The problem with this method is that many people DID relocate to keep their jobs. And then were layed off two months later.
Imagine uplifting your life for your job, and then being told you need to find a new job anyway.
At the end of the year they said no bonuses, followed by an email saying despite covid they made a profit.
Companies lie to employees all the time.
These large companies are struggling.
I understand that to many people they seem like they are in the same category of "spending money" but spending money on an income earning investment is not the same as spending money on operating expenses.
I spoke to people from the UK (seems they were from an AI related acquisition .. not sure what acquisition). They seem to have good infra and intelligent technical people.
My friends and I have no loyalty to our employers at this point. Big or small, we've all been burned. Some places are just less unpleasant than others. My bar is so low that as long as no one is screaming at me or threatening my coworkers I usually call that a good day. Getting out of retail helped.
Since suing your employer is a career-ending move, contracts don't make much of a difference either.
That's literally the raison d'etre of commercial companies. So, yeah, most will do what it takes to remain profitable.
Maybe for some financial companies, perhaps crypto or high-frequency trading firms, I might imagine.
But for most companies, the reason they exist is that they provide some product or service to customers. For example, FedEx delivers packages. Apple makes smartphones and runs its App Store. Netflix provides video streaming services and makes its own programs. Etc.. Without such a product or service, there is little reason for any of these companies to exist.
I've yet to find a company mission statement which is "make as much of a profit as possible." There probably is one somewhere, but they certainly aren't the norm.
If we look at Netflix, for example, we see
"We promise our customers stellar service, our suppliers a valuable partner, our investors the prospects of sustained profitable growth, and our employees the allure of huge impact."
In this statement they acknowledge multiple stakeholders: customers, suppliers, investors, and employees. A company without customers is either a startup or a pyramid scheme.
"FOR A BETTER SHARED FUTURE
• Invest in employees’ personal growth and talent
• Empower people’s access to equal opportunities, build inclusion
• Create value for customers—big and the many small
• Support our local communities, both to achieve more and in times of need
• Deliver returns to our investors"
see also: https://investors.coca-colacompany.com/about/our-purpose
And let's be honest, Musk isn't doing it in this order for the wellbeing of Twitter's employees.
Then a week later took it back:
I think every single person at Twitter should be contemplating their employment right now.
Most of the remaining skilled employees started looking for new jobs immediately. They could see the writing on the wall. Others just checked out and stopped caring about their work, doing just the bare minimum. The bulk of the remaining experienced employees were gone within two months.
The people who remained were the lower-level employees, without the experience to keep the company working.
Coincidentally, the company fell apart and went into liquidation 6 months later.
That the company later failed is not proof positive that the layoffs were a bad idea.
With all the upheaval at Twitter, I doubt it's going to survive. Well, the name will remain, and as long as servers keep running, some people will keep using it, so as long as Musk can hire enough people to keep the servers running, Twitter might be able to continue in some form, but it will never be the company it once was.
But it was absolutely on a fatal path before that event, just a question of how long.
Well known tactics, usually employed by politicians.
Want to raise taxes by 5%? Don't tell that, just announce previously that the country needs a 10% taxes raise, then for pretend for a while you're struggling to lower them because you care for the people and finally settle to 5%.
If you have employable skills you will find work
But, seriously, I’ve got the worlds smallest fiddle for someone who is worried that they may not make 270K+ going forward.
Yes my stock has dropped by 50% from its 52 week high. It stings. But it doesn’t affect my life at all. I made sure that I could live off of my base pay - and still max out my 401K.
Surely you saved during those years of 270k tc
Also now your skills and experience are more relevant to your salary.
I went through a layoff where they announced they had to make major reductions in headcount (it ended up being about 30% but I'm not sure that number was announced). There was then several months of discussions with the unions before they announced who had to leave.
If you were not impacted they didn't tell you anything until the announcement. The people who were impacted had been briefed beforehand. As I was staying on I didn't know anything, which was stressful, but I guess that if I had known about the process it would have been less so.
But at least you could avoid some of the "unregretted attrition" of people you decided to keep.
(This assumes Musk isn't intentionally sequencing things to limit the "official" size of the layoff while actually wanting to cut a significantly larger percentage.)
He's got huge debt and declining revenue - both of his own making - so he doesn't have time for employees to self-select based on minor incentives. He has to strip down the car fast while somehow also keeping it road-worthy and operational. He also wants to recreate the place per his own vision, so it makes sense to get rid of as many people carrying the previous culture as you can and then start hiring as necessary with the kind of people you want.
