SpaceX Layoffs

[Micahgtb]

 Received some bad news from and employee last night...

"Nearly 10% of the SpaceX population got let go today some of whom were close friends of mine, you will be missed, but better things are coming your way, you know who you are, keep in touch and good luck on your future endeavors."

That employee cites, "cost cutting" as they main reason. I just wonder if they can keep up the pace they are at with these cuts. Any ideas?

-
(Old thread rebumped due to another layoff situation - editing out dead link - Chris)

[Lars_J]

If true, I'm not surprised. Their employee growth has been pretty drastic for the last few years. At some point you have to take a hard look at your bottom line. It is a bummer for the people affected, though.

[Lar]

This seems confusing to me, because
1. I thought they had retention problems and were always hiring
2. conventional wisdom is that to process multiple launches at once, you need multiple ground crews.

So I'm confused.

[Lars_J]

This seems confusing to me, because
1. I thought they had retention problems and were always hiring
2. conventional wisdom is that to process multiple launches at once, you need multiple ground crews.

2. Ground crew staff is a very small minority of SpaceX employees.

And there is no clue (again, if true) that this was a 10% cut across all employee divisions. That wouldn't make sense.

[Lee Jay]

This seems confusing to me, because
1. I thought they had retention problems and were always hiring
2. conventional wisdom is that to process multiple launches at once, you need multiple ground crews.

So I'm confused.

I've been wondering for a long time how they could sustain all the people and all the activities on so little revenue.  It looks from the outside like they have been growing on the back of a large number of deposits and relatively few actual flight dollars.  Of course, looks can be deceiving but this news, if true, would lend a bit of support to that conjecture.

[sdsds]

Amanda B. (@aebennett on twitter) is also curious, and she uses the oh-so-popular euphemism, "reduction in force." If this were true, the relative silence would be astonishing.

[Lar]

at the risk of veering way way way off topic I think 10% across the board would be odd... I know when I've been in (non union, so it wasn't strict seniority based) orgs that had layoffs it was not uniformly applied and it was also used to choose who to keep (ala Jack Welch as I think someone alluded to somewhere)

[Nate_Trost]

I think there might be some confusion between "across the board" meaning 10% of each department (unlikely) or just 10% of the total headcount.

[friendly3]

Don't forget their statement two days ago :

At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land successfully (...) and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment.

They seem to be very confident, so maybe the reason is they know they won't have to build dozens of cores per year as they planned to (Shotwell once said 40). That would explain the layoffs.

[RonM]

I don't know about this. Spacex.com lists over 360 job openings.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/list

Companies do layoff workers even when they are hiring. Sometimes the workers they are getting rid of don't qualify for the openings. Other times the people being let go can apply for the open positions and actually don't leave the company.

[QuantumG]

More likely, not enough of you have been working weekends.

[docmordrid]

Sometimes you simply rebalance the workforce, moving from one need to another - especially if production methods change.  More robots, hybrid  subtractive/additive manufacturing machines etc. require fewer warm bodies on the line or in the machinists shop.

[sdsds]

There appear to be commonalities between this rumored workforce reduction at SpaceX and the one anticipated at ULA:
 - the 10% number
 - the use of "reduction in force" to describe the action
 - the reddit discussion of the ULA action mentions SpaceX in its title

Combine that with the silence from the young, twitter-enabled SpaceX workforce members who would have been effected and there's only one sensible conclusion: those discussing it have misunderstood the ULA action, thinking it applied to SpaceX.

[Bryn]

There appear to be commonalities between this rumored workforce reduction at SpaceX and the one anticipated at ULA:
 - the 10% number
 - the use of "reduction in force" to describe the action
 - the reddit discussion of the ULA action mentions SpaceX in its title

Combine that with the silence from the young, twitter-enabled SpaceX workforce members who would have been effected and there's only one sensible conclusion: those discussing it have misunderstood the ULA action, thinking it applied to SpaceX.

