12 ms·
SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says
- chewmieser 3y agoGift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/business/spacex-elon-musk-nlrb-workers.html?mwgrp=a-mbar&unlocked_article_code=1.LE0.HI0_.C2sB56AZWoHk&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/business/spacex-elon-musk...
- ProllyInfamous 3y agoThank you, SantaMieser
- bediger4000 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Sytten 3y agoI think you are missing a /s
- midasuni 3y agoThere are a lot of fanboys out there - of musk and of billionaires in general - who genuinely believe that
- QuercusMax 3y agoIf anything we should give him less leeway, since he has so much power. I know it's a cheesy Spider-Man quote, but "with great power comes great responsibility". Also "power corrupts".
- nickthegreek 3y agoYou are openly advocating for a different and better set of rules for the rich and powerful.
- qp11 3y agoIf they taught Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class, then people wouldn't be surprised the gp reaction is the exact goal of Leisure Class. Through Conspicuous Consumption and Conspicuous Leisure where the keyword is being "Conspicuous" with all their over the top activities, what is really being signaled to the entire chimp troupe is - "you want to be like me or hang out with me then do I what I tell you", "who do you want to work for - the king in the palace with cool toys or someone boring?" Veblen said using such signalling is important for group formation since people are so different and have different interests pushing them all in different directions. So group formation and cohesion requires leaders who are master bullshiters or people who really believe in their stories. But the danger is when the leader forgets the point of signalling and story telling is group formation and cohesion. Thats when things go off the rails.
- cannonpr 3y agoSo to give this a serious answer, why not ? Most but not all of the world has made this illegal because it’s generally viewed as harmful, to society, to the business and to the owner him self quite often. Companies are social enterprises and enjoy the rights with atleast in theory on the perimis that they benefit society in general as well as their stakeholders. Firing an individual who is performing their duties well doesn’t really benefit anyone. Not even Musk, who seems to have always had a particularly thin skin. TLDR it’s not just Musks money/company, nor is he even acting in his own best interests IMO.
- nebula8804 3y agoMost of the world isn't experiencing the GDP growth that the US has. Its unfortunate that this country is so bought and owned by the rich and until that dragon is slayed (how? who knows) then there will always be this sanctuary for the Musks of the world.
- vb6sp6 3y agoMusk can follow the laws like the rest of us
- stephen_g 3y agoThey're not "using Musk's money" - wages paid to employees are owed to the employees for their work, and are no longer the employer's money in any way, shape or form!
- AlexandrB 3y agoAnd a lot of that money originally came from taxpayers[1]. [1] https://qz.com/elon-musks-spacex-and-tesla-get-far-more-government-mon-1850332884 https://qz.com/elon-musks-spacex-and-tesla-get-far-more-gove...
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThis is called an investment by taxpayers, and the return has been much greater than 1.0
- michael1999 3y agoI thought Musk supported "free speech".
- clipsy 3y agoFree speech is when you say something Musk agrees with.
- blooalien 3y agoThus "free speech" being in "scare quotes". You're both right. ;)
- JackFr 3y agoThe specifics if this case notwithstanding (I recognize that communications about workplace conditions are protected), if someone was on a slack channel, bulk emailing other employees undermining and disparaging their manager, were asked to stop and they didn’t, isn’t that grounds for termination? They’re free to speak and tweet about it all they want. They’re just no longer an employee.
- AlexandrB 3y agoThey should have tweeted about it instead of using a letter, then maybe Musk would have funded their legal defense after they got fired[1]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employer-legal-bill-bs https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employ...
- lokar 3y agoAIUI, if you want to enforce rules like that they need to be uniform. Eh you can say “business communication only, only email people who need to know, don’t spam, etc”. You can’t allow someone to sell Girl Scout cookies but then not discuss working conditions.
- ChatGTP 3y agoYes ;) Like when he threatened to sue people for not wanting to advertise on his platform.
