6 ms·

It's his company and they chose to work there. It's like repeatedly patronizing a restaurant then loudly complaining how much the chef sucks. You're free to eat

It's his company and they chose to work there. It's like repeatedly patronizing a restaurant then loudly complaining how much the chef sucks. You're free to eat elsewhere or build your own spaceship company.

masswerk 4y ago
So a cockpit crew should shut up and follow their captain obediently into destructive failure, since they chose to fly under him, while being free to choose any other carrier to work with?
- assttoasstmgr 4y ago
  Yes. The person in the left seat of an aircraft is unquestionably in charge and responsible for the safety of the crew and passengers. An aircraft is not a commune; there is a chain of command. If you don't like it you can leave. You are allowing your emotions and dislike of Musk to cloud your judgement.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Corporations are neither aircraft nor ships at sea. They're subject to boards and other mechanisms to check the power of the chief executive. There are unofficial ways to express dissatisfaction or no-confidence towards that leader, without it being considered outright mutiny.
    - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
      Agreed. However nothing annoys me more than people who join a company only to immediately start complaining about how much they dislike the culture. It just so happens the culture at SpaceX revolves around one guy. You can... leave... if you don't like it. Everyone knows this yet we're all supposed to act like SpaceX engineers were trafficked here in shipping containers and working to pay off a slave debt. No. The money is likely too good so they'd rather complain instead. The entitlement expressed by the individuals involved has buried the needle.
      - abemiller 4y ago
        I think it's fair to want money/a job, and pursue getting hired for one, but then also be interested in improving the culture or working conditions of the job once you start working there. You say they are entitled - high skill, difficult to replace workers are actually entitled to make demands of their employer which are proportional to the value they offer, in particular when they act collectively.
        ericd 4y ago
        This is like the person who moves next to an airport, paying less than they would otherwise, and then complains incessantly and wants the airport to stop operating, it's called "coming to the nuisance". SpaceX is well known for not being "money/a job", it's extremely intense. If you join it without realizing that, despite how infamous it is for that, then that's totally on you. You kinda have to want to do really hard things that have never been done before to make it worth it. If you just like rockets, and want some work-life balance, you can always apply for the SLS team, or Boeing Starliner.
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        I'm a business owner and hiring skilled employees is literally the hardest part of my job. If my employees are unhappy about something, then I am grateful that they have given me the chance to hear about it and maybe fix it rather than having them quit without warning, leaving me with customer deadlines and empty chairs.
        ericd 4y ago
        I get what you’re saying, I have similar experience, but they’ve pretty clearly chosen iteration/execution speed over a low attrition/burnout rate. And that’s fine, different strokes for different folks. It seems to be working out fine for them so far, 20 years in. If I didn’t have kids whose childhood I wanted to be a big part of, I’d certainly consider throwing myself at trying to help make Starship work.
  - masswerk 4y ago
    Disclaimer: The reply was made in good faith that the reader might be familiar with the term 'crew resource management' and its historical contribution to flight safety. – So, sorry for the inappropriate reply.
    - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
      It appears I misunderstood what you were after. Yes there have been examples of this in the past; I assumed you were suggesting mutiny as a general rule. That said my comment still stands: The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as: ...the person who: Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
      - masswerk 4y ago
        It is also about the shared responsibility of the crew. E.g., the board has installed a set of rules regarding corporate culture, and this for a reason, namely to provide a climate for achieving best results, avoiding distractions and material damages. It's a shared responsibility of everybody in this environment to have an eye on whether the company lives up to these standards or not, in order for this to work. (Mind that the open letter directly addresses these codes.) Edit: Mind that there is an obvious conflict between positions like, "you do as I say, because my money", and the complex relations that constitute a corporate business.
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        > "Has final authority and responsibility..."
        masswerk 4y ago
        However, this doesn't include defining responsibility. This definition comes from elsewhere and involves and includes other positions, as well. Also, "final" implies an iterative process of multiple steps, like a discussion. (Which in turn implies a certain degree of openness to such a process.) Otherwise, it would be "exclusive" or "total".
  - Nicksil 4y ago