That assumes that people will still want to work for Twitter after all of this.
Given that there is no shortage of jobs for engineers even after massive layoffs at Facebook/Meta and Twitter, many people are going to think twice about signing up to work for a company and owner that have a reputation for treating people as disposable trash.
Employees are the company's most valuable capital - so if you unceremoniously boot out the most experienced staff that was keeping the ship afloat and expect to replace them with cheap new hires while maintaining productivity, security and revenue (which weren't great at Twitter to begin with), you would have to be delusional.
Some layoffs were likely justified but thanks to the hamfisted way they were done I am sorry for the recruiters that will have to look for new staff now. They will have a very unenviable job.
Just a data point, but Twitter is now much more interesting to me (as a place of work) than it was before. Which is to say, it went from zero interest to "maybe?"
* Chaos provides opportunities to make real changes instead of being just a tiny cog doing what you're told.
* Advancement is going to be faster in a fast-changing organization.
* It's in "go big or go broke" mode. After a year you're probably going to know which. Better than spending a decade working for a zombie.
* I'm left-of-center, yet... I find political tribalism really fucking annoying. Musk could only improve Twitter in this regard.
So it's a mixed bag. I don't have strong opinions about Twitter (I'm not really a user) but it's way too early to be writing epitaphs.
I'm not so sure about this, anything he gets involved in only seems to get worse in this regard.
After Musk, there is potential where previously there was none.
The people inside seem to already know which it is, and it's only been 2 weeks.
You think you will have autonomy or ability to make changes you want in a company run by Elon Musk? Cause by literally everything I read, his management style is pretty much the opposite.
> I'm left-of-center, yet... I find political tribalism really fucking annoying. Musk could only improve Twitter in this regard.
I can see Musk making polarization bigger, but for the love of god I cant see him making smaller.
Hitting a pen and implementing his cool ideas unilaterally, followed by a speed bump and new opposite cool ideas a day later?
So passe. So cool!
Where are these jobs? At startups that see they may not get another round of funding soon? At unprofitable recently IPOd unicorns that are losing money and cutting back staff? At Amazon (where I work) that just announced a hiring freeze? At Google where they admitted over hiring?
 I work at $BigTech. But my work involves cloud consulting mostly with enterprises and I spent most of my 20+ career as your standard “enterprise dev”.
I was an expensive parachute into a slurry pit.
Such a lovely metaphor. Now that I think about it, I’ve felt like that at times…
So, he's destroying all of the institutional knowledge, the brand image, and the existing business relationships, while pivoting to a radically different market.
He wanted a fresh startup to sink $44 billion into, not an existing business with employees he doesn't want, a legacy product that doesn’t fit his vision, and feature iteration velocity constraints from FTC consent decrees that a new startup wouldn’t have.
Sounds about right. Also, I don't think he values the institutional knowledge much, and thinks he can replace it quickly, because he thinks Twitter employees were idiots and he makes reusable space rockets something something.
Now he has to find a way out of his predicament. First step, fire a lot of people to stop the monetary bleeding he caused. Second step, find others to blame - activists organizing boycotts - or have his buddy the founder take public blame for him. Third, bring in his "A-team" of super rocket EV tunnel software engineers to fix it all up to work better with 1/5th the people. I don't think he cares if he has to do institutional and human damage to achieve it.
People who have intimate experience with just exactly the degree of latitude the FTC will allow for twitter and have a personal relationship that allows them to negotiate with the FTC isn't exactly a skill you can just find on the street.
in 2011 there was a settlement about Failure to Safeguard Personal Information .
"Under the terms of the settlement, Twitter will be barred for 20 years from misleading consumers about the extent to which it protects the security, privacy, and confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information, including the measures it takes to prevent unauthorized access to nonpublic information and honor the privacy choices made by consumers.
Then in 2022 FTC charged Twitter for using account security data for targeted advertising. They have a $150M fine and some other conditions .
Literally knowing how twitter codebase works. Knowing about existing issues and workarounds for them. You wont find this knowledge in other companies.
> Coming into codebases that large is very challenging, but it's doable.
Sure, but it takes awful lot of time if there is no one around to explain you stuff. By awful time, I mean really a lot of additional time.
The issue is that in the case of Tesla, automakers have tried a lot of stupid things Musk have done and failed beforehand. Musk ignores those prior learnings and repeats all the mistakes that incumbents made decades ago.
What has saved his butt time and time again is the fact that he has been able to conjure up enough financial runway to re-learn the mistakes and recover and the fact that sometimes mistakes made by others in the past are no longer mistakes given today's environment and end up becoming competitive advantages. So he wins some and he loses some.
