Yes, Elon’s orders got questioned by a woman so he canned 500 people to make a point to the rest of the org that he will not be questioned under any circumstances.
So, if we do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic...
The 20% was a companywide target. First round was 10%, second round another 10% (for 20% total). This came because there was a massive drop in revenue and profits the previous quarter. People above completely missed this AGAIN, but from the same leaked email, Tinucci and people working under her were not the only ones fired, she was one of two groups: Daniel Ho (head of new products) was also fired (along with presumably all people working under him). It was move to warn heads of other divisions that Elon won't take any pushback on the percentage of people firing (using a high performing division and one that many though was critical makes the point fairly clear). This was NOT simply an internal reallocation of resources, but rather because Tesla's finances were poor last quarter.
That doesn't mean much. Once it's in print it's the truth. And ... nobody except Tesla managers, those in media and those playing managers on TMC know why there was a need at all for layoffs. It's all just guessing. The media likes to say firings because it's more inflammatory.
I see what you're saying, but in most companies there is a strategy even while cutting costs to maintain the function of the business. That often means if two capable people are in the same role, the one with lower performance will be let go. It will still be considered a layoff because the person let go was not in any way underperforming.
If it remained exclusive to Tesla, then focusing more investment makes sense, because even though superchargers are a net quarterly money loser (once you factor in expansion costs also), they helped drive sales. That was what justified the rapid expansion.
You are assuming superchargers (and charge networks in general) are profitable, but they are not, especially when you expand at the rate Tesla was expanding. As such, given superchargers are no longer exclusive to Tesla, it makes much less sense to invest into superchargers at a rapid pace (such that on the balance sheet it remains a net negative). They only need to invest the bare minimum to cover Tesla demand and slow enough to break even or have a small profit. The other automakers have paid ZERO dollars upfront into the network and do not have any investment commitment to cover the costs of expanding the network to deal with the extra demand they put on the network (unlike previously expected, Tesla didn't require automakers to pitch in anything to gain access to the network).
So much for “the maintenance team wasn’t part of the cuts”. One technician for a 200 mile stretch in California… lol… good luck with that.
If your litmus test for shutting things down is whether they make a profit right now, then Tesla itself should have shut down many years ago when it wasn't making money. So rather, the fact is the superchargers are projected to be profitable. Even Elon himself said this just a couple of years.
That is indeed a data point. How many out of how many were fired and rehired would be information.
… and will most certainly look for other job opportunities constantly from now on. Fool me once, fool me twice…
I'm not talking about shutting down the supercharger network, that was never on the table despite the initial hysteria suggesting that (neither was shutting down Tesla), so your analogy doesn't apply. Rather it's slowing down the pace of expansion to a rate where it can at least break even.
because "offloading to third party networks" in the charging world has worked super so far. Electrify America anyone?
Wasn't EA "forced" to install an EV charging network as punishment for cheating?