I thought the same thing, a mix up with the ULA announcement.  I work at ULA, and the reduction will not actually happen until October.  Also, at this point it is not 10%. 
The first post in the thread quotes a person on social media stating, "laid off today," so that makes me think something could be going on at SpaceX.  Maybe they are just re-structuring to meet anticipated skillsets needed for the future.  Or maybe it just isn't true at all.   

[QuantumG]

Or maybe it just isn't true at all.

Only response I've gotten from SpaceX employees so far is: oh, really?

So, if it has happened, or is happening, it's incredibly quiet.

[MechE31]

I can confirm via first hand knowledge this did happen on Monday. All 4 major sites (Hawthorne, Cape, McGregor and Vandy) were impacted.

These were not deemed layoffs or reduction in workforce, just so happens 10% of the workforce was let go in one day.

[Coastal Ron]

Don't forget their statement two days ago :

At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land successfully (...) and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment.

They seem to be very confident, so maybe the reason is they know they won't have to build dozens of cores per year as they planned to (Shotwell once said 40). That would explain the layoffs.

Shotwell just stated this year that they plan to get to 40 cores per year production by the end of this year, and they obviously would have already factored in potential reusability.

Keep in mind also for reusability that Shotwell also stated that customers could choose between expendable and reusable launchers, and that they launch market is somewhat conservative.  Add in that Musk said they won't be re-flying any stages until next year, and that all the customers signed up through that point are on expendable launchers, and that means that they still need the ability to build lots of cores in their factory.

As to this rumor, until there is some validation I would take it with a grain of salt...

[Coastal Ron]

I can confirm via first hand knowledge this did happen on Monday. All 4 major sites (Hawthorne, Cape, McGregor and Vandy) were impacted.

These were not deemed layoffs or reduction in workforce, just so happens 10% of the workforce was let go in one day.

Any other details you can provide?

For instance, who stated it was 10% (i.e. the person laying you off, or another worker), and was it across the board or for a particular product or type of worker?

If, as you say, it was at every location, then that implies it is for Falcon 9 launch operations at the least (Cape & Vandy as you put it), whereas Hawthorne and McGregor could be production related for either Falcon 9 or even Dragon.

If possible too, do you know what type of positions were laid off?

[GalacticIntruder]

380 full time people with skill-sets? or Contractors/Temps? Or the paper pushing departments, non-technical?

It is good to fire the dead weight and bottom 10 percent performers, write-ups, though.

I would not make too much of it without more info.

[Prober]

In raw numbers this would mean like 300 or more people correct?

[MechE31]

The 10% number was from multiple, independent sources inside the company.

This impacted all functions across the board, salary, hourly, engineers, etc...

[Lars_J]

The 10% number was from multiple, independent sources inside the company.

This impacted all functions across the board, salary, hourly, engineers, etc...

I hate to be a nitpicker, but that means it wasn't "first hand knowledge" you have. That's second hand information, even if sourced from multiple people - right?

[MechE31]

The 10% number is second hand.

I know first hand that people from across the sites were let go. I personally know someone from each site that was let go and know them to be across all functions.

[yg1968]

I can confirm via first hand knowledge this did happen on Monday. All 4 major sites (Hawthorne, Cape, McGregor and Vandy) were impacted.

These were not deemed layoffs or reduction in workforce, just so happens 10% of the workforce was let go in one day.

Not that it matters but letting go of an employee means laying them off (unless you are firing them which isn't the case here). Layoffs happen for financial/economic reasons (usually because there is less work than expected). In any event, best of luck for those affected.

[ArbitraryConstant]

This is right around perf review time for a lot of companies.

[yg1968]

unless you are firing them which isn't the case here

How do you know?

Because you don't fire 10% of your workforce on the same day. You fire someone after several warnings or after gross negligence, etc. The odds of that hapenning to 10% of your workforce on the same day is incredibly low.

