5 ms·

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.co

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
  - imgabe 3y ago
    I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it. You established a chain of logic like so: If something affects the share price, then it is relevant to business operations Musk's tweets affect the share price Therefore Musk's tweets are relevant to business operations. I provided a counterexample (interest rates) of something that affects the share price but is not relevant to business operations. So the first condition of your argument is false and therefore it is not a sound argument. Simply because Musk's tweets affect the share price, this does not necessarily mean they are relevant to business operations (to the extent that they are protected discussion about workplace environment). I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies, management doesn't want to, the employees wouldn't shut up about it and so they got fired. Discussing a policy could fall under workplace conditions, I suppose. But they weren't fired for discussing it. They discussed it, they got an answer, they wanted to keep on discussing it. At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. It's not a legal requirement like "fix the safety straps" either, so at what point do you tell the employees to either let it go or get out? Are the required to allow employees to endlessly spam communication channels after management has made the decision about a policy?
    - maxbond 3y ago
      > I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it. I think you're distorting what I said, actually. What I said was that it is reasonable to believe that the tweets are disruptive, not that everything which impacts the stock price or even the operations of the business is relevant to working conditions. I can understand how that may not have been clear on a first reading, but after I pointed this out and asked you to review what I said, I do think that should have been clear to you. > I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. I don't know if you maybe didn't see this edit because of how HN works, but I did clarify that already: > (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.) They are pretty clearly describing a work environment which is hostile. They're saying that they don't have clarity about what the policies are, that their work is interrupted, and that the lack of clarity causes rules to be enforced inconsistently. Call that whatever you want and it's still relevant to working conditions. > It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies That's a complete misreading. Where did you even get that? The document has 3 calls to action and none of them are about DEI. They mention the workplace, as it exists, is diverse. That's all I can see and it's completely tangential. (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.) > But they weren't fired for discussing it. They literally were. > "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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605 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... > At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. At no point does management get the ability to fire people for protected speech, or does the speech stop being protected. Just because management says "no" doesn't mean employees have to stop advocating for themselves.

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
- imgabe 3y ago
  I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it. You established a chain of logic like so: If something affects the share price, then it is relevant to business operations Musk's tweets affect the share price Therefore Musk's tweets are relevant to business operations. I provided a counterexample (interest rates) of something that affects the share price but is not relevant to business operations. So the first condition of your argument is false and therefore it is not a sound argument. Simply because Musk's tweets affect the share price, this does not necessarily mean they are relevant to business operations (to the extent that they are protected discussion about workplace environment). I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies, management doesn't want to, the employees wouldn't shut up about it and so they got fired. Discussing a policy could fall under workplace conditions, I suppose. But they weren't fired for discussing it. They discussed it, they got an answer, they wanted to keep on discussing it. At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. It's not a legal requirement like "fix the safety straps" either, so at what point do you tell the employees to either let it go or get out? Are the required to allow employees to endlessly spam communication channels after management has made the decision about a policy?
  - maxbond 3y ago
    > I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it. I think you're distorting what I said, actually. What I said was that it is reasonable to believe that the tweets are disruptive, not that everything which impacts the stock price or even the operations of the business is relevant to working conditions. I can understand how that may not have been clear on a first reading, but after I pointed this out and asked you to review what I said, I do think that should have been clear to you. > I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. I don't know if you maybe didn't see this edit because of how HN works, but I did clarify that already: > (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.) They are pretty clearly describing a work environment which is hostile. They're saying that they don't have clarity about what the policies are, that their work is interrupted, and that the lack of clarity causes rules to be enforced inconsistently. Call that whatever you want and it's still relevant to working conditions. > It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies That's a complete misreading. Where did you even get that? The document has 3 calls to action and none of them are about DEI. They mention the workplace, as it exists, is diverse. That's all I can see and it's completely tangential. (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.) > But they weren't fired for discussing it. They literally were. > "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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605 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... > At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. At no point does management get the ability to fire people for protected speech, or does the speech stop being protected. Just because management says "no" doesn't mean employees have to stop advocating for themselves.