LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Tesla CEO burned by mistrust Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
03-18-2009 07:41 PM
Bry Reid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Gibbs View Post
I don't see what the big deal is. If he was truly paranoid then he'd have several offices and cubicles bugged, phones tapped, and hidden camera all over the place.
A friend of mine effectively did that with her own small company recently. She's co-owner of a construction company (which of course means there's money problems at the moment) and it turns out her partner has been stealing very large sums of money regularly and covering it up with shady accounting and under the table deals for at least a year... the economic downturn just made it easier to notice the missing money. Since she's good with PCs and all of the equipment and systems are hers, she had computer use in the offices monitored.
She's been stressed to the limit just trying to make employee payroll, and her partner just had a dozen ATVs delivered to his house... That purchase was made with his company account through a 'legit' supplier they work with regularly and accounted as a regular work materials order, so in this case the paranoia was worthwhile. With that to go on, a subpoena on bank records revealed an average of $30,000 a month was misdirected from company funds into his account.

I'm not saying draconian measures are good, but they were put in place in this case specifically to find the leaking money, and it worked.
Tesla's CEO went about things in a more 'crazy nutjob' sort of way, but I can sort of understand where he's coming from.
03-18-2009 06:27 PM
charliex tis a slippery slope, mines just a small company at the time around 8 people so not a huge deal, we work long hours and to block stuff that have become a large part of the day to day lives seems a bit OTT.

if the people can't be trusted to work and get on with it, then they're probably not going to survive in small companies anyway, corporations are usually easy fairly to hide in so they'll end up there, when i worked at xerox the facility was so huge i used to move offices around basically had my own corridor, and i'd never see any of my team. i could work from home and no one noticed, so long as the work gets done it'd be ok, but i hated the dynamic and ended up leaving.

i stopped using IM as it was a huge timesuck, and now i try to limit email to certain times of the day as well.

a lot of us spend so much time at work that a bit of the web here and there should be ok, companies ought to learn to leverage and embrace it a bit more, its a useful demographic.

but i can definitely see it as an issue for faceless corporations where people just hate their work and want distractions til quitting time.
03-18-2009 05:46 PM
Westrock
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliex View Post
yep sorry, i know exactly where you're coming from , we had a problem with people using AIM and not working, and rather than just block AIM altogether as a lot of companies do , it was done at a personal responsibility level*. I think thats basically the same thing as i'm saying with tesla.
I dont understand why companies do it that way. If the site is a problem enough that management has to think about, just simply block it. I work at a very large semiconductor company and they have told us that sites like Youtube are using too much company bandwidth, warn us of sites like Facebook and Myspace spreading viruses, that people shouldn't be using Ebay or Craigslist while at work....do they block them??? Nope. Do people continue to use them??? Yup. But they will block the States lottery website, because that is "making personal gain with company assets" (but yet none of the stock trading sites are blocked).

I think its because ultimatly upper managment people use the sites just as much as we do (and are well off enough they dont need to play the lottery )
03-05-2009 11:51 AM
jasper Get Smart -- Silicon Valley style

truly bush league
03-05-2009 11:45 AM
Allan Gibbs I don't see what the big deal is. If he was truly paranoid then he'd have several offices and cubicles bugged, phones tapped, and hidden camera all over the place.
03-05-2009 09:52 AM
mopho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Chase View Post
But there is a difference when discussing "large companies" and individuals.
More correctly, there is a difference between CEO's of large publicly traded companies and CEO's of small private companies where they actually know their employees personally

Not defending his actions, but perhaps Musk's "stress" is more from being constantly berated by the media and the public than from from the actual running of the company

I know I get "stressed" when I get criticized on a stupid car forum, sure glad I am not negatively portrayed in the news
03-05-2009 09:45 AM
charliex yep sorry, i know exactly where you're coming from , we had a problem with people using AIM and not working, and rather than just block AIM altogether as a lot of companies do , it was done at a personal responsibility level*. I think thats basically the same thing as i'm saying with tesla.

It didn't work for a particular employee, but i think thats not a failure in the policy of not blocking, its more to do with the individual, they're either with it, or not.

I avoid any companies with what i consider draconian IT enforcement policies, unless its done for real security/insurance reasons. There's that mobile phone company in the UK that banned all email entirely a while ago, i don't know if they are still around or are still doing it.

Be interesting to see what happens in the Tesla saga next., i'm sure we'll see some docudramas based on them in the future.
03-05-2009 09:40 AM
Randy Chase
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliex View Post
but i agree with you where its applicable to other people/companies, i lost plenty of sleep and stuff worrying about looking after employees.

