4 ms·

>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 b

>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.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    so what? If you don't like Elon, boycott his products. Don't buy his shares. Don't work for him. Elon's track record is doing things that have made him the richest person in the world, winning at multiple games many other very clever people are trying very hard to win, including engaging in fields of endeavor that the "socially conscious" among you claim that they endorse. Even Lenin and Mao would admit that Elon has accomplished things that they would wish to accomplish themselves. That alone gives Elon credibility that vastly outpaces, collectively, yours, these disgruntled employees, and the Democratic Party who have decided he's public enemy number one because he got fed up with Twitter cooperating with a one party state to subvert the 1st amendment and suppress speech they don't like. Let him be him, why do you have this incredible urge to control other people and make them say things you like, or punish them if they don't? Elon has earned the right to control Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX, and Twitter was subverting democracy before Elon arrived, and that's what upsets you. I don't care if you are disingenuous, if you're not, your sincerely held beliefs are dangerous to other people around you.
shawndrost 3y ago
I agree with your gist, but I self-identify as an authoritarian, and I don't think you can support your point without that admission. Your erroneous rationale is the paragraph about "the ask". The boss said "no assholes" (among other things) and then violated those rules (in the employees' eyes, and yours, and mine). The employees delicately asked the sub-boss to choose insubordination, and the request was denied, with additional consequences. Nobody was confused about who the boss was, or what actual rules were in place. Your authoritarian rationale -- which I agree with -- is in your final paragraph: he ought to hold himself to a higher standard if he wants to be so rich and influential. I'd push a button that would make that the rules of the world. But that's an authoritarian POV.
chii 3y ago
> your company it's not your company, until you own a controlling share. > This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws. the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.
- John23832 3y ago
  >it's not your company, until you own a controlling share. When you enter into an employment contract with a company, you have a legal connection. The use of "your" is appropriate. >the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal. They are one in the same. Speaking about conduct and activities which can affect working conditions within a company is the basis of whistleblowing protections under the law (in the US). Speaking about conduct of a CEO in relation to the rules of conduct within your company is the same legal concept.

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.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  so what? If you don't like Elon, boycott his products. Don't buy his shares. Don't work for him. Elon's track record is doing things that have made him the richest person in the world, winning at multiple games many other very clever people are trying very hard to win, including engaging in fields of endeavor that the "socially conscious" among you claim that they endorse. Even Lenin and Mao would admit that Elon has accomplished things that they would wish to accomplish themselves. That alone gives Elon credibility that vastly outpaces, collectively, yours, these disgruntled employees, and the Democratic Party who have decided he's public enemy number one because he got fed up with Twitter cooperating with a one party state to subvert the 1st amendment and suppress speech they don't like. Let him be him, why do you have this incredible urge to control other people and make them say things you like, or punish them if they don't? Elon has earned the right to control Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX, and Twitter was subverting democracy before Elon arrived, and that's what upsets you. I don't care if you are disingenuous, if you're not, your sincerely held beliefs are dangerous to other people around you.

shawndrost 3y ago

I agree with your gist, but I self-identify as an authoritarian, and I don't think you can support your point without that admission. Your erroneous rationale is the paragraph about "the ask". The boss said "no assholes" (among other things) and then violated those rules (in the employees' eyes, and yours, and mine). The employees delicately asked the sub-boss to choose insubordination, and the request was denied, with additional consequences. Nobody was confused about who the boss was, or what actual rules were in place. Your authoritarian rationale -- which I agree with -- is in your final paragraph: he ought to hold himself to a higher standard if he wants to be so rich and influential. I'd push a button that would make that the rules of the world. But that's an authoritarian POV.

chii 3y ago

> your company it's not your company, until you own a controlling share. > This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws. the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.

John23832 3y ago
>it's not your company, until you own a controlling share. When you enter into an employment contract with a company, you have a legal connection. The use of "your" is appropriate. >the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal. They are one in the same. Speaking about conduct and activities which can affect working conditions within a company is the basis of whistleblowing protections under the law (in the US). Speaking about conduct of a CEO in relation to the rules of conduct within your company is the same legal concept.