    >Yes. The person in the left seat of an aircraft is unquestionably in charge and responsible for the safety of the crew and passengers. An aircraft is not a commune; there is a chain of command. If you don't like it you can leave. That's not how it works with Crew Resource Management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - eftychis 4y ago
    Ehm yeah, thank God planes do not fly like this. The two pilots and the rest of the crew communicate and coordinate or we would have a lot of accidents. There is a reason planes still have two pilots -- and it is not that the need two or even one to function most of the time. PIC does not order anyone around, but is the actor/writer. The other pilot verifies and overrides/calls issues. And certain operations, for instance during take off, are done together. Maybe companies work that way, but if you fly a plane with that approach, I am joining as the second, crew or passenger.
  - agubelu 4y ago
    I'm not sure you can leave an aircraft mid-flight
  - dangus 4y ago
    I think you're missing the wider point. The point is that employer-employee relationships are inherently imbalanced. A corporation has far more freedom to make choices like that than their employees. No, you can't just "get another job" if all the companies are abusing employees in the same way. The fact that corporations are set as mini-dictatorships never made sense to me. Everyone's at the mercy of the whims of the CEO. Karl Marx said that workers should own the means of production, and this is exactly the kind of thing he was talking about. In capitalism, shareholders have more power over the company than those doing the day-to-day work who know the business, and those shareholders could easily tell Musk to tone it down if they wanted to – and Musk would listen. The employees could never sway him. "Take it or leave it," which really just means "go work for the other asshole." I think it wouldn't be such a bad thing if corporations had mandatory employee democracy on certain workplace issues. I think the ownership class has too much power over the individual. Just because you own assets shouldn't mean you get to play games with people's livelihoods.
  - phatfish 4y ago
    - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
      Your childish personal attack fails because it's more akin to deliberately moving to a country ruled by a despot or dictator then declaring "Wow it really sucks here! I'm going to send a sternly-worded open letter to the management."
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    I thought the whole point of modern cockpit rules was to prevent that sort of unquestioning obedience that has caused thousands of deaths over the years.
wolverine876 4y ago
They are free to complain too, and in this case Musk can fire them and try to find other talented people to replace them - if that is in the best interests of the shareholders and other stakeholders. There is nothing special about Musk's side of the argument or Musk's leverage; the employees have leverage too. But really the goal is to make SpaceX as productive as possible, to do something productive for the world, not to serve Musk's whims. If there is a trade-off between the whims and the productivity, it's clear which should be sacrificed.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  In other news, they are fired.
  - adb2020 4y ago
    Lol. I called it!
an9n 4y ago
100% this. If it's really sooo bad, why wouldn't you just leave instead of staying in order to suffer and create mischief? Musk built the company. It's his. It's revolutionary. Go elsewhere if you don't like it. One has to ask questions about the true motives behind it - Musk has powerful enemies including Biden etc, lest we forget.
- stevage 4y ago
  No. It is always worth trying to improve something rather than just quitting.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Eh, I don't know about this one. I can't stand Musk, but im also not going to believe the company gives 0 shits about anything you have to say that's not helping them out. I'd rather just quit. I spent too many years fighting fights I couldn't win.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Sometimes the only way to improve something is for enough people to quit. Sometimes the only way left to communicate a message is to burn something down. It is always better to run an organization such that the above do not apply to it, particularly.
- perardi 4y ago
  Because it’s possible to be passionate about rocketry and spaceflight, and what SpaceX has accomplished, and be proud of how you’ve contributed to that… …and then be quite concerned that the CEO’s attention is seemingly quite scattershot now, and perhaps too focused on a social media site that nobody outside the chattering class uses.
LEDThereBeLight 4y ago
This is an incredibly immature argument. People only complain about things they care about, and the louder they voice their concerns, the more they care. It’s much easier to be silent and apathetic and just move on.
thephyber 4y ago
This is less “the chef sucks” and more “the chef just pissed his name on the local community center building”. I’d argue there probably isn’t enough substance to the complaint yet (Space-X brand is probably still a net positive having him in front of the company), but your line of argument would cause a quiet brain drain from organizations, not keep them healthy with open discussion. The fact that this open letter was described outside of the company might be the only reason I might side with you.