Yep. I know personally that the welfare of the people that work for me is more worrisome than me. Me, I would do fine doing something else. Anyway, that is all I was saying.
03-05-2009 09:36 AM
charliex yeah then like i said, i wasn't following you i was meaning that if your quote about burden of employees is attributed to tesla/elon it seems like they aren't on that same page.

but i agree with you where its applicable to other people/companies, i lost plenty of sleep and stuff worrying about looking after employees.
03-05-2009 09:19 AM
Randy Chase Not following me? I didn't address Elon or the letter at all.
03-05-2009 09:06 AM
charliex I guess i'm not following you, it seems the letter is designed to stop further damage to the company and protect it as an investment, it looks on the surface that its designed to put some fear into the employees and say either fess up and we promise not to do anything to you, but you'd have to be very gullible to fall for that one, or if we find out you are still hiding something we'll prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.

Sending out a letter that says trust is a key factor, then fixing it so that its based on weeding out any leaks is a bit odd in itself, the company has every right to protect itself against leaks, however just having people sign something that says own up and get away scott free or else should be enough in itself, to set traps to catch people just doesn't seem that ethical, especially given that he didn't really think it out all that well, in theory its a simple enough idea, but what if someone had forwarded their copy only once or twice, and that was the one that was sent out, how would you clear your name against it ?

The people that own up to leaking information will automatically be mistrusted or treated differently, even though tesla claims that no further action will be taken, regardless of any of the reasoning behind it or whether or not the person leaking the leaking information should have something done against them.

The fact he sent the letter would show he didn't think the amensty and counter of punishment to the fullest extent of the law wasn't enough to stop the leaks, and it never is, journos are very effective at social engineering and are able to pull information even when the person is mostly unaware of whats actually happening, its not always down to malcontent or malice, sometimes just a mistake, however given the severity of whats happened with tesla in the press someone who's perhaps just made a silly mistake in gossip or such isn't going to feel too comfortable about stepping forward and saying they did it, especially given the current job market and that it may end up on their record, as well as they saw what happened to that other guy who was brought up in front of the company and his name is now spread across the web, any future employer will see that, and most everyone knows that now, granted he did something wrong, however as with things like this you rarely find out how severe the punishment is, its like being a sex offender, was it two kids involved in sending nude pics to each other via cellphone, or an adult raping a child, all you may know is the label put on them, not the situation behind it.

I just don't think it its a good move to promote trust and company orientated goals then be duplicitous about it, its very silicon valley though.
03-05-2009 08:51 AM
Randy Chase But there is a difference when discussing "large companies" and individuals.
03-05-2009 08:44 AM
charliex There isn't a much of a trend though of large companies being employee orientated.
03-05-2009 08:00 AM
Randy Chase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tpup View Post
You obviously have never been one. It has nothing to do with your losses, it has to do with impacting the lives of hundreds of employess who work for you and depend on your decisions to provide for them and their family.

Roy

ps. I'm not defending him or his actions, I just take issue with your implication that CEO's are all about their own investments...
+1

The burden of your responsibility to your employees is far more than one's self.
03-05-2009 07:58 AM
Tpup
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfa2100 View Post
It may not be a walk in the park, but it is no reason to get pushed over the edge. What's going to happen, he's going to lose the millions he's invested? He has more. He'll still be alive if the company fails. It's all self-induced stress. If he can't handle it, he shouldn't be the CEO. There are plenty of people out there that deal with more stressful jobs that don't freak out and go running out of control.
You obviously have never been one. It has nothing to do with your losses, it has to do with impacting the lives of hundreds of employess who work for you and depend on your decisions to provide for them and their family.

Roy

ps. I'm not defending him or his actions, I just take issue with your implication that CEO's are all about their own investments...
03-05-2009 07:57 AM
Patricko
Quote:
Originally Posted by craracer View Post
During times of monumental stress people often do things, which at the time sound logical, that might be otherwise considered bizarre at best.
03-05-2009 07:43 AM
SweetDaddyD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrumpot View Post
Right.

Telling. Unfortunately, VERY telling.
The guy walked out on his own family. What makes anyone think he is going to have any special loyalty reserved for them?
I'm not sure he would know integrity if if pimp slapped him.
03-05-2009 07:38 AM
Scrumpot
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLevin View Post
And while Musk has said that he would make sure that didn't happen, he hasn't actually done anything about it. (for example, to put money equal to the existing deposits in escrow).

Steve
Right.

Telling. Unfortunately, VERY telling.
03-05-2009 07:26 AM
SteveLevin What Musk is dancing around is that right now, if the company goes under, people holding deposits get nothing unless the company's assets are sold for more than $40 million (the recent round of funding, which is secured debt) plus any other secured debt lying around.

Unlike conventional deposits, where you would expect them to sit in a safe escrow account, for a Tesla deposit, you had to agree to allow the company to use the money for working capital -- making you an unsecured debtor in the case of bankruptcy.

And while Musk has said that he would make sure that didn't happen, he hasn't actually done anything about it. (for example, to put money equal to the existing deposits in escrow).

Steve
03-05-2009 06:45 AM
SweetDaddyD I guess I sounded like a jerk when I was saying it before, but now it's looking like there is an echo in here.

What a d!(#.

I saw some Tesla matchbox cars in the store yesterday and half thought about picking one or two up figuring they would be a collectors item soon, but even in that small regard and for personal gain I didn't really care to show that inkling of support for Musk.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome