6 ms·

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
  > If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse The sheer number of historical atrocities this would excuse is almost hilarious.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    The world swings and the things which looks like abuse changes. And it's not like people are not dying due to their norms. We need to change their norm from within.
    - etchalon 3y ago
      I don't think what looks like abuse changes. I think what abuse we're OK with changes. Domestic abuse was always abuse. It always looked like abuse. We always knew it was abuse. But, for a very, very long time, society was totally cool with it.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      This is very wise. The first step to changing the norm from within is to acknowledge that the norm cannot be bad because it is the norm, as the most powerful position of change is to say that nothing worth changing should be changed if it is somewhat common
    - kibwen 3y ago
      > We need to change their norm from within. And what happened to the employees in this case who tried to challenge that norm from within?
- geysersam 3y ago
  We should aspire higher than moral relativism and "might is right".
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    We should, but looking at events over the last year or 20 shows that things aren't moving that way at all.
- saghm 3y ago
  > 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. What they initially wrote the letter about the boss doing might not have been illegal, but it sounds like the government agency whose job it is to monitor this sort of thing thinks firing them for it is in fact illegal. > 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. There's "fine" and "not fine" as personal opinions, and then there's "legal" and "illegal"; both of those things you listed are in fact legal regardless of whether you personally consider them "fine", but firing someone for them is not.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  Did you read the letter? It was specifically about the boss breaking company policy very publicly. So according to your own measures I guess they were correct then.
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.

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
> If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse The sheer number of historical atrocities this would excuse is almost hilarious.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  The world swings and the things which looks like abuse changes. And it's not like people are not dying due to their norms. We need to change their norm from within.
  - etchalon 3y ago
    I don't think what looks like abuse changes. I think what abuse we're OK with changes. Domestic abuse was always abuse. It always looked like abuse. We always knew it was abuse. But, for a very, very long time, society was totally cool with it.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    This is very wise. The first step to changing the norm from within is to acknowledge that the norm cannot be bad because it is the norm, as the most powerful position of change is to say that nothing worth changing should be changed if it is somewhat common
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > We need to change their norm from within. And what happened to the employees in this case who tried to challenge that norm from within?
geysersam 3y ago
We should aspire higher than moral relativism and "might is right".
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  We should, but looking at events over the last year or 20 shows that things aren't moving that way at all.
saghm 3y ago
> 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. What they initially wrote the letter about the boss doing might not have been illegal, but it sounds like the government agency whose job it is to monitor this sort of thing thinks firing them for it is in fact illegal. > 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. There's "fine" and "not fine" as personal opinions, and then there's "legal" and "illegal"; both of those things you listed are in fact legal regardless of whether you personally consider them "fine", but firing someone for them is not.
cycomanic 3y ago
Did you read the letter? It was specifically about the boss breaking company policy very publicly. So according to your own measures I guess they were correct then.

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.