37 ms·
This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your employer via a public letter. Criticize internally all you want, and influence the changes that you w
by axg11 4y ago
This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your employer via a public letter. Criticize internally all you want, and influence the changes that you want to see happen. Employment is a two-way relationship. If you don't like your employer, you are free to leave. If they don't like you, they are free to fire you (within legal bounds). Publishing an openly critical letter and signing it is a quick way to get your employer to not like you.
- user_named 4y agoThey critized Musk, factually. Musk is not their employer, SpaceX is, but you just proved their point since you believe Musk and SpaceX are one and the same.
- nowherebeen 4y agoMusk is the CEO, he has the right to fire any employees that damage the company's reputation. You could argue that Musk is doing it himself and that the employee was simply stating facts, but it doesn't change the fact that the board decide to place him in-charge. Any other CEO would have done the same. It is the board that should be holding him accountable, but they aren't. Most boards today are lame ducks to collect a paycheck. No one is challenging him because he is delivering results (although I would argue it's actually Gwynne Shotwell keeping the shipping sailing). So there's that.
- djbebs 4y agoHe owns a controlling position in the company. The board is supposed to do what he wants them to.
- nowherebeen 4y agoIn theory, the board can still hold him accountable. There are laws that protect minority shareholders. But those board members will unlikely be around the next year.
- huhwat 4y agoHe does not have the universal right to fire people who talk about working conditions. Workers enjoy protections that allow them to speak about their work, even if that would be embarrassing for their employer.
- lp0_on_fire 4y agoHe has the universal right to fire people for whatever he wants as long as it's not for a reason protected by US labor law. There are very few instances of "protected speech" with regard to employment.
- huhwat 4y agoTurns out discussing working conditions is one. And a very reasonable argument could be made that this letter is explicitly discussing working conditions.
- nightski 4y agoWorking conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine it to mean whatever you think affects you.
- huhwat 4y agoProtected concerted activity is the legal term, and broadly encompasses protections for workers who collectively discuss and attempt to improve, among other things, the conditions in their workplace. I'm not redefining anything, the courts have broadly held that workers, when acting as a group and not just airing individual grievances, have protections for their speech. Things like corporate values, retention, recruiting, public sentiment, workplace diversity, etc are all potentially workplace conditions. Workplace Conditions has a legal definition, but it is interpreted by the courts and those courts have the ability to adjust those definitions or interpret them as appropriate.
- aksss 4y ago
- scollet 4y agoHe literally does not have any right.
- evolve2k 4y ago
- daenz 4y agoFree speech is about opposing restrictions in the public sphere though. If the employees had made a public letter to the internet (not an internal mailing list), using their own resources (not company's resources), it would be a different situation. If a guest in your house started screaming at you, it wouldn't be a paradox of free speech to tell them to get out.
- MPSimmons 4y agoOkay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.
- daenz 4y agoThe (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a de facto one, which is why people like Musk want to treat it as such.
- nerdix 4y agoHow can a public square be privately owned? And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined in another comment: the right to not have to tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone from saying whatever they want on your private property. Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association and private property rights as Musk?
- daenz 4y ago>And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined They do have those rights, which is why they can ban people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto public square, not a legal one, because it's where a massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is trying to buy them to make their product more consistent with a legal public square. Personally I think it can't be done without the government getting involved at some point.
- andreilys 4y agoElon owns 54% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX and has voting control of 78% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX [1] So yes, for all intent purposes he is their employer. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-SpaceX-does-Elon-Musk-own https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-SpaceX-does-Elon-Mu...
- Quarrelsome 4y agosounds like running towards the dictator trap with open arms. If I wanted to get to Mars then I would suggest its poor company behaviour to suppress criticism like this as I doubt that doing so to protect personal twitter behaviour is helpful to the org's mission statement. Arguably it depends somewhat of the skill of those hired but if that's arbitrary (i.e. their skill isn't related to the firing) one can easily argue that SpaceX's management practices are extremely questionable right now. So from an 3rd party employee's perspective today you have to tell the boss he's fucking shit up if you _really_ want to get to Mars.
- splitstud 4y ago
- throwntoday 4y agoSpaceX are quite literally the only company on the planet capable of what they're doing. Elon is the sole reason Mars is even a possibility, as the rest of the world had given up on it. Same goes for EV's.
- snypher 4y agoYes, we forgot about all the SpaceX assets on Mars, and none from anywhere else. Are we expected to believe in some Mars colony coming soon?
- throwntoday 4y agoPerhaps you haven't been keeping up with SpaceX but the only thing holding back orbital testing of Starship/Super Heavy currently is the FAA. In the future it would behoove you to at least familirize yourself with a topic lest you make another ignorant statement.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
- pcmoney 4y agoThey were fired for harassing their colleagues and wasting work time and resources.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
- pcmoney 4y agoPretty sure that was settled? Also I have an NFT of a bridge I am trying to sell, interested?