One example of him losing is when he attempted to automate all the assembly in the factory in 2017. He messed up and hired the wrong people to design the body of the Model 3 and it ended up too expensive to manufacture. In response he attempted to use robots in assembly to cut costs. The technology for what he wanted to do was still not ready just like it was not ready in the 70s when GM tried to do the same thing. Robots are Blind, one armed, and stupid. They cannot handle finesse when dealing with a noisy real world.
On the other hand, GM and others were adamant to design their cooling systems with multiple loops because that was the way things were done and it was a reliable way to accomplish the task. As a result this thinking was ingrained in all the OEMs. They have cooling departments that defend their approaches and it causes stagnation. Musk's approach of repeating all the things that OEMs already did led to him discarding beliefs that no longer are the best way of doing things and led a much better and cheaper design using one cooling loop and adjusting between heat/cold using software. When every penny counts as it does in automotive this was a competitive advantage that now competitors are copying.
As long as he has enough runway I wouldn't count him out as he seems to running the same playbook as Tesla and SpaceX.
Obviously it needs a major shakeup.
It wasn't awesome, but it had found a working groove.
No one (or very few) will feel this way about twitter and be willing to work themselves to death in the way he’s come to expect.
To be fair. This happened with Musk’s (and others) real account too.
I'm addition, it remains a significant platform for informal celebrity and corporate announcements.
People in tech are pretty bearish about Twitter these days (myself included), but there are clearly a significant number of people who believe otherwise.
I haven't came across any one that thought most of Twitter was good. It's a cesspool of cancel culture and hatred.
There is room for both to be true: most of Twitter (content) is a cesspool, and yet it still is great place id you take care to curate the accounts you follow.
If true, he bought Twitter for the branding, rather than build a new brand. If true, Twitter is about to get an extreme makeover.
$44b seems ridiculous to me. But what do I know? I've never understood the point of Twitter. Whatsapp, a mere chat app, sold for $16b. And Musk builds rockets and launched the EV auto market and...
I highly recommend Jill Lepore's podcast about Musk called The Evening Rocket.
"Elon Musk’s visions of the future all stem from the same place: the science-fiction he grew up on. To understand where Musk wants to take the rest of us – with his electric cars, his rockets to Mars, his meme stocks, and tunnels deep beneath the earth — Harvard professor and New Yorker writer Jill Lepore looks at those science fiction stories and helps us understand what he’s Musk missed about them.
The Evening Rocket explores Musk’s strange new kind of extravagant, extreme capitalism — call it Muskism — where stock prices are driven by earnings, and also by fantasies."
Twitter isn't going to have the same "pull" as organizations like Tesla or SpaceX where you can attract top-shelf talent by virtue of working on some of the most interesting problems. Twitter is... Twitter. It's Adtech + SaaS. I'm not saying this is boring or easy - it's not, it has tons of challenging problems... but how is Twitter under Musk more appealing to engineers than Twitter under any of its previous CEOs?
There it is. There’s enough fanboys around that he doesn’t have to worry about butts to put in seats.
I've joined two teams where everyone previously on the team quit (plenty of openings). There was indeed a benefit to fresh eyes on things, but those projects took months to get back up to speed.
Yes, he's probably screwed either way. Sucks that others are getting screwed as a result of his choices.
You have to observe them over several weeks/months. But Elon didn't do this at all. He is about as likely to have fired the best people as the worst people.
But this is my point. By doing it in this order he is risking continued operation of Twitter because he no longer can ensure Twitter can either properly staff business critical teams or retain critical institutional knowledge for how to run the company. He is jeopardizing the continued viability of a $44b investment to save maybe a few hundred million max.
Both he and the market know that he paid too much for Twitter. It isn't worth $44B, but he needs to make it lean enough to start throwing off enough cash to pay back the loans he took to buy it at that price.
Since it is very hard to increase revenue (especially when he is allowing more advertiser-repellent content), he is trying to dramatically cut costs while trying to increase non advertising revenue.
He can't go back to the banks and the Saudi sovereign wealth fund and explain to them that he needs a deferment so he can invest in more efficient SRE and content moderation. He has to sleep in the bed he made, which means show his creditors the money.
Do you Elon wants the banks to foreclose and seize Twitter? Or have to sell TSLA?
I don't think he wants to sell TSLA to pay debts but might have to.
You know what we call a vehicle thats undergoing Rapid Disassembly? An Explosion.
