I was pretty dismayed that Gwynne Shotwell's actions were so blatantly egregious. I'd expect something like that (or probably worse) from Musk, but my view of Shotwell was that she was always "the adult in the room" at SpaceX. So a bit sad to see that she didn't even realize the illegality of her actions (as other comments mentioned, all her actions were clearly put in writing).
The NLRB only collects tens of millions in fines, nationwide, per year [0]. Shotwell probably understood the illegality of her actions quite well—and more importantly understood that the benefits of chilling labor activism in a 30k-employee company far outweighed the miniscule costs.
In support of this: Shotwell not only fired these employees, but made a loud spectacle out of it—emailing the entire company to announce their firing. This, deterrence, was the reason.
Or just give the government reasonable power to enforce things. GDPR, as an example, has been very effective, because the fines which can be levied for violations are genuinely impactful to businesses. The maximum fine is 4% of global annual revenue. Alphabet, for instance, could theoretically be liable for up to $11b, or around 20% of their net income. Amazon could be liable for up to $20b -- almost double their operating income (their 2022 net income was negative to begin with).
As a result, GDPR is pretty well followed. As an American living in Europe, I have to use a VPN to access many of my American financial institutions, because they don't think the GDPR risk is worth it and have chosen to simply block access from Europe.
No, you don't have a choice, if you want to work on building rockets that actually ship (thanks to constant government backing and de facto monopoly, confirmed in recent years after the failure of Blue Origin and others to dethrone them).
The compelling state interest is to keep working with ethical companies.
In cases where mostly everyone is doing it, the only thing to choose for you is who’s going to abuse you/your data. But not the fact that it’s happening in the first place.
But for SpaceX this is even more foolish - the FAA can deny their launches. NASA is further empowered to find another launch service. SpaceX is very dependent on being in the good graces of government. Thumbing your nose at them, while a very Elon Musk thing to do, simply isn't wise.
I don't think the FAA or NASA, as organization policy, care what the NLRB thinks. "Government" is not in fact a single monolith with emotions and grudges.
Keep in mind she answers to Musk, you can't assume she had the leeway in this instance, especially since he likely got a bee in his bonnet about it and took an uncompromising position.
This seems like an instance of "Something must be done; this is something, therefore it must be done"—more high-quality rocketry and space expertise clearly is a benefit to humanity, at least in the long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that SpaceX in particular needs to be the organization to do it.
Agreed, but they're pushing things forward. If we waited for Boeing or the like who are fed by fat, lazy government and military contracts things would never improve.
That's fine, but you don't get a pass. If you choose not to fight that battle, then you get to wear the outcome too - that's what was decided at Nuremberg as well.
She also answers to the laws of the society she lives in, which supersede and contractual obligations (or, rather, nullify them).
I've read a book or two that interview/discuss-what the elderly and what regrets they've had about their life: one of the common ones is that they didn't live their life with as much as integrity as they'd like to.
It's an incredible reminder to people that HR are not there for the staff. I sometimes forget myself but it's one of the most plain scams in the workforce.
Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job. That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top. Especially in a company run by someone who claims to "seek truths" like Musk.
However, it certainly would not make you popular with the true believers in the room. You would definitely feel the discontent amongst your peers in a conviction led company.
>Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job.
if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much?
>That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top.
firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer, an echo chamber, but perhaps for your product an echo chamber is the business strategy you chose. Steve Jobs was famous for his attention to detail, reinforcing and staying on message, "hold it up just this way, show everybody, look how thin it is! echo that or don't work here." Freedom needs to include the freedom to set a strategy and stick to it, and if setting the strategy is not your job but your dream, find that job for yourself, don't think you should get paid to undermine it for somebody else.
The whole (internal! Until leaked) open letter is near the bottom of that article. Wasn’t paywalled for me.
Reading it cleared up the noise in this thread pretty neatly. Sure looks like this has a great shot of counting as protected discussion of work conditions. I now know posts in this thread dismissing the letter as just “politics” or just “criticizing the CEO” have no connection to reality. It’s very restrained and focused.
The letter lays out succinctly and plainly how they matter for workers and the company, and offers fairly measured steps that might be taken to mitigate that, which include simple stuff that doesn’t ask to muzzle Elon like just making it clearer that his tweets aren’t connected to and don’t reflect the positions of the company. The letter may be incorrect but sure reads like a good faith effort to discuss work conditions, not some kind of anti-Elon polemic. It’s not even close to the line that I fully expected to see it crossing, based on posts in this thread.
The letter goes beyond asking to make it clear that his tweets aren’t connected to and don’t reflect the positions of the company" and calls on SpaceX to "Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior".
Merriam-Webster defines polemic as "an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another", so that demand is clearly an anti-Elon polemic.
I dunno, it more or less calls Elon an asshole. I dunno if blasting that to the whole company is protected. Seems like disruptive behavior which the employer may lawfully regulate.
>Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior.
>SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon’s personal brand.
If you had a company in which you were the majority shareholder and CEO would you put up with the people you hire circulating letters to condemn your behaviour?
>It is critical that the shareholders, the board, and the CEO make this determination about messages and mission, and values
They did by creating the rules of conduct that all employees must abide by. "Rules for the but not for me" is bad corporate leadership.
>not a mutiny by a subset of employees with an agenda (the same agenda as all the people here who think Musk is the devil) and who make unsupportable claims that they magically know better than managment what the PR should look like.
Asking your company to hold another employee accountable to the rule of conduct we all agreed to abide by is not mutiny.
>I'm not going to read the rest of this stupid letter, it's a smarmy politcal sneer motivated by the ideological imperatives of a tiny minority of shareholders, who support a Whitehouse that has politicized the Justice Department more than has been seen in a long long time. Not even LBJ behaved like the criminal crew running the govt, this is 19th century bare knuckled politics.
It's is clear you just have a political bent here rather than a calm and considered idea.
> bad corporate leadership does not require govt oversight and intervention. And employees don't decide who is breaking the rules, just like crime victims don't actually run our courtrooms: it's not a good idea, noble as it sounds in a childish sort of way.
So who does? Not the government, not the employees, who decides the corporate leadership is acting in bad faith and needs to be accountable?
define acting in bad faith, you can't just soapbox it, then get your way. After you've defined it, then point out who is the counterparty in that transaction. that person/entity has the recourse they have, it can vary. Once you decide you don't like transacting with a person, you can stop. Everything doesn't necessarily work out the way you want, we all take lumps.
"Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.)
Acting in bad faith in this case is pretty clear, no? Going against the agreed code of conduct that all members of the organisation should follow is pretty much in bad faith.
Some (or even most) of the employees speaking up are also shareholders, so even in your very narrow definition of whom should have the power to criticise actions in bad faith of leadership would grant those employees that power.
> "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.)
