7 ms·

If 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 ago
I guess they're not rocket scientists.
DonHopkins 3y ago
Then I hope your boss isn't a racist troll.
geysersam 3y ago
That'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 ago
  Human 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 ago
    If 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 ago
  Abuse 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.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse. Abuse is abuse regardless of whether it is normalized in a company, but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'. > 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. That's nice. It is also irrelevant.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      > but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'. Law IS the norm. And I could definitely bet there is no law in US which says that employee can spam other employees about how their boss is bad.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        > And I could definitely bet there is no law in US which says that employee can spam other employees about how their boss is bad. That is exactly what this case is alleging is the law that was violated. What do you think this is all about?
        YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        Most cases like these are just to get money from the employers because they have publicity risk. There is no law they can point that is broken. The article even clearly says this: > The case is scheduled to go before an administrative judge in early March unless SpaceX agrees to a settlement beforehand. A spokeswoman for the labor board said it was seeking make-whole remedies like reinstatement and back pay for the workers.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - etchalon 3y ago
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination). I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not right as to be obviously corrupt".
  - geysersam 3y ago
    Was this a professional disagreement about the strategy of the company? No, it was a disagreement about politics. Rich people shouldn't have the right to use their power to silence others, that's why I called it abuse and corruption.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    Since when is an internal letter public? Also what happened to the whole "I'm a free speech advocate" spiel? I guess free speech only applies to thinks Musk likes. Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      There are productive and destructive ways to handle disagreements with the chain of leadership. If I choose a destructive way, I shouldn't be shocked that I find destruction at the end of that path.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Even if it's illegal to retaliate in the case of protected speech, however destructive?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        They chose a constructive way, yet received destruction in return. To be absolutely clear, politely communicating with fellow employees is absolutely the constructive way to handle work disagreements. The problem here obviously wasn't the constructiveness, but that there was any disagreement at all. That's toxic leadership, but no surprise given the leader of the company.
gitaarik 3y ago
But being fired the next day for a open letter that has some reasonable critique is something else. And there's also employer rights btw.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Circulating an open letter point-blank criticizing the CEO is absolutely unprofessional and I'm honestly shocked anyone here thinks they could pull this crap without getting fired.
  - mikojan 3y ago
    On its own this would be a remarkably authoritarian position. But in light of the allegations I am just puzzled by this statement. Is there a line you would draw somewhere? Anywhere?
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    This is a good point. Since employees are not shareholders they have no standing to criticize a CEO. Only someone with a financial stake in the future of a company should be able to voice their concerns without fear of retribution
    - beachy 3y ago
      Employees are financially dependant on the company for salary and perhaps stock options - surely that counts as "a financial stake".
      - chii 3y ago
        the wording is wrong - it's not a financial stake that gives you said power, it's equity stake. This equity stake gives you a vote for which you can use to influence the actions of the board and thus the CEO. Being financially dependent on the company to provide employment by no means gives you power over the CEO. Of course, criticism is not black and white - but being an asshole CEO is not illegal, and putting yourself out to "fight the good fight" sounds good on paper, but do you no good at all.
John23832 3y ago
Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job. That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top. Especially in a company run by someone who claims to "seek truths" like Musk. However, it certainly would not make you popular with the true believers in the room. You would definitely feel the discontent amongst your peers in a conviction led company.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  >Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job. if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much? >That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top. firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer, an echo chamber, but perhaps for your product an echo chamber is the business strategy you chose. Steve Jobs was famous for his attention to detail, reinforcing and staying on message, "hold it up just this way, show everybody, look how thin it is! echo that or don't work here." Freedom needs to include the freedom to set a strategy and stick to it, and if setting the strategy is not your job but your dream, find that job for yourself, don't think you should get paid to undermine it for somebody else.
  - comex 3y ago
    They weren’t criticizing the product direction. The letter was about Elon’s tweets and sexual harassment.
    - wharvle 3y ago
      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... The whole (internal! Until leaked) open letter is near the bottom of that article. Wasn’t paywalled for me. Reading it cleared up the noise in this thread pretty neatly. Sure looks like this has a great shot of counting as protected discussion of work conditions. I now know posts in this thread dismissing the letter as just “politics” or just “criticizing the CEO” have no connection to reality. It’s very restrained and focused. Primary sources are cool.

archsurface 3y ago

I guess they're not rocket scientists.

