6 ms·

Gonna have a hell of a time proving the boss's tweets have anything to do with working conditions.

by the_doctah 3y ago

maxbond 3y ago
I don't think that's the burden of proof though, I think they have to prove they were fired in retaliation.
- imgabe 3y ago
  NAL, but I think they would also have to prove that the thing they were fired in retaliation for is something you're actually not allowed to fire people for. You can fire people in retaliation for stealing or screwing up or for wasting everyone's time complaining about Twitter drama instead of doing their job or lots of other reasons. Simply firing in retaliation is not illegal.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Also not a lawyer. I think if, for instance, a group of roof tile workers were discussing how they thought their safety straps needed to be replaced, and were fired for doing so - whether or not the straps needed replacing would be immaterial. The discussion is protected. In the same way, I don't think it's material whether Twitter is disruptive to their work. NLRB's argument, if I'm understanding correctly, is that they were discussing their conditions, and that such a discussion is protected.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      I think the question is whether the boss's personal social media account is part of their workplace conditions. A safety strap is definitely a part of the work place. If your job is not social media manager and you don't work at Twitter (these are SpaceX employees), then it's hard to see how Twitter is a part of their workplace conditions. They should probably be designing rockets or whatever they were being paid to do instead of reading Twitter.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        ETA: See also this better response to a similar question; we're myopically focusing on Twitter, but that isn't the real story here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726 Musk regularly tweets about his companies. His tweets regularly move the share price, so it makes sense to me that they might regularly impact employees (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation). Also, if you listen to Musk, he has no regular personal and working hours, they're constantly intermingled. I think many people in the thread have a misconception that because Twitter is something kinda silly that it couldn't possibly matter. I think it can be helpful to mentally substitute "Twitter" with "public statements." As a thought experiment, if the CEO of your company went on a drunken bender (not saying this is what Musk did, just a hypothetical) and they started tweeting a bunch of really offensive stuff, do you think that could impact your job? Say, if you were a startup about to do another round of fundraising - they might alienate investors, and you might end up losing your job.
        imgabe 3y ago
        I kinda think "workplace conditions" would mean, you know, the conditions in which you do your work, like the physical environment where you are working. If the safety straps are old and frayed or the air conditioning in the office is broken, this is a condition of the workplace. I don't think it means "every conceivable thing in the world that might affect the share price". If the Fed changes the interest rates, that could affect the share price. Does that mean that if I want to email my 13,000 co-workers my thoughts about the Fed's interest rate policy this is a protected discussion of workplace conditions? I don't think so. The test seems to be "workplace conditions" not "things that impact employees" or "things that can affect the share price" which could be literally anything at all.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Please note I specifically said I wasn't discussing share price. Regarding the Fed, that honestly is a misrepresentation of what I said. Please don't do that. And please review this part of my previous post: > (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation) Public statements can contribute to a hostile work environment. What is being alleged is that joking about sexual harassment and a lack of clarity around workplace policies have created a hostile work environment. That is directly related to working conditions. (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.) I invite you to read the open letter for yourself. 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... Or the passages quoted here, for the especially relevant parts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    Sorry this is getting ridiculous, go and read the letter, it's reasonably worded and specifically calls out the problems that you cause by making a policy for the employees ("don't be an a-hole") but then don't call out employees above some level for violating these rules. Moreover, a little research would have revealed to you that Shot well publicly stated that the employees were fired for their letter. There is no burden of proof here.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      I'm not disputing that they were fired for the letter, I'm disputing that the letter is a protected discussion of workplace conditions.

Gonna have a hell of a time proving the boss's tweets have anything to do with working conditions.

maxbond 3y ago

I don't think that's the burden of proof though, I think they have to prove they were fired in retaliation.

imgabe 3y ago
NAL, but I think they would also have to prove that the thing they were fired in retaliation for is something you're actually not allowed to fire people for. You can fire people in retaliation for stealing or screwing up or for wasting everyone's time complaining about Twitter drama instead of doing their job or lots of other reasons. Simply firing in retaliation is not illegal.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Also not a lawyer. I think if, for instance, a group of roof tile workers were discussing how they thought their safety straps needed to be replaced, and were fired for doing so - whether or not the straps needed replacing would be immaterial. The discussion is protected. In the same way, I don't think it's material whether Twitter is disruptive to their work. NLRB's argument, if I'm understanding correctly, is that they were discussing their conditions, and that such a discussion is protected.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    I think the question is whether the boss's personal social media account is part of their workplace conditions. A safety strap is definitely a part of the work place. If your job is not social media manager and you don't work at Twitter (these are SpaceX employees), then it's hard to see how Twitter is a part of their workplace conditions. They should probably be designing rockets or whatever they were being paid to do instead of reading Twitter.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      ETA: See also this better response to a similar question; we're myopically focusing on Twitter, but that isn't the real story here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726 Musk regularly tweets about his companies. His tweets regularly move the share price, so it makes sense to me that they might regularly impact employees (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation). Also, if you listen to Musk, he has no regular personal and working hours, they're constantly intermingled. I think many people in the thread have a misconception that because Twitter is something kinda silly that it couldn't possibly matter. I think it can be helpful to mentally substitute "Twitter" with "public statements." As a thought experiment, if the CEO of your company went on a drunken bender (not saying this is what Musk did, just a hypothetical) and they started tweeting a bunch of really offensive stuff, do you think that could impact your job? Say, if you were a startup about to do another round of fundraising - they might alienate investors, and you might end up losing your job.
      - imgabe 3y ago
        I kinda think "workplace conditions" would mean, you know, the conditions in which you do your work, like the physical environment where you are working. If the safety straps are old and frayed or the air conditioning in the office is broken, this is a condition of the workplace. I don't think it means "every conceivable thing in the world that might affect the share price". If the Fed changes the interest rates, that could affect the share price. Does that mean that if I want to email my 13,000 co-workers my thoughts about the Fed's interest rate policy this is a protected discussion of workplace conditions? I don't think so. The test seems to be "workplace conditions" not "things that impact employees" or "things that can affect the share price" which could be literally anything at all.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Please note I specifically said I wasn't discussing share price. Regarding the Fed, that honestly is a misrepresentation of what I said. Please don't do that. And please review this part of my previous post: > (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation) Public statements can contribute to a hostile work environment. What is being alleged is that joking about sexual harassment and a lack of clarity around workplace policies have created a hostile work environment. That is directly related to working conditions. (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.) I invite you to read the open letter for yourself. 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... Or the passages quoted here, for the especially relevant parts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726
- cycomanic 3y ago
  Sorry this is getting ridiculous, go and read the letter, it's reasonably worded and specifically calls out the problems that you cause by making a policy for the employees ("don't be an a-hole") but then don't call out employees above some level for violating these rules. Moreover, a little research would have revealed to you that Shot well publicly stated that the employees were fired for their letter. There is no burden of proof here.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    I'm not disputing that they were fired for the letter, I'm disputing that the letter is a protected discussion of workplace conditions.