You are basically giving carte blanche to the owners of capital to do whatever they want, even if that would negatively impact a whole organisation and the workers producing the value for such organisation. That's a very corporate-centric worldview which I don't abide to. Capitalism is an amoral system, we humans need to instill some morality into it so it can function in a way that's more beneficial than damaging, employees speaking up against leadership in a very clear case of such leadership breaking their own agreed code of conduct is well within bounds of what should be acceptable.
Bosses are not slave masters, the employment relationship can be economically viewed as a transaction for market modeling, but as a societal relationship we should strive to lessen the intrinsic power imbalance of it, employees generate value, no company would exist without them, reducing that to "owners can do whatever they want under the bounds of contract/civil/criminal law" transfers more of the power to employers since those have much more capital to deploy on lobbying, lawyering and so on. The system doesn't work "fine", it works but it can always be better.
And in this specific case the actions taken were even illegal, so the employees had the right to speak up. I don't understand what you are defending.
I guess primary sources are less cool if you aren’t going to read them and go in with a made-up mind. I was prepared to see a hysterical and inappropriate letter that at the very least didn’t fit the spirit of discussion of improving work conditions, even if it did fit the strict definition. Looks like it’s well within the spirit, though.
Oh well, it’s there for all to read. No need to rely on me or “criminal crew running the government” here. And thank god for that. We might be nuts with wildly bad information.
>if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much?
Yes I think that should be law. You should be able to attempt to help self correct your company by speaking up and not have the your life blown up because of the misaligned interest of a select few at the top. Just quitting is the the most extreme form of protest, but not the most feasible because we all can't find jobs tomorrow. This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws.
>firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer, an echo chamber, but perhaps for your product an echo chamber is the business strategy you chose.
I take it you haven't read the article. The ask by employees was for SpaceX to uphold THEIR OWN STANDARDS by distancing themselves from Elon's bad actions through his tweets. You do not get to create rules within a company and then ignore your own codified rules while firing people for non-codified ones ("deeming" speech "insubordination").
As for Musk's tweets in relation to his company, when you create company from a cult of personality, your actions for the cult and the company are blurred. So you have to be on your best behavior for both.
I agree with your gist, but I self-identify as an authoritarian, and I don't think you can support your point without that admission.
Your erroneous rationale is the paragraph about "the ask". The boss said "no assholes" (among other things) and then violated those rules (in the employees' eyes, and yours, and mine). The employees delicately asked the sub-boss to choose insubordination, and the request was denied, with additional consequences. Nobody was confused about who the boss was, or what actual rules were in place.
Your authoritarian rationale -- which I agree with -- is in your final paragraph: he ought to hold himself to a higher standard if he wants to be so rich and influential. I'd push a button that would make that the rules of the world. But that's an authoritarian POV.
it's not your company, until you own a controlling share.
> This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws.
the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.
>it's not your company, until you own a controlling share.
When you enter into an employment contract with a company, you have a legal connection. The use of "your" is appropriate.
>the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.
They are one in the same. Speaking about conduct and activities which can affect working conditions within a company is the basis of whistleblowing protections under the law (in the US). Speaking about conduct of a CEO in relation to the rules of conduct within your company is the same legal concept.
laws work best when they don't fill the courts with disputes that courts aren't designd to handle. There is no way the government can define and enforce your utopia with respect to "cults of personality". Please, give it a shot, what are the markers of a corporate cult of personality that needs to be regulated?
I can tell you're being disingenuous and that this isn't going to be a constructive conversation, but I'll bite.
--
You are confusing the topic here (I think purposefully).
The first idea is whether asking an employer to hold another employee accountable for the rules of conduct agreed to by all employees is allowed. It is. It falls under protected speech at work in the United States. This has been codified for decades (largely as a result of unionization efforts) and the courts know how, and were designed to, "handle it".
Second, Elon's personal actions with respect to it's effect on SpaceX. This would be for the Board of Directors to handle, but their is also clear prior art for a CEO's actions outside of their job as CEO having impact on the company. We've literally seen this with Elon before.
so what? If you don't like Elon, boycott his products. Don't buy his shares. Don't work for him.
Elon's track record is doing things that have made him the richest person in the world, winning at multiple games many other very clever people are trying very hard to win, including engaging in fields of endeavor that the "socially conscious" among you claim that they endorse. Even Lenin and Mao would admit that Elon has accomplished things that they would wish to accomplish themselves.
That alone gives Elon credibility that vastly outpaces, collectively, yours, these disgruntled employees, and the Democratic Party who have decided he's public enemy number one because he got fed up with Twitter cooperating with a one party state to subvert the 1st amendment and suppress speech they don't like.
Let him be him, why do you have this incredible urge to control other people and make them say things you like, or punish them if they don't? Elon has earned the right to control Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX, and Twitter was subverting democracy before Elon arrived, and that's what upsets you.
I don't care if you are disingenuous, if you're not, your sincerely held beliefs are dangerous to other people around you.
Circulating an open letter point-blank criticizing the CEO is absolutely unprofessional and I'm honestly shocked anyone here thinks they could pull this crap without getting fired.
If you're going to flare up every time someone does something unprofessional, you're definitely being unprofessional. It is like politeness; someone else not having it might change how you behave but usually it doesn't.
And there is a difference between acknowledging it and causing a scene. Rank and file employees engaging in a political attempt to topple the CEO is certainly unprofessional. That level of manoeuvring is purposefully causing damage.
Yeah well, we have laws and a legal system right? I don't think our legal system says that you can't criticize the company you're working for, or that a company can fire people for criticizing the company.
Criticism is healthy and should be respected. Even if it is "unprofessional", that doesn't give the company the right to just fire someone for that. If you would allow companies to fire their employees for criticism, that sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me.
Our legal system is, absent other laws, free employment, meaning you can be fired for anything not explicitly protected by law, and "pissing off the CEO" is not one of them.
Aha yeah, true, in the United States employers don't have much rights and can be quite easily fired for any reason. In Europe you usually need to have a valid reason to fire someone. Valid reasons can include refusal to perform work, culpable conduct, excessive sickness absence, reorganization, or company closure.
Well sure, I like Europe employment more too. But SpaceX is not operating in Europe, and this is probably not the opportunity to change the entire system?
This is a good point. Since employees are not shareholders they have no standing to criticize a CEO. Only someone with a financial stake in the future of a company should be able to voice their concerns without fear of retribution
Indeed, the serfs need to be reminded of their position at the bottom. They serve at my pleasure, and they would be good to remember that next time they have some minor quibble. Like children, they need a strong hand to discipline them, and should be seen, but not heard.
the wording is wrong - it's not a financial stake that gives you said power, it's equity stake.
This equity stake gives you a vote for which you can use to influence the actions of the board and thus the CEO.
