7 ms·
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
by 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 agoUnequal enforcement of company policies is not working conditions?
- dahfizz 4y agoNo. 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 agoI 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.
- snowwrestler 4y agoThe NLRB only has jurisdiction when the matter concerns labor organizing. This has a specific definition and does not automatically cover any collective action by employees like open letters or petitions. Many employment laws just create causes of action for civil litigation. I.e. they define types of harm for which the employee can seek compensation in the courts.
- btilly 4y agoThat isn't what they think according to https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employee-rights https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right.... Very specifically for this case, they protect the right of employees to talk to an employer about improving workplace conditions. With or without a union, and with or without any interest in unionization.
- flambergey 4y ago
- btilly 4y agoLet's clarify definitions, shall we? Quoting from https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/working-conditions https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/working-conditions I find: Working Conditions means the conditions under which the work of an employee is performed, including physical or psychological factors. The things that that letter discusses affects the psychological factors of the work. Committing to making people feel included, defining what toxic behavior will not be accepted, and so on. Your linked definition includes in working conditions, "...all existing circumstances affecting labor in the workplace." This fits with the definition that I gave - the behaviors that you have to put up with from coworkers affects labor in the workplace.
- native_samples 4y agoThe argument you're advancing here, though it may be popular with some kinds of lawyers, is tantamount to arguing that any discussion at all could be considered about working conditions. Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions" you're starting a fast track to eventually having working conditions be stripped of its legal weight, as it'll turn into just another rule being exploited by woke culture warriors in ways it was never meant to be used.
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y agoIs there anyone asking for anything in a workplace that you wouldn't call a "woke culture warrior"? Using that kind of language marks you as pretty disingenuous to the argument.
- Aeolun 4y agoHaven’t we already seen that the SEC thinks Musks personal tweets hold legal weight?
- fakethenews2022 4y agoOnly those that relate to disclosures involving Tesla.
- 4y ago