masswerk 4y ago

So a cockpit crew should shut up and follow their captain obediently into destructive failure, since they chose to fly under him, while being free to choose any other carrier to work with?

assttoasstmgr 4y ago
Yes. The person in the left seat of an aircraft is unquestionably in charge and responsible for the safety of the crew and passengers. An aircraft is not a commune; there is a chain of command. If you don't like it you can leave. You are allowing your emotions and dislike of Musk to cloud your judgement.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Corporations are neither aircraft nor ships at sea. They're subject to boards and other mechanisms to check the power of the chief executive. There are unofficial ways to express dissatisfaction or no-confidence towards that leader, without it being considered outright mutiny.
  - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
    Agreed. However nothing annoys me more than people who join a company only to immediately start complaining about how much they dislike the culture. It just so happens the culture at SpaceX revolves around one guy. You can... leave... if you don't like it. Everyone knows this yet we're all supposed to act like SpaceX engineers were trafficked here in shipping containers and working to pay off a slave debt. No. The money is likely too good so they'd rather complain instead. The entitlement expressed by the individuals involved has buried the needle.
    - abemiller 4y ago
      I think it's fair to want money/a job, and pursue getting hired for one, but then also be interested in improving the culture or working conditions of the job once you start working there. You say they are entitled - high skill, difficult to replace workers are actually entitled to make demands of their employer which are proportional to the value they offer, in particular when they act collectively.
      - ericd 4y ago
        This is like the person who moves next to an airport, paying less than they would otherwise, and then complains incessantly and wants the airport to stop operating, it's called "coming to the nuisance". SpaceX is well known for not being "money/a job", it's extremely intense. If you join it without realizing that, despite how infamous it is for that, then that's totally on you. You kinda have to want to do really hard things that have never been done before to make it worth it. If you just like rockets, and want some work-life balance, you can always apply for the SLS team, or Boeing Starliner.
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        I'm a business owner and hiring skilled employees is literally the hardest part of my job. If my employees are unhappy about something, then I am grateful that they have given me the chance to hear about it and maybe fix it rather than having them quit without warning, leaving me with customer deadlines and empty chairs.
        ericd 4y ago
        I get what you’re saying, I have similar experience, but they’ve pretty clearly chosen iteration/execution speed over a low attrition/burnout rate. And that’s fine, different strokes for different folks. It seems to be working out fine for them so far, 20 years in. If I didn’t have kids whose childhood I wanted to be a big part of, I’d certainly consider throwing myself at trying to help make Starship work.
- masswerk 4y ago
  Disclaimer: The reply was made in good faith that the reader might be familiar with the term 'crew resource management' and its historical contribution to flight safety. – So, sorry for the inappropriate reply.
  - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
    It appears I misunderstood what you were after. Yes there have been examples of this in the past; I assumed you were suggesting mutiny as a general rule. That said my comment still stands: The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as: ...the person who: Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
    - masswerk 4y ago
      It is also about the shared responsibility of the crew. E.g., the board has installed a set of rules regarding corporate culture, and this for a reason, namely to provide a climate for achieving best results, avoiding distractions and material damages. It's a shared responsibility of everybody in this environment to have an eye on whether the company lives up to these standards or not, in order for this to work. (Mind that the open letter directly addresses these codes.) Edit: Mind that there is an obvious conflict between positions like, "you do as I say, because my money", and the complex relations that constitute a corporate business.
      - CodeSgt 4y ago
        > "Has final authority and responsibility..."
        masswerk 4y ago
        However, this doesn't include defining responsibility. This definition comes from elsewhere and involves and includes other positions, as well. Also, "final" implies an iterative process of multiple steps, like a discussion. (Which in turn implies a certain degree of openness to such a process.) Otherwise, it would be "exclusive" or "total".
- Nicksil 4y ago
  >Yes. The person in the left seat of an aircraft is unquestionably in charge and responsible for the safety of the crew and passengers. An aircraft is not a commune; there is a chain of command. If you don't like it you can leave. That's not how it works with Crew Resource Management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- eftychis 4y ago
  Ehm yeah, thank God planes do not fly like this. The two pilots and the rest of the crew communicate and coordinate or we would have a lot of accidents. There is a reason planes still have two pilots -- and it is not that the need two or even one to function most of the time. PIC does not order anyone around, but is the actor/writer. The other pilot verifies and overrides/calls issues. And certain operations, for instance during take off, are done together. Maybe companies work that way, but if you fly a plane with that approach, I am joining as the second, crew or passenger.
- agubelu 4y ago
  I'm not sure you can leave an aircraft mid-flight
- dangus 4y ago
  I think you're missing the wider point. The point is that employer-employee relationships are inherently imbalanced. A corporation has far more freedom to make choices like that than their employees. No, you can't just "get another job" if all the companies are abusing employees in the same way. The fact that corporations are set as mini-dictatorships never made sense to me. Everyone's at the mercy of the whims of the CEO. Karl Marx said that workers should own the means of production, and this is exactly the kind of thing he was talking about. In capitalism, shareholders have more power over the company than those doing the day-to-day work who know the business, and those shareholders could easily tell Musk to tone it down if they wanted to – and Musk would listen. The employees could never sway him. "Take it or leave it," which really just means "go work for the other asshole." I think it wouldn't be such a bad thing if corporations had mandatory employee democracy on certain workplace issues. I think the ownership class has too much power over the individual. Just because you own assets shouldn't mean you get to play games with people's livelihoods.
- phatfish 4y ago
  - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
    Your childish personal attack fails because it's more akin to deliberately moving to a country ruled by a despot or dictator then declaring "Wow it really sucks here! I'm going to send a sternly-worded open letter to the management."
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I thought the whole point of modern cockpit rules was to prevent that sort of unquestioning obedience that has caused thousands of deaths over the years.

