4 ms·

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

by 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
  > (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.) From the letter: > But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion [emphasis added] with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo. > Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more. However, we feel an unequal burden to carry this effort as the company has not applied appropriate urgency and resources to the problem in a manner consistent with our approach to critical path technical projects. In other words, "nobody asked us to promote DEI throughout the company and it's not part of our job but we're mad that the company doesn't take it as seriously as they do building rockets (the purpose of the company)". Not every single gripe about your company is protected discussion. I can propose my company implement unlimited PTO. They can say no. I can keep proposing it. I can write open letters demanding it. I can get the media to publish articles about how it's such a tragedy that my company doesn't take my unlimited PTO proposal as seriously as they do making widgets. They can get fed up that I won't shut up about it after they already considered it and said no and fire me. That's not illegal.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    My mistake re DEI. I searched for "diversity," not sure why it didn't come up, guess I must've made a typo. The point that it wasn't what they were asking for stands. > That's not illegal. I think what you may be discovering is that you have more rights as an employee than you previously thought. Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right?
    - imgabe 3y ago
      > Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right? Maybe. Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. Given Musk's other misadventures in labor relations, it would stand to reason that the people at the NRLB are not fans of his. Maybe the 8 people who were fired are just hoping for a quick settlement and some extra money. They might have a hard time finding new jobs now that they've outed themselves as insufferable woke scolds. Probably no reference from SpaceX forthcoming... You can't just assume that since someone filed a lawsuit they're automatically right, especially after hearing only one side. Otherwise we wouldn't have that whole trial thingy, you know? Would you apply the same logic to all the lawsuits where Musk is the plaintiff? At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there.

by imgabe 3y ago

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
> (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.) From the letter: > But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion [emphasis added] with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo. > Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more. However, we feel an unequal burden to carry this effort as the company has not applied appropriate urgency and resources to the problem in a manner consistent with our approach to critical path technical projects. In other words, "nobody asked us to promote DEI throughout the company and it's not part of our job but we're mad that the company doesn't take it as seriously as they do building rockets (the purpose of the company)". Not every single gripe about your company is protected discussion. I can propose my company implement unlimited PTO. They can say no. I can keep proposing it. I can write open letters demanding it. I can get the media to publish articles about how it's such a tragedy that my company doesn't take my unlimited PTO proposal as seriously as they do making widgets. They can get fed up that I won't shut up about it after they already considered it and said no and fire me. That's not illegal.
- maxbond 3y ago
  My mistake re DEI. I searched for "diversity," not sure why it didn't come up, guess I must've made a typo. The point that it wasn't what they were asking for stands. > That's not illegal. I think what you may be discovering is that you have more rights as an employee than you previously thought. Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right?
  - imgabe 3y ago
    > Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right? Maybe. Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. Given Musk's other misadventures in labor relations, it would stand to reason that the people at the NRLB are not fans of his. Maybe the 8 people who were fired are just hoping for a quick settlement and some extra money. They might have a hard time finding new jobs now that they've outed themselves as insufferable woke scolds. Probably no reference from SpaceX forthcoming... You can't just assume that since someone filed a lawsuit they're automatically right, especially after hearing only one side. Otherwise we wouldn't have that whole trial thingy, you know? Would you apply the same logic to all the lawsuits where Musk is the plaintiff? At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there.