[RocketGoBoom]

I've been wondering for a long time how they could sustain all the people and all the activities on so little revenue.  It looks from the outside like they have been growing on the back of a large number of deposits and relatively few actual flight dollars.  Of course, looks can be deceiving but this news, if true, would lend a bit of support to that conjecture.

Just for rough numbers, if we assume that each employee costs on average $100,000 per year for a combo of salary + benefits + employee taxes + whatever....  3,000 employees X $100,000 each = $300  million per year.

Supposedly they have a $5 billion backlog. So $300 million per year for salaries is likely within reason as a percentage of total revenue if the revenue actually materializes with successful launches for NASA and commercial customers.

[butters]

SpaceX has reached topping mode. Now in stable replenish. What you're seeing are periodic puffs of gaseous oxygen being vented as it boils off to maintain super-cool conditions inside the vehicle.

[Llian Rhydderch]

What this signals about SpaceX will be a strong function of what, and whether, additional layoffs follow within a year or so.

If the number is approximately 10%, as early reports indicate, then it makes sense that senior management would have endeavored to have the layoff across all functions of the company.  And I'll be surprised if they don't ensure they hit (at least) that same percentage out of the management ranks.

However, in any company that has experienced rapid growth, it belies human capability to think that any real-life hiring process can achieve better than 80-90% in hiring the "right" kind of folks for the SpaceX culture and performance environment. 

If this layoff is in isolation, and not a "phase 1" to something else that follows, then I would speculate that every function was asked to participate, and that many (in management) did not have a "real hard" time finding which 10% of their staff might not be the folks they want to continue to exchange money for labor with in order to have the best chance of achieving SpaceX long-term and short-term objectives.

[RonM]

As I mentioned on the first page, Spacex.com lists over 360 job openings.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/list

Now that seems suspicious since some of you have pointed out that 10% of their workforce is over 300 people. Does anyone know if there were that many job openings a few days ago?

I hope that is a coincidence and not an indication that SpaceX just got rid of 10% of their staff only to immediately replace them. I've seen that thing before and it is a total morale breaker for the remaining workforce. When management starts acting like that, it's hard to keep good employees.

[hop]

As I mentioned on the first page, Spacex.com lists over 360 job openings.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/list

Now that seems suspicious since some of you have pointed out that 10% of their workforce is over 300 people. Does anyone know if there were that many job openings a few days ago?

Just eyeballing https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.spacex.com/careers/list it looks like there has been a similar number of listings for quite a while.

[bob12201]

I heard from word of mouth that roughly 150 people were let go. So that's definitely less than 10%.

[Syrinx]

I don't know if this is the case here with SpaceX, but this is what happens typically:

Companies grow very quickly, and with lofty recruiting goals it's easy for employees to sneak in that for whatever reason just can't keep up.  Over time, such employees accumulate.

It's incredibly difficult to straight-up fire employees for performance reasons.  Performance (under-performance) has to be documented.  The employee must be given a chance to improve his/her performance.  Lack of improvement must be documented.  And then after a year or so, the termination procedure can begin.

So instead, what companies do is wait for a reason (major or minor) to have a general lay-off, or a reduction in force (RIF).  These terms have legal definitions and are clearly defined.  During a RIF, almost any employee can be terminated without cause.  No performance documentation is necessary.  And there are tax advantages for the company as well.

Plenty of medium-sized, healthy companies do this.  I want to say "most medium-sized, healthy companies" but I can't state that with certainty.  My company certainly does it, and we even advertise that we do so.  It's happened at my company each of the last two years, and three of the last five.  Every so often, the bottom 10% of employees are let go based on somewhat arbitrary performance metrics.

As I said, I don't know if this is the case here.

[mme]

unless you are firing them which isn't the case here

How do you know?

Because you don't fire 10% of your workforce on the same day. You fire someone after several warnings or after gross negligence, etc. The odds of that hapenning to 10% of your workforce on the same day is incredibly low.

