3 ms·

> This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your employer via a public letter. The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is "So what?"

> This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your employer via a public letter. The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is "So what?" Yes, it's predictable. I don't believe people who wrote the letter haven't thought of this potential consequence and haven't felt any trepidation whatsoever. So what if it's "predictable"? So what if it's legal? The point is not whether it's currently legal and whether it's predictable. The point is whether it's right. How does stating that "it's predictable" address the very real and ugly problems in this whole situation?

CodeSgt 4y ago
It's absolutely right for a man who built a company to be able to fire whoever he wishes, especially for cause like in this case.
- CodeMage 4y ago
  He might have built the company, but he isn't the company. Building the company doesn't give him the moral right to run it into the ground or make it toxic. He might have that legal right, but I explicitly said that I'm not talking about that.
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    How does one create a thing and then lose the moral right to destroy said thing? That's not something I think you'll be able to justify to me. Just because it's destruction may hinder other people doesn't mean that it isn't the creators right to do so.
    - CodeMage 4y ago
      When other people's livelihoods depend on the thing you created, you lose the moral right to wantonly destroy it. When what you built stops being wholly yours, you lose the moral right to wantonly destroy it. Those are just two examples. There are more.
      - CodeSgt 4y ago
        I agree once over 50% ownership has transferred you lose the moral right to destroy it. I should have clarified and said the one creates and owns, or even just owns really. I disagree with the other assertion that you lose the moral right to destroy it. Does he have the moral right to fire his employees? I hope you'd agree with me that he does. And in this case he'd just be firing all of them.
        CodeMage 4y ago
        It's not about math. It's about responsibility, both in the case of ownership and in the case of people depending on you. You asserted that he has a moral right to destroy the company because he built it. He might have built it, but it doesn't matter if he now owns 54% or 90% or 10% of it, it stopped being just his. He can't just say "screw it, I'm bored, let's just burn it down to the ground". That responsibility is even greater when it comes to the people who depend on you, who put their livelihood in their hands because they believe in your company. Not necessarily in you, but certainly in what you created. Let me put it this way: if you knew that the person in charge of company X is a volatile, irresponsible person incapable of putting the good of the company before their own ego, someone who doesn't care enough for the company, would you go work for that company? Musk's behavior is damaging the company. His employees are objecting to that, among other things. They are right to do so. As for whether he has the moral right to fire his employees indiscriminately solely by virtue of having created the company? No, he doesn't, for the same reasons I described above. Does he have the right to fire his employees for the right reasons? Of course, but that's not the case here. That's what I was pointing out when you asserted that he certainly has the right to fire them just because he built the company.
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        Looks like we're at an impasse as we just fundamentally disagree. Indiscriminate should be federally legal and fortunately is in many states. I believe he every bit has the moral right to fire indiscriminately and burn his company to the ground if he wants while he retains majority ownership.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - farnerup 4y ago
      Do you have the right to kill your child? You have a moral resposibility as soon as you get other people involved.
meatsauce 4y ago
kcplate 4y ago
But is it right? It might be perceived as right and acceptable to some folks because of their definition of morality and behavior, and it might be a common enough understanding of those morals in 2022. It’s PC. However, its not a good precedent for a company to tolerate because moral attitudes change. If a bunch of hyper fundamentalist evangelical Christian SpaceX employees wrote a letter saying that their CEOs behavior and values did not line up with their Christian values and behavior expectations, and for the company’s success, the leadership needed to condemn publicly the CEO’s actions? Would that be ok? What if they started actively proselytizing their morality to the other employees? Attempting to stir up dissent to the point where it was detrimental to company productivity? This latest type of activism is PC, so that is the only reason its even discussed. Other activism like the above example is perhaps not as PC and most folks would not even care…or would be on the other side of the issue.
- CodeMage 4y ago
  Did you read the actual letter? I ask becasue it's not included in the NYT article, so I'm not sure whether your complaints about political correctness and your comparison with Christian values stem from not knowing the contents of the letter or something else. There are basically three problems the open letter highlights and asks the leadership to address. They're wrapped in polite, corporate-appropriate language, but I'll express them here in plain, blunt, non-PC words: - SpaceX is supposed to be bigger than just Elon Musk. Elon's shitposting on social media is harming the whole company, and the employees will end up suffering because Elon keeps putting his ego before the company. - The so-called leadership, as it happens all too often, keeps talking the talk, but they don't walk the walk. They say they care about making SpaceX a great place to work, but that's just bullshit as long as they turn a blind eye to the toxic fuckery at SpaceX. - The company policies are bullshit. Using words like "asshole" to sound cool and non-PC does not replace having an actual policy. "Zero tolerance" means fuck-all if you selectively tolerate stuff, and "no-asshole policy" is either too vague or isn't enforced. Basically, it boils down to being sick of the toxic corporate LARPing you see in a certain kind of techbro companies, where suits pretend to be cool and down with the techies by using words like "asshole" to show how they value "straight talk" and therefore you can totally trust them not to fuck you over. I hope that was non-PC enough to help explain what the letter says, for anyone who hasn't actually read it. On the off chance that you did read the letter and you really decided that it's no different from "a bunch of hyper fundamentalist evangelical Christian SpaceX employees" demanding that their CEO behave according to their values, then I would like to point out two details you might have overlooked: 1. That would be perfectly understandable if the company itself claimed to hold and represent those values. If the employees of the hypothetical Every-Zygote-Is-Sacred LLC wrote a letter complaining about how their CEO kept tweeting about how much they loved and supported Planned Parenthood, then they would have a point, regardless of whether you or I were pro- or anti-abortion. 2. Regardless of what company policies say about the company values, many companies have a policies about social media, along the lines of "don't tweet anything that would negatively affect the company, not even on your personal account". People can, and do, get fired for breaking that policy. Complaining about how the CEO of the company keeps blatantly breaking that policy and actively harming the company in the process might be naive, but it's certainly understandable. In conclusion: yeah, I think it's right and acceptable for SpaceX employees to complain about the unprecedented level of toxicity from their CEO. EDIT: I accidentally a word in the last paragraph.