- tw04 3y agoEven if we ignored all the other reasons and protections: a massive chunk of Space-X's profits come from government contracts and he should absolutely be subject to worker protections as a part of those contracts if my tax dollars are being spent on it. I don't particularly care if he's personally offended that people who work for him think he's a jerk. If his skin is that thin, perhaps he should consider a profession other than "leading" a diverse group of critical thinkers.
- JackFr 3y agoI understand that in this case communications about workplace conditions may be specifically protected, but is there some level of insubordination for which you think employees should be allowed to be fired?
- codezero 3y agoHe has all the leeway everyone else has within the laws of the jurisdictions his companies operate in.
- flandish 3y agoLeeway? No. He’s a capitalist and his priority is well documented. Stop pretending he’s at all altruistic.
- teh_infallible 3y agoIsn’t everyone on HN a capitalist? Startups, venture funding, etc?
- wharvle 3y agoNot necessarily? Most of us don’t make most of our money through command of capital, so we aren’t capitalists in that sense. Far more are probably capitalists in the sense of liking capitalism and more-or-less promoting it, specifically, but that still may not be most, let alone everyone. Anyway, markets and investment pre-date and are not identical to capitalism. Working in and among those (“yet you participate in society. Curious!”) does not imply love of those things, nor even does appreciating or being a fan of markets and private investment require one count oneself a capitalist in an ideological sense. They’re not identical.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wkat4242 3y agoI'm not a capitalist for sure :P But I'm a salarized employee at a traditional tech firm :)
- synicalx 3y agoLabour laws shouldn't apply to him because otherwise he might... uhh... stop profiting from the labour of others?
- luxuryballs 3y agohow about that should be a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone
- ChatGTP 3y agoThis is an issue though, he is so fucking successful that he can't be wrong, right? wrong. Don't put people on pedestals like this, it never ends well and isn't how the world should work.
- belltaco 3y ago> It also said a company vice president had broken the law by criticizing the letter at a meeting with employees a few days after it was circulated Weird, breaking the law for just criticizing a letter written by employees? The judge might overturn this on the basis of free speech.
- Rebelgecko 3y agoIn the US (or at least California?) you typically have the right to discuss your working conditions, even if you're not unionized. More to the point, companies don't have the right to try and prevent these discussions from happening. Depending on how the criticism of the letter went down, it could very possibly have gone beyond what's legal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- the_doctah 3y agoBeing offended by the CEO's tweets has nothing to do with working conditions. Imagine the people who fought for actual working conditions laws reading this tripe.
- Rebelgecko 3y agoI guess we'll have to disagree. IMO it's pretty easy to see how sexual harassment is related to working conditions.
- threeseed 3y agoFrom all accounts it's far more than just criticising a letter. It was how they got the letter in the first place and creating an environment of coercion and fear for employees conducting legally allowed activities.
- shermantanktop 3y ago“Free speech” is used in many ways. But in the US, my understanding (IANAL) is that I can be fired for saying something, and cannot claim “free speech” as a general blanket protection. Exceptions exist if it is specifically a protected form of speech.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ren_engineer 3y ago[flagged]
- speed_spread 3y agoElon Ma? Jack Musk?
- debo_ 3y agoDidn't previous successful tech entrepreneurs in China experience severe hampering by their government?
- MBCook 3y agoIt would probably be pretty hilarious to see him do that. It would absolutely not work out the way he would expect. Is there any well developed country in the world that would give him more freedom to get away with his nonsense than the US?
- yinser 3y agoDoes anyone know where these employees were employed? I’m a worker in a right-to-work state and would love it if this set a precedent for icing out employers from retribution style separations.
- MBCook 3y agoDoesn’t the NLRB deal with federal laws and not state laws? So wouldn’t this apply to any state?
- basementcat 3y agoAt least California and Washington.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoThat's not what right-to-work means. Right to work was invented by conservatives to give employees the "right" to not pay dues to a union that represents employees at the company. It's just one of the many ways employers have managed to weaken unions in the US over the last half-plus century.
- MBCook 3y agoI think they meant that since they are in a right to work state having something like this to show that that doesn’t automatically mean you can be pushed around would be a good thing.