- jhgb 4y agoWasn't the alleged event and the settlement actually both a hearsay to begin with?
- meatsauce 4y agoIf only you were held accountable for intellectual property theft. Oh, you were just "credibly accused" of IP theft. It doesn't matter if we can't prove it. You should be pre-emptively fired! Welcome to the woke cancer socialist hell hole.
- fourseventy 4y agounsubstantiated bullshit
- memish 4y agoIf only people understood that accusations aren't fact and we evolved to Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
- scollet 4y agoI hope you cannot vote.
- pcmoney 4y ago
- huhwat 4y agoTurns out speech about working conditions is protected. You can't be fired for sharing your wages, for instance. I would not be shocked to hear that this results in a lawsuit over protected concerted activity.
- dahfizz 4y agoIt is quite a stretch to say that the letter was about working conditions. Working conditions is things like working hours, your physical environment, your responsibilities [1]. The SpaceX letter was basically "Musk is uncouth, and we don't like that". A fair criticism, but nothing about working conditions. The text of the letter can be found at [2], if anyone wants to judge for themselves. [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/working-condition/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/working-condition/ [2] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
- huhwat 4y agoIf retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer. If company values are enforced internally but publicly the CEO is acting against those values, then it becomes harder to understand what someone might be disciplined for. The connections are, imo, there.
- drstewart 4y agoYou can 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon anything to make "connections" like that
- huhwat 4y agoThen more directly, the letter specifically called out unequal enforcement of company policy. That's direct.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
- justinph 4y agoWasn't it an internal letter that was leaked? I mean sure, being leaked is a predictable consequence, but it may be a distinction with a difference if the criticizers didn't themselves leak it. Regardless, will be interesting to see how this plays out. If I were one of those employees, I'd be talking to a lawyer. If I was one of the employees still working at SpaceX, I'd be talking about a union. We recently unionized at my employer, it is great to know we have each other's back.
- Justin_K 4y agoGetting fired for insubordination isn't a protected class. The former employees don't have a case.
- daenz 4y ago>insubordination isn't a protected class If some of the comments in this thread is any indicator, people seem to believe it should be a protected class, which is extremely disturbing.
- deltaonefour 4y agoYeah this is true. But also the employer publicly firing those who sent the letter without some form of discussion also looks really really bad. People have an expectation of a CEO to have a really "mature" and controlled temperament.
- smaryjerry 4y agoThis reminds me of those tiktok videos that have a spouse complaining about their significant other. They complain in public about whatever behavior, typically insignificant things, I think you can search like cleaning strike and see some of them. Even if it was 100% true, the people come of as petty, rude and disrespectful for publicly a private matter that makes then the bigger asshole. That is between spouses and has caused divorces and between coworkers or a boss employee relationship I would expect nothing less than the employee to be fired.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- phailhaus 4y agoEverybody knows that he's within his rights to fire them. It just throws cold water on all his grandstanding about being a "free speech absolutist". EDIT: Everyone telling me that company employees are different from Twitter are missing the point. We know that. But he clearly doesn't care about free speech "absolutely" when he throws a fit that his employees are criticizing him.
- soheil 4y agoHe never claimed SpaceX is a town square. You're conflating this with his description of Twitter as a de-facto town square where speech shouldn't be policed as harshly and silently as it is now.
- bamboozled 4y agoWas going to say the same thing, goodbye "town square".
- pcmoney 4y agoThere is a difference between a social media platform user experience and an employee you pay to work. In the first case you are hoping they will use their free time on your platform. In the second place you are exchanging money to get them to do what you want them to do instead of what they would otherwise be doing. If I pay a plumber to fix the toilet and he starts bothering me about ANYTHING BUT FIXING THE TOILET... he's gone.
- disintegore 4y agoYou don't employ your plumber full time, perennially. Your episodes of petty tyranny probably do not threaten your plumber's livelihood and/or career. Furthermore if your plumber gives you indications on how to avoid damaging your plumbing, it may not be directly related to "fixing the toilet", but he is nonetheless doing his job.
- pcmoney 4y agoNo but if I am paying him $300/hr and what he is doing is not related to fixing the toilet and is in fact causing me more problems or distracting the electrician who is also costing me $300/hr. Getting rid of him is not petty tyranny. Also I am not threatening his career, he is, he is choosing to take a principled stand and should understand the likely consequences and be willing to accept them.
- variant 4y agoYep. We would do well to more often remind ourselves that employment is an exercise in voluntary association. These folks were unhappy with their working conditions. They're now free to find employ somewhere else that suits them better while others who want to be at SpaceX will replace them. Markets are great!
- jakupovic 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoIt's against the site guidelines to post like this. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ma_advertising 4y agothis is valid only on the wrong side of the Atlantic
- ceeg 4y ago
- matthewdgreen 4y agoI assume that everyone who signed on to this letter understood the likely consequences and accepted them — because they understood their firing would massively amplify any workplace concerns by turning it into national news and making SpaceX employees mistrustful of management. This is the problem with being predictably retributive: once everyone understands how you work, your behavior can be exploited.
