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]”.
“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.