Being financially dependent on the company to provide employment by no means gives you power over the CEO. Of course, criticism is not black and white - but being an asshole CEO is not illegal, and putting yourself out to "fight the good fight" sounds good on paper, but do you no good at all.
> I'm honestly shocked anyone here thinks they could pull this crap without getting fired.
I'm shocked at how many closeted authoritarians here on HN crawl out of the woodwork to defend Musk every time that he faces criticism for his dictatorial actions.
That's the opposite of meritocracy. And abuse of power on your bosses part. Don't know why so many in this thread seems to support obviously corrupt behavior.
Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination).
I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not right as to be obviously corrupt".
I would hardly consider this as “take those disagreements public”. It’s not like they talked to the press. This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. Ironically, we would never have heard of it if they didn’t fire these employees in retaliation resulting in this lawsuit.
> This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels.
if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long.
Good leadership means being able to recognize criticism from your employees, but this can't come from grassroots effort within the company - it must come from the top.
If the employee disagrees with the direction of the company, and the leadership doesn't want to change (e.g., after voicing the opinion thru sanctioned feedback channels), their only option is to quit, or acquire a controlling share and _become_ the leadership.
Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator - and you know how that will go.
> if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long.
It is hilarious that you (and many other people in this thread, it seems) would consider this letter "undermining leadership's authority". If someone's authority is undermined by a letter like this, they are not much of a leader.
I have worked at companies led by other zillionaires you may have heard of, and seen letters circulate and questions asked live in an all-hands meeting that went much farther than this letter. Those employees got good faith answers to their questions, and still work there. Now that's leadership.
> Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator
This comment is so close to realizing why our current corporate structures are bullshit. Keep going, you're almost there.
corporate structures _are_ dictatorships. The difference between that and a dictator country is that you can't change your country, if the dictator doesn't want you to leave.
Since when is an internal letter public? Also what happened to the whole "I'm a free speech advocate" spiel? I guess free speech only applies to thinks Musk likes.
Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?
There are productive and destructive ways to handle disagreements with the chain of leadership. If I choose a destructive way, I shouldn't be shocked that I find destruction at the end of that path.
A semi-open letter is an escalation. It's an admission that initial discussions have failed, and it is intended to prompt management to make a choice in a more concrete way. It's a powerful tool and it can be destructive or corrective.
They chose a constructive way, yet received destruction in return.
To be absolutely clear, politely communicating with fellow employees is absolutely the constructive way to handle work disagreements. The problem here obviously wasn't the constructiveness, but that there was any disagreement at all.
That's toxic leadership, but no surprise given the leader of the company.
Was this a professional disagreement about the strategy of the company? No, it was a disagreement about politics. Rich people shouldn't have the right to use their power to silence others, that's why I called it abuse and corruption.
> If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company
That's like claiming bank-robbery is fine because "there's no law against holding money in your hands, everyone does it." For some reason you're leaving out all the most important details that make things different than normal.
In this case, those details are that certain "disagreements"--an obvious case being "we're underpaid, let's unionize"--are disagreements which that CEO is not legally permitted to fire you for.
Abuse of power is a relative term. If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse. It's fine in most companies to complain about the boss to HR or to the boss themselves, but not fine to complain it to someone else.
If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.
> If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse.
Abuse is abuse regardless of whether it is normalized in a company, but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'.
> If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.
Most cases like these are just to get money from the employers because they have publicity risk. There is no law they can point that is broken. The article even clearly says this:
> The case is scheduled to go before an administrative judge in early March unless SpaceX agrees to a settlement beforehand. A spokeswoman for the labor board said it was seeking make-whole remedies like reinstatement and back pay for the workers.
The world swings and the things which looks like abuse changes. And it's not like people are not dying due to their norms. We need to change their norm from within.
This is very wise. The first step to changing the norm from within is to acknowledge that the norm cannot be bad because it is the norm, as the most powerful position of change is to say that nothing worth changing should be changed if it is somewhat common
> If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.
What they initially wrote the letter about the boss doing might not have been illegal, but it sounds like the government agency whose job it is to monitor this sort of thing thinks firing them for it is in fact illegal.
> It's fine in most companies to complain about the boss to HR or to the boss themselves, but not fine to complain it to someone else.
There's "fine" and "not fine" as personal opinions, and then there's "legal" and "illegal"; both of those things you listed are in fact legal regardless of whether you personally consider them "fine", but firing someone for them is not.
Did you read the letter? It was specifically about the boss breaking company policy very publicly. So according to your own measures I guess they were correct then.
Human relationships are not that cold. It is against human nature. Sure acting human may be suboptimal from a business sense, but there should not be a surprise when a human acts human.
If the rich and powerful are unable to show self restraint then they should not have that power. Humans are Human, but we don't have to give some humans the power to sack others without just cause.
how are they able to prove this in court though? surely the HR wouldn't be that stupid to document the reason of firing is "criticising the CEO".
also, not trying to be on Musk side, of course he has made some embarrassing and stupid tweets. But if you created a letter that your CEO's public comment is "frequent source of embarrassment", won't you get fired in any other company??
in meta, someone even got fired for being a youtuber, criticising the CEO and spreading the letter is worse right??
- "7. About June 15, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, through an email
unlawfully restricted employees from distributing the Open Letter."
- "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all
employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open
Letter."
Shotwell literally wrote an email telling them they had to stop discussing the issue or she would consider it insubordination then fired them the next day. No need for HR to do anything when the person in charge is incriminating themselves.
I mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager.
“Yo, stop bringing politics to work, your job is to make flight controls - not criticize the owners of the company outside of work. You’re being disruptive - stop.”
Idk, Musks behavior is what it is, idk why these employees thought it was their role within the company to continue to speak out.
You're allowed to discuss working conditions at work, it's protected by law. You're advocating for criminal behavior by suggesting they should be fired in retaliation for a protected category of organizing.
You might find more sympathy for your point of view if it were not enforced as criminally illegal behavior. Workers don't need to respect an illegal order just because it comes from their master - it's a free country with protected categories of speech.
Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?[1] It's about how they don't want to work for a company owned by a person expressing their opinion in the public sphere because it causes embarrassment in their own social spheres being voluntarily associated with that.
The court case is now about them demanding to have their jobs reinstated to a company owned by that exact same person where absolutely nothing has changed.
I agree that workers should have freedom of speech, but the owner of the company they work for also has that same right, a right they oppose and which seems to be the root of all their problems leading to this case.
Freedom of speech was never freedom from consequences was it.
> Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?
The sections regarding unacceptable behavior seem like potential candidates:
> SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change.
> [snip]
> Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
So that raises an interesting question. If part of the letter was about working conditions, and part was about Elon tweeting, can they legally be fired for the second part of the open letter despite the existence of the first?
