Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Hundreds of Twitter Employees Leaving After Elon Musk's 'Extremely Hardcore' Work Demands

Status
Not open for further replies.
jamezr said:
ONLY if that was written into a employment contract. Which i doubt very much it was written into most employment contracts. Companies always have a clause that if condidtions change...they can have employees come back to the office. This standard business practices.
Click to expand...
Some are forgetting that Twitter has (had) employees in other countries, not just America, and in those countries the terms of employment are much more strict than in the US. For example, if Musk tried to junk 100s of employees in the UK without notice he'd be taken straight to court.

The Ts&Cs in our employment contracts in the UK, for example, state when we are supposed to work (e.g. 9am-5:30pm), what breaks we have (e.g. an hour's lunch), and where our "usual" place of work is (i.e. the office), but they can be altered by agreement of both the employer and employee. I recently agreed to change my place of work to my home three days a week, with two in the office, rather than five in the office. It works for the employer and employee.

Musk's way of dealing with HR is to fire first, then think about what he's done, then ignore what he's done and move onto the next boneheaded thing he can do wrt to his employees.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: SlCKB0Y, cyb3rdud3, robotica and 3 others
darkpaw said:
Some are forgetting that Twitter has (had) employees in other countries, not just America, and in those countries the terms of employment are much more strict than in the US. For example, if Musk tried to junk 100s of employees in the UK without notice he'd be taken straight to court.

The Ts&Cs in our employment contracts in the UK, for example, state when we are supposed to work (e.g. 9am-5:30pm), what breaks we have (e.g. an hour's lunch), and where our "usual" place of work is (i.e. the office), but they can be altered by agreement of both the employer and employee. I recently agreed to change my place of work to my home three days a week, with two in the office, rather than five in the office. It works for the employer and employee.

Musk's way of dealing with HR is to fire first, then think about what he's done, then ignore what he's done and move onto the next boneheaded thing he can do wrt to his employees.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with work contracts and the country the person lives in. But it all comes dowen to the employment contract. Unless we have a copy of that contract we really don't know for sure.
I know in my country and state employees are at will hires.
I recently changed my employee agreeemnt to be full time telecommute. I work from home 5 days a week. But my employers also stipulates that they can recind that if business needs change or for performance issues. They have a business to run. They also know if they do not allow telecommute the next employer will.
I have been through a lot of mergers and aquisistions over the years. These things takes years to come to full circle and identify which postions and people desserve to be kept on board and which to be let go.

Musk fast tracked the whole process and saved a ton of time, effort and money in the process. Now by all accounts the company is leaner and more efficient and working at higher capacity with less employees. Now he has a loyal and dedicated work force that is getting the job done the way he wanst to operate. Now he can add to staff knowing where their loyalties lie....
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: SirAnthonyHopkins and msackey
darkpaw said:
Some are forgetting that Twitter has (had) employees in other countries, not just America, and in those countries the terms of employment are much more strict than in the US. For example, if Musk tried to junk 100s of employees in the UK without notice he'd be taken straight to court.

The Ts&Cs in our employment contracts in the UK, for example, state when we are supposed to work (e.g. 9am-5:30pm), what breaks we have (e.g. an hour's lunch), and where our "usual" place of work is (i.e. the office), but they can be altered by agreement of both the employer and employee. I recently agreed to change my place of work to my home three days a week, with two in the office, rather than five in the office. It works for the employer and employee.

Musk's way of dealing with HR is to fire first, then think about what he's done, then ignore what he's done and move onto the next boneheaded thing he can do wrt to his employees.
Click to expand...

In Ca. I believe there is a law that (large) companies can not do that same thing. Some of the employees have begun the work of a class action suit for that reason. Have not heard where it has gone so far though.

Thing is, "people" like Enron think the rules are not for them, that they can break them and pay the fine later netting a profit.
 
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
Do you guys think it will be ideal to apply for a job at Twitter? I wonder if they have also freeze the hiring. Definitely don’t wanna be in the engineering or design department.

I wonder if Elon had let go of the custodial workers as well. Demanding them to clean the toilets for hours, spotless. Perhaps, he’s cleaning the sinks himself?

View attachment 2114793
Click to expand...
funny photo it seems like "HEY MOMMY I CAN MOVE A SINK LOL. silly man
 
Still waiting on someone to explain how Twitter is going to make money and continue to survive.

Blue check membership is a joke. Not enough people joined.

Advertising from name brands is dropping off the cliff. Remember 97% of twitter revenue was from advertising.

Worse now that Enron has gone full Gab on the site.

Will he make it up in Pillow ads? 😂


https://twitter.com/x/status/1594696056348049410
 
macsplusmacs said:
Still waiting on someone to explain how Twitter is going to make money and continue to survive.

Blue check membership is a joke. Not enough people joined.

Advertising from name brands is dropping off the cliff. Remember 97% of twitter revenue was from advertising.

Worse now that Enron has gone full Gab on the site.