I have no insight to what's going on here.  Some companies actually use layoffs as a "kinder, gentler" way to cull the workforce.  There are benefits to both the employee and the employer for layoffs as opposed to firing people.  Generally, people that are fired are not eligible for unemployment benefits.  And there is much less stigma attached to being layed off, rather than fired.  From the employer's stand point, it's more expensive in the short term to lay people off due to severance packages and unemployment benefits.  But you are much less likely to be sued for wrongful termination.

There is no doubt a financial motivation behind the layoffs, and I am disappointed by this news.  But having been around the block a few times, I'm reluctant to read too much into it.  My thoughts and wishes are with those that lost their jobs and I hope they find rewarding work quickly.

Edit: To be clear, layoffs are rarely a good sign.  But they don't always mean the company is in dire straights.

[aero]

Perhaps SpaceX needs some cash flow to build their Texas launch facility?

[Darkseraph]

I'm not surprised at this news. At 2 or 3 launches a year of a rocket that they charge between 60 and 120 million for, I'm not sure how they could possibly be operating in the anything but the red. That would barely even cover their staffing costs, never mind overheads, capital, energy and materials. I can't imagine how that could be profitable.....or even cash-flow neutral.

*Do correct me if I'm wrong but I assume its not launch industry practice to dump a truck full of money at Hawthorne for launches that are not going to happen until 3 or more years time? That the satellite operator basically puts a deposit down?

[pseudovector]

More than likely the company just went through its yearly performance reviews. As such, they have a lot of data on which employees have been dutifully performing their job, and which ones have been slacking (at least by SpaceX standards).

Since SpaceX is all innovation and ensuring that the best of the best are working to move the company forward, the 10% figure probably refers to the "bottom" 10% of the company, per the performance reviews.

More than likely, the vast amount of people that were laid off were on the production side, since they can be more easily replaced.

I would be surprised if they cut each department by 10% across the board.

[Chris Bergin]

Well there's certainly SpaceXers talking on social media about people being let go, but I doubt it's 10 percent (which would be a lot) and there are mentions of performance reviews (without it being the definite reason).

I think there were some - as always happens on the internet - exaggerations, especially on the reason for the losses (some reasons being very easy to dismiss), as this would have really snowballed by now if it was an unusual situation (10 percent).

I'd go after it with SpaceX PAO, but I'd rather bother them about their rockets, manifest and future - because prioritizing a "OMG, I hear you let go some workers? Can you confirm" question immediately makes us look like we're going after a negative angle, and that really isn't what we're about here (despite the fact this is of massive interest, as we broke the forum "people online at the same time" record (at 8am GMT!) due to some heavy hitters on Twitter linking this thread up.

[Nomadd]

More than likely the company just went through its yearly performance reviews. As such, they have a lot of data on which employees have been dutifully performing their job, and which ones have been slacking (at least by SpaceX standards).

Since SpaceX is all innovation and ensuring that the best of the best are working to move the company forward, the 10% figure probably refers to the "bottom" 10% of the company, per the performance reviews.

More than likely, the vast amount of people that were laid off were on the production side, since they can be more easily replaced.

I would be surprised if they cut each department by 10% across the board.

The easiest and most obvious answer. As fast as they've been hiring, a <10% cull would be perfectly understandable. Letting the company become bloated with non contributing employees would be counter to their whole philosophy. The reviews could be bad because of ability or attitude. You can't score 100% on new hires. And, like others have said, using the term "layoff" is a lot nicer than termination for lack of performance.

[GREverett]

Here is a little something more than rumor on some restructuring at McGregor in Texas...
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/SpaceX_Announces_Restructuring_Layoffs_At_Local_Facility_115958794.html

[Chris Bergin]

Here is a little something more than rumor on some restructuring at McGregor in Texas...
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/SpaceX_Announces_Restructuring_Layoffs_At_Local_Facility_115958794.html

That article is from 2011

[QuantumG]

There's nothing here. This story is bunk. Ya poke it and nothing comes back.

[swervin]

"layoff" is a lot nicer than termination for lack of performance.

