7 ms·

There 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 fre

There 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 ago
You 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 ago
  No 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.
  - disintegore 4y ago
    It was a mistake to participate in this absurd analogy to begin with. You can just stretch it until it becomes convenient again. There is simply no comparing the power dynamic between you and an independent contractor to that of an aerospace company and its highly specialized workforce. It's a simple fact that SpaceX chose its CEO's public image over its mission statement and reputation. I hope future prospects realize that there is no stability or long-term personal growth to be found there unless they can keep their heads down and kiss ass.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      > there is no stability or long-term personal growth to be found there unless they [do their jobs].
      - disintegore 4y ago
        Way to tell on yourself there
      - d0mine 4y ago
        CEO who surrenders themselves with yes-men is bad at his job.
    - pcmoney 4y ago
      No they chose to remove unproductive, toxic people who were distracting away from the people actually doing the work.
      - mempko 4y ago
        Keep going, you are almost there.... so close. Read the letter, what is it about?
      - sumeno 4y ago
        No, they kept Elon
    - achenet 4y ago
      In theory, if politics starts making SpaceX ineffective, the free market will provide an opening for a competitor with a more effective culture to eat their lunch.
    - arghnoname 4y ago
      I think the workforce being highly specialized is where this gets tricky. In principle I think firing someone for causing internal strife in someone's judgement as a manager is in accordance to how our economy is structured and is to be expected. We may disagree with the judgement, but it isn't a free speech issue if that person can just go get another job. The 'consequences' to their speech are inconsequential enough that their ability to express themselves is not prohibited even if inconvenient. But if they can't work anymore because they got fired from the one employer of their skill the consequences are quite severe. They have to learn a new field! Ideally I'd say people with this specialized skill set form a guild or union. The same thing that makes them vulnerable makes their employer vulnerable--the workers of that industry are highly concentrated, with high investment in skill development. Absent that, it's a tricky issue and I think it would be fair to say that at least a warning would have been in order before dismissal. I don't know if the people Musk fired are in this category or not. If it were an office manager, for example, seems fine. if it is an engineer on some space ship esoterica, ouch.
  - achenet 4y ago
    > No 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. Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but if you yelling insults at the the neighbors makes it harder for him to fix the toilet, and he asks you to stop, would you still fire him for it? Because you could argue, although with difficulty, that Musk tweeting stupid things makes it more difficult for SpaceX employees to do their work. In practice, I've found it generally easier and wiser to leave a company with a stupid boss rather than ask the stupid boss to change, but I see why someone could try the latter.
    - arghnoname 4y ago
      It's a funny point. If I were having some argument with the neighbor and the plumber gave me shit about it...to be honest, I'd be super-annoyed and while I wouldn't fire the plumber (it's difficult to get plumbers on site!), I probably wouldn't have him back. Your point is a good one though, to continue the analogy, the plumber shouldn't want to come back. Erratic and volatile bosses are best avoided. I prefer it when they do this stuff loudly and in public so I can know to avoid them.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Firing an incomplete and/or lazy person is not tyranny.
  - disintegore 4y ago
    There is no indication that the persons who drafted the letter were "incomplete and/or lazy", nor was that the pretext given by SpaceX management.
  - larkost 4y ago
    There are no indications at all of incompetence (I assume that is what you meant) or laziness in this at all. All indications are that this is an group of employees who came together to complain internally, the complaint was leaked (no indication that it was them), and they were fired.
    - meatsauce 4y ago
      - disintegore 4y ago
        I'm sure you're the guy everyone likes at work.
        meatsauce 4y ago
        100% of my company likes me but that's besides the point. Work isn't a popularity contest and you don't need to be liked all the time by everyone. The only people who care about such things are those with devastatingly low self-esteem.
        disintegore 4y ago
        Well, if work isn't a popularity contest, then who gives a damn what you imagine people at SpaceX think of "woke pests"? All it does it make you sound angry.
VikingCoder 4y ago
I feel like there's a part of the word "absolutist" that you don't get.
- pcmoney 4y ago
  So free speech absolutist means you tolerate incoherent yelling in all places at all times? While you're trying to focus and get work done? While you're trying to sleep? At your wedding? At a funeral?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    ab·so·lute adjective: absolute 1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total. free adjective: free; comparative adjective: freer; superlative adjective: freest 1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes. hmm I wonder what 'free speech absolutist' means. maybe that one's freedom to speak is not qualified or diminished in any way? their freedom to speak is total?
    - googlryas 4y ago
      Isn't this just "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences"? No one is restricting their ability to speak, they are just restricting their ability to work at SpaceX. What's the alternative? Does a free speech absolutist need to never make judgements on what he hears from someone's free speech? If I hear a person say he wants to murder me and my family, do I still need to invite him over for Thanksgiving dinner? Aren't I exerting some form of control of over him if I say you can't come into my home? I think your view of the term "free speech absolutist" may make sense when analyzing the individual word meanings, but doesn't make sense as a phrase, and doesn't align with how self described free speech absolutists view themselves.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
pardesi 4y ago
He doesnt pay from his pocket. He may be founder & CEO. But he is an employee as much as those five.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > He doesnt pay from his pocket. About 1/6 of the pay comes from his pocket, since he owns about that much of the company. > He may be founder & CEO. But he is an employee as much as those five. His main relationship to Tesla is as it's controlling owner, not an employee, though, yes, he's also an employee. That's pretty different from every other employee.
  - pardesi 4y ago
    > About 1/6 of the pay comes from his pocket Sorry, pls explain me this business logic. 1/6th is his ownership which is mostly tied to stocks. The pay comes from liquidity(arising from sales, selling bonds & any additional stock dilution from the organization) Unless I am completely misinformed about how business accounting works. Ownership doesnt pay unless they sell their stocks to pay(which he did through raising funding through stock hypothication in the past)
- pcmoney 4y ago
  He didn't fire them, the president of the company did for harassing their coworkers and wasting time.
  - pardesi 4y ago
    Right. Now that most of us in public know how he thinks & acts, we still believe that the president of the company took action on her own. Since "union" is being supported by the socialists, employers are crushing any organization attempts, thats all.