This is my reading and might be off base, but it seems like they’re saying that Elon is undermining the “no assholes” and “zero tolerance” policies with his very loud and visible opinions. As long as Elon is seen as BEING SpaceX, his dismissive attitude towards things like sexual harassment will make it difficult to enforce policies against that sort of behavior. That’s why they asked SpaceX to distance itself from Twitter Elon.
Catchphrases aside, freedom of speech has always been about freedom from (specific categories of) consequences. That is the entire point. For example, the First Amendment protects you from most consequences imposed by the government, such as being sent to jail, or even lesser consequences like being fired from a government job (depending). Analogously, in the employment context, “freedom of speech” would have to include freedom from being fired for that speech or it would be quite meaningless.
> So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day?
I’ll leave the specifics of the law and this case to the authorities, but in principle it’s not unreasonable for an employer to expect discretion in public about said employer. It’s a far cry from “owning” that time and not in principle even determining what the discourse otherwise involves.
Let's just set aside how much of a right a company should have over its employees activities outside of work if they're legal and don't directly affect the employees'job performance
If I understand correctly they were actually fired for internal discussions and petitioning within the company complaining about Musk's behavior. This wasn't an engineer going on CNN and bashing Elon or SpaceX, these folks were advocating internally for changes in terms of things they saw affecting their jobs and the company (which is why the NLRB can be involved here, since that is a form of organizing activity)
Why? Is it good for the overall wellbeing of people, for economic productivity, that we don't criticize our leaders, be it our bosses or our politicians? No it isn't. It's free speech.
Unfortunately that is kind of public practice right now, yes.
I have received some comments about criticism of the company's vendors on LinkedIn in the past. Note: Not even clients or our company itself! Just vendors, companies that sell stuff to us. Unfortunately some entanglement is always happening.
But to fire someone over it and claim this publicly is bringing it out in the open.
In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements.
If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave.
If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee.
It's astounding that the NRLB is defending an insubordination termination after accusations were made against the executive. This is pretty obviously a political prosecution and the end result won't be good for anyone.
>>If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee.
Except they are not, even in the US with its meagre employee protections there are entire classes of protected activity that you cannot be fired for, and discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected.
>>This is pretty obviously a political prosecution
Going after the people who break the law is political now? Fascinating. What's next, we let burglars walk free if they are of a specific political belief?
Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct.
Come on, don't be ridiculous. The NLRB is operating a farce with this suit. They're used to companies negotiating and not fighting. Their position here is untenable.
>>Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct.
Maybe - I guess the courts will have to decide. But courts also regularly rule that complaining about you boss isn't a valid reason for dismissal - the only difference here is whether doing it on such a wide scale and in this way is or isn't acceptable.
I wouldn't call it a farce at all - I think neither one of us can predict what the court will rule here.
Well, there we differ. If employees can't be prevented from harassing other employees with open letters casting aspirations at each other then it would be impossible to operate a functioning company.
> In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements.
> If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave.
> If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee.
If an employee loses their job they may not be able to pay rent or buy groceries. If SpaceX fires an employee they have 10,000+ that can pick up the slack. Similarly, companies often have large legal teams on retainer whereas getting legal repression can be difficult for individuals.
It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.
> It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.
That's why unemployment is important.
None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to whether someone can be laid off. Criticizing the CEO isn't a protected activity in any event.
But criticizing the way the rules are being enforced and the selective nature of them IS a protected activity. This is clearly detailed in the article and suit.
… and then, right after telling ex-customers to go fuck themselves and not to come back, when asked what the plan was to replace that revenue, to offer nothing and say it “will kill” (Will! Kill!) the company, but you’re ok with that because “the world will judge [the companies that stopped buying Twitter ads]”.
I have never heard of that association. The Wikipedia article lists 11 notable people with it as their first name, and the gender distribution is just about half and half.
Perhaps it’s a “obviousness of the coincidence“ kind of thing where if these people had nothing against them in their files and just suddenly got fired very very shortly after criticizing leadership it counts?
That said as history has shown over and over I would not put it past people doing illegal things to document the illegal things they are doing.
I'm not up on US employment law. As an employee are you entitled to put out a letter saying your CEO is a jerk and that the idiot isn't allowed to fire you so you'll keeping saying it?
8 out of 13,000 employees wanted to circulate a letter complaining about Musk's tweets and the Labor board claims they were "illegally" fired over this. Which law specifically requires employers to permit every employee to spam the company with their personal grievances? This isn't union organization or whistleblowing. They could use a little more detail on how and why they believe this firing is illegal.
I spent about fifteen minutes poking around. I'm not sure, but I take the impression this is in fact protected organizing, at least according to the NLRB. It seems like this is seen by NLRB as workers expressing concern and advocating for better working conditions (eg free of Musk's distractions), and the company retaliating against them. (To be clear, I have no idea whether the case has merit or not, my only claim is that NLRB seems to think so.)
I tried to find the particular case; according to Reuters' initial coverage (linked in the above article) these charges were filed November 2022, but I couldn't find one from that time on the NLRB website.
NAL, but I think they would also have to prove that the thing they were fired in retaliation for is something you're actually not allowed to fire people for.
You can fire people in retaliation for stealing or screwing up or for wasting everyone's time complaining about Twitter drama instead of doing their job or lots of other reasons. Simply firing in retaliation is not illegal.
Sorry this is getting ridiculous, go and read the letter, it's reasonably worded and specifically calls out the problems that you cause by making a policy for the employees ("don't be an a-hole") but then don't call out employees above some level for violating these rules.
Moreover, a little research would have revealed to you that Shot well publicly stated that the employees were fired for their letter. There is no burden of proof here.
I think if, for instance, a group of roof tile workers were discussing how they thought their safety straps needed to be replaced, and were fired for doing so - whether or not the straps needed replacing would be immaterial. The discussion is protected.
In the same way, I don't think it's material whether Twitter is disruptive to their work. NLRB's argument, if I'm understanding correctly, is that they were discussing their conditions, and that such a discussion is protected.
I think the question is whether the boss's personal social media account is part of their workplace conditions. A safety strap is definitely a part of the work place. If your job is not social media manager and you don't work at Twitter (these are SpaceX employees), then it's hard to see how Twitter is a part of their workplace conditions. They should probably be designing rockets or whatever they were being paid to do instead of reading Twitter.
Musk regularly tweets about his companies. His tweets regularly move the share price, so it makes sense to me that they might regularly impact employees (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation).
Also, if you listen to Musk, he has no regular personal and working hours, they're constantly intermingled.
I think many people in the thread have a misconception that because Twitter is something kinda silly that it couldn't possibly matter. I think it can be helpful to mentally substitute "Twitter" with "public statements."