Personally, if I were laid off, and I deep down thought it was due to (my) poor or lack of (expected) performance, I wouldn't be highlighting myself on social media...personally.

I have no idea of knowing why these lay offs are or are not occurring, nor am I saying job performance is the reason, only making an observation.

Although, the demographic at SpX and their likely addiction to social media / telling the world their problems via Facebook or Twitter, and taking pictures of their grilled cheese sandwich, posting it and thinking anyone cares...does make the relative lack of discussion odd.

Splinter

[FutureSpaceTourist]

...does make the relative lack of discussion odd.

Not if the number of layoffs is not a significant percentage. Given SpaceX's size, even dozens of people leaving - especially when spread across departments and sites - might be barely noticeable to many SpaceX staff.

Of course it's very tough on those people directly affected.

[Harold KSC]

There's nothing here. This story is bunk. Ya poke it and nothing comes back.

Tell that to the guys who were let go at the start of the week from their Florida operations.

[QuantumG]

Tell that to the guys who were let go at the start of the week from their Florida operations.

I would if anyone would say who they are.. this is all just chinese whispers.

[newpylong]

Chinese whispers? You people are too funny. Can't even come to accept that SpaceX lays people off.

Just got off the phone from a friend from Hawthorne who got canned. He was hired fairly shortly out of college as an ME.

How many more first hand or second hand accounts do you need?

[Harold KSC]

Tell that to the guys who were let go at the start of the week from their Florida operations.

I would if anyone would say who they are.. this is all just chinese whispers.

I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. I know some of this people.

[QuantumG]

Just one first hand account would do it. Instead we get endless random people who never have anything to say 99 percent of the time telling us to trust them. Meanwhile hundreds of people who are supposedly looking for work now have nothing to say.

[QuantumG]

I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. I know some of this people.

I appreciate that. I think you've actually got the most credibility of anyone I've heard this from so far, but even you can't corroborate the "10% across the board" part.

[Chris Bergin]

Oh guys, this is going to run away with itself.

Here's what we know.

Some SpaceX people have been let go (I've seen it mentioned by various people) so we know that. However, that happens, at every company.

What we are finding shaky is that it's 10 percent of the workforce. That simply can't be true. The claim by the SpaceXer on Facebook is very likely to be an exaggeration. That happens on the internet. I also find some of the "reasons" associated with the claims to be shaky too.

Also, these companies have turnover anyway, and per Glassdoor, SpaceX is not immune from this. That's very likely because it's actually hard work. I know some people who joined SpaceX thinking it would be 9-5 and akin to working in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Guess what, it's long hours, hard work.

(Having noted that, I'd personally sell my grandmother to work with spacecraft, so it's about individuals and expectations and everyone is different).

Now I don't want this site's forum (despite it not being the source of this) fueling any exaggerations, so I'm locking this and will only reopen if a media site or someone of profile confirms some actual numbers or an actual downsizing of note.

[QuantumG]

Statement on SpaceX layoffs from communications director John Taylor: I can tell you that there was an annual review cycle completed recently, along with some rebalancing of resources. Our resulting headcount reduction was less than 5 percent. SpaceX expects to see net positive employee growth in 2014 of approximately 20 percent. - via Twitter

A very big thank you to Doug for getting an official response from SpaceX.

Edit: Hmm.. Amy Svitak is claiming the scoop on Aviation Week's blogs.

[meekGee]

Upon further review of the data and careful consideration of the information, we are pleased to confirm that it has been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the sky, in fact, has not fallen.

[Davinator]

Thank goodness for Chris for getting it right in between the internet rumor of 10 percent and the "I've heard nothing, so it's false" posts.

I hope the people let go find employment in the industry.

[QuantumG]

It was false. There wasn't any layoffs, let alone 10%, let alone "across the board". The entire thing was just the standard fat trimming performance review process and rebalancing of headcount. The original report was uninformed and instantiated. It's exactly why Chris takes rumors to SpaceX PAO for clarification before going public with them, which is what should have happened here.
 

