6 ms·

>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 e

>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.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - wharvle 3y ago
      I guess primary sources are less cool if you aren’t going to read them and go in with a made-up mind. I was prepared to see a hysterical and inappropriate letter that at the very least didn’t fit the spirit of discussion of improving work conditions, even if it did fit the strict definition. Looks like it’s well within the spirit, though. Oh well, it’s there for all to read. No need to rely on me or “criminal crew running the government” here. And thank god for that. We might be nuts with wildly bad information.
      - fsckboy 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - John23832 3y ago
      >It is critical that the shareholders, the board, and the CEO make this determination about messages and mission, and values They did by creating the rules of conduct that all employees must abide by. "Rules for the but not for me" is bad corporate leadership. >not a mutiny by a subset of employees with an agenda (the same agenda as all the people here who think Musk is the devil) and who make unsupportable claims that they magically know better than managment what the PR should look like. Asking your company to hold another employee accountable to the rule of conduct we all agreed to abide by is not mutiny. >I'm not going to read the rest of this stupid letter, it's a smarmy politcal sneer motivated by the ideological imperatives of a tiny minority of shareholders, who support a Whitehouse that has politicized the Justice Department more than has been seen in a long long time. Not even LBJ behaved like the criminal crew running the govt, this is 19th century bare knuckled politics. It's is clear you just have a political bent here rather than a calm and considered idea.
      - fsckboy 3y ago
        [flagged]
        piva00 3y ago
        > bad corporate leadership does not require govt oversight and intervention. And employees don't decide who is breaking the rules, just like crime victims don't actually run our courtrooms: it's not a good idea, noble as it sounds in a childish sort of way. So who does? Not the government, not the employees, who decides the corporate leadership is acting in bad faith and needs to be accountable? Stop the boring soapboxing, for Christ's sake...
  - junofan 3y ago
    I dunno, it more or less calls Elon an asshole. I dunno if blasting that to the whole company is protected. Seems like disruptive behavior which the employer may lawfully regulate.
  - tim333 3y ago
    >Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior. >SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon’s personal brand. If you had a company in which you were the majority shareholder and CEO would you put up with the people you hire circulating letters to condemn your behaviour?
    - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
      Yes, because that is a legal requirement if you want to employ people in the United States.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Elon's tweets certainly aren't work conditions.
    - wharvle 3y ago
      The letter lays out succinctly and plainly how they matter for workers and the company, and offers fairly measured steps that might be taken to mitigate that, which include simple stuff that doesn’t ask to muzzle Elon like just making it clearer that his tweets aren’t connected to and don’t reflect the positions of the company. The letter may be incorrect but sure reads like a good faith effort to discuss work conditions, not some kind of anti-Elon polemic. It’s not even close to the line that I fully expected to see it crossing, based on posts in this thread.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        The letter goes beyond asking to make it clear that his tweets aren’t connected to and don’t reflect the positions of the company" and calls on SpaceX to "Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior". Merriam-Webster defines polemic as "an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another", so that demand is clearly an anti-Elon polemic.
John23832 3y ago
>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? Yes I think that should be law. You should be able to attempt to help self correct your company by speaking up and not have the your life blown up because of the misaligned interest of a select few at the top. Just quitting is the the most extreme form of protest, but not the most feasible because we all can't find jobs tomorrow. This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws. >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. I take it you haven't read the article. The ask by employees was for SpaceX to uphold THEIR OWN STANDARDS by distancing themselves from Elon's bad actions through his tweets. You do not get to create rules within a company and then ignore your own codified rules while firing people for non-codified ones ("deeming" speech "insubordination"). As for Musk's tweets in relation to his company, when you create company from a cult of personality, your actions for the cult and the company are blurred. So you have to be on your best behavior for both.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  laws work best when they don't fill the courts with disputes that courts aren't designd to handle. There is no way the government can define and enforce your utopia with respect to "cults of personality". Please, give it a shot, what are the markers of a corporate cult of personality that needs to be regulated?
  - John23832 3y ago
    I can tell you're being disingenuous and that this isn't going to be a constructive conversation, but I'll bite. -- You are confusing the topic here (I think purposefully). The first idea is whether asking an employer to hold another employee accountable for the rules of conduct agreed to by all employees is allowed. It is. It falls under protected speech at work in the United States. This has been codified for decades (largely as a result of unionization efforts) and the courts know how, and were designed to, "handle it". Second, Elon's personal actions with respect to it's effect on SpaceX. This would be for the Board of Directors to handle, but their is also clear prior art for a CEO's actions outside of their job as CEO having impact on the company. We've literally seen this with Elon before.
kibwen 3y ago
> authoritarian much? Protecting people who speak up against authority is the exact opposite of authoritarian.