June 16, 2022:
Elon Musk plans to use remote work as a reward at Twitter—but only for ‘exceptional’ employees
While I think he has done a huge amount to scare away advertisers, I expect the ad industry as a whole is going to be seeing reduced profits for the next couple of years.
I'm currently hearing some horror stories from friends who did take similar offers and were enticed by the relatively lower cost of living. Turns out there are reasons it's lower.
That's a bold assumption -- that there is a vision
Really? I was under the impression that Twitter was hemorrhaging money.
That wasn’t great but there was an obvious path to profitability. Musk just added somewhat over a billion in new annual debt servicing so it went from “stop going to nightclubs every day” to “sell the furniture”.
Maybe everyone's wasting their time with rational economic analysis,
trying to figure out a pretty simple guy with an obscene pile of
fuck-you money and an axe to grind.
Social Media is how people interact with the world now, most info we receive is filtered through it in some form. In the last 10 or so years the idea that these platforms need tight moderation to control what and who is speaking on them has become ubiquitous. I think his main gamble is that the future of social media does not involve automated moderation and tight content restrictions, but a more open platform and he is gonna use twitter to play that bet out. It isn’t a horrible bet.
You seem more confident than Musk is reported to have been in today's sudden all-hands meeting; what do you know that Musk doesn’t?
EDIT: see, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-10/musk-tell...
People who do not understand bankruptcy laws often perpetuate wrong myths. Bankruptcy is just a legal insolvency mechanism to stave off problematic creditors, while you find way to handle assets against the liabilities of the company. A bankruptcy isn't always the end of the world, and smart businessmen know this.
Musk has a ton of people advising him on legal issues. It's possible that he's making the wrong business moves, but the fact that he's publicly seeing ahead at the possibility of bankruptcy, tells us that he's navigating the waters cognisant of avoiding it rather than to ensure the outcome arrives.
In a sea of a 500,000,000 tweets...
Are you familiar with the term statistically insignificant?
Isn't it? Ok, maybe Musk has a magic wand that he can use to make it profitable (which it has been for only two out of the last 12 years), or is willing to subsidize it indefinitely out of his deep pockets... but I wouldn't bet on it.
Digg, Myspace, Google+.
They don't have to disappear but they can fade away into irrelevance.
Is that a good or bad thing? I don't know, in an ideal world humans could self-regulate and make good decisions about how they use information. The status quo is that we cannot control ourselves, and need to have sophisticated controls that filter out objectionable info.
(1) he approached this with a "pfft, I could run that business better than the bozos in charge" attitude -- it's not as if Twitter has been known for great management up to this point, right? -- but never actually came up with a plan beyond "not what they've been doing." After he initially made the offer, he spent all the time he should have been formulating business plans trying to get out of the deal instead. Then it got forced on him, and he's had to scramble.
(2) Elon has millions of people who treat him as a combination of Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, and Tony Stark, and bluntly, I think he's started believing his own press to the point where he just figures, "Why, yes, I am a super genius who can do anything, and anyone who contradicts me is clearly not worth listening to."
I would be very surprised if Twitter recovers from what Elon Musk, Super Genius is doing to it; the question is whether Elon Musk is going to recover from it. The best case is that this will be his Steve Jobs Exiled From Apple moment; the worst case is that he becomes Howard Hughes.
I can't help but think about something I learned in school about the Roman Empire: when generals returned to Rome after a military conquest, they were paraded around the city on a chariot with everybody cheering him. But behind him on the chariot was someone constantly whispering in his ear: "You are only mortal". I think when everybody constantly heaps praise on you, it's tempting to start to believe that you are a god, a genius, or otherwise high above everybody else. Having people around you who keep you grounded is probably good for your sanity.
Didn't Steve Jobs return to this company when it was bleeding money, cut 4000 employees as his first move and turned it into a cash cow ?
Twitter is more toxic under musk..
For them to pull out it seems that associating with twitter harms their image, and that’s - according to them - related to moderation.
As for “proof” that twitter is more toxic;
> In the week leading up to Musk's acquisition, researchers said there were no more than 84 hostile tweets an hour on the platform. But from midnight on October 28 – the day Musk took ownership – to noon the next day, there were 4,778 hate-filled tweets. That accounts for more than 398 tweets an hour, about 4.7 times higher than the seven-day average leading up to that day. The potential reach for those tweets was more than 3 million, researchers found.
> Researchers also said there was an increase in negative sentiment, with more than 67% of the tweets sent after Musk's takeover having a negative tone.
"Ukraine should just let Russia keep what they've got now, and agree to their demands and wrap this all up."
