3 ms·

> 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 li

by 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.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    > Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. This the suggestion of a conspiracy, albeit a mild one. I don't have anything new to say to say regarding the rest of your comment, so I'll spare us both from my repeating myself, you obviously understand what my position is.
- junofan 3y ago
  Questions of law are settled by the courts, not private lawyers and federal agencies. If police officers show up and arrest somebody, the public is allowed to have an opinion. We don’t just throw up our hands and say police officers know better than we do. They work on our behalf.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I agree people are perfectly entitled to express their opinions and that it's important for civil society to engage with these things, especially with regards to the police. (NB: we're not talking about the police, however.) My suggestion was that, given we're laypersons, if we're confused how this could be illegal and it conflicts with our understanding of the law, it's probably a safe assumption the regulators understand the law better. Not commenting at all or passing judgement without trial isn't what I'm advocating for. It was a descriptive statement, not proscriptive one. If you asked what I would suggest as a response to realizing you might not understand the situation, it would be doing some more research into the law. If that research leads you to the conclusion that this genuinely is an overreach, so much the better - before you had a suspicion, and now you have evidence for it.

by imgabe 3y ago

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.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. This the suggestion of a conspiracy, albeit a mild one. I don't have anything new to say to say regarding the rest of your comment, so I'll spare us both from my repeating myself, you obviously understand what my position is.
junofan 3y ago
Questions of law are settled by the courts, not private lawyers and federal agencies. If police officers show up and arrest somebody, the public is allowed to have an opinion. We don’t just throw up our hands and say police officers know better than we do. They work on our behalf.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I agree people are perfectly entitled to express their opinions and that it's important for civil society to engage with these things, especially with regards to the police. (NB: we're not talking about the police, however.) My suggestion was that, given we're laypersons, if we're confused how this could be illegal and it conflicts with our understanding of the law, it's probably a safe assumption the regulators understand the law better. Not commenting at all or passing judgement without trial isn't what I'm advocating for. It was a descriptive statement, not proscriptive one. If you asked what I would suggest as a response to realizing you might not understand the situation, it would be doing some more research into the law. If that research leads you to the conclusion that this genuinely is an overreach, so much the better - before you had a suspicion, and now you have evidence for it.