- mixdup 3y agoagain, right to work has nothing to do with it they meant at-will employment state, which is every state in the country except Montana. at-will employment means you can be fired or you can quit at any time for any reason that is not illegal (such as discrimination) right-to-work and at will are constantly conflated in situations like this
- brudgers 3y agoI am not sure what the OP meant, but I have seen at-will-employment and right-to-work conflated. Maybe that happened here, maybe it did not.
- robertwt7 3y agohow are they able to prove this in court though? surely the HR wouldn't be that stupid to document the reason of firing is "criticising the CEO". also, not trying to be on Musk side, of course he has made some embarrassing and stupid tweets. But if you created a letter that your CEO's public comment is "frequent source of embarrassment", won't you get fired in any other company?? in meta, someone even got fired for being a youtuber, criticising the CEO and spreading the letter is worse right??
- MBCook 3y agoPerhaps it’s a “obviousness of the coincidence“ kind of thing where if these people had nothing against them in their files and just suddenly got fired very very shortly after criticizing leadership it counts? That said as history has shown over and over I would not put it past people doing illegal things to document the illegal things they are doing.
- wkat4242 3y agoThey made a public example out of them and thus formalised the actual reason for their dismissal. So that is not in any doubt.
- tw04 3y agoShotwell literally wrote an email telling them they had to stop discussing the issue or she would consider it insubordination then fired them the next day. No need for HR to do anything when the person in charge is incriminating themselves.
- lettergram 3y agoI mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager. “Yo, stop bringing politics to work, your job is to make flight controls - not criticize the owners of the company outside of work. You’re being disruptive - stop.” Idk, Musks behavior is what it is, idk why these employees thought it was their role within the company to continue to speak out.
- imgabe 3y ago8 out of 13,000 employees wanted to circulate a letter complaining about Musk's tweets and the Labor board claims they were "illegally" fired over this. Which law specifically requires employers to permit every employee to spam the company with their personal grievances? This isn't union organization or whistleblowing. They could use a little more detail on how and why they believe this firing is illegal.
- pram 3y agohttps://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/concerted-activity https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
- Dig1t 3y ago>You have the right to act with co-workers to address work-related issues How do Musk’s personal statements/opinions outside of work count as work-related issues? Genuinely asking, I don’t understand how these rules are enforced. Apple has locked down internal communications about non work-related topics on internal slack and email in the wake of RTO discussions. If this is grounds for a lawsuit, I think other companies are probably open to these kinds of lawsuits too.
- mingus88 3y agoApplying admin controls to Slack is completely different than firing employees for raising concerns For starters, firing someone introduces legitimate damage and liability for those damages if done illegally But also, firing a group of people who are organizing seems like it will run afoul of union protection laws. And to your first question, Musk’s social media tantrums have caused a lot of collateral damage for his companies. I believe the Tesla board also raised concerns that his Twitter meltdown had negatively impacted Tesla. It’s not hard to see how.
- aaomidi 3y agoAlso what Apple is doing isn't necessarily legal either. Just because someone else was speeding on the road and didn't get a ticket, doesn't mean you won't.
- tw04 3y agohttps://archive.is/RRJfZ https://archive.is/RRJfZ
- lessbergstein 3y ago[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y agoWhat does any of this have to do with Biden?
- lessbergstein 3y ago[flagged]
- jibe 3y agoThe NLRB is a federal agency run by political appointees, so it does tend to reflect the will of the president.
- Qwertious 3y agoBiden gave the NLRB teeth, so now they're doing their job.
- thebigman433 3y agoIts also probably because Elon's companies do insane shit brazenly, without even trying to hide it. Shotwell said they were fired for being involved with the letter, in writing.