There's lots of people arguing for peace talks, and I'd love for that to work, but it won't work if Putin isn't interested in peace, and by all appearances, he isn't. He's made pretty clear that he isn't. The only alternative is to make is aggression unsuccessful.
I prayed that, that outcome would not happen.
A band named KLF burned a million quid back in the mid 90s. It was
ostensibly "performance art" .
In 2000 formative internet commerce pioneer Josh Harris blew about 80
million in a few weeks on an "arts project". He is the subject of Ondi
Timoner's 2009 documentary "We Live in Public"  He described it as
"liberating" and said that other dot-com millionaires had "wasted
their money" and didn't "know how to live".
Maybe Elon fancies himself as an artist?
If so, how does that work?
yesterday, he also killed a feature that was introduced the day before, because MKBHD, a Youtuber criticized it.
Having said that, remote work is up there with compensation in my book, taking it away is just as likely as a salary cut to make leave the company.
 i.e. almost guaranteed
I'm having a hard time believing this. The people in my company who want to end remote work were the people that needed it for a social output. Nothing as shown that productivity suffered during the pandemic due to remote work.
>This is the one thing Musk is 100% right about,
Elon Musk is a 100% remote worker.
>t's also why almost any major tech company after covid is trying to scale remote work back again.
Hard disagree, most companies want people back in the office because they are run by middle managers who have spent their careers climbing the ladder by putting in face time and building relationships. Remote work is a huge detriment to that style of career advancement. They basically want everyone back in the office so they, the middle managers, can feel productive.
There is a reason they focus on abstract concepts like water cooler conversations rather than hard data. The data says there isn't a problem
I feel like any discussion around remote work often involves comments that take personal anecdotal evidence and applies it to all remote work.
I do agree with losing social aspects. That being said, it's helped me realize that I should focus on being social OUTSIDE of work, rather than relying on work to be social.
Banning remote work famously turned Yahoo! around and eventually led to a sale of the company.
(Not mentioned here: the direction the company turned in, or the sale price)
Such a move can backfire, and more people can quit than you planned on laying off, and that can make your UI liabilities larger than they would have been with just a layoff.
It would makes sense to hire a CEO. It would make sense to plan a layoff so you don't have to beg key people to return, etc. Musk frames this as making mistakes while working fast.
In this case it will push more people to leave. There is probably intent, if not exactly thought and planning behind this because Really Bad Things have not happened yet.
An indication that might change is that the CISO, security chief, and privacy chief resigned together, possibly with advice of counsel re the two FTC consent decrees.
... but here people are bending over backwards to justify Musk's behaviour ...
My issue with arguments like these is that these are collective opinions held by different segments of people, not some nebulous singular person whose opinion can be safely discarded because of contradictory statements.
What detailed analysis did Musk do? A bunch of DMs with Jason Calcinis pulling numbers out of his arse? What's the core profitable business that Twitter has that is encumbered by unprofitable components?
If I wanted to look at a case for an asset stripping target in social media, I'd probably look at something more like Facebook, where there's a case that unrolling their rats' nest of aquisitions like WhatsApp, Instagram, and Oculus could result in some valuable spin-offs: for example, if WhatsApp went back to a stripped-down standalone company with a small fee it would probably be quite profitable, as it had been before being Facebooked. But Twitter is twitter. That's it.
The only thing I see with this is an echo of when this site's owners sacked Musk for fucking up PayPal with deranged, incoherent edicts. The difference is that no-one can sack Musk to save Twitter from him.
At some point, we need a history of post-war corporate capitalism, because it sure seems like it is driven by one fad piled atop another fad.
When Elon bought it Twitter had no free cash flow, existing long term debt, no assets to sell, etc. It's an enormous LBO with strange characteristics done by a guy with no LBO experience, advised by Jason Calacanis and David Sacks.
This will be a b-school case study classic.
He fired teams that he didn't believe were core to to that strategy and removed WFH. What he is left with, theoretically, is a hardcore group of people dedicated to the cause and willing to put with anything he might do.
Musk is his own worst enemy and can be a douche a lot of the time but he doesn't deserve this toxic personal shit for trying to sort out the mess. Also as I remember once he saw past the facade of twitter he tried to back out and it was the twitter board of management that insisted he buy.
I can sympathise with this, but that's if anything anticorrelated with coming into the office - the people who work the least are those who make the most effort at being seen.
Not necessarily, but there’s certainly something to the unreasonable effectiveness of ‘just showing up’.
What makes you think Musk successfully selected the best people to stay? How could he even, in that short amount of time? That Twitter had to bring fired people back because it turned out that they were essential after all, indicates the opposite.
