong labor unions and policies: Germany requires companies over a
particular size to have representation from the labor force on the board.
(This has created the wackamole in companies splitting off)

4\. The regulations and monopolies are pretty strong in Europe: it's hard to
compete and overthrow say sap or mediamarkt. (Although those are prime for a
disruption).

5\. Companies play fast and loose there. Due to strong workers rights, they're
still playing tricks to prevent people from being full time. (Contractors,
probation periods, etc)

~~~
Traster
You're making an argument about why Silicon Valley isn't in Europe based on
your understanding of Europe today, when Silicon Valley isn't emerging in
California today, it emerged in 1970.

Let's take Intel as an example: Intel was founded in 1968 by Gordon Moore and
Robert Noyce. Why do you think there's no European equivalent of those two
people? Very possibly because Herr Moore and Monsieur Noyce would have died in
WW2 or fled to America. If they had survived and started up a semi-conductor
company they would've quickly found themselves unable to compete with the
American companies who had the advantage of a massive military budget to win
contracts and engineers from.

Your point also don't address the situation in which SV emerged in the US.
High taxes? Denmark has 22% corp tax and 52% income tax. Income tax when
silicon valley emerged was over 70%.

------
taneq
This is a bit of a tangent but what is with people posting long-form stories
on Twitter, a platform whose defining feature is you say what you have to say
in 140 characters? Just blog it somewhere and post a link!

------
hindsightbias
Has anyone ever alleged that Tesla or SpaceX treat their employees in some
out-of-the-ordinary admirable way?

Wondering what the outrage is going to be when cash rich FAANGs start acting
like the rest of Fortune 495.

------
chemmail
All irrelevant. The firing was nothing personal. Tesla needs to stay alive.
These people can either all suffer minority now, or whole company suffer
later.

------
sjg007
This is why you pay the bonuses and pay the severance and pay the health
insurance for 6 months. That way you don’t act like an asshole.

------
willart4food
The (new) American dream is a rnd() function

~~~
m1sta_
That'd be an improvement for many people compared to the status quo.

~~~
willart4food
Maybe. I feel that "calculated risk" is no risk at all.

Blindly taking chances "just do it" fashion with no clue about possible
consequences it's not very smart, especially since most decisions affect
someone else negatively.

There's randomness in life, no doubt about it.

We can account for it: plan B, realist optimism, etc...

But "hoping" that it will all happen just because of sheer luck... I don't
think it's smart.

For instance, I think this is what happened to FYRE
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyre_Festival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyre_Festival)),
there's a great documentary on Netflix. I cringed.

------
simplecomplex
Let’s not allow tweetstorms about personal drama on HN.

What’s the point of policing the comments with an iron fist if the links are a
free-for-all!? It’s such a weird dichotomy to be hellbanning people for being
snarky while every day the front page is filled with flame bait.

------
mhkool
cancelling the bonus is evil. Tesla, shame on you !!! I am not gonna buy your
cars.

------
iamleppert
Her story is heartbreaking, and reminds me that once a company is “done with
you” they don’t care about you anymore regardless of what kind of employee you
were. Never expect a company to do right by you. Always act in your own best
interests, even if those are not in alignment with the company. If working in
the Bay Area has taught me anything, is you always need to be planning your
next move. There is no such thing as job security in our present economy.
Working at a large company is often times even more dangerous than a small one
or startup because decisions like this which are made far away from your own
sphere of influence. Companies are like sociopaths: they have no capacity for
empathy, and if any does exist, it’s likely been legislated into them, taken
from them by force or by public shame.

If there are any companies left that actually do treat their employees like
anything more than disposable assets, it’s only a matter of time before they
are “disrupted” by one that is willing to do whatever it takes. Capitalism is
a perverse force that cares only for efficiency, not for human lives.

------
dominotw
> We are barely making ends meet.

Wow. This is people working at high tech companies in bay area. Why are they
being paid subsistence salaries. Too many people flooding into bay area? Why
are ppl accepting such low salaries.

So strange to me as an outsider. Whats the end game, just tough it out for a
few yrs and build your resume and then get out?

~~~
hoaw
A lot of people are not having a good time in the US. Every once in a while
that shines through. Like in this article where Ford (the company) is
commenting on hiring:

“The company said it takes about two weeks to collect enough résumés from
state employment agencies, minority and veterans groups and employee
referrals. Then each job candidate must pass a basic reading comprehension and
problem-solving test. That preliminary screening takes at least a week, likely
longer, Ford said. Those who pass the written test must then be cleared by a
doctor for physical activity and pass a drug test. To get 400 drug-free
employees, Ford said it probably has to test 600 or 700 job candidates, a
process that takes another two weeks.”

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2018/05/01/no-
way-t...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2018/05/01/no-way-to-run-a-
factory-teslas-hiring-binge-is-a-sign-of-trouble-not-progress/)