- alt_retaliation 3y agoThrowaway because I speak from experience, but the NLRB (and California equivalent) just respond to complaints filed by the ex-employees. It doesn't require some top down command. It's a pretty common thing actually, it's just getting press because it involves Musk.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Veserv 3y agoGiven that Elon Musk ran the Tesla Fremont California factory in a way that was found guilty of this [1]: As they did after the first trial, these factors again favor a high punitive damages award here. First and most importantly, Tesla's actions were grievously reprehensible. Diaz was subjected to a grossly racist workplace, with racist conduct perpetuated not only by coworkers or subordinates but also-and perhaps especially-by supervisors like Martinez, who called Diaz racist slurs and drew the racist picaninny, and Hurtado, who directed the N-word at Diaz over 30 times and informed Diaz that he wished he could get all “N-words” fired. Cf. Flores, 873 F.3d at 760; Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1043. Reports to authority often went unanswered and when the company responded, it often failed to interview witnesses or review security footage. Worse yet, a supervisor who learned of Diaz's complaints subsequently failed to investigate and was in fact told by Tesla to not personally investigate the complaint. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Another supervisor was told to stop investigating before he reached a conclusion, and Diaz and his harasser ended up being reprimanded for the conduct directed at Diaz. See Tr. 2387:10-390:18, 395:21-396:7. Martinez, a Tesla supervisor and the main perpetrator of racist conduct, still works at Tesla, nearly a decade after he forced Diaz to endure repeated cruelty and shame. Not only did the company turn a blind eye to the racism, but the jury also could have interpreted the evidence to show that Tesla knew what it was supposed to do and affirmatively chose to not carry out the proper responses. It should be no surprise that a CEO running a organization that supports grievously reprehensible racist conduct and actively retaliates against worker complaints of shocking racial discrimination and harassment like swastikas on the walls would also support retaliation against people highlighting their less mustache-twirling evil. If the swastikas on the walls of your car factory do not get you, firing some people over a letter will not either. [1] https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-7 https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-7
- roamerz 3y agoIf I was openly criticizing the boss my expectation would be I was putting my continued employment at risk. That ain’t rocket science.
- archsurface 3y agoI guess they're not rocket scientists.
- DonHopkins 3y agoThen I hope your boss isn't a racist troll.
- geysersam 3y agoThat's the opposite of meritocracy. And abuse of power on your bosses part. Don't know why so many in this thread seems to support obviously corrupt behavior.
- charcircuit 3y agoHuman relationships are not that cold. It is against human nature. Sure acting human may be suboptimal from a business sense, but there should not be a surprise when a human acts human.
- geysersam 3y agoIf the rich and powerful are unable to show self restraint then they should not have that power. Humans are Human, but we don't have to give some humans the power to sack others without just cause.
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoAbuse of power is a relative term. If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse. It's fine in most companies to complain about the boss to HR or to the boss themselves, but not fine to complain it to someone else. If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.
- gosub100 3y ago[flagged]
- vt85 3y ago[dead]
- AlexandrB 3y agoMusk's conception of free speech is completely incoherent. On the one hand he claims to want to fund the legal defense of people fired for their tweets[1], on the other hand we have stuff like this. The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing? [1] https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employer-legal-bill-bs https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employ... Edit: Thinking about this discussion reminded me that "cis" and "cisgender" are considered slurs on twitter and using these terms can get your account suspended[2]. Interesting. [2] https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-says-terms-like-cisgender-are-considered-slurs-on-twitter/ https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-says-terms-like-cisg...
- camhart 3y agoFreedom of speech does not mean employees can say whatever they want and not be fired. Freedom of speech means the government can't silence its citizens.
- AlexandrB 3y agoWe're discussing Musk's definition of "freedom of speech", not yours, mine, or the constitution's. He seems to believe you should be able to say whatever you want (on Twitter) and not get fired. This is the definition that's relevant here because his ideas about freedom of speech from his many tweets on the subject don't align with his actions as a leader at Tesla and SpaceX.
- brandonagr2 3y agoWhere do you get "and not get fired" from? You seem to be just inventing your own definition and falsely attributing it to Musk. Not being banned from a platform for a legal post that might be unpopular is not at all the same as never getting fired from an employer.