CodeSgt 4y ago

It's absolutely right for a man who built a company to be able to fire whoever he wishes, especially for cause like in this case.

CodeMage 4y ago
He might have built the company, but he isn't the company. Building the company doesn't give him the moral right to run it into the ground or make it toxic. He might have that legal right, but I explicitly said that I'm not talking about that.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  How does one create a thing and then lose the moral right to destroy said thing? That's not something I think you'll be able to justify to me. Just because it's destruction may hinder other people doesn't mean that it isn't the creators right to do so.
  - CodeMage 4y ago
    When other people's livelihoods depend on the thing you created, you lose the moral right to wantonly destroy it. When what you built stops being wholly yours, you lose the moral right to wantonly destroy it. Those are just two examples. There are more.
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      I agree once over 50% ownership has transferred you lose the moral right to destroy it. I should have clarified and said the one creates and owns, or even just owns really. I disagree with the other assertion that you lose the moral right to destroy it. Does he have the moral right to fire his employees? I hope you'd agree with me that he does. And in this case he'd just be firing all of them.
      - CodeMage 4y ago
        It's not about math. It's about responsibility, both in the case of ownership and in the case of people depending on you. You asserted that he has a moral right to destroy the company because he built it. He might have built it, but it doesn't matter if he now owns 54% or 90% or 10% of it, it stopped being just his. He can't just say "screw it, I'm bored, let's just burn it down to the ground". That responsibility is even greater when it comes to the people who depend on you, who put their livelihood in their hands because they believe in your company. Not necessarily in you, but certainly in what you created. Let me put it this way: if you knew that the person in charge of company X is a volatile, irresponsible person incapable of putting the good of the company before their own ego, someone who doesn't care enough for the company, would you go work for that company? Musk's behavior is damaging the company. His employees are objecting to that, among other things. They are right to do so. As for whether he has the moral right to fire his employees indiscriminately solely by virtue of having created the company? No, he doesn't, for the same reasons I described above. Does he have the right to fire his employees for the right reasons? Of course, but that's not the case here. That's what I was pointing out when you asserted that he certainly has the right to fire them just because he built the company.
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        Looks like we're at an impasse as we just fundamentally disagree. Indiscriminate should be federally legal and fortunately is in many states. I believe he every bit has the moral right to fire indiscriminately and burn his company to the ground if he wants while he retains majority ownership.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - farnerup 4y ago
    Do you have the right to kill your child? You have a moral resposibility as soon as you get other people involved.

