6 ms·

Turns 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 resul

by huhwat 4y ago

Turns 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 ago
It 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    You can 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon anything to make "connections" like that
    - huhwat 4y ago
      Then more directly, the letter specifically called out unequal enforcement of company policy. That's direct.
      - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
        Company policy does not apply to the owner of the company.
    - mwint 4y ago
      Commerce Clause vibes
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    > If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer or deadlines just get moved out
  - achenet 4y ago
    > If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer. This statement is false in the general case. If the contract says 40 hours, I'm leaving after 40 hours, and if you want me to stay longer I better have a large share of the company. Your inefficiencies as a manager are not my problem as an employee, unless I'm also a shareholder.
- btilly 4y ago
  Did we read the same letter? The following passage is one of many about workplace behavior, which therefore is part of working conditions: Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    This really does not fall into working conditions, in the legal sense of the word. "Musk is an asshole because of how he tweets" says nothing about the working conditions of SpaceX. If the letter alleges that Musk directly harassed employees, that would be entirely different. But it doesn't; it merely says that Musks behavior in the public sphere is unpleasant (again, that's fair).
    - huhwat 4y ago
      Unequal enforcement of company policies is not working conditions?
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        No. Forcing a trucker to drive 20 hours straight is working conditions. Refusing to install proper lighting in a warehouse is working conditions. Having a policy saying "don't be an asshole", and then enforcing it in a way that is perceived as unfair, is not working conditions. If the letter had directly alleged that Musk or other leadership was abusive towards the employees, they would have a case. But just saying "we thing Musk is an asshole, and we have a no-asshole policy" is not protected speech.
        huhwat 4y ago
        I don't know what to tell you, every legal training I've ever had has said that capricious application of workplace policies and playing favorites is a good way to land oneself into an NLRB discussion. And that the NLRB, juries, and courts tend to bias towards workers.
pc86 4y ago
Speech about working conditions is indeed protected. Nothing in the letter is about working conditions.
- huhwat 4y ago
  > many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. Sure sounds like a discussion about workplace policies and enforcement to me.
  - Darkphibre 4y ago
    It's fascinating to me how many comments seem to be defending the workplace culture at SpaceX, and outright dismissing the letter in a hostile manner.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      I don't think anyone is defending the culture, just saying that this letter is not about workplace conditions and is not protected, no matter how much you wish it was.
      - Aeolun 4y ago
        Hmm, I think that’s at the very least debatable. If we had a liberal court I can see how they’d go for that. Right now? Not so sure.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        No. Elon Musks tweets are not workplace conditions anymore than your choice of owning a cat or dog is workplace conditions. You can dislike something and also not think it's illegal.
        omniglottal 4y ago
        His tweets are official company communications. They are every bit as relevant to workplace conditions as would be owning a cat or dog inside your office.
_ea1k 4y ago
Honestly, I think you have a point. It would go back to what the reason was for termination. SpaceX has indicated that the terminated employee's actions went beyond simply writing the letter. I do not take company statements like that at face value, as they have their own interests to protect. However, it does leave the possibility that termination was not related to statements about working conditions. The former employees may have a case here.

by huhwat 4y ago

dahfizz 4y ago

It 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 ago
If 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 ago
  You can 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon anything to make "connections" like that
  - huhwat 4y ago
    Then more directly, the letter specifically called out unequal enforcement of company policy. That's direct.
    - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
      Company policy does not apply to the owner of the company.
  - mwint 4y ago
    Commerce Clause vibes
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  > If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer or deadlines just get moved out
- achenet 4y ago
  > If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer. This statement is false in the general case. If the contract says 40 hours, I'm leaving after 40 hours, and if you want me to stay longer I better have a large share of the company. Your inefficiencies as a manager are not my problem as an employee, unless I'm also a shareholder.
btilly 4y ago
Did we read the same letter? The following passage is one of many about workplace behavior, which therefore is part of working conditions: Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  This really does not fall into working conditions, in the legal sense of the word. "Musk is an asshole because of how he tweets" says nothing about the working conditions of SpaceX. If the letter alleges that Musk directly harassed employees, that would be entirely different. But it doesn't; it merely says that Musks behavior in the public sphere is unpleasant (again, that's fair).
  - huhwat 4y ago
    Unequal enforcement of company policies is not working conditions?
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      No. Forcing a trucker to drive 20 hours straight is working conditions. Refusing to install proper lighting in a warehouse is working conditions. Having a policy saying "don't be an asshole", and then enforcing it in a way that is perceived as unfair, is not working conditions. If the letter had directly alleged that Musk or other leadership was abusive towards the employees, they would have a case. But just saying "we thing Musk is an asshole, and we have a no-asshole policy" is not protected speech.
      - huhwat 4y ago
        I don't know what to tell you, every legal training I've ever had has said that capricious application of workplace policies and playing favorites is a good way to land oneself into an NLRB discussion. And that the NLRB, juries, and courts tend to bias towards workers.

pc86 4y ago

Speech about working conditions is indeed protected. Nothing in the letter is about working conditions.

huhwat 4y ago
> many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. Sure sounds like a discussion about workplace policies and enforcement to me.
- Darkphibre 4y ago
  It's fascinating to me how many comments seem to be defending the workplace culture at SpaceX, and outright dismissing the letter in a hostile manner.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I don't think anyone is defending the culture, just saying that this letter is not about workplace conditions and is not protected, no matter how much you wish it was.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      Hmm, I think that’s at the very least debatable. If we had a liberal court I can see how they’d go for that. Right now? Not so sure.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        No. Elon Musks tweets are not workplace conditions anymore than your choice of owning a cat or dog is workplace conditions. You can dislike something and also not think it's illegal.
        omniglottal 4y ago
        His tweets are official company communications. They are every bit as relevant to workplace conditions as would be owning a cat or dog inside your office.

_ea1k 4y ago

Honestly, I think you have a point. It would go back to what the reason was for termination. SpaceX has indicated that the terminated employee's actions went beyond simply writing the letter. I do not take company statements like that at face value, as they have their own interests to protect. However, it does leave the possibility that termination was not related to statements about working conditions. The former employees may have a case here.