Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahfizz | Hacker News Reader

It is quite a stretch to say that the letter was about working conditions.

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...

View on HN

Did we read the same letter?

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.

This really does not fall into working conditions, in the legal sense of the word. "Musk is an asshole because of how he tweets" says nothing about the working conditions of SpaceX.

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).

Unequal enforcement of company policies is not working conditions?

No.

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.

I don't know what to tell you, every legal training I've ever had has said that capricious application of workplace policies and playing favorites is a good way to land oneself into an NLRB discussion. And that the NLRB, juries, and courts tend to bias towards workers.

The NLRB only has jurisdiction when the matter concerns labor organizing. This has a specific definition and does not automatically cover any collective action by employees like open letters or petitions.

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.

That isn't what they think according to https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right....

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.

Let's clarify definitions, shall we? Quoting from https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/working-conditions I find:

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.

The argument you're advancing here, though it may be popular with some kinds of lawyers, is tantamount to arguing that any discussion at all could be considered about working conditions. Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions" you're starting a fast track to eventually having working conditions be stripped of its legal weight, as it'll turn into just another rule being exploited by woke culture warriors in ways it was never meant to be used.

Is there anyone asking for anything in a workplace that you wouldn't call a "woke culture warrior"? Using that kind of language marks you as pretty disingenuous to the argument.

Haven’t we already seen that the SEC thinks Musks personal tweets hold legal weight?

Only those that relate to disclosures involving Tesla.

The SEC does, because at least Tesla states that they are an "official corporate communication channel". Though Tesla was pressured (by who?) to do so because shareholders were complaining about how they should interpret his tweets.

> Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions"

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.

You are attempting a reductio ad absurdum by saying that since the potential consequences of the rule you outline leads to a result that you don't like, said rule cannot actually exist.

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.

> Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions"

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.

When you hear the term "safe" used in the woke-cancer whines, you can be sure that employee was a real cry baby and anchor on the rest of the team.

If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer. If company values are enforced internally but publicly the CEO is acting against those values, then it becomes harder to understand what someone might be disciplined for. The connections are, imo, there.

You can 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon anything to make "connections" like that

Then more directly, the letter specifically called out unequal enforcement of company policy. That's direct.

Company policy does not apply to the owner of the company.

Commerce Clause vibes

> If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer

or deadlines just get moved out

> If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com