meatsauce 4y ago

kcplate 4y ago

But is it right? It might be perceived as right and acceptable to some folks because of their definition of morality and behavior, and it might be a common enough understanding of those morals in 2022. It’s PC. However, its not a good precedent for a company to tolerate because moral attitudes change. If a bunch of hyper fundamentalist evangelical Christian SpaceX employees wrote a letter saying that their CEOs behavior and values did not line up with their Christian values and behavior expectations, and for the company’s success, the leadership needed to condemn publicly the CEO’s actions? Would that be ok? What if they started actively proselytizing their morality to the other employees? Attempting to stir up dissent to the point where it was detrimental to company productivity? This latest type of activism is PC, so that is the only reason its even discussed. Other activism like the above example is perhaps not as PC and most folks would not even care…or would be on the other side of the issue.

CodeMage 4y ago
Did you read the actual letter? I ask becasue it's not included in the NYT article, so I'm not sure whether your complaints about political correctness and your comparison with Christian values stem from not knowing the contents of the letter or something else. There are basically three problems the open letter highlights and asks the leadership to address. They're wrapped in polite, corporate-appropriate language, but I'll express them here in plain, blunt, non-PC words: - SpaceX is supposed to be bigger than just Elon Musk. Elon's shitposting on social media is harming the whole company, and the employees will end up suffering because Elon keeps putting his ego before the company. - The so-called leadership, as it happens all too often, keeps talking the talk, but they don't walk the walk. They say they care about making SpaceX a great place to work, but that's just bullshit as long as they turn a blind eye to the toxic fuckery at SpaceX. - The company policies are bullshit. Using words like "asshole" to sound cool and non-PC does not replace having an actual policy. "Zero tolerance" means fuck-all if you selectively tolerate stuff, and "no-asshole policy" is either too vague or isn't enforced. Basically, it boils down to being sick of the toxic corporate LARPing you see in a certain kind of techbro companies, where suits pretend to be cool and down with the techies by using words like "asshole" to show how they value "straight talk" and therefore you can totally trust them not to fuck you over. I hope that was non-PC enough to help explain what the letter says, for anyone who hasn't actually read it. On the off chance that you did read the letter and you really decided that it's no different from "a bunch of hyper fundamentalist evangelical Christian SpaceX employees" demanding that their CEO behave according to their values, then I would like to point out two details you might have overlooked: 1. That would be perfectly understandable if the company itself claimed to hold and represent those values. If the employees of the hypothetical Every-Zygote-Is-Sacred LLC wrote a letter complaining about how their CEO kept tweeting about how much they loved and supported Planned Parenthood, then they would have a point, regardless of whether you or I were pro- or anti-abortion. 2. Regardless of what company policies say about the company values, many companies have a policies about social media, along the lines of "don't tweet anything that would negatively affect the company, not even on your personal account". People can, and do, get fired for breaking that policy. Complaining about how the CEO of the company keeps blatantly breaking that policy and actively harming the company in the process might be naive, but it's certainly understandable. In conclusion: yeah, I think it's right and acceptable for SpaceX employees to complain about the unprecedented level of toxicity from their CEO. EDIT: I accidentally a word in the last paragraph.