8 ms·

They 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 ago
Musk 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 ago
  He owns a controlling position in the company. The board is supposed to do what he wants them to.
  - nowherebeen 4y ago
    In 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 ago
  He 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 ago
    He 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 ago
      Turns out discussing working conditions is one. And a very reasonable argument could be made that this letter is explicitly discussing working conditions.
      - nightski 4y ago
        Working conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine it to mean whatever you think affects you.
        huhwat 4y ago
        Protected 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
        Do you have any example of where a state labor dept. or court applied your logic to a closely matching situation in a sustainable/unambiguous way (meaning it wasn’t overturned on appeal or settled)? I ask because in your many comments all you’re doing is stating a hypothetical complaint that sounds plausible but I, as well as many others evidently, think would not have legs, ultimately. I can think of several examples in my career where employees have been fired for disruptive behavior or being a negative influence on morale - well within an employer’s rights. Those examples seem to line up more closely with this example at SpaceX than actual workplace conditions complaints I’ve seen. I mean, props to you for going to the mat on this, but it’s past time you provide some evidence of your logic carrying the day in a real world example. Otherwise you’re just proposing wishful thinking as reasoning.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    I’m not saying Musk should have fired them, but I’m pretty skeptical that the CEO’s abrasive behavior in public statements unrelated to SpaceX is properly considered an aspect of working conditions. (It seems clear to me that their vague discussion of other issues is a pretext to support their eventual lawsuit, but YMMV.)
    - huhwat 4y ago
      If the CEO makes it harder to land contracts or recruit talent, that's a direct impact to working conditions. I loved SpaceX and would consider working there if not for Musk, for instance.
      - thematrixturtle 4y ago
        No, that's a very indirect impact to any one individual's working conditions. FWIW, I think firing the organizers is an overreaction and that it would be in SpaceX's best interest to muzzle Elon, but it's hard to conjure up a legal argument that they can't do it. And you'll notice that the company's statement said nothing about the content of the letter, only that it's inappropriate to organize it with company resources and on company time.
        huhwat 4y ago
        Of course the company says organizing shouldn't happen on company time/resources. Can't be having the workers thinking they could collectively act!
        meatsauce 4y ago
        Considering how simple-minded and toxic work-cancer employees are, and how harmful and corrupt a union can be; it is no surprise that Musk is 3 steps ahead of them.
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        What wouldn’t count as working conditions under such a broad standard? Could I circulate an open letter demanding that I get a tech lead position instead of my rival because I don’t think people will enjoy working on their team? Could a salesperson circulate an open letter demanding that you should be punished because your bad engineering cost the company a big contract?
  - shswkna 4y ago
    How was Musks public image affecting their working conditions?
    - huhwat 4y ago
      The letter makes that fairly clear. It's more challenging to focus on their mission, reducing opportunities for SpaceX, etc.
      - scarab92 4y ago
        That's not even close to being considered protected activity. Given you've spammed this misinformation all over this thread, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly, I'm not sure you're acting in good faith.
        huhwat 4y ago
        I've been corrected by folks going, "nuh uh". A discussion about retention, recruitment, enforcement of workplace policies, and airing of collective grievances is within bounds for protected. Provided it isn't deliberately offensive, an individual grievance, or knowingly false.
        meatsauce 4y ago
        Several takedowns of your nonsense were made in good faith. You're being foolish at this point.
        flambergey 4y ago
        It would seem that some lawyers agree with that poster: https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-spacex-letter-fired-legal-protected-speech-nlrb https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-spacex...
    - vkou 4y ago
      Inconsistent enforcement of the company's rules, which is the core of the letter is very much working conditions, and his behavior very clearly shows that he is not bound by those rules.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> He does not have the universal right to fire people who talk about working conditions. Apparently the letter was not about working conditions. It was about Elon tweeting.
    - huhwat 4y ago
      The letter was about how rooms Elon's tweets impacted working conditions. Eg Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more.
      - pc86 4y ago
        To say this is a stretch is an understatement. Working conditions are hours, the physical space, WFH v. hybrid v. remote, async or not, etc.
        huhwat 4y ago
        The letter specifically called out, eg, unequal enforcement of workplace policies.
      - meatsauce 4y ago
        There is so much nonsense in this thread. The letter has nothing to do with working conditions. I take that back: The letter was spammed to all employees using company resources, which means its authors and supporters were creating a hostile work environment. Firing the dead-weight woke cry bullies was the proper move.
- scollet 4y ago
  He literally does not have any right.
evolve2k 4y ago
- daenz 4y ago
  Free 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 ago
    Okay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.
    - daenz 4y ago
      The (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 ago
        How 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 ago
Elon 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 ago
  sounds 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 ago
    SpaceX 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
        Perhaps 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 ago
They were fired for harassing their colleagues and wasting work time and resources.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  - pcmoney 4y ago
    Pretty sure that was settled? Also I have an NFT of a bridge I am trying to sell, interested?
    - jhgb 4y ago
      Wasn't the alleged event and the settlement actually both a hearsay to begin with?
  - meatsauce 4y ago
    If 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 ago
    unsubstantiated bullshit
  - memish 4y ago
    If only people understood that accusations aren't fact and we evolved to Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
- scollet 4y ago
  I hope you cannot vote.
  - pcmoney 4y ago