As a thought experiment, if the CEO of your company went on a drunken bender (not saying this is what Musk did, just a hypothetical) and they started tweeting a bunch of really offensive stuff, do you think that could impact your job? Say, if you were a startup about to do another round of fundraising - they might alienate investors, and you might end up losing your job.
I kinda think "workplace conditions" would mean, you know, the conditions in which you do your work, like the physical environment where you are working. If the safety straps are old and frayed or the air conditioning in the office is broken, this is a condition of the workplace.
I don't think it means "every conceivable thing in the world that might affect the share price". If the Fed changes the interest rates, that could affect the share price. Does that mean that if I want to email my 13,000 co-workers my thoughts about the Fed's interest rate policy this is a protected discussion of workplace conditions? I don't think so.
The test seems to be "workplace conditions" not "things that impact employees" or "things that can affect the share price" which could be literally anything at all.
Please note I specifically said I wasn't discussing share price. Regarding the Fed, that honestly is a misrepresentation of what I said. Please don't do that. And please review this part of my previous post:
> (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation)
Public statements can contribute to a hostile work environment. What is being alleged is that joking about sexual harassment and a lack of clarity around workplace policies have created a hostile work environment. That is directly related to working conditions. (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.)
I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it. You established a chain of logic like so:
If something affects the share price, then it is relevant to business operations
Musk's tweets affect the share price
Therefore Musk's tweets are relevant to business operations.
I provided a counterexample (interest rates) of something that affects the share price but is not relevant to business operations. So the first condition of your argument is false and therefore it is not a sound argument. Simply because Musk's tweets affect the share price, this does not necessarily mean they are relevant to business operations (to the extent that they are protected discussion about workplace environment).
I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies, management doesn't want to, the employees wouldn't shut up about it and so they got fired.
Discussing a policy could fall under workplace conditions, I suppose. But they weren't fired for discussing it. They discussed it, they got an answer, they wanted to keep on discussing it. At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. It's not a legal requirement like "fix the safety straps" either, so at what point do you tell the employees to either let it go or get out? Are the required to allow employees to endlessly spam communication channels after management has made the decision about a policy?
> I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it.
I think you're distorting what I said, actually. What I said was that it is reasonable to believe that the tweets are disruptive, not that everything which impacts the stock price or even the operations of the business is relevant to working conditions.
I can understand how that may not have been clear on a first reading, but after I pointed this out and asked you to review what I said, I do think that should have been clear to you.
> I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear.
I don't know if you maybe didn't see this edit because of how HN works, but I did clarify that already:
> (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.)
They are pretty clearly describing a work environment which is hostile. They're saying that they don't have clarity about what the policies are, that their work is interrupted, and that the lack of clarity causes rules to be enforced inconsistently. Call that whatever you want and it's still relevant to working conditions.
> It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies
That's a complete misreading. Where did you even get that? The document has 3 calls to action and none of them are about DEI. They mention the workplace, as it exists, is diverse. That's all I can see and it's completely tangential. (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.)
> But they weren't fired for discussing it.
They literally were.
> "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open Letter."
> At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not.
At no point does management get the ability to fire people for protected speech, or does the speech stop being protected. Just because management says "no" doesn't mean employees have to stop advocating for themselves.
> (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.)
From the letter:
> But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion [emphasis added] with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo.
> Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more. However, we feel an unequal burden to carry this effort as the company has not applied appropriate urgency and resources to the problem in a manner consistent with our approach to critical path technical projects.
In other words, "nobody asked us to promote DEI throughout the company and it's not part of our job but we're mad that the company doesn't take it as seriously as they do building rockets (the purpose of the company)".
Not every single gripe about your company is protected discussion. I can propose my company implement unlimited PTO. They can say no. I can keep proposing it. I can write open letters demanding it. I can get the media to publish articles about how it's such a tragedy that my company doesn't take my unlimited PTO proposal as seriously as they do making widgets. They can get fed up that I won't shut up about it after they already considered it and said no and fire me. That's not illegal.
My mistake re DEI. I searched for "diversity," not sure why it didn't come up, guess I must've made a typo. The point that it wasn't what they were asking for stands.
> That's not illegal.
I think what you may be discovering is that you have more rights as an employee than you previously thought. Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right?
> Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right?
Maybe. Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. Given Musk's other misadventures in labor relations, it would stand to reason that the people at the NRLB are not fans of his.
Maybe the 8 people who were fired are just hoping for a quick settlement and some extra money. They might have a hard time finding new jobs now that they've outed themselves as insufferable woke scolds. Probably no reference from SpaceX forthcoming...
You can't just assume that since someone filed a lawsuit they're automatically right, especially after hearing only one side. Otherwise we wouldn't have that whole trial thingy, you know? Would you apply the same logic to all the lawsuits where Musk is the plaintiff?
At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there.
Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing.
Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours.
So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at trial or that we don't need to conduct trials.
You seem to be suggesting this isn't and can't be related to working conditions. But it's far more likely you're mistaken than that the NLRB is engaged in a conspiracy. The employees wanting a quick payout doesn't make a difference in that calculus, especially since they aren't the ones making a decision about whether or not this is actionable. It's not like they were the ones who brought the suit, they filed a complaint with a regulator.
> At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there.
I think it's worth reflecting on whether you are reasoning from the evidence here, or whether you are allowing your biases to contaminate your conclusions. You seem to have identified the employees as people you don't like or are politically or ideologically opposed to.
Questions of law are settled by the courts, not private lawyers and federal agencies. If police officers show up and arrest somebody, the public is allowed to have an opinion. We don’t just throw up our hands and say police officers know better than we do. They work on our behalf.
I agree people are perfectly entitled to express their opinions and that it's important for civil society to engage with these things, especially with regards to the police. (NB: we're not talking about the police, however.)
My suggestion was that, given we're laypersons, if we're confused how this could be illegal and it conflicts with our understanding of the law, it's probably a safe assumption the regulators understand the law better.
Not commenting at all or passing judgement without trial isn't what I'm advocating for. It was a descriptive statement, not proscriptive one. If you asked what I would suggest as a response to realizing you might not understand the situation, it would be doing some more research into the law.
If that research leads you to the conclusion that this genuinely is an overreach, so much the better - before you had a suspicion, and now you have evidence for it.
I never claimed that the case is invalid on its face or I know more about this than the lawyers. It's worth noting that the NLRB is not some disinterested third party who is only trying to find the objective truth. They are an advocate for one side. There is another side. The NLRB is going to promote arguments that reinforce their side and ignore or downplay anything that does not support their case. That is not a conspiracy, that is literally how the adversarial justice system works. I am not saying it can't be related to working conditions, I'm presenting an argument for why I think it's not. Of course, the NLRB's argument is that it is related to working conditions, that is their job to make that argument. But it's just that, an argument. It's not some divine truth revealed to us by the holy authority of the NLRB.
> Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit.
