6 ms·

dang, can we change the link/title to https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N2LN4L0 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N2LN4L0 ? Snippet below: > Tesla CEO

dang, can we change the link/title to https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N2LN4L0 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N2LN4L0 ? Snippet below: > Tesla CEO Musk's anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board > Tesla Inc Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk’s 2018 tweet threatening employees would lose their stock options if they formed a union was illegal and should be deleted, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board said on Thursday.

avs733 6y ago
Completely agree, the use of watchdog here as opposed to “federal labor law board” is problematic vagueness
pferde 6y ago
The action desribed in that tweet would be illegal, but is the tweet itself illegal? Why should the tweet be deleted? I'd rather keep it for posterity.
- evgen 6y ago
  If I happen to mention to you that it would be a shame if my associates and I were to decide to burn your nice little business down in the night, but maybe if you pay us that won't happen I would assume that you would know that a threat was being made. The arson is illegal, but so is the threat to commit it unless you do something that is to my material benefit.
- nightpool 6y ago
  I would say what happens to the tweet itself is almost an afterthought—it was one of only many violations addressed by the report, along with more mundane stuff, like contract provisions about employees speaking to the press (ruling: it's unlawful to prevent employees from speaking with the press as long as they make it clear they don't represent the company). The NLRB also required them to post notices addressing the tweet at all factories, and it was immortalized in a 55 page public document—not to mention all of the contemporaneous news reports. I think it's very safe to say that posterity is not going to have a hard time finding this tweet
- kevinmchugh 6y ago
  It's very often illegal to threaten illegal retribution. Employees may not know their rights, and such a threat could discourage them from exercising those rights. Deleting the tweet is maybe not ideal. Any future viewers of it should have the context added that it's an illegal threat.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Threatening retaliation is also very much illegal, ergo yes the tweet is illegal.
arnath 6y ago
Aside from "watchdog" as opposed to NLRB, what's wrong with the title? The article describes a bunch of required actions besides just deleting the tweet.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Not the original commenter, but personally, omitting NLRB would be my main concern with the title. A "watchdog" seems needlessly vague as it could imply any range of organizations that report on this, but the NLRB is the specific agency tasked with overseeing and enforcing these union representation laws on a federal level.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  I thought the register article was written in a clickbait way. Reuters actually had the scoop over 24 hours before the register.
Black101 6y ago
Why don't you just make a new post with the article that you like? maybe it will take-off...

avs733 6y ago

Completely agree, the use of watchdog here as opposed to “federal labor law board” is problematic vagueness

pferde 6y ago

The action desribed in that tweet would be illegal, but is the tweet itself illegal? Why should the tweet be deleted? I'd rather keep it for posterity.

evgen 6y ago
If I happen to mention to you that it would be a shame if my associates and I were to decide to burn your nice little business down in the night, but maybe if you pay us that won't happen I would assume that you would know that a threat was being made. The arson is illegal, but so is the threat to commit it unless you do something that is to my material benefit.
nightpool 6y ago
I would say what happens to the tweet itself is almost an afterthought—it was one of only many violations addressed by the report, along with more mundane stuff, like contract provisions about employees speaking to the press (ruling: it's unlawful to prevent employees from speaking with the press as long as they make it clear they don't represent the company). The NLRB also required them to post notices addressing the tweet at all factories, and it was immortalized in a 55 page public document—not to mention all of the contemporaneous news reports. I think it's very safe to say that posterity is not going to have a hard time finding this tweet
kevinmchugh 6y ago
It's very often illegal to threaten illegal retribution. Employees may not know their rights, and such a threat could discourage them from exercising those rights. Deleting the tweet is maybe not ideal. Any future viewers of it should have the context added that it's an illegal threat.
whimsicalism 6y ago
Threatening retaliation is also very much illegal, ergo yes the tweet is illegal.

arnath 6y ago

Aside from "watchdog" as opposed to NLRB, what's wrong with the title? The article describes a bunch of required actions besides just deleting the tweet.

vinay427 6y ago
Not the original commenter, but personally, omitting NLRB would be my main concern with the title. A "watchdog" seems needlessly vague as it could imply any range of organizations that report on this, but the NLRB is the specific agency tasked with overseeing and enforcing these union representation laws on a federal level.
CameronNemo 6y ago
I thought the register article was written in a clickbait way. Reuters actually had the scoop over 24 hours before the register.

Black101 6y ago

Why don't you just make a new post with the article that you like? maybe it will take-off...