7 ms·

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 contr

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...
      - aw1621107 3y ago
        > Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions? The sections regarding unacceptable behavior seem like potential candidates: > SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change. > [snip] > Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
        leereeves 3y ago
        So that raises an interesting question. If part of the letter was about working conditions, and part was about Elon tweeting, can they legally be fired for the second part of the open letter despite the existence of the first?
        water-data-dude 3y ago
        This is my reading and might be off base, but it seems like they’re saying that Elon is undermining the “no assholes” and “zero tolerance” policies with his very loud and visible opinions. As long as Elon is seen as BEING SpaceX, his dismissive attitude towards things like sexual harassment will make it difficult to enforce policies against that sort of behavior. That’s why they asked SpaceX to distance itself from Twitter Elon.
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day? I’ll leave the specifics of the law and this case to the authorities, but in principle it’s not unreasonable for an employer to expect discretion in public about said employer. It’s a far cry from “owning” that time and not in principle even determining what the discourse otherwise involves.
  - mixdup 3y ago
    Let's just set aside how much of a right a company should have over its employees activities outside of work if they're legal and don't directly affect the employees'job performance If I understand correctly they were actually fired for internal discussions and petitioning within the company complaining about Musk's behavior. This wasn't an engineer going on CNN and bashing Elon or SpaceX, these folks were advocating internally for changes in terms of things they saw affecting their jobs and the company (which is why the NLRB can be involved here, since that is a form of organizing activity)
  - geysersam 3y ago
    Why? Is it good for the overall wellbeing of people, for economic productivity, that we don't criticize our leaders, be it our bosses or our politicians? No it isn't. It's free speech.
    - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
      Unfortunately mainstream conservatives don’t believe in free speech anymore, that was a 2000s era flash in the pan.
      - networkchad 3y ago
        [dead]
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    There’s nothing to leave aside, the only thing that matters is the law.
  - 3y ago
- throwaway09223 3y ago
  Certainly not. In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. It's astounding that the NRLB is defending an insubordination termination after accusations were made against the executive. This is pretty obviously a political prosecution and the end result won't be good for anyone.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. > If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. > If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. If an employee loses their job they may not be able to pay rent or buy groceries. If SpaceX fires an employee they have 10,000+ that can pick up the slack. Similarly, companies often have large legal teams on retainer whereas getting legal repression can be difficult for individuals. It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.
    - throwaway09223 3y ago
      > It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important. That's why unemployment is important. None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to whether someone can be laid off. Criticizing the CEO isn't a protected activity in any event.
      - Sleaker 3y ago
        But criticizing the way the rules are being enforced and the selective nature of them IS a protected activity. This is clearly detailed in the article and suit.
        3y ago
usea 3y ago
> I mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager. It seems like the NLRB disagrees with you.
haliskerbas 3y ago
What about the fiduciary duty the company owner has to it’s shareholders, where the employees are part of that group too. I could also say “shut up your job is to make the stock go up, this isn’t twitter tea party time” to the owner
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Or "Maybe don't tell our customers that buy ads to go fuck themselves". In fact if I said that to our customers I would probably be fired.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    … and then, right after telling ex-customers to go fuck themselves and not to come back, when asked what the plan was to replace that revenue, to offer nothing and say it “will kill” (Will! Kill!) the company, but you’re ok with that because “the world will judge [the companies that stopped buying Twitter ads]”. At a public event. On camera.
alt_retaliation 3y ago
It's not politics though, it also involved them asking to have Musk stop joking about sexual harassment, which is a protected activity. And of course some higher up dismissing it and telling them to stop complaining just makes it worse.

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...
    - aw1621107 3y ago
      > Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions? The sections regarding unacceptable behavior seem like potential candidates: > SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change. > [snip] > Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        So that raises an interesting question. If part of the letter was about working conditions, and part was about Elon tweeting, can they legally be fired for the second part of the open letter despite the existence of the first?
        water-data-dude 3y ago
        This is my reading and might be off base, but it seems like they’re saying that Elon is undermining the “no assholes” and “zero tolerance” policies with his very loud and visible opinions. As long as Elon is seen as BEING SpaceX, his dismissive attitude towards things like sexual harassment will make it difficult to enforce policies against that sort of behavior. That’s why they asked SpaceX to distance itself from Twitter Elon.
nyokodo 3y ago
> So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day? I’ll leave the specifics of the law and this case to the authorities, but in principle it’s not unreasonable for an employer to expect discretion in public about said employer. It’s a far cry from “owning” that time and not in principle even determining what the discourse otherwise involves.
- mixdup 3y ago
  Let's just set aside how much of a right a company should have over its employees activities outside of work if they're legal and don't directly affect the employees'job performance If I understand correctly they were actually fired for internal discussions and petitioning within the company complaining about Musk's behavior. This wasn't an engineer going on CNN and bashing Elon or SpaceX, these folks were advocating internally for changes in terms of things they saw affecting their jobs and the company (which is why the NLRB can be involved here, since that is a form of organizing activity)
- geysersam 3y ago
  Why? Is it good for the overall wellbeing of people, for economic productivity, that we don't criticize our leaders, be it our bosses or our politicians? No it isn't. It's free speech.
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    Unfortunately mainstream conservatives don’t believe in free speech anymore, that was a 2000s era flash in the pan.
    - networkchad 3y ago
      [dead]
- femiagbabiaka 3y ago
  There’s nothing to leave aside, the only thing that matters is the law.
- 3y ago
throwaway09223 3y ago
Certainly not. In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. It's astounding that the NRLB is defending an insubordination termination after accusations were made against the executive. This is pretty obviously a political prosecution and the end result won't be good for anyone.
- richbell 3y ago
  > In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. > If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. > If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. If an employee loses their job they may not be able to pay rent or buy groceries. If SpaceX fires an employee they have 10,000+ that can pick up the slack. Similarly, companies often have large legal teams on retainer whereas getting legal repression can be difficult for individuals. It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.
  - throwaway09223 3y ago
    > It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important. That's why unemployment is important. None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to whether someone can be laid off. Criticizing the CEO isn't a protected activity in any event.
    - Sleaker 3y ago
      But criticizing the way the rules are being enforced and the selective nature of them IS a protected activity. This is clearly detailed in the article and suit.
      - 3y ago

usea 3y ago

> I mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager. It seems like the NLRB disagrees with you.

haliskerbas 3y ago

What about the fiduciary duty the company owner has to it’s shareholders, where the employees are part of that group too. I could also say “shut up your job is to make the stock go up, this isn’t twitter tea party time” to the owner

wkat4242 3y ago
Or "Maybe don't tell our customers that buy ads to go fuck themselves". In fact if I said that to our customers I would probably be fired.
- wharvle 3y ago
  … and then, right after telling ex-customers to go fuck themselves and not to come back, when asked what the plan was to replace that revenue, to offer nothing and say it “will kill” (Will! Kill!) the company, but you’re ok with that because “the world will judge [the companies that stopped buying Twitter ads]”. At a public event. On camera.

alt_retaliation 3y ago

It's not politics though, it also involved them asking to have Musk stop joking about sexual harassment, which is a protected activity. And of course some higher up dismissing it and telling them to stop complaining just makes it worse.