[Chris Bergin]

Probably some confusion over the word layoffs, but less than five percent losing their jobs, while still a lot of people and unfortunate for them, is a lot better than 10 percent.

That it was from the performance review and there's a goal of a net increase still (noting they are at about 3,000?) is the more important thing.

In other words, no sky falling, as MeekGee says. Thanks for finding the official response, QG.

>communications director John Taylor<

I hope that's a new guy and not a replacement. I would expect new guy, as PAO really is all hands to the deck there with all the launches and stuff.

[mfck]

Upon further review of the data and careful consideration of the information, we are pleased to confirm that it has been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the sky, in fact, has not fallen.

If only rockets could have been powered by rumors, oh what a bright future space exploration would have had then...

[Dave G]

For those who aren't aware, some companies have an annual review process that singles out the lowest performing 3-5% of their workforce.  These employees are usually given a strong written warning, and if their performance does not measurably improve within a specific time period, they are let go. Intel is one such company.

[ArbitraryConstant]

It's incredibly difficult to straight-up fire employees for performance reasons.  Performance (under-performance) has to be documented.  The employee must be given a chance to improve his/her performance.  Lack of improvement must be documented.  And then after a year or so, the termination procedure can begin.

FWIW, I think all states where SpaceX has a large workforce have more or less "at-will" employment laws, where either party can terminate employment without extensive justification.

[ThereIWas3]

"Performance laddering" is a nasty thing. Microsoft did it for years.  Each manager has to rank all his employees on a bell curve.  Then when the layoffs come, the bottom 5% get the axe.  Even if the bottom 5% in, say, accounting, are doing their jobs better than the bottom 15% in marketing, both get hit equally.  It really can kill morale.

Hopefully SpaceX is smarter about this.

[Dave G]

Hopefully SpaceX is smarter about this.

The smart way is to give a strong written warning and then 6 months to improve.  This gives the employee 3 choices:
a) get their act together and start preforming well
b) find another job
c) continue to perform poorly and wait to get the axe

Given that most employees would choose options a) or b), firing should be a rare occurrence.  The fact that SpaceX fired a lot of employees at once would suggest that they don't give adequate warning and/or time for the employee to correct the issue.

[veblen]

Statement on SpaceX layoffs from communications director John Taylor: I can tell you that there was an annual review cycle completed recently, along with some rebalancing of resources. Our resulting headcount reduction was less than 5 percent. SpaceX expects to see net positive employee growth in 2014 of approximately 20 percent. - via Twitter

A very big thank you to Doug for getting an official response from SpaceX.

Edit: Hmm.. Amy Svitak is claiming the scoop on Aviation Week's blogs.

SpaceX could of been forthright and announced a "rebalancing of resources" before they got rid of people. But no, they fire first and let the rumour mill run.

Nice going SpaceX - Not.

[Coastal Ron]

The fact that SpaceX fired a lot of employees...

You are assuming they were "fired", which implies that they were let go for cause - and that assumes the employees affected have known that they were on a track that could end with being fired.

However it could have been a layoff, which achieves the same result but isn't necessarily because of an individuals performance.  Usually the compensation when being laid off versus fired is much better.

I think it was mainly a strategic layoff.

[Coastal Ron]

SpaceX could of been forthright and announced a "rebalancing of resources" before they got rid of people.

Just because large public companies have to be transparent about their staffing for stock purposes doesn't mean privately held companies need to do the same.  As a manager at privately held companies we never announced layoffs (or firings) prior to them be completed.

But no, they fire first and let the rumour mill run.

Nice going SpaceX - Not.

And what negative things happened from a business standpoint because of the course they took?

Do rumors affect their non-publicly traded stock price?  Did they lose customers because of it?

Other than a loss in productivity for a world-wide army of people like us that post comments to SpaceX-related blogs topics, I'm not seeing any downside for the way that SpaceX handled their internal affairs.

[clongton]

Nice going SpaceX - Not.

