Turns out speech about working conditions is protected. You can't be fired for sharing your wages, for instance.
I would not be shocked to hear that this results in a lawsuit over protected concerted activity.
I would not be shocked to hear that this results in a lawsuit over protected concerted activity.
Working conditions is things like working hours, your physical environment, your responsibilities [1]. The SpaceX letter was basically "Musk is uncouth, and we don't like that". A fair criticism, but nothing about working conditions.
The text of the letter can be found at [2], if anyone wants to judge for themselves.
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/working-condition/
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
The following passage is one of many about workplace behavior, which therefore is part of working conditions:
Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
If the letter alleges that Musk directly harassed employees, that would be entirely different. But it doesn't; it merely says that Musks behavior in the public sphere is unpleasant (again, that's fair).
Working Conditions means the conditions under which the work of an employee is performed, including physical or psychological factors.
The things that that letter discusses affects the psychological factors of the work. Committing to making people feel included, defining what toxic behavior will not be accepted, and so on.
Your linked definition includes in working conditions, "...all existing circumstances affecting labor in the workplace." This fits with the definition that I gave - the behaviors that you have to put up with from coworkers affects labor in the workplace.
This is way too reductionist. These aren't just "Musks tweets", they are directives about employee policies that are publicly stated, but not private enforced (because, to the author's criticism, they have no strict definitions). Furthermore they have clear (or at least implied clearly) repercussions: "don't behave they way we want to or you're fired".
> all could be considered about working conditions.
Actually, I think what the author is asking for is clarity about working conditions, not necessarily the working conditions are good/bad - they're just ambiguous.
This is backwards. There are lots of rules out there which I'm sure you dislike. Therefore your dislike of this one is irrelevant.
And I say that despite agreeing with you about how it might be abused. And despite wondering whether the people calling for more diversity and exclusion in this letter may be the kind of people to abuse it that way. Rules are rules, and we should try to apply them fairly, especially when applied to people we dislike.
Maybe those companies shouldn't include statements like this in their corporate filings then:
"The Twitter account @elonmusk is considered an official corporate communication channel."
Especially when Musk is tweeting from it things like changes to remote work policies.
Forcing a trucker to drive 20 hours straight is working conditions. Refusing to install proper lighting in a warehouse is working conditions.
Having a policy saying "don't be an asshole", and then enforcing it in a way that is perceived as unfair, is not working conditions.
If the letter had directly alleged that Musk or other leadership was abusive towards the employees, they would have a case. But just saying "we thing Musk is an asshole, and we have a no-asshole policy" is not protected speech.
Many employment laws just create causes of action for civil litigation. I.e. they define types of harm for which the employee can seek compensation in the courts.
Very specifically for this case, they protect the right of employees to talk to an employer about improving workplace conditions. With or without a union, and with or without any interest in unionization.
This statement is false in the general case. If the contract says 40 hours, I'm leaving after 40 hours, and if you want me to stay longer I better have a large share of the company. Your inefficiencies as a manager are not my problem as an employee, unless I'm also a shareholder.
or deadlines just get moved out
Sure sounds like a discussion about workplace policies and enforcement to me.
You can dislike something and also not think it's illegal.
Is that workplace conditions?
Also, oddly enough, "official company communications" is not workplace conditions. You do not have a legal right to discuss company communications!
There is an increasingly troublesome number of people entering the industry who simply don't enjoy working hard. I think every company would do better to fire them.
I take it you are in a country that doesn't support freedom and basic rights.
I do not take company statements like that at face value, as they have their own interests to protect. However, it does leave the possibility that termination was not related to statements about working conditions.
The former employees may have a case here.