2 ms·

> (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

by 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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing. Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours. So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at trial or that we don't need to conduct trials. You seem to be suggesting this isn't and can't be related to working conditions. But it's far more likely you're mistaken than that the NLRB is engaged in a conspiracy. The employees wanting a quick payout doesn't make a difference in that calculus, especially since they aren't the ones making a decision about whether or not this is actionable. It's not like they were the ones who brought the suit, they filed a complaint with a regulator. > At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there. I think it's worth reflecting on whether you are reasoning from the evidence here, or whether you are allowing your biases to contaminate your conclusions. You seem to have identified the employees as people you don't like or are politically or ideologically opposed to.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      I never claimed that the case is invalid on its face or I know more about this than the lawyers. It's worth noting that the NLRB is not some disinterested third party who is only trying to find the objective truth. They are an advocate for one side. There is another side. The NLRB is going to promote arguments that reinforce their side and ignore or downplay anything that does not support their case. That is not a conspiracy, that is literally how the adversarial justice system works. I am not saying it can't be related to working conditions, I'm presenting an argument for why I think it's not. Of course, the NLRB's argument is that it is related to working conditions, that is their job to make that argument. But it's just that, an argument. It's not some divine truth revealed to us by the holy authority of the NLRB.
      - 3y ago

by imgabe 3y ago

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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- maxbond 3y ago
  Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing. Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours. So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at trial or that we don't need to conduct trials. You seem to be suggesting this isn't and can't be related to working conditions. But it's far more likely you're mistaken than that the NLRB is engaged in a conspiracy. The employees wanting a quick payout doesn't make a difference in that calculus, especially since they aren't the ones making a decision about whether or not this is actionable. It's not like they were the ones who brought the suit, they filed a complaint with a regulator. > At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there. I think it's worth reflecting on whether you are reasoning from the evidence here, or whether you are allowing your biases to contaminate your conclusions. You seem to have identified the employees as people you don't like or are politically or ideologically opposed to.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    I never claimed that the case is invalid on its face or I know more about this than the lawyers. It's worth noting that the NLRB is not some disinterested third party who is only trying to find the objective truth. They are an advocate for one side. There is another side. The NLRB is going to promote arguments that reinforce their side and ignore or downplay anything that does not support their case. That is not a conspiracy, that is literally how the adversarial justice system works. I am not saying it can't be related to working conditions, I'm presenting an argument for why I think it's not. Of course, the NLRB's argument is that it is related to working conditions, that is their job to make that argument. But it's just that, an argument. It's not some divine truth revealed to us by the holy authority of the NLRB.
    - 3y ago