SpaceX PAO said it was a layoff, and was less than 5% of the employees. They said it was a business decision, not a personnel problem solution. That's the way it goes in right-to-work states. Know-it-all's should just give it a rest.

[Coastal Ron]

I think it was mainly a strategic layoff.

It could have been a bubble bath too. Got anything to back it up, other than the original rumor?

I base my guesses on 20 years of management experience in development and manufacturing companies (with relevant firing and layoff experience), and the wording of the statement from SpaceX.

And I agree, time to move on...

[a_langwich]

The fact that SpaceX fired a lot of employees...

You are assuming they were "fired", which implies that they were let go for cause - and that assumes the employees affected have known that they were on a track that could end with being fired.

However it could have been a layoff, which achieves the same result but isn't necessarily because of an individuals performance.  Usually the compensation when being laid off versus fired is much better.

I think it was mainly a strategic layoff.

Did you miss the SpaceX response that the firings were related to annual performance reviews?

I've been browsing some "employer review" websites reading reviews from SpaceX employees, and I would say they probably had/have some disgruntled employees.  It seems they've been running 70 hour work weeks for a while...that's going to take a toll (those with families especially), and some of the reviews reflected this.  It's obviously cheaper to run two shifts than to pay overtime, so here's hoping they can right-size their employment and associated training.

[QuantumG]

SpaceX PAO said it was a layoff

Where?

It really does appear that people don't know what a layoff is. When you lay people off you are eliminating the jobs not the particular employees doing those jobs. If you're still hiring while you're firing, you're not laying people off. That's why Taylor explained that their headcount is still going up.

[IslandPlaya]

If you've ever worked in computer game development you will understand that there is a certain amount of 'layoff' every quarter due to underperfomance/burnout.
New people get hired.
It seems very cruel, but that is the way hi-tech business works these days.

[sdsds]

The strong implication is that this was a regularly scheduled (i.e. annual) event. It would be great if someone could find hints from a year ago that a similar portion of the workforce had their employment terminated back then. Or is it possible this is the "first annual" event of this kind?

[John.bender]

Seriously guys, this is standard and to assume they shocked the employees by a surprise review is doubtful. Trim the deadwood and reward the performers is a good business practice. Even though they are private it does not mean they don't practice sound hiring and firing/ layoff procedures. This makes me even feel better about the company and I already think they are fantastic.

[QuantumG]

Talked to Shotwell briefly after panel. She said reports of layoffs at SpaceX "overblown"; simply result of annual review process. via Twitter

[IslandPlaya]

Seriously guys, this is standard and to assume they shocked the employees by a surprise review is doubtful. Trim the deadwood and reward the performers is a good business practice. Even though they are private it does not mean they don't practice sound hiring and firing/ layoff procedures. This makes me even feel better about the company and I already think they are fantastic.

Agreed. It is standard practice.
Intel. MS. Google etc...

[Llian Rhydderch]

SpaceX PAO said it was a layoff

Where?

It really does appear that people don't know what a layoff is. When you lay people off you are eliminating the jobs not the particular employees doing those jobs. If you're still hiring while you're firing, you're not laying people off. That's why Taylor explained that their headcount is still going up.

Let's be a little more accepting of discussion.  Words in English rarely have only one sense or meaning.  Layoff is no exception.

However the word might be used in some countries/cultures/situations/legal regimes, the word is widely used in US practice, especially but not exclusively in right-to-work states, to include the sense to be one correct way of characterizing the event that just occurred at SpaceX. 

While there are management-initiated separations that are the result of "performance" or of violation of some "condition of employment".  These are often referred to as "firings", or being fired). ...