- 3y ago
- samr71 3y ago[flagged]
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38858794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38858794
- throwsssss 3y ago[flagged]
- bilekas 3y agoIt's an incredible reminder to people that HR are not there for the staff. I sometimes forget myself but it's one of the most plain scams in the workforce.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- schmidtleonard 3y ago"At SpaceX the rockets may be reusable, but the people who build them are treated as expendable" -Paige Holland-Thielen
- throwaway14356 3y agoplay the man and not the ball
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoI was pretty dismayed that Gwynne Shotwell's actions were so blatantly egregious. I'd expect something like that (or probably worse) from Musk, but my view of Shotwell was that she was always "the adult in the room" at SpaceX. So a bit sad to see that she didn't even realize the illegality of her actions (as other comments mentioned, all her actions were clearly put in writing).
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoKeep in mind she answers to Musk, you can't assume she had the leeway in this instance, especially since he likely got a bee in his bonnet about it and took an uncompromising position.
- arrosenberg 3y agoNuremberg defense. She could have quit.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoYou've got to pick your battles, and let's face it, a well run and sensibly led SpaceX is a benefit to society (so far).
- bjacobel 3y agoIs it? How've you benefited from the existence of SpaceX? I haven't.
- danaris 3y agoThis seems like an instance of "Something must be done; this is something, therefore it must be done"—more high-quality rocketry and space expertise clearly is a benefit to humanity, at least in the long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that SpaceX in particular needs to be the organization to do it.
- 3y ago
- vaxman 3y agoThe takeaway is "Don't dis your boss at work." I know Elon lost this round, but those dirty bstrds that took his cash and trashed him like that must be in it for some dubious reasons --they are NEVER going to wakeup one day in their 50s and be able to gloat about how they improved humanity...all because they decided to spout off some political trash at work, about the guy signing their checks. Even if they do manage to score some cash when all is said and done, they're going to wind up buying restaurants or getting into auto leasing or something ..while Elon is sending friggin' spaceships to friggin' Mars. DO NOT TALK ABOUT RELIGION, POLITICS OR ADVERSITY AT WORK. EVER. (SAME GOES FOR CHOICE OF TEXT EDITORS AND COMPUTER LANGUAGES LOL) Even if your 'heart is pure' and all that BS, there's always some MF who will leverage your words for their own agenda.
- 0xedd 3y ago[flagged]
- eganist 3y ago> Worked at a 10k+ US company. Executive swore at me. Threatened to fire me. Did HR give a fuck? No. I did what I could, in my position, to protect my job. I had my own manager join the call early on (was a 15 minute "heated" debate with that exec. I kept my head) and involved another senior exec, above the previous one. I'm struggling to see how your circumstance, described as involving only a mid level exec, compares to one involving the CEO of a similarly large company who's notorious for firing people on a whim.
- John23832 3y ago>Oh, please. More bandwagon blind hate. Oh, please. More blind ranting without reading the article. SpaceX fired these employees for asking SpaceX to hold Elon accountable to SpaceX's own rules. It is appropriate to say that that is wrong. There's no "crying to mommy". It's saying "we all agreed to these rules as we came together as a company. Everyone should follow them."
- davidguetta 3y agoAre you 12 ? In what world do you think publicly ridiculing your boss is gonna do anything good for your career. Oh well you were 'right'. But now you won't ever be promoted because the boss don't want the risk to be ridiculed again at a higher lever. If anything Elon made a favor to these weebs so that they can actually go have a career in another compagny
- John23832 3y agoOnly a 12 year old, would start a response with "Are you 12?" while asking a theoretical question which doesn't actual address the situation in the post. And using the word "weeb". Elon wasn't publicly ridiculed. Read the article and grow up.
- 3y ago
- nhfhsjs 3y agoWhat's the point of colonizing Mars in this the way? Depressing.
- rsynnott 3y agoAlways amazed how many of these "hackers" are so incredibly deferential to some rich guy.
- sandos 3y agoI don't believe this is illegal in Sweden, not in spirit anyway. Our unions notwithstanding, you are implied to be "loyal" your employer whatever that means. I assume this would not be very loyal. Now firing people generally requires written warnings and so on, so in that way it would maybe not have been legal.