DonHopkins 3y ago

Then I hope your boss isn't a racist troll.

geysersam 3y ago

That'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 ago
Human 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 ago
  If 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 ago
Abuse 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.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse. Abuse is abuse regardless of whether it is normalized in a company, but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'. > 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. That's nice. It is also irrelevant.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    > but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'. Law IS the norm. And I could definitely bet there is no law in US which says that employee can spam other employees about how their boss is bad.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > And I could definitely bet there is no law in US which says that employee can spam other employees about how their boss is bad. That is exactly what this case is alleging is the law that was violated. What do you think this is all about?
      - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        Most cases like these are just to get money from the employers because they have publicity risk. There is no law they can point that is broken. The article even clearly says this: > The case is scheduled to go before an administrative judge in early March unless SpaceX agrees to a settlement beforehand. A spokeswoman for the labor board said it was seeking make-whole remedies like reinstatement and back pay for the workers.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- etchalon 3y ago
sokoloff 3y ago
Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination). I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not right as to be obviously corrupt".
- geysersam 3y ago
  Was this a professional disagreement about the strategy of the company? No, it was a disagreement about politics. Rich people shouldn't have the right to use their power to silence others, that's why I called it abuse and corruption.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  Since when is an internal letter public? Also what happened to the whole "I'm a free speech advocate" spiel? I guess free speech only applies to thinks Musk likes. Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    There are productive and destructive ways to handle disagreements with the chain of leadership. If I choose a destructive way, I shouldn't be shocked that I find destruction at the end of that path.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Even if it's illegal to retaliate in the case of protected speech, however destructive?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      They chose a constructive way, yet received destruction in return. To be absolutely clear, politely communicating with fellow employees is absolutely the constructive way to handle work disagreements. The problem here obviously wasn't the constructiveness, but that there was any disagreement at all. That's toxic leadership, but no surprise given the leader of the company.

gitaarik 3y ago

But being fired the next day for a open letter that has some reasonable critique is something else. And there's also employer rights btw.

justrealist 3y ago
Circulating an open letter point-blank criticizing the CEO is absolutely unprofessional and I'm honestly shocked anyone here thinks they could pull this crap without getting fired.
- mikojan 3y ago
  On its own this would be a remarkably authoritarian position. But in light of the allegations I am just puzzled by this statement. Is there a line you would draw somewhere? Anywhere?
- jrflowers 3y ago
  This is a good point. Since employees are not shareholders they have no standing to criticize a CEO. Only someone with a financial stake in the future of a company should be able to voice their concerns without fear of retribution
  - beachy 3y ago
    Employees are financially dependant on the company for salary and perhaps stock options - surely that counts as "a financial stake".
    - chii 3y ago
      the wording is wrong - it's not a financial stake that gives you said power, it's equity stake. This equity stake gives you a vote for which you can use to influence the actions of the board and thus the CEO. Being financially dependent on the company to provide employment by no means gives you power over the CEO. Of course, criticism is not black and white - but being an asshole CEO is not illegal, and putting yourself out to "fight the good fight" sounds good on paper, but do you no good at all.

John23832 3y ago

Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job. That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top. Especially in a company run by someone who claims to "seek truths" like Musk. However, it certainly would not make you popular with the true believers in the room. You would definitely feel the discontent amongst your peers in a conviction led company.

fsckboy 3y ago
>Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job. if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much? >That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top. firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer, an echo chamber, but perhaps for your product an echo chamber is the business strategy you chose. Steve Jobs was famous for his attention to detail, reinforcing and staying on message, "hold it up just this way, show everybody, look how thin it is! echo that or don't work here." Freedom needs to include the freedom to set a strategy and stick to it, and if setting the strategy is not your job but your dream, find that job for yourself, don't think you should get paid to undermine it for somebody else.
- comex 3y ago
  They weren’t criticizing the product direction. The letter was about Elon’s tweets and sexual harassment.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    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... The whole (internal! Until leaked) open letter is near the bottom of that article. Wasn’t paywalled for me. Reading it cleared up the noise in this thread pretty neatly. Sure looks like this has a great shot of counting as protected discussion of work conditions. I now know posts in this thread dismissing the letter as just “politics” or just “criticizing the CEO” have no connection to reality. It’s very restrained and focused. Primary sources are cool.