Will he make it up in Pillow ads? 😂
Click to expand...
According to Twitters numbers, the blue check cost the company $12 for most people who would sign up for it. As the most likely people to get it were the hardcore users who earn Twitter $40 in advertisements per month, giving them half as many ads, makes them only worth $20 a piece and only charging $8 for that service cost means they are only getting $28 for each of those people vs the $40 they were before. He needed to get people making him less than $16 a month on ads to sign up for it, but honestly, why would people who rarely use a service pay $96 a year to use it? Now with the huge loss in advertisers, this math probably falls apart, but this wasn't a great idea before the ad exodus.
-Tig
 
  • Like
Reactions: macsplusmacs
Some people say it's great that he's got rid of about 90% of the staff, because:
"they were lazy"
"they all wanted to 'work' from home, which was just sitting on the couch playing video games"
"he's separating the wheat from the chaff"
etc.

But do they not think it would've been much better - and more stable - for Musk to have gone in, kept it as it was for a few weeks, got the lay of the land, and then put in a plan to reduce headcount (if it was needed)? Maybe keeping the C-level people in place for a while would've helped, and he could've phased in his new ideas.

The idea that because it was losing $4m a day (his claim, but not backed up by their latest financials) the entire company had to be changed in such a short time, is laughable. He could've reduced headcount once he'd got up to speed with who needed to stay and who needed to go. But no, Mr Ego Musk had to be seen to be the Big Man.

What he's done is decimate the company and ruin its reputation - especially with the advertisers, who were Twitter's lifeblood, and now see it as a major risk. I can't see many advertisers reversing that while he's in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirAnthonyHopkins
burgman said:
You might want to fact check “bought with his money”. Binance, China, and Saudi Arabia backed it. His picture in Texas opening with cowboy hat and sunglasses really looked like Jim Jones moment. He just might lose security clearances from this.
Click to expand...
ok, sure.
 
Here’s a refreshing take:

robertreich.substack.com

Musk's Humongous Mistake

Listen now | It's the human capital, stupid
robertreich.substack.com robertreich.substack.com


From the article:

First, corporations that regard employees only as costs to be cut rather than as assets to be nourished can make humongous mistakes. Elon Musk is Exhibit #1.

Second, where corporations view employees as costs, the traditional way for employees to flex their muscle is to strike, thereby temporarily closing factories and stopping the machines.

But where employees are a corporation’s key assets, workers’ greater power comes in threatening to — or actually — walking out the door. Elon Musk is Exhibit #2.
Click to expand...
 
This just keeps getting better and better. I'm honestly not sure what to make of all of this, currently, and if it's just noise or where it goes. Only time will tell.
 
darkpaw said:
Some people say it's great that he's got rid of about 90% of the staff, because:
"they were lazy"
"they all wanted to 'work' from home, which was just sitting on the couch playing video games"
"he's separating the wheat from the chaff"
etc.

But do they not think it would've been much better - and more stable - for Musk to have gone in, kept it as it was for a few weeks, got the lay of the land, and then put in a plan to reduce headcount (if it was needed)? Maybe keeping the C-level people in place for a while would've helped, and he could've phased in his new ideas.

The idea that because it was losing $4m a day (his claim, but not backed up by their latest financials) the entire company had to be changed in such a short time, is laughable. He could've reduced headcount once he'd got up to speed with who needed to stay and who needed to go. But no, Mr Ego Musk had to be seen to be the Big Man.

What he's done is decimate the company and ruin its reputation - especially with the advertisers, who were Twitter's lifeblood, and now see it as a major risk. I can't see many advertisers reversing that while he's in charge.
Click to expand...
i think he was getting the "lay of the land" for about a year now...But publicly started last April.
Then by all accounts the company is going strong with the reduced crew he has now. Even with twitter trending and getting more traffic than before.
 
Unregistered 4U said:
That’s a more interesting proposition… and I’d guess it’d have to be an international set of people, but then that feels like a “too many cooks in the kitchen” situation. As a quasi-government entity, every government would want their say on what and who is and is not allowed.
Click to expand...
The point still stands... we really don't need to be worshiping Steve Jobs either.
 
jamezr said:
Totally agree with work contracts and the country the person lives in. But it all comes dowen to the employment contract. Unless we have a copy of that contract we really don't know for sure.
I know in my country and state employees are at will hires.
I recently changed my employee agreeemnt to be full time telecommute. I work from home 5 days a week. But my employers also stipulates that they can recind that if business needs change or for performance issues. They have a business to run. They also know if they do not allow telecommute the next employer will.
I have been through a lot of mergers and aquisistions over the years. These things takes years to come to full circle and identify which postions and people desserve to be kept on board and which to be let go.

Musk fast tracked the whole process and saved a ton of time, effort and money in the process. Now by all accounts the company is leaner and more efficient and working at higher capacity with less employees. Now he has a loyal and dedicated work force that is getting the job done the way he wanst to operate. Now he can add to staff knowing where their loyalties lie....
Click to expand...
It doesn’t all come down to the employment contract.

Contracts don’t trump the law of the nation where they are employed.

In the UK you can’t just fire people like in the US they will need to follow and demonstrate the dismissal and warnings.

Large layoffs like this are more like redundancies, in which case they need to follow the minimum consultation period, and show then follow the criteria they are using to decide who stays and who goes. From the positions made redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msackey and cyb3rdud3
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back