> Also as I remember once he saw past the facade of twitter he tried to back out and it was the twitter board of management that insisted he buy.
You remember wrong. It was Musk who insisted he wanted to buy, offered a ridiculously high price, and waived due diligence. The board didn't want to sell, initially resisted, but had to agree to Musk's high offer because they represent the shareholders and have to act in their best interest.
Only after the deal was done did Musk want to back out. That's not how it works. There's plenty of opportunity to due diligence and some serious thinking before you sign a big deal like that. Smart business people, or even normal business people actually, take advantage of that. Musk didn't, and he has only himself to blame.
This means, among other things, that the employee qualifies for unemployment, the employer's unemployment insurance account will get dinged, etc.
In the particular case of Twitter, they announced in 2020 that they would allow "permanent" remote work, and reiterated this policy at least as late as March of this year . If I'm correctly informed, the change in this policy was announced in an e-mail that was sent out on Wednesday, and was to be effective on Thursday, the following day.
It would seem to me that this is about as straightforward and well-documented a constructive dismissal fact pattern as you could conceive.
Constructive dismissal as a legal concept is relevant for purposes of determining whether the employee voluntary separated (i.e., quit) or was terminated by the company. This then determines the legal rights/obligations of the parties, including for example eligibility for unemployment, severance, etc.
Constructive dismissal is treated as a termination, meaning involuntary on the employee's behalf. Whether the constructive dismissal is legal depends on whether a termination in the same circumstances would be legal. Terminations are generally legal, so constructive dismissals are generally legal...
I agree that in this case the Twitter WFO policy is constructive dismissal. And elsewhere I have said this would fall under the WARN Act because it's clearly part of the mass terminations already announced early this week.
I stand corrected; thanks for setting me straight.
The TL;DR is that it's just equivalent to getting fired. If you can prove you got shuffled out the door via constructive dismissal for reasons it's illegal to fire people for, then it's illegal. If at-will would've applied anyway, it's just a jerk move. Mostly it means you still get unemployment and can still sue for wrongful termination, even though you technically resigned.
What I suspect might be more of an issue, at least in CA, is that our at-will law has a "good faith" clause that basically implies you can't fire someone for a reason that would broadly be considered unethical in the context of an employer-employee business relationship. The classic example is canning someone just before they get their commissions purely to save yourself of the cost of paying them. My guess is that's one reason why Facebook, for example, is giving all their employees the mid-November vest even if they got fired first.
Constructively dismissing someone out the door probably takes away a lot of argument that you were acting in good faith.
If they promised these people that they could work remote and they invested in property then get forced to move, I actually wonder if it could open up the company to promissory estoppel (i.e., I had a financial loss based on a reasonable promise you broke, and now I want to recover).
The times I've heard about that cause in the past were exactly for situations where you moved for a job, then the job was rescinded. At the very least, that angle probably wouldn't look great in court during a wrongful termination suit.
(IANAL either, but since I work in CA I try to stay reasonably informed of the laws that affect me.)
CA is not special protecting employees. It’s an at-will state. About the only useful thing it has is banning non-competes.
We’re one of the few states with both implied-contract and bad-faith codified as explicit exceptions to at-will, and we’re significantly more likely to resolve in favor of the employee than in most states because we actually mean them.
The only question is whether naysayers (usually management or people parroting what management said) convince employees that we’re strictly at-will and have no options if terminated, when we are not and often most certainly do.
Do you think the corporate expense of going through motions of PIPs for a month—and risking quiet quitting or even disgruntled employee retaliation in the meantime—would be a thing if they didn’t have to cover their own butts or risk a lawsuit they’d actually conceivably lose?
In states without these protections they generally just fire you. And I’m not even going to get into the protected class aspect where CA has many nuances, and “no reason” becomes awfully tricky to defend if challenged by the vast majority of workers who do fall within one.
So yes, realistically an employer needs a reason to safely fire you in CA.
That’s almost always quietly recognized and accommodated at our level via either a reason or a significant payoff out the door in exchange for a waiver of liability. We can sue the crap out of them and quite feasibly win if they don’t.
It’s only at the lowest level jobs where this gets completely ignored. That’s largely because employers are confident the min-wage folks aren’t going to sue them, same reason poor people get illegal leases around here that never get challenged.
Second, I never actually said we had special protection in my original post.
I said we had (among) the best protections, and that we provide the model for most other protective laws of this type in the USA. And I said it in the context that we were the high water mark for protection and even then the OP’s conjecture wouldn’t necessarily fall under it.
