4 ms·

> Employees should sort of organise [..] It's not clear whether employees should be using company resources and company time to organise against the company or

> Employees should sort of organise [..] It's not clear whether employees should be using company resources and company time to organise against the company or its management. Is that something we think is a given right? If so, why? There is a reason that during a (legitimate!) strike pickets have to stand off their employer's property. We had that in the 70s with the NUM, we had that in 2010 when BA strikers were prohibited from entering (private) Heathrow property[1] > the idea that they're doing so to promote tolerance is the most Orwellian bullshit take imaginable 1) there's quite a lack of tolerance left of centre, and 2) context is everything. Your starter for ten: I'll give you a quote, so without searching, take a wild guess who said it... > "Everybody understands all lives matter. Everybody wants strong, effective law enforcement." [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/16/british-airways-strike-terminal-five https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/16/british-air...

notahacker 4y ago
2) context is everything. Indeed. The context has nothing to do with weird digressions about the tolerance of the left or picket line legislation in the UK. The context is that a company fired some people for sending emails criticising a CEO with a long track record of being even less tolerant of criticism than the average CEO whilst asserting it's unacceptable for staff to question the company's anti-harassment policies. The context is the CEO also has a track record of threatening to get people who never worked with him fired from their completely unrelated job if they don't take their blog posts criticising him and his company down. Stating that he may be legally entitled to do this is one thing. Citing the paradox of tolerance to argue that cancelling people who criticise Elon Musk and ruling out the possibility of debate on SpaceX harassment policy is in fact compatible with "free speech absolutism", because email circulars questioning the boss' behaviour and harassment policies (or blogging on SeekingAlpha, I guess) intimidates people is... something else entirely.

notahacker 4y ago

2) context is everything. Indeed. The context has nothing to do with weird digressions about the tolerance of the left or picket line legislation in the UK. The context is that a company fired some people for sending emails criticising a CEO with a long track record of being even less tolerant of criticism than the average CEO whilst asserting it's unacceptable for staff to question the company's anti-harassment policies. The context is the CEO also has a track record of threatening to get people who never worked with him fired from their completely unrelated job if they don't take their blog posts criticising him and his company down. Stating that he may be legally entitled to do this is one thing. Citing the paradox of tolerance to argue that cancelling people who criticise Elon Musk and ruling out the possibility of debate on SpaceX harassment policy is in fact compatible with "free speech absolutism", because email circulars questioning the boss' behaviour and harassment policies (or blogging on SeekingAlpha, I guess) intimidates people is... something else entirely.