6 ms·

> prohibited employees from talking about anything going on at Tesla, even after the left the company, for life... Good luck monitoring that enforcing that Al

> prohibited employees from talking about anything going on at Tesla, even after the left the company, for life... Good luck monitoring that enforcing that Also, pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment and if memory serves right, no contract can change people’s federal rights or change any laws Edit: had a derp moment and totally commented without remembering the “Sweden” key word here. Ignore me, I’m wrong for many reasons

diggan 3y ago
> Tesla was recently caught having their employees in Sweden sign contracts like that >> pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment Pretty sure the 1st amendment you're talking about doesn't apply in Sweden :)
- wutwutwat 3y ago
  I read Sweden yet somehow it didn’t register at all when thinking about my reply. Derp.
kolanos 3y ago
The first amendment restricts the government, not the people. If the people want to enter into such an arrangement, that is their right. This is just an NDA without an end.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> NDA without an end There are some legal limits on this. Things like the rule against perpetuities limit any sort of forever construct. The interesting question is whether someone bound by such a contact in life can perhaps speak after death: A book written privately in life but published publicly after death. That might be a case where general legal principals would win out over a corporate NDA.
wharvle 3y ago
> Also, pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment and if memory serves right, no contract can change people’s federal rights or change any laws The contract does not attempt to modify the protection of your free speech rights from government interference, so no. (“But a government apparatus would enforce the contract, and corporations are chartered by the government, and anyway what good is a system that protects rights from the government if lots of people end up losing them to powerful organizations anyway?” Yes, yep, mmm-hmm. Welcome to left-libertarianism.) (And, as the other poster noted, this is Sweden anyway, so the US constitution and bill of rights is irrelevant anyway)
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Also, pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment I'm pretty sure it does not. Tesla is not the government and Musk is not, yet, president. There is precious little in the US constitution governing employer-employee relations. In fact, by not allowing such agreements, any government arguably violates the contracts clause. The US constitution frees people, which includes granting them freedom to sign stupid contracts.
- hprotagonist 3y ago
  > Musk is not, yet, president will never be.
  - votepaunchy 3y ago
    And why not? Congress can choose to discard electors from states excluding candidates (as may happen next year). “In the 19th century, several state legislatures elected senators in their late twenties despite the Constitutional minimum age of 30, such as Henry Clay, who was sworn into office at age 29, and John Henry Eaton, the youngest U.S. senator in history, who took his oath of office when he was 28 years, 4 months and 29 days old.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_...
    - phalangion 3y ago
      Because you must be a natural-born citizen of the US.
      - diggan 3y ago
        As far as I understand, there isn't really a consensus on what "natural-born citizen" actually means in the context of the US constitution. I'm sure some huge team of lawyers could argue that Musk somehow is "natural-born citizen".
        3y ago
gosub100 3y ago
the constitution is a set of laws for lawmakers. It doesn't govern what people or companies do. Try reading one sometime. You might see one start with "Congress shall make no law..". > Good luck monitoring that enforcing that Unenforceable rules still have plenty of value in something called a "chilling effect" which people - even fully aware of an unforceable law - will still alter their behavior out of fear that they could somehow become entangled in it anyway. They preempt decision-making for many people.
striking 3y ago
Even in the US (which Sweden is not a part of, to be clear) the First Amendment only prevents the US government from abridging your freedom of expression, and only in most cases.
leksak 3y ago
One of the Swedish employees had a wife that posted about the strike on Twitter and the employee was summarily brought before HR. But monitoring for life doesn't seem feasible. But they don't really have to. Just making people believe they can be penalized at any time can change their behavior.

diggan 3y ago

> Tesla was recently caught having their employees in Sweden sign contracts like that >> pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment Pretty sure the 1st amendment you're talking about doesn't apply in Sweden :)

wutwutwat 3y ago
I read Sweden yet somehow it didn’t register at all when thinking about my reply. Derp.

kolanos 3y ago

The first amendment restricts the government, not the people. If the people want to enter into such an arrangement, that is their right. This is just an NDA without an end.

sandworm101 3y ago
>> NDA without an end There are some legal limits on this. Things like the rule against perpetuities limit any sort of forever construct. The interesting question is whether someone bound by such a contact in life can perhaps speak after death: A book written privately in life but published publicly after death. That might be a case where general legal principals would win out over a corporate NDA.

wharvle 3y ago

> Also, pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment and if memory serves right, no contract can change people’s federal rights or change any laws The contract does not attempt to modify the protection of your free speech rights from government interference, so no. (“But a government apparatus would enforce the contract, and corporations are chartered by the government, and anyway what good is a system that protects rights from the government if lots of people end up losing them to powerful organizations anyway?” Yes, yep, mmm-hmm. Welcome to left-libertarianism.) (And, as the other poster noted, this is Sweden anyway, so the US constitution and bill of rights is irrelevant anyway)

sandworm101 3y ago

>> Also, pretty sure that goes against the 1st amendment I'm pretty sure it does not. Tesla is not the government and Musk is not, yet, president. There is precious little in the US constitution governing employer-employee relations. In fact, by not allowing such agreements, any government arguably violates the contracts clause. The US constitution frees people, which includes granting them freedom to sign stupid contracts.

hprotagonist 3y ago
> Musk is not, yet, president will never be.
- votepaunchy 3y ago
  And why not? Congress can choose to discard electors from states excluding candidates (as may happen next year). “In the 19th century, several state legislatures elected senators in their late twenties despite the Constitutional minimum age of 30, such as Henry Clay, who was sworn into office at age 29, and John Henry Eaton, the youngest U.S. senator in history, who took his oath of office when he was 28 years, 4 months and 29 days old.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_...
  - phalangion 3y ago
    Because you must be a natural-born citizen of the US.
    - diggan 3y ago
      As far as I understand, there isn't really a consensus on what "natural-born citizen" actually means in the context of the US constitution. I'm sure some huge team of lawyers could argue that Musk somehow is "natural-born citizen".
      - 3y ago

gosub100 3y ago

the constitution is a set of laws for lawmakers. It doesn't govern what people or companies do. Try reading one sometime. You might see one start with "Congress shall make no law..". > Good luck monitoring that enforcing that Unenforceable rules still have plenty of value in something called a "chilling effect" which people - even fully aware of an unforceable law - will still alter their behavior out of fear that they could somehow become entangled in it anyway. They preempt decision-making for many people.

striking 3y ago

Even in the US (which Sweden is not a part of, to be clear) the First Amendment only prevents the US government from abridging your freedom of expression, and only in most cases.

leksak 3y ago

One of the Swedish employees had a wife that posted about the strike on Twitter and the employee was summarily brought before HR. But monitoring for life doesn't seem feasible. But they don't really have to. Just making people believe they can be penalized at any time can change their behavior.