5 ms·

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

by 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.
      - meatsauce 4y ago
        Working conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine it.
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.

by huhwat 4y ago

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.
    - meatsauce 4y ago
      Working conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine it.

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.