disintegore 4y ago

You 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 ago
No 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.
- disintegore 4y ago
  It was a mistake to participate in this absurd analogy to begin with. You can just stretch it until it becomes convenient again. There is simply no comparing the power dynamic between you and an independent contractor to that of an aerospace company and its highly specialized workforce. It's a simple fact that SpaceX chose its CEO's public image over its mission statement and reputation. I hope future prospects realize that there is no stability or long-term personal growth to be found there unless they can keep their heads down and kiss ass.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    > there is no stability or long-term personal growth to be found there unless they [do their jobs].
    - disintegore 4y ago
      Way to tell on yourself there
    - d0mine 4y ago
      CEO who surrenders themselves with yes-men is bad at his job.
  - pcmoney 4y ago
    No they chose to remove unproductive, toxic people who were distracting away from the people actually doing the work.
    - mempko 4y ago
      Keep going, you are almost there.... so close. Read the letter, what is it about?
    - sumeno 4y ago
      No, they kept Elon
  - achenet 4y ago
    In theory, if politics starts making SpaceX ineffective, the free market will provide an opening for a competitor with a more effective culture to eat their lunch.
  - arghnoname 4y ago
    I think the workforce being highly specialized is where this gets tricky. In principle I think firing someone for causing internal strife in someone's judgement as a manager is in accordance to how our economy is structured and is to be expected. We may disagree with the judgement, but it isn't a free speech issue if that person can just go get another job. The 'consequences' to their speech are inconsequential enough that their ability to express themselves is not prohibited even if inconvenient. But if they can't work anymore because they got fired from the one employer of their skill the consequences are quite severe. They have to learn a new field! Ideally I'd say people with this specialized skill set form a guild or union. The same thing that makes them vulnerable makes their employer vulnerable--the workers of that industry are highly concentrated, with high investment in skill development. Absent that, it's a tricky issue and I think it would be fair to say that at least a warning would have been in order before dismissal. I don't know if the people Musk fired are in this category or not. If it were an office manager, for example, seems fine. if it is an engineer on some space ship esoterica, ouch.
- achenet 4y ago
  > No 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. Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but if you yelling insults at the the neighbors makes it harder for him to fix the toilet, and he asks you to stop, would you still fire him for it? Because you could argue, although with difficulty, that Musk tweeting stupid things makes it more difficult for SpaceX employees to do their work. In practice, I've found it generally easier and wiser to leave a company with a stupid boss rather than ask the stupid boss to change, but I see why someone could try the latter.
  - arghnoname 4y ago
    It's a funny point. If I were having some argument with the neighbor and the plumber gave me shit about it...to be honest, I'd be super-annoyed and while I wouldn't fire the plumber (it's difficult to get plumbers on site!), I probably wouldn't have him back. Your point is a good one though, to continue the analogy, the plumber shouldn't want to come back. Erratic and volatile bosses are best avoided. I prefer it when they do this stuff loudly and in public so I can know to avoid them.
edgyquant 4y ago
Firing an incomplete and/or lazy person is not tyranny.
- disintegore 4y ago
  There is no indication that the persons who drafted the letter were "incomplete and/or lazy", nor was that the pretext given by SpaceX management.
- larkost 4y ago
  There are no indications at all of incompetence (I assume that is what you meant) or laziness in this at all. All indications are that this is an group of employees who came together to complain internally, the complaint was leaked (no indication that it was them), and they were fired.
  - meatsauce 4y ago
    - disintegore 4y ago
      I'm sure you're the guy everyone likes at work.
      - meatsauce 4y ago
        100% of my company likes me but that's besides the point. Work isn't a popularity contest and you don't need to be liked all the time by everyone. The only people who care about such things are those with devastatingly low self-esteem.
        disintegore 4y ago
        Well, if work isn't a popularity contest, then who gives a damn what you imagine people at SpaceX think of "woke pests"? All it does it make you sound angry.

