6 ms·

The government is saying that he threaten employees with the loss of stock options if they voted to form a union. [1] https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/20

The government is saying that he threaten employees with the loss of stock options if they voted to form a union. [1] https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/03/25/elon-musk-tweet-violated-federal-labor-law-nlrb/7009077002/ https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/03/25/elon-musk-...

ghufran_syed 6y ago
It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. But taxpayers will pay the government’s legal bills, while the politicians in charge can show they are “pro-union” - every administration does something like this for the political benefits, whether they claim to be “pro-union” or “pro-business”.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. The National Labor Relations Act has survived court challenges since 1935. I doubt it'll go down here.
- geofft 6y ago
  As a US taxpayer, I love paying the government's legal bills. Prosecuting violations of the laws that my elected representatives have voted on, and defending the constitutionality of those laws, is one of the highest-impact things the government can spend my tax revenue on - it's certainly far more value for money than paying a trillion dollars for an airplane.
  - refurb 6y ago
    You love paying when the govt defends the war on drugs and asset forfeiture?
    - geofft 6y ago
      I don't believe that it's either a consistent position or a practically effective tactic to say that I support the government when it does things I like, but not when it does things I dislike. I think I'm obligated to support the government when it enforces laws that are constitutional and supported by the people as determined by our representative system, even if I disagree strongly with the outcome. If I disagree so strongly that I feel like I can't support it, then my position should be that I believe the government itself is unjust, and it would be hypocritical and long-term ineffective for me to support an unjust government when it does just things, because that would make the government appear just and thus make it harder to replace the government with an actually just one. If policies like the war on drugs and asset forfeiture are (as I suspect) not actually supported by the people, then my route is to convince my fellow voters that we should get rid of those laws/policies. Perhaps we should elect representatives who will do a better job of doing what we want; perhaps we should let our existing representatives know how we stand. My route is definitely not to support leaving those laws on the books as I cheer on the government failing to enforce those laws. That doesn't question the laws I don't like, that questions the entire notion of the rule of law. (In particular, one moral issue I have with both the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is the way that those laws lend themselves to selective enforcement - so it certainly does not help my cause for the government to happen not to enforce them today but to retain the option in the future!) If they are supported by the people, but they're not constitutional, then I do not, in fact, support the government spending my tax revenues defending unconstitutional laws, and I attempt to vote for executives (presidents who appoint attorneys, district attorneys that I can vote for directly, etc.) who know better than to defend unconstitutional laws. And I do also monetarily support organizations that sue the government in court. In this particular case, as a sibling comment noted, it seems hard to believe that the NLRA violates the First Amendment and nobody's noticed in almost a century. If a law is supported by the people and constitutional, then my only legitimate avenue is to try to change the people's minds - it's not legitimate for me to sidestep debate on the merits of the law and say "Oh, my poor tax dollars! How expensive enforcing this law would be!" (And asset forfeiture pays for itself, so it's not like that argument would even work.)
      - refurb 6y ago
- justapassenger 6y ago
  While legal result is unknown. I think it’s unlikely for this to fall under 1st amendment. Same as I cannot use 1st amendment to get out of hostile work environment charges.

ghufran_syed 6y ago

It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. But taxpayers will pay the government’s legal bills, while the politicians in charge can show they are “pro-union” - every administration does something like this for the political benefits, whether they claim to be “pro-union” or “pro-business”.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. The National Labor Relations Act has survived court challenges since 1935. I doubt it'll go down here.
geofft 6y ago
As a US taxpayer, I love paying the government's legal bills. Prosecuting violations of the laws that my elected representatives have voted on, and defending the constitutionality of those laws, is one of the highest-impact things the government can spend my tax revenue on - it's certainly far more value for money than paying a trillion dollars for an airplane.
- refurb 6y ago
  You love paying when the govt defends the war on drugs and asset forfeiture?
  - geofft 6y ago
    I don't believe that it's either a consistent position or a practically effective tactic to say that I support the government when it does things I like, but not when it does things I dislike. I think I'm obligated to support the government when it enforces laws that are constitutional and supported by the people as determined by our representative system, even if I disagree strongly with the outcome. If I disagree so strongly that I feel like I can't support it, then my position should be that I believe the government itself is unjust, and it would be hypocritical and long-term ineffective for me to support an unjust government when it does just things, because that would make the government appear just and thus make it harder to replace the government with an actually just one. If policies like the war on drugs and asset forfeiture are (as I suspect) not actually supported by the people, then my route is to convince my fellow voters that we should get rid of those laws/policies. Perhaps we should elect representatives who will do a better job of doing what we want; perhaps we should let our existing representatives know how we stand. My route is definitely not to support leaving those laws on the books as I cheer on the government failing to enforce those laws. That doesn't question the laws I don't like, that questions the entire notion of the rule of law. (In particular, one moral issue I have with both the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is the way that those laws lend themselves to selective enforcement - so it certainly does not help my cause for the government to happen not to enforce them today but to retain the option in the future!) If they are supported by the people, but they're not constitutional, then I do not, in fact, support the government spending my tax revenues defending unconstitutional laws, and I attempt to vote for executives (presidents who appoint attorneys, district attorneys that I can vote for directly, etc.) who know better than to defend unconstitutional laws. And I do also monetarily support organizations that sue the government in court. In this particular case, as a sibling comment noted, it seems hard to believe that the NLRA violates the First Amendment and nobody's noticed in almost a century. If a law is supported by the people and constitutional, then my only legitimate avenue is to try to change the people's minds - it's not legitimate for me to sidestep debate on the merits of the law and say "Oh, my poor tax dollars! How expensive enforcing this law would be!" (And asset forfeiture pays for itself, so it's not like that argument would even work.)
    - refurb 6y ago
justapassenger 6y ago
While legal result is unknown. I think it’s unlikely for this to fall under 1st amendment. Same as I cannot use 1st amendment to get out of hostile work environment charges.