|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|03-18-2009 07:41 PM|
Originally Posted by Allan Gibbs View Post
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|
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|
Originally Posted by charliex View Post
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|
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|
Originally Posted by Randy Chase View Post
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|
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|
Originally Posted by charliex View Post
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|
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|
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|
Originally Posted by Tpup View Post
The burden of your responsibility to your employees is far more than one's self.
|03-05-2009 07:58 AM|
Originally Posted by dfa2100 View Post
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|
Originally Posted by craracer View Post
|03-05-2009 07:43 AM|
Originally Posted by Scrumpot View Post
I'm not sure he would know integrity if if pimp slapped him.
|03-05-2009 07:38 AM|
Originally Posted by SteveLevin View Post
Telling. Unfortunately, VERY telling.
|03-05-2009 07:26 AM|
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).
|03-05-2009 06:45 AM|
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.|