wolverine876 4y ago

They are free to complain too, and in this case Musk can fire them and try to find other talented people to replace them - if that is in the best interests of the shareholders and other stakeholders. There is nothing special about Musk's side of the argument or Musk's leverage; the employees have leverage too. But really the goal is to make SpaceX as productive as possible, to do something productive for the world, not to serve Musk's whims. If there is a trade-off between the whims and the productivity, it's clear which should be sacrificed.

ncmncm 4y ago
In other news, they are fired.
- adb2020 4y ago
  Lol. I called it!

an9n 4y ago

100% this. If it's really sooo bad, why wouldn't you just leave instead of staying in order to suffer and create mischief? Musk built the company. It's his. It's revolutionary. Go elsewhere if you don't like it. One has to ask questions about the true motives behind it - Musk has powerful enemies including Biden etc, lest we forget.

stevage 4y ago
No. It is always worth trying to improve something rather than just quitting.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Eh, I don't know about this one. I can't stand Musk, but im also not going to believe the company gives 0 shits about anything you have to say that's not helping them out. I'd rather just quit. I spent too many years fighting fights I couldn't win.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Sometimes the only way to improve something is for enough people to quit. Sometimes the only way left to communicate a message is to burn something down. It is always better to run an organization such that the above do not apply to it, particularly.
perardi 4y ago
Because it’s possible to be passionate about rocketry and spaceflight, and what SpaceX has accomplished, and be proud of how you’ve contributed to that… …and then be quite concerned that the CEO’s attention is seemingly quite scattershot now, and perhaps too focused on a social media site that nobody outside the chattering class uses.

LEDThereBeLight 4y ago

This is an incredibly immature argument. People only complain about things they care about, and the louder they voice their concerns, the more they care. It’s much easier to be silent and apathetic and just move on.

thephyber 4y ago

This is less “the chef sucks” and more “the chef just pissed his name on the local community center building”. I’d argue there probably isn’t enough substance to the complaint yet (Space-X brand is probably still a net positive having him in front of the company), but your line of argument would cause a quiet brain drain from organizations, not keep them healthy with open discussion. The fact that this open letter was described outside of the company might be the only reason I might side with you.