Think that’s all easily verifiable on your part. Not sure what else you think you’re disputing there.
What ends up happening when you do things like this (ie to accelerate natural attrition) is the best people leave first. So you haven't really solved the problem. You may have made it worse.
(Even if the number cut doesn't amount to anything market moving, they probably share a lot of the same network, and it will definitely looks like a flood of job seekers in most twitter employees bubbles, and those of their immediate networks)
I'm happy to be proven wrong but I just don't see anything saying that, only teams that have been reduced by ~15% and other teams which have hardly been reduced at all
The vibe I get from Musk is that he doesn’t care about much more than the numbers and believes that a hard dictatorship is warranted in this situation.
The sudden one sided decisions backed by ultimatums give me the impression of lack of respect for his employees and downright abuse.
I don’t see how such a relationship can nurture a positive company culture or retain top talent.
I don't like it either, but I think that is part of the rational behind it.
> Day zero
> Sharpen your blades boys
> 2 day a week Office requirement = 20 % voluntary departures
no. layoff from the bottom first. then push out more people as needed. bottom performers have fewer options and, on average, will be willing to put up with more than top performers
Jason: Twitter revenue per employee if 3k instead of 8k: $5B rev/ 3k employees= $1.66m rev per employee in 2021 (more industry standard)
Elon: ["emphasized" above]
Elon: Insane potential for improvement
Jason: Day zero
Jason: Sharpen your blades boys
Jason: 2 day a week Office requirement= 20% voluntary
Jason: I mean, the product road map is beyond obviously
Jason: Premium feature abound ... and twitter blue has
exactly zero [unknown emoji]
Jason: What committee came up with the list of dog shit features in Blue?!? It's worth paying to turn it off
Elon: Yeah, what an insane piece of shit!
Jason: Maybe we don't talk twitter on twitter OM @
Elon: Was just thinking that haha
When you have nothing left to lose, why wouldn’t you? It brings the federal government in to provide support, on their dime no less. Worst case is everyone leaves, the NLRB finds against Musk, and he has to give folks their jobs back while Twitter is burning.
“The strongest steel is forged in the fires of a dumpster.”
> Repeated layoffs strengthen a workforce
It sounds to me like you may not have been through a layoff before...
The path to success is voting for decency over power, so I suppose we’ll agree to disagree. To unionize costs Twitter folks only their time and effort. The tools exists, just have to use them. This is what a hacker would do, isn’t it? Use the tools available instead of being goaded into some other mechanisms out of “pride”?
Your average tech worker makes company owners orders of magnitude more than your average factory worker, and are paid what they are because they can demand it. Business owners would pay less if they could. Why shouldn't tech workers, like any other worker, try to maximize their own lot in turn?
- Gets up early, leaves late
- Performs work that is rote down to a T
- Works extremely hard, physically
- On their feet for large parts of the day
- Must join (and pay to be in) a union for benefits and such
- Extremely fungable
- Paid at or around the US median
- Gets up early...if they want to. Gets out late...if they want to.
- Or they just pull up before your team's standup and peace out at 3pm
- Work on extremely creative tasks b/c software is creative; so much so that some have really cool blogs where they talk about the 0.01% elite engineering shit they do
- Work is extremely demanding mentally while you sit in >$1000 chairs and type on >$1000 standing desks
- Need the standing desk and occasional walk to force themselves to be mobile
- No union, but amazing benefits (see laid off Tweeps getting three months of pay)
- Generally not very fungable
- Paid several times above the US median, and that's before we consider their equity
TL;DR: Come on, dude.
Your fellow citizens do not deserve that kind of treatment, no human does.
If I compensate you accordingly, are you willing to accept sub-human treatment and an environment of constant fear and stress with no sense of accomplishment? Especially in the case of an eccentric billionaire playing financial mechanics with a vanity project?
If its OK because they make all the monies, I imagine it will be OK when it is your neighbors, the Blacks, Jews, LGBTQ+, Asians, dudes name Sally and your Mom's "Aunt Sylvie" from the Home who has all those amazing candies from Eastern Europe?
This is a shit-poor example of Capitalism, and scheming like this over a ** Br3ndN@me™ is the kind of other-over-there-shit that leads to unrest and aquatic tea parties.
Just base, craven, and completely unnecessary in all regards. I cannot imagine an eventuality that is worth the harm he's already caused.
Taking this risk at the absolute worst possible time is already f*cking up Tesla and SolarCity. Regardless of their scam-iness, having real impact.