- CodeMage 4y ago> This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your employer via a public letter. The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is "So what?" Yes, it's predictable. I don't believe people who wrote the letter haven't thought of this potential consequence and haven't felt any trepidation whatsoever. So what if it's "predictable"? So what if it's legal? The point is not whether it's currently legal and whether it's predictable. The point is whether it's right. How does stating that "it's predictable" address the very real and ugly problems in this whole situation?
- CodeSgt 4y agoIt's absolutely right for a man who built a company to be able to fire whoever he wishes, especially for cause like in this case.
- CodeMage 4y agoHe might have built the company, but he isn't the company. Building the company doesn't give him the moral right to run it into the ground or make it toxic. He might have that legal right, but I explicitly said that I'm not talking about that.
- CodeSgt 4y agoHow does one create a thing and then lose the moral right to destroy said thing? That's not something I think you'll be able to justify to me. Just because it's destruction may hinder other people doesn't mean that it isn't the creators right to do so.
- CodeMage 4y agoWhen other people's livelihoods depend on the thing you created, you lose the moral right to wantonly destroy it. When what you built stops being wholly yours, you lose the moral right to wantonly destroy it. Those are just two examples. There are more.
- commandlinefan 4y ago> Criticize internally all you want Tell that to James Damore.
- DrewRWx 4y agoThe charlatan biologist?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- giantrobot 4y agoUnless you're a woman, then he'll deem you intellectually inferior a priori.
- Melting_Harps 4y ago> Unless you're a woman, then he'll deem you intellectually inferior a priori. Do people still really believe that is what he said? I'm all for calling out hypocrisy, but what he said was empirically true; their are professions that are male dominated, just are there are some that are female denominated--and the latter tends to have less scrutiny. Male nurses are the exception and it is one of the most highly paid professions in the professional World, and yet NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has been calling for discriminatory hiring practices in the Medical Industry over that. And especially right now when they are having to under go horrible shift requirements due to a lack of staff and applicants. This is one of the many ugly truths of about these narratives: they actually DO want preferential prejudices, but only in a way that favors those who tend to make the loudest (and often misguided and misinformed) noise with their narratives. I did most of my undergrad with nurses and dated several, I don't envy their profession and the money while on the surface seems appealing is hardly going to make up for the seemingly hell they go through every week, especially during COVID. I respect them for what they do, and just accept that that level of triage and care-taking tends to be a female dominated domain. Tech is a cushy, albeit tedious and often brain numbing monotonous career choice by contrast and I have no doubt that anyone who could work doubles during COVID in an ER could master writing basic scripts and using SO like everyone else does if they wanted. But they don't and they'd rather strike in order to reform their profession instead.
- outworlder 4y ago> Criticize internally all you want, and influence the changes that you want to see happen Which is what they did. All indications point to Tesla and SpaceX not being very open to 'change' initiatives that are employee-initiated. Good job firing the employees that actually try to give a damn. The yes people are quiet and will stay. That's how you kill a company, slowly.
- uncomputation 4y agoIt is pretty hypocritical though for Mr. Free Speech to fire people who have concerns rather than address those concerns in a civil dialogue. Musk likes to whinge about “censorship” amounting to banning a Twitter account but seems perfectly okay firing someone and removing their livelihood for speaking critically of him. Also retaliation is very much still illegal, not that it matters.
- mavhc 4y agoIf your ability to stay alive depending on you keeping your job you wouldn't go around signing public letters. Did he attempt to supress the letter? Freedom of speech != freedom from action
- etchalon 4y agoI don't understand the logic that people without power shouldn't speak up to those with it.
- meatsauce 4y agoEmployees have plenty of power. They have the power to work someplace else.
- etchalon 4y ago"If you don't like it, move."
- meatsauce 4y agoIn the context of employment; yes. Bye. Turn in your badge, too.
- justbored123 4y ago
- 4y ago
- wesleywt 4y ago
- throw0101a 4y ago> Publishing an openly critical letter and signing it is a quick way to get your employer to not like you. There was a saying in Eastern/Communist Europe (Poland?): Do not think. If you think, do not write. If you write, do not publish. If you publish, do not sign (your name). If you sign, do not be surprised.
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoBasically we claim to live in democratic societies where free speech is a founding value, then proceed to spend the majority of our waking life in highly undemocratic environments, where expressing the wrong opinion can cause loos of your livelyhood, where you have no voice when it's time to take decisions that will affect your future life. You can vote for a new government but in the end what happens in your workplace will have more consequences on your life.
- nswest23 4y agowhat should feelings have to do with anything in a market? In a libertarian paradise all that matters is value; if you're generating value then your employer continues employing you. criticism should be seen as an indication of engagement. When your employees don't criticize and don't care then you have a problem...when people start phoning it in and not giving their best at work because apathy has set in.
- scollet 4y agoI am sorry for your neurological issues.