9 ms·

how 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 try

how 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 ago
Perhaps 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 ago
  They 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 ago
Shotwell 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 ago
  I 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.
  - mixdup 3y ago
    >your job is...not criticize the owners of the company outside of work So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day?
    - lettergram 3y ago
      Ah should have said “not criticize what the owners of the company does outside of work” The open letter used work resources and hours to go after what their boss did outside of work. Worse, after being told to stop, they continued.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You're allowed to discuss working conditions at work, it's protected by law. You're advocating for criminal behavior by suggesting they should be fired in retaliation for a protected category of organizing. You might find more sympathy for your point of view if it were not enforced as criminally illegal behavior. Workers don't need to respect an illegal order just because it comes from their master - it's a free country with protected categories of speech.
        woooooo 3y ago
        Musk's tweets aren't working conditions.
        Grimburger 3y ago
        > discuss working conditions Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?[1] It's about how they don't want to work for a company owned by a person expressing their opinion in the public sphere because it causes embarrassment in their own social spheres being voluntarily associated with that. The court case is now about them demanding to have their jobs reinstated to a company owned by that exact same person where absolutely nothing has changed. I agree that workers should have freedom of speech, but the owner of the company they work for also has that same right, a right they oppose and which seems to be the root of all their problems leading to this case. Freedom of speech was never freedom from consequences was it. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
- emmelaich 3y ago
  FWIW 'gwynne' is typically a male's name. [edit - but in this case looks very much female]
  - gertlex 3y ago
    She's well-known in this context, not a random exec we've never heard of, so there's no doubt about the pronouns to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    I have never heard of that association. The Wikipedia article lists 11 notable people with it as their first name, and the gender distribution is just about half and half.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      "Gwynne" to me looks like the first element of Guinevere (obviously female) plus a French-style feminine ending. And the root means "white", which if it's going to be coded as one sex or the other is again always going to be female. I would never have expected the name to be masculine. I'm surprised to see males reach 50%. (Actually, in the Wikipedia list, 55%.) (Looking into it a little farther, the same name in Irish appears to be Finn, a legendary (male) hero. Probably relevant.)
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Right - but won't some high priced lawyer be able to prove correlation and not causation?
perihelions 3y ago
It's in writing. - "7. About June 15, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, through an email unlawfully restricted employees from distributing the Open Letter." - "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open Letter." https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.31-CA-307446.Consolidated-Complaint-and-Notice-of-Hearing_Redacted.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.3... (pdf)
tim333 3y ago
I'm not up on US employment law. As an employee are you entitled to put out a letter saying your CEO is a jerk and that the idiot isn't allowed to fire you so you'll keeping saying it?

MBCook 3y ago

Perhaps 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 ago
They 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 ago

Shotwell 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 ago
I 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.
- mixdup 3y ago
  >your job is...not criticize the owners of the company outside of work So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day?
  - lettergram 3y ago
    Ah should have said “not criticize what the owners of the company does outside of work” The open letter used work resources and hours to go after what their boss did outside of work. Worse, after being told to stop, they continued.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      You're allowed to discuss working conditions at work, it's protected by law. You're advocating for criminal behavior by suggesting they should be fired in retaliation for a protected category of organizing. You might find more sympathy for your point of view if it were not enforced as criminally illegal behavior. Workers don't need to respect an illegal order just because it comes from their master - it's a free country with protected categories of speech.
      - woooooo 3y ago
        Musk's tweets aren't working conditions.
      - Grimburger 3y ago
        > discuss working conditions Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?[1] It's about how they don't want to work for a company owned by a person expressing their opinion in the public sphere because it causes embarrassment in their own social spheres being voluntarily associated with that. The court case is now about them demanding to have their jobs reinstated to a company owned by that exact same person where absolutely nothing has changed. I agree that workers should have freedom of speech, but the owner of the company they work for also has that same right, a right they oppose and which seems to be the root of all their problems leading to this case. Freedom of speech was never freedom from consequences was it. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
emmelaich 3y ago
FWIW 'gwynne' is typically a male's name. [edit - but in this case looks very much female]
- gertlex 3y ago
  She's well-known in this context, not a random exec we've never heard of, so there's no doubt about the pronouns to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  I have never heard of that association. The Wikipedia article lists 11 notable people with it as their first name, and the gender distribution is just about half and half.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    "Gwynne" to me looks like the first element of Guinevere (obviously female) plus a French-style feminine ending. And the root means "white", which if it's going to be coded as one sex or the other is again always going to be female. I would never have expected the name to be masculine. I'm surprised to see males reach 50%. (Actually, in the Wikipedia list, 55%.) (Looking into it a little farther, the same name in Irish appears to be Finn, a legendary (male) hero. Probably relevant.)
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Right - but won't some high priced lawyer be able to prove correlation and not causation?

perihelions 3y ago

It's in writing. - "7. About June 15, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, through an email unlawfully restricted employees from distributing the Open Letter." - "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open Letter." https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.31-CA-307446.Consolidated-Complaint-and-Notice-of-Hearing_Redacted.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.3... (pdf)

tim333 3y ago

I'm not up on US employment law. As an employee are you entitled to put out a letter saying your CEO is a jerk and that the idiot isn't allowed to fire you so you'll keeping saying it?