VikingCoder 4y ago

I feel like there's a part of the word "absolutist" that you don't get.

pcmoney 4y ago
So free speech absolutist means you tolerate incoherent yelling in all places at all times? While you're trying to focus and get work done? While you're trying to sleep? At your wedding? At a funeral?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 4y ago
  ab·so·lute adjective: absolute 1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total. free adjective: free; comparative adjective: freer; superlative adjective: freest 1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes. hmm I wonder what 'free speech absolutist' means. maybe that one's freedom to speak is not qualified or diminished in any way? their freedom to speak is total?
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Isn't this just "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences"? No one is restricting their ability to speak, they are just restricting their ability to work at SpaceX. What's the alternative? Does a free speech absolutist need to never make judgements on what he hears from someone's free speech? If I hear a person say he wants to murder me and my family, do I still need to invite him over for Thanksgiving dinner? Aren't I exerting some form of control of over him if I say you can't come into my home? I think your view of the term "free speech absolutist" may make sense when analyzing the individual word meanings, but doesn't make sense as a phrase, and doesn't align with how self described free speech absolutists view themselves.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago

pardesi 4y ago

He doesnt pay from his pocket. He may be founder & CEO. But he is an employee as much as those five.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> He doesnt pay from his pocket. About 1/6 of the pay comes from his pocket, since he owns about that much of the company. > He may be founder & CEO. But he is an employee as much as those five. His main relationship to Tesla is as it's controlling owner, not an employee, though, yes, he's also an employee. That's pretty different from every other employee.
- pardesi 4y ago
  > About 1/6 of the pay comes from his pocket Sorry, pls explain me this business logic. 1/6th is his ownership which is mostly tied to stocks. The pay comes from liquidity(arising from sales, selling bonds & any additional stock dilution from the organization) Unless I am completely misinformed about how business accounting works. Ownership doesnt pay unless they sell their stocks to pay(which he did through raising funding through stock hypothication in the past)
pcmoney 4y ago
He didn't fire them, the president of the company did for harassing their coworkers and wasting time.
- pardesi 4y ago
  Right. Now that most of us in public know how he thinks & acts, we still believe that the president of the company took action on her own. Since "union" is being supported by the socialists, employers are crushing any organization attempts, thats all.