nowherebeen 4y ago

Musk 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 ago
He owns a controlling position in the company. The board is supposed to do what he wants them to.
- nowherebeen 4y ago
  In 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 ago
He 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 ago
  He 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 ago
    Turns out discussing working conditions is one. And a very reasonable argument could be made that this letter is explicitly discussing working conditions.
    - nightski 4y ago
      Working conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine it to mean whatever you think affects you.
      - huhwat 4y ago
        Protected 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
        Do you have any example of where a state labor dept. or court applied your logic to a closely matching situation in a sustainable/unambiguous way (meaning it wasn’t overturned on appeal or settled)? I ask because in your many comments all you’re doing is stating a hypothetical complaint that sounds plausible but I, as well as many others evidently, think would not have legs, ultimately. I can think of several examples in my career where employees have been fired for disruptive behavior or being a negative influence on morale - well within an employer’s rights. Those examples seem to line up more closely with this example at SpaceX than actual workplace conditions complaints I’ve seen. I mean, props to you for going to the mat on this, but it’s past time you provide some evidence of your logic carrying the day in a real world example. Otherwise you’re just proposing wishful thinking as reasoning.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  I’m not saying Musk should have fired them, but I’m pretty skeptical that the CEO’s abrasive behavior in public statements unrelated to SpaceX is properly considered an aspect of working conditions. (It seems clear to me that their vague discussion of other issues is a pretext to support their eventual lawsuit, but YMMV.)
  - huhwat 4y ago
    If the CEO makes it harder to land contracts or recruit talent, that's a direct impact to working conditions. I loved SpaceX and would consider working there if not for Musk, for instance.
    - thematrixturtle 4y ago
      No, that's a very indirect impact to any one individual's working conditions. FWIW, I think firing the organizers is an overreaction and that it would be in SpaceX's best interest to muzzle Elon, but it's hard to conjure up a legal argument that they can't do it. And you'll notice that the company's statement said nothing about the content of the letter, only that it's inappropriate to organize it with company resources and on company time.
      - huhwat 4y ago
        Of course the company says organizing shouldn't happen on company time/resources. Can't be having the workers thinking they could collectively act!
        meatsauce 4y ago
        Considering how simple-minded and toxic work-cancer employees are, and how harmful and corrupt a union can be; it is no surprise that Musk is 3 steps ahead of them.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      What wouldn’t count as working conditions under such a broad standard? Could I circulate an open letter demanding that I get a tech lead position instead of my rival because I don’t think people will enjoy working on their team? Could a salesperson circulate an open letter demanding that you should be punished because your bad engineering cost the company a big contract?
- shswkna 4y ago
  How was Musks public image affecting their working conditions?
  - huhwat 4y ago
    The letter makes that fairly clear. It's more challenging to focus on their mission, reducing opportunities for SpaceX, etc.
    - scarab92 4y ago
      That's not even close to being considered protected activity. Given you've spammed this misinformation all over this thread, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly, I'm not sure you're acting in good faith.
      - huhwat 4y ago
        I've been corrected by folks going, "nuh uh". A discussion about retention, recruitment, enforcement of workplace policies, and airing of collective grievances is within bounds for protected. Provided it isn't deliberately offensive, an individual grievance, or knowingly false.
        meatsauce 4y ago
        Several takedowns of your nonsense were made in good faith. You're being foolish at this point.
        flambergey 4y ago
        It would seem that some lawyers agree with that poster: https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-spacex-letter-fired-legal-protected-speech-nlrb https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-spacex...
  - vkou 4y ago
    Inconsistent enforcement of the company's rules, which is the core of the letter is very much working conditions, and his behavior very clearly shows that he is not bound by those rules.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> He does not have the universal right to fire people who talk about working conditions. Apparently the letter was not about working conditions. It was about Elon tweeting.
  - huhwat 4y ago
    The letter was about how rooms Elon's tweets impacted working conditions. Eg Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more.
    - pc86 4y ago
      To say this is a stretch is an understatement. Working conditions are hours, the physical space, WFH v. hybrid v. remote, async or not, etc.
      - huhwat 4y ago
        The letter specifically called out, eg, unequal enforcement of workplace policies.
    - meatsauce 4y ago
      There is so much nonsense in this thread. The letter has nothing to do with working conditions. I take that back: The letter was spammed to all employees using company resources, which means its authors and supporters were creating a hostile work environment. Firing the dead-weight woke cry bullies was the proper move.
scollet 4y ago
He literally does not have any right.

evolve2k 4y ago

daenz 4y ago
Free 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 ago
  Okay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.
  - daenz 4y ago
    The (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 ago
      How 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 ago

Elon 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 ago
sounds 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 ago
  SpaceX 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      Perhaps 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 ago

They were fired for harassing their colleagues and wasting work time and resources.

FireBeyond 4y ago
- pcmoney 4y ago
  Pretty sure that was settled? Also I have an NFT of a bridge I am trying to sell, interested?
  - jhgb 4y ago
    Wasn't the alleged event and the settlement actually both a hearsay to begin with?
- meatsauce 4y ago
  If 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 ago
  unsubstantiated bullshit
- memish 4y ago
  If only people understood that accusations aren't fact and we evolved to Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
scollet 4y ago
I hope you cannot vote.
- pcmoney 4y ago