This the suggestion of a conspiracy, albeit a mild one.
I don't have anything new to say to say regarding the rest of your comment, so I'll spare us both from my repeating myself, you obviously understand what my position is.
Public statements by your CEO can easily impact your work. Twitter might have a trivial and lighthearted feel, but that doesn't detract. Eg, when Musk tweeted he was taking Tesla public, it was probably very disruptive, regardless of the medium. I think one of the lessons of the last few years has been that things people say on Twitter do, in fact, matter a great deal.
ETA: I had a brain fart and thought we were talking about Tesla, but the example is illustrative nonetheless.
A group of employees asking their employer not to joke about sexual harassment is protected concerted activity. That is why it was illegal retaliation to fire them
>You have the right to act with co-workers to address work-related issues
How do Musk’s personal statements/opinions outside of work count as work-related issues?
Genuinely asking, I don’t understand how these rules are enforced.
Apple has locked down internal communications about non work-related topics on internal slack and email in the wake of RTO discussions. If this is grounds for a lawsuit, I think other companies are probably open to these kinds of lawsuits too.
Applying admin controls to Slack is completely different than firing employees for raising concerns
For starters, firing someone introduces legitimate damage and liability for those damages if done illegally
But also, firing a group of people who are organizing seems like it will run afoul of union protection laws.
And to your first question, Musk’s social media tantrums have caused a lot of collateral damage for his companies. I believe the Tesla board also raised concerns that his Twitter meltdown had negatively impacted Tesla. It’s not hard to see how.
Also what Apple is doing isn't necessarily legal either. Just because someone else was speeding on the road and didn't get a ticket, doesn't mean you won't.
My guess: The most senior employees (C-suite and close to it) have special responsibilities and legally much great accountability. What a CEO of a public company says on public media (including Twitter/X) has far greater legal consequences for the company and the CEO than someone a few steps below. This is pretty normal for highly developed countries. Note: Responsibilities may change in different countries depending upon if the company is private or public.
Corporations with shareholders must list specific accounts as disclosure accounts; because otherwise sharing insider business related information is unfair insider advantage.
When you list a social media account as a disclosure account for a business, it should then be clear that there's liability to all such communications through such account.
While this is true regarding disclosures, my post was mostly about Elon Musk saying stupid things on his personal account. These have a far higher legal impact on his businesses and himself that would be for a lower ranked employee.
It's clearly newsworthy. Lots of news organizations are reporting on it, not just NYT. I don't think we need to assume that a newspaper is corrupt for reporting that the government published a document, that's a huge part of their job.
Maybe - but the deluge of anti-Musk articles in the media the last few months is a probably more newsworthy. We can't ignore the fact that after buying Twitter and getting rid of some of the speech restrictions, he has been sued by several federal agencies, lost major federal contracts and all sorts of (questionable) scandals about him are now suddenly being discovered.
I don't think it's all that sudden, he's had a steady stream of scandals for as long as I've been paying attention (years), and he's increasingly in the public eye because he is increasingly relevant (buying Twitter being one reason he's more relevant now than in the past). So there's an increasing public interest in reporting on his steady stream of controversial behavior.
Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone is interested in the world's richest man figuratively pulling down his pants down in public, shitting in his hands, and flinging it at everyone who upsets him, almost non-stop for years. All reporting on his antics must be a conspiracy. He clearly doesn't want attention, that's why he maintains such a low profile. Leave elmu alone!!!
How are people surprised or decide it must be a conspiracy or personal vendetta when the media cover a powerful person who routinely acts like a complete lunatic in public, and the coverage ends up (gasp!) slanting negative?
It would be intesting to see how their payout compares to the payouts going to Reuters [1], the BBC [2], the Guardian [3], the ever-so-anticapitalist WSJ [4], and a few dozen other establishments reporting on it as well.
Makes sense that every journalistic establishment out there is being paid off; hedge funds do have deep pockets.
This is too subtle for modern times; the only thing tipping me off to the snark is referring to WSJ as "anticapitalist", otherwise I could absolutely believe someone believing this, sadly.
Does anyone know where these employees were employed? I’m a worker in a right-to-work state and would love it if this set a precedent for icing out employers from retribution style separations.
This is being enforced by the NLRB which, as far as I understand, only enforces federal labor laws. So it should not matter what state you're in as far as having similar protection goes.
I appreciate you making this distinction; it's one I haven't understood clearly. My outside impression is that right-to-work is a campaign to smear unions, though I understand in some areas/professions they can only hire union workers.
Closed shop: must be a full union member to have the job
Fair share: you don’t have to join, but you must pay the portion of dues that go towards contract negotiations and enforcement
Right to work: they can’t make you do anything. In some cases even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
> even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
I'm surprised you frame this as an extreme example. Regardless of one's views on unions (they have their place), it seems way off for the employer to deduct those payments. Perhaps it's a convenience, but as a worker that is my money to pay to the union; if the union and the employer orchestrate the transfer of my membership payment behind closed doors before the money hits my account, it's makes it harder to feel the union is truly acting in my interests.
This is not just a matter of hygiene; for example, I was once in a (notoriously corrupt and socially reactionary) union here in Australia that represents retail workers. I didn't have a choice in the matter and my membership payments were deducted by my employer. About a decade later, a court ruled that a deal made between that employer and the union had left workers worse off (but was in the interests of the union bureaucracy). Incidents like this seriously damage the reputation of the union movement.
Having your dues deducted automatically in an environment of compulsory unionism doesn't seem to have much to do with empowering workers at all!
Compelling employers to pull the wages for dues is a way to make sure the worker pays no matter what. Don't you see? A blue collar worker can't be trusted not to piss away their wages at the bar and be able to come up with their union dues.
Aren’t they orthogonal concepts? Right to work means you can’t be forced into playing Union dues (you have a “right” to scab) and “at will” means the employer can fire anyone at any time for any reason (other than protected classes).
That's not what right-to-work means. Right to work was invented by conservatives to give employees the "right" to not pay dues to a union that represents employees at the company.
It's just one of the many ways employers have managed to weaken unions in the US over the last half-plus century.
I think they meant that since they are in a right to work state having something like this to show that that doesn’t automatically mean you can be pushed around would be a good thing.
they meant at-will employment state, which is every state in the country except Montana. at-will employment means you can be fired or you can quit at any time for any reason that is not illegal (such as discrimination)
right-to-work and at will are constantly conflated in situations like this
I'm very socialist but I kinda agree with this. Often the unions here in the Netherlands are too entangled with the company's management and don't actually represent my interests. As such I don't pay them (and their ridiculously overpaid CEOs).