Working as an engineer is literally one of the cushiest jobs you can get, and it's in super high demand, even now given the layoffs.
I think that it is insulting to factory workers to compare what we do with what they do.
I haven't done factory work, but from what I've read and seen, it's a _true_ grind.
All I can say is I’m excited to hire the best employees at twitter and let them work the way they work best.
it's not about being able to communicate, it's about being able to see yourself as a member of a class, with the same difficulties as the others, for the same reason, and with the ability to change things through collective action. so communist memes on the discord doesn't cut it.
just talking about things online isn't going to put anyone in the frame of mind to be willing to take a risk for anyone, and there is risk in trying to get a union started.
just talking online means you never reach people that aren't sure about forming or joining a union, but that could be convinced.
or to respond to a snarky quip with a snarky quip:
> Do you think maybe people, who work on computers at a computerized social communication company, have some way to communicate?
i guess that's why tech is overwhelmingly unionized.
2022-04-15 17:22:12 ( CDT )
>Sharpen your blades boys
2022-04-15 17:22:59 ( CDT )
>2 day a week Office requirement = 20 % voluntary departures
These people really don't understand the branding of Apple vs Twitter:
>Back of the envelope ... Twitter revenue per employee : $ 5B rev / 8k employees = $ 625K rev per employee in 2021 Google revenue per employee : $ 257B rev / 135K employee = $ 1.9M per employee in 2021 Apple revenue per employee : $ 365B rev / 154k employees = $ 2.37M per employee in fiscal 2021
2022-04-15 17:08:07 ( CDT )
>Twitter revenue per employee if 3k instead of 8k : $ 5B rev / 3k employees = $ 1.66m rev per employee in 2021 ( more industry standard )
hard to tell if this is sarcasm?!
>I will be universally beloved , since it is so easy to please everyone on twitter
2022-04-23 21:04:30 ( CDT )
>It feels like everyone wants the same exact thing , and they will be patient and understanding of any changes ... Twitter Stans are a reasonable , good faith bunch
2022-04-23 21:06:51 ( CDT )
>These dipshits spent a years on twitter blue to give people exactly .... Nothing they want !
The sycophantism is over 9k:
> Morgan Stanley and Jared think you are using our friendship not in a good way
2022-05-12 19:31:12 ( CDT )
>This makes it seem like I'm desperate .
2022-05-12 19:31:17 ( CDT )
2022-05-12 19:31:48 ( CDT )
>Only ever want to support you .
2022-05-12 19:37:49 ( CDT )
>Clearly you're not desperate - you have the worlds greatest investors voting in support of a deal you already have covered . you're overfunded . will quietly cancel it ... And to be clear , I'm not out actively soliciting folks . These are our exiting LPs not rondos . Sorry for any trouble
2022-05-12 19:55:14 ( CDT )
>Morgan Stanley and Jared are very upset
2022-05-12 19:55:55 ( CDT )
2022-05-12 19:58:44 ( CDT )
>SPVs are how everyone is doing there deals now ... Luke loved to SPVS etc
2022-05-12 19:59:13 ( CDT )
>Just trying to support you ... obviously . I reached out to Jared and sort it out .
2022-05-12 20:00:53 ( CDT )
2022-05-12 20:01:54 ( CDT )
>Yes , I had to ask him to stop .
2022-05-12 20:06:45 ( CDT )
>Liked " Just trying to support you ... obviously . I reached out to Jared and sort it out . "
2022-05-12 22:49:00 ( CDT )
>Cleaned it up with Jared
2022-05-12 22:49:12 ( CDT )
>Liked " Cleaned it up with Jared "
2022-05-12 22:49:58 ( CDT )
>I get where he is coming from .... Candidly , This deal has just captures the worlds imagination in an unimaginable way . It's bonkers ....
2022-05-12 22:51:42 ( CDT )
>And you know I'm ride or die brother - I'd jump on a grande for you
2022-05-12 22:51:49 ( CDT )
>Loved " And you know I'm ride or die brother - I'd jump on a grande for you "
However, I have a suspicion that there is a certain type of person with low self esteem and high intelligence that will respond very well to being treated this badly.
As this constructive dismissal is clearly part of the mass layoffs, they would also be subject to the 60 days notice under the WARN Act (or 60 days pay to waive notice).
Elon announced the policy with the intent to be able to fire employees who refused to come in to the office. However, because WFH is part of employee contracts, enforcing a WFO policy would constitute a constructive dismissal if actually enforced by Twitter. Meaning, not for cause, severance likely required under WARN Act, etc.
Hope can't achieve orbital velocity.