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.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - wharvle 3y ago
    I guess primary sources are less cool if you aren’t going to read them and go in with a made-up mind. I was prepared to see a hysterical and inappropriate letter that at the very least didn’t fit the spirit of discussion of improving work conditions, even if it did fit the strict definition. Looks like it’s well within the spirit, though. Oh well, it’s there for all to read. No need to rely on me or “criminal crew running the government” here. And thank god for that. We might be nuts with wildly bad information.
    - fsckboy 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - John23832 3y ago
    >It is critical that the shareholders, the board, and the CEO make this determination about messages and mission, and values They did by creating the rules of conduct that all employees must abide by. "Rules for the but not for me" is bad corporate leadership. >not a mutiny by a subset of employees with an agenda (the same agenda as all the people here who think Musk is the devil) and who make unsupportable claims that they magically know better than managment what the PR should look like. Asking your company to hold another employee accountable to the rule of conduct we all agreed to abide by is not mutiny. >I'm not going to read the rest of this stupid letter, it's a smarmy politcal sneer motivated by the ideological imperatives of a tiny minority of shareholders, who support a Whitehouse that has politicized the Justice Department more than has been seen in a long long time. Not even LBJ behaved like the criminal crew running the govt, this is 19th century bare knuckled politics. It's is clear you just have a political bent here rather than a calm and considered idea.
    - fsckboy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - piva00 3y ago
        > bad corporate leadership does not require govt oversight and intervention. And employees don't decide who is breaking the rules, just like crime victims don't actually run our courtrooms: it's not a good idea, noble as it sounds in a childish sort of way. So who does? Not the government, not the employees, who decides the corporate leadership is acting in bad faith and needs to be accountable? Stop the boring soapboxing, for Christ's sake...
- junofan 3y ago
  I dunno, it more or less calls Elon an asshole. I dunno if blasting that to the whole company is protected. Seems like disruptive behavior which the employer may lawfully regulate.
- tim333 3y ago
  >Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior. >SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon’s personal brand. If you had a company in which you were the majority shareholder and CEO would you put up with the people you hire circulating letters to condemn your behaviour?
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    Yes, because that is a legal requirement if you want to employ people in the United States.
- leereeves 3y ago
  Elon's tweets certainly aren't work conditions.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    The letter lays out succinctly and plainly how they matter for workers and the company, and offers fairly measured steps that might be taken to mitigate that, which include simple stuff that doesn’t ask to muzzle Elon like just making it clearer that his tweets aren’t connected to and don’t reflect the positions of the company. The letter may be incorrect but sure reads like a good faith effort to discuss work conditions, not some kind of anti-Elon polemic. It’s not even close to the line that I fully expected to see it crossing, based on posts in this thread.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      The letter goes beyond asking to make it clear that his tweets aren’t connected to and don’t reflect the positions of the company" and calls on SpaceX to "Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior". Merriam-Webster defines polemic as "an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another", so that demand is clearly an anti-Elon polemic.

John23832 3y ago

>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? Yes I think that should be law. You should be able to attempt to help self correct your company by speaking up and not have the your life blown up because of the misaligned interest of a select few at the top. Just quitting is the the most extreme form of protest, but not the most feasible because we all can't find jobs tomorrow. This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws. >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. I take it you haven't read the article. The ask by employees was for SpaceX to uphold THEIR OWN STANDARDS by distancing themselves from Elon's bad actions through his tweets. You do not get to create rules within a company and then ignore your own codified rules while firing people for non-codified ones ("deeming" speech "insubordination"). As for Musk's tweets in relation to his company, when you create company from a cult of personality, your actions for the cult and the company are blurred. So you have to be on your best behavior for both.

fsckboy 3y ago
laws work best when they don't fill the courts with disputes that courts aren't designd to handle. There is no way the government can define and enforce your utopia with respect to "cults of personality". Please, give it a shot, what are the markers of a corporate cult of personality that needs to be regulated?
- John23832 3y ago
  I can tell you're being disingenuous and that this isn't going to be a constructive conversation, but I'll bite. -- You are confusing the topic here (I think purposefully). The first idea is whether asking an employer to hold another employee accountable for the rules of conduct agreed to by all employees is allowed. It is. It falls under protected speech at work in the United States. This has been codified for decades (largely as a result of unionization efforts) and the courts know how, and were designed to, "handle it". Second, Elon's personal actions with respect to it's effect on SpaceX. This would be for the Board of Directors to handle, but their is also clear prior art for a CEO's actions outside of their job as CEO having impact on the company. We've literally seen this with Elon before.

kibwen 3y ago

> authoritarian much? Protecting people who speak up against authority is the exact opposite of authoritarian.