Unfortunately in the last 30 years the grassroots unions got corrupted by big business when the left (red) and right (green) parties worked together (we called it the "purple" cabinets). And the union leaders became entangled into the business cultures, also known as the "polder model". They basically made underhanded deals and cashed out. Our prime minister at the time himself started out on the barricades with a megaphone and ended up in luxury commisary appointments. Most unions are a joke now, just corporate puppets. I don't want to pay for their puppet show :P
The left-wing party got severely punished for this betrayal and is only on its way back into the political scene 20 years later, but unfortunately they left a vacuum which meant the country has deteriorated a lot (to the point of the extreme-right winning the last election).
I don't believe this is illegal in Sweden, not in spirit anyway. Our unions notwithstanding, you are implied to be "loyal" your employer whatever that means. I assume this would not be very loyal.
Now firing people generally requires written warnings and so on, so in that way it would maybe not have been legal.
Musk's conception of free speech is completely incoherent. On the one hand he claims to want to fund the legal defense of people fired for their tweets[1], on the other hand we have stuff like this. The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing?
Edit: Thinking about this discussion reminded me that "cis" and "cisgender" are considered slurs on twitter and using these terms can get your account suspended[2]. Interesting.
His conception of free speech is that he should be able to say whatever he wants with no consequences. It doesn't go beyond that, he doesn't want other people to be able to say whatever they want with no consequences unless they're saying nice things about him.
I am sure Musk has lot but issues but he has repeatedly said and acted like he is fine with consequences of his speech. Like he is fine with advertisers leaving twitter/X[1] for his speech.
1. The advertisers didn't leave Twitter (in the instance being discussed there) because of Musk's speech, they left because it was pointed out that their ads were being displayed amongst tweets containing hate speech.
2. That interview is not him acting "fine" with those advertisers leaving; it's him emotionally lashing out in anger at them for doing so.
1. This is factually false. They're not being displayed amongst tweets containing hate speech. (The reporting group basically reverse engineered Twitter's protocol to force an ad to appear next to a hate speech comment.)
He's said so sure, but I don't think he's acted like it. He's frequently sued people or threatened to sue them for criticizing his speech (criticism being a consequence of speaking). He's recently embarked on just such a lawsuit against Media Matters, in connection with the affair you reference. He threatened to sue Vernon Unsworth for calling his rescue sub idea a publicity stunt, when asked directly about it in an interview.
You can think whatever you will about Media Matter's reporting and Unsworth's analysis, but I don't think that's accepting the consequences of his speech. To me that seems like trying to intimidate people who criticize you.
He's pouting, lashing out in anger, flipping people off, etc. He's not acting like he's done with the consequences. It seems like the consequences make him rather upset to the point he acts out.
> The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing?
No; that's about the size of it. This is a surprisingly common stance for people who go on about "free speech" a lot; they often don't mean free speech at all. Freedom from personal criticism would be closer to the mark.
It's a private company that does not have a legal or moral obligation to extend free speech to employees. Employees are paid to produce value for their bossses and are free to leave if they don't like it.
Freedom of speech does not mean employees can say whatever they want and not be fired. Freedom of speech means the government can't silence its citizens.
We're discussing Musk's definition of "freedom of speech", not yours, mine, or the constitution's. He seems to believe you should be able to say whatever you want (on Twitter) and not get fired. This is the definition that's relevant here because his ideas about freedom of speech from his many tweets on the subject don't align with his actions as a leader at Tesla and SpaceX.
> If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill.
> No limit.
> Please let us know.
Now "unfairly treated" leaves some wiggle room, but the obvious implication here is that if you get "unfairly" fired for Tweeting something Musk will fund your legal bills. Why would he make this offer if he did not believe that you should have freedom to say (Tweet) things your employer hates without retribution such as getting laid off?
First of all, let's dispense with the notion that "on twitter" actually matters, given the man is so petty that he canceled a dude's Tesla order over a tweet that criticized him.
Anyway:
"grievances/politics"
It came out that he paid a $250,000 settlement for a sexual harassment suit and he decided to respond to this by making jokes on twitter, quote: “Hi Chad, long time no see! Fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.”
Can we not act like this is "politics"? This is about the basic decency people should expect from any employer.
Wow, that Twitter quote is crazy. Can you imagine any other CEO (or C-suite) for a major corp writing the same thing? They would be instantly fired. You see it on Wall Street frequently for much less, and at all ranks of employees. After many costly sexual harassment lawsuits against Wall Street banks, the culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years.
It’s not confusion it’s a comparison. The other commenter is trying to highlight Musk’s cognitive dissonance.
On the one hand, he wants to support “free speech” on his platform (being able to say what you want _publicly_ and not get fired).
On the other, his employees are getting fired for things they are saying internally. Obviously less of a moral crime, but one speech he is okay with squashing because it’s criticism of him.
So given these two situations, what is Musk’s definition of “free speech”? A value he claims to hold very dearly and earnestly, but also tramples if it’s speech he doesn’t like.
Because literally every company in existence would think that employees publicly airing their grievances about their employer on Twitter is strictly less of a problem than on the company's internal channels.
If you think people should be legally protected for anything they say publicly on Twitter, then you should also believe they should be legally protected for anything they say in company internal channels. Anything else is incoherent.
It does, to an extent, in many countries with stronger labor protections. The US has a unique conception of individual rights where they disappear the moment you step into a workplace. This is not, however, universal.
Given that Elon Musk ran the Tesla Fremont California factory in a way that was found guilty of this [1]:
As they did after the first trial, these factors again favor a high punitive damages award here. First and most importantly, Tesla's actions were grievously reprehensible. Diaz was subjected to a grossly racist workplace, with racist conduct perpetuated not only by coworkers or subordinates but also-and perhaps especially-by supervisors like Martinez, who called Diaz racist slurs and drew the racist picaninny, and Hurtado, who directed the N-word at Diaz over 30 times and informed Diaz that he wished he could get all “N-words” fired. Cf. Flores, 873 F.3d at 760; Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1043. Reports to authority often went unanswered and when the company responded, it often failed to interview witnesses or review security footage. Worse yet, a supervisor who learned of Diaz's complaints subsequently failed to investigate and was in fact told by Tesla to not personally investigate the complaint. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Another supervisor was told to stop investigating before he reached a conclusion, and Diaz and his harasser ended up being reprimanded for the conduct directed at Diaz. See Tr. 2387:10-390:18, 395:21-396:7. Martinez, a Tesla supervisor and the main perpetrator of racist conduct, still works at Tesla, nearly a decade after he forced Diaz to endure repeated cruelty and shame. Not only did the company turn a blind eye to the racism, but the jury also could have interpreted the evidence to show that Tesla knew what it was supposed to do and affirmatively chose to not carry out the proper responses.
It should be no surprise that a CEO running a organization that supports grievously reprehensible racist conduct and actively retaliates against worker complaints of shocking racial discrimination and harassment like swastikas on the walls would also support retaliation against people highlighting their less mustache-twirling evil.