... There are also, in US practice (and especially in the high tech private sector) management-initiated separations that are typically called layoffs that result in a rebalancing of resources, eliminating a typically larger group of people (maybe 2 to 5 or 10% of a companies workforce) , often but not always on a single day.  These may be totally and permanently eliminating a certain job.  But in high-tech jobs, it is often quite impossible to say as job assignments for any particular job title and nominal set of job responsibilities are often literally changing on a daily or weekly basis, as some items in a project plan are completed and others move up or down in priority depending on the business situation.  These "layoffs" do result in the elimination of a job for particular individuals.  These might be thought of as a withdrawl of a job offfer by an employer, or declining to continue in the future a particular labor exchange arrangement that both the employer and the employee had previously agreed to, for some earlier period of time. 

As a side note, the reverse is also true.  The employee is quite free to terminate their labor exchange relationship/agreement with the employer, at any time, under US law in all 50 states.  This is called a "resignation" or "quitting" in ordinary US vernacular English.

So, no, the term layoff is not exclusively limited to the case where some particular "job" is eliminated, at least not in the US, in California, Texas and Florida, and in a number of other states with which I am familiar.

I'm trying to be helpful here and give a global view to a word that no doubt may be more narrowly used in some regions/countries/legal regimes than it is in others, even in places were business is conducted in English. 

[George CA]

So 10 percent was overblown, it was five percent of the work force giving their pink slips. For a 3,000 employee company, that's still a lot of people working there who were not up to standard. A bit scary for a rocket company. One mistake and kaboom!

[ey]

There is a very strong stigma associated with being "fired". It usually means the person in question did something egregiously wrong. Having a "layoff" of underperforming individuals allows a company to let go of employees without the stigma and with severance pay.

And under-performing doesn't mean bad. If you set a really high bar, then even very talented people might not meet that standard; or maybe their skills just don't quite match up with the project your company is focused on.

It's not all roses; we don't know the details of whether the people were informed that they needed to improve (which can be disheartening in its own right). The "hire young, burn out, and discard" culture at tech startups (SpaceX included) is questionable at times, despite there being no shortage of candidates going into these types of jobs well aware of the stories (if not the magnitude).

But it's also the willingness to make potentially unpopular decisions that drives the innovative spirit at startups. Large companies often have the opposite problem where they accumulate significant dead weight (underperforming employees) and don't let them go until there's serious problems with the company as a whole. In a lot of cases, the problem becomes severe enough that the company just decides to let X% of employees go, regardless of whether those X% people were truly underperforming; this can do terrible things to morale and make it difficult for the remaining people to do their jobs.

[Owlon]

Elon Musk founded the company with his own money, and money from investors that knew what they were getting into with the Mars dream. If he wants to fire his whole staff and develop a billion-dollar blender, ultimately, that is his decision to make. If he just wants to fire (or "lay off") a subset of the staff each year due to performance-based reviews while focusing on the company's explicitly stated goal of colonizing Mars, that's also fine.

From the about SpaceX page on their website:

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.

The company was founded with Mars colonization in mind. They aren't there to fill "actual market needs," that's just a necessary stepping stone along their path to Mars. You can't fault them for eliminating (even as they continue to expand) a small fraction of the 3000+ jobs created in doing what they set out to do.

[Hauerg]

Wish they could fire Elon for "under performance", but hey, he legally owns it so he is going to take the credit for the company's successes ( and the press will be kissing his ass saying "he's IRON MAN for REAL!!") and externalize the failures in the form of layoffs. And, there's little to nothing that can be done about it. In some ways, I think a publicly listed company would be better - they'd steer the company to launching on time and towards actual market needs instead of pursuing Saturn-V clone Mars fantasies.

To me, as much as I like science fiction and #human2mars....that's irresponsible. Those workers at SpaceX work insane hours and seem to be passionate about it (like the Apple cult) and he's gambling with a lot of people's futures that don't have his wealth to fall back on, people who have student debt, mortgages, kids to educate, healthcare to pay for and a billion other things. Forgive me from being the down to Earth party pooper on a space forum!

Listed companies tend to fire people JUST TO PLEASE THE INVESTORS.
(I work at one.)

[Chris Bergin]

End of thread.

[Lar]

... A lot of stuff removed, even though this thread is locked.