If the swastikas on the walls of your car factory do not get you, firing some people over a letter will not either.
Its also probably because Elon's companies do insane shit brazenly, without even trying to hide it. Shotwell said they were fired for being involved with the letter, in writing.
Throwaway because I speak from experience, but the NLRB (and California equivalent) just respond to complaints filed by the ex-employees. It doesn't require some top down command.
It's a pretty common thing actually, it's just getting press because it involves Musk.
> Worked at a 10k+ US company. Executive swore at me. Threatened to fire me. Did HR give a fuck? No. I did what I could, in my position, to protect my job. I had my own manager join the call early on (was a 15 minute "heated" debate with that exec. I kept my head) and involved another senior exec, above the previous one.
I'm struggling to see how your circumstance, described as involving only a mid level exec, compares to one involving the CEO of a similarly large company who's notorious for firing people on a whim.
Oh, please. More blind ranting without reading the article.
SpaceX fired these employees for asking SpaceX to hold Elon accountable to SpaceX's own rules. It is appropriate to say that that is wrong. There's no "crying to mommy". It's saying "we all agreed to these rules as we came together as a company. Everyone should follow them."
Only a 12 year old, would start a response with "Are you 12?" while asking a theoretical question which doesn't actual address the situation in the post. And using the word "weeb".
Elon wasn't publicly ridiculed. Read the article and grow up.
They're not "using Musk's money" - wages paid to employees are owed to the employees for their work, and are no longer the employer's money in any way, shape or form!
Even if we ignored all the other reasons and protections: a massive chunk of Space-X's profits come from government contracts and he should absolutely be subject to worker protections as a part of those contracts if my tax dollars are being spent on it. I don't particularly care if he's personally offended that people who work for him think he's a jerk. If his skin is that thin, perhaps he should consider a profession other than "leading" a diverse group of critical thinkers.
I understand that in this case communications about workplace conditions may be specifically protected, but is there some level of insubordination for which you think employees should be allowed to be fired?
If they taught Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class, then people wouldn't be surprised the gp reaction is the exact goal of Leisure Class.
Through Conspicuous Consumption and Conspicuous Leisure where the keyword is being "Conspicuous" with all their over the top activities, what is really being signaled to the entire chimp troupe is - "you want to be like me or hang out with me then do I what I tell you", "who do you want to work for - the king in the palace with cool toys or someone boring?"
Veblen said using such signalling is important for group formation since people are so different and have different interests pushing them all in different directions. So group formation and cohesion requires leaders who are master bullshiters or people who really believe in their stories.
But the danger is when the leader forgets the point of signalling and story telling is group formation and cohesion. Thats when things go off the rails.
If anything we should give him less leeway, since he has so much power. I know it's a cheesy Spider-Man quote, but "with great power comes great responsibility". Also "power corrupts".
So to give this a serious answer, why not ? Most but not all of the world has made this illegal because it’s generally viewed as harmful, to society, to the business and to the owner him self quite often. Companies are social enterprises and enjoy the rights with atleast in theory on the perimis that they benefit society in general as well as their stakeholders. Firing an individual who is performing their duties well doesn’t really benefit anyone. Not even Musk, who seems to have always had a particularly thin skin.
TLDR it’s not just Musks money/company, nor is he even acting in his own best interests IMO.
Most of the world isn't experiencing the GDP growth that the US has. Its unfortunate that this country is so bought and owned by the rich and until that dragon is slayed (how? who knows) then there will always be this sanctuary for the Musks of the world.
This is an issue though, he is so fucking successful that he can't be wrong, right? wrong. Don't put people on pedestals like this, it never ends well and isn't how the world should work.
The specifics if this case notwithstanding (I recognize that communications about workplace conditions are protected), if someone was on a slack channel, bulk emailing other employees undermining and disparaging their manager, were asked to stop and they didn’t, isn’t that grounds for termination?
They’re free to speak and tweet about it all they want. They’re just no longer an employee.
AIUI, if you want to enforce rules like that they need to be uniform. Eh you can say “business communication only, only email people who need to know, don’t spam, etc”. You can’t allow someone to sell Girl Scout cookies but then not discuss working conditions.
Not necessarily? Most of us don’t make most of our money through command of capital, so we aren’t capitalists in that sense. Far more are probably capitalists in the sense of liking capitalism and more-or-less promoting it, specifically, but that still may not be most, let alone everyone.
Anyway, markets and investment pre-date and are not identical to capitalism. Working in and among those (“yet you participate in society. Curious!”) does not imply love of those things, nor even does appreciating or being a fan of markets and private investment require one count oneself a capitalist in an ideological sense. They’re not identical.
The takeaway is "Don't dis your boss at work." I know Elon lost this round, but those dirty bstrds that took his cash and trashed him like that must be in it for some dubious reasons --they are NEVER going to wakeup one day in their 50s and be able to gloat about how they improved humanity...all because they decided to spout off some political trash at work, about the guy signing their checks. Even if they do manage to score some cash when all is said and done, they're going to wind up buying restaurants or getting into auto leasing or something ..while Elon is sending friggin' spaceships to friggin' Mars.
DO NOT TALK ABOUT RELIGION, POLITICS OR ADVERSITY AT WORK. EVER.
(SAME GOES FOR CHOICE OF TEXT EDITORS AND COMPUTER LANGUAGES LOL)
Even if your 'heart is pure' and all that BS, there's always some MF who will leverage your words for their own agenda.
In the US (or at least California?) you typically have the right to discuss your working conditions, even if you're not unionized. More to the point, companies don't have the right to try and prevent these discussions from happening. Depending on how the criticism of the letter went down, it could very possibly have gone beyond what's legal.
Being offended by the CEO's tweets has nothing to do with working conditions. Imagine the people who fought for actual working conditions laws reading this tripe.
From all accounts it's far more than just criticising a letter.
It was how they got the letter in the first place and creating an environment of coercion and fear for employees conducting legally allowed activities.
“Free speech” is used in many ways. But in the US, my understanding (IANAL) is that I can be fired for saying something, and cannot claim “free speech” as a general blanket protection. Exceptions exist if it is specifically a protected form of speech.
No one is claiming free speech as a defense as far as I'm aware. Free speech is entering the conversation because Elon has made it one of his personal North Stars and this case seems to make him look hypocritical.
In the US workers have rights about what they can say and do in the workplace. Labor activism (agitating for a union) is protected. IANAL but reasonable criticism of the company may be protected to some degree as well.
The comment I was responding to was speculating on a judge making a ruling about a free speech defense.
Agree that Elon looks like a hypocrite, regardless of the legalities involved. My impression is that he is not actually principle-driven in this regard. His motivation seems to be attention and chaos, and an anything-goes forum is conducive to that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/business/spacex-elon-musk...