Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

> The whole point of the letter seems to have been “Musk’s behavior is detrimental to the company.” This implies that they care about the company and want it to succeed, and that their loyalty lies with it, not with Musk. As well it should. Tesla, SpaceX, etc are (or should be) companies, not cults.

Here's an experiment. At your place of work, circulate a document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong. Make sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the organization. See what happens. What should the appropriate response be?

You have to work with these people and its incredibly distracting and out of line. These are children that think they can just shout down leadership and suffer no consequences. The rest of us who live in the real world understand that hierarchy doesn't exist arbitrarily and we're not entitled to have someone pay us while we're spitting in their face.

View on HN

> The rest of us who live in the real world understand that hierarchy doesn't exist arbitrarily and we're not entitled to have someone pay us while we're spitting in their face.

And someone isn't entitled to spit in your face just because they pay you. Respect for people should go both ways, and the view that just because someone is rich, above you in the ladder, you should just shut up and take it, isn't a good one too.

Workers have very little power to fight back, yes there might be consequences but they wouldn't have written this letter if they didn't feel they weren't already living under the consequences of bad leadership.

> And someone isn't entitled to spit in your face just because they pay you. Respect for people should go both ways, and the view that just because someone is rich, above you in the ladder, you should just shut up and take it, isn't a good one too.

How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate? These people need to get over themselves. Not everything is about them. They're free to leave.

> These people need to get over themselves.

And how do you not apply this to Musk, who fired people after a bit of critique?

It's his organization. Why is that so hard to understand? The leader and some person working there are not the same. If I hired a cleaner and she started posting publicly how shitty my interior design, I would fire this person. It's not what you pay her to do.

I would argue it was a good move. Like I said, its a distraction and completely out of line. Imagine you were managing someone and they think its okay to arbitrarily go above your head and call you out publicly. This is incredibly toxic and not a person living in the real world.

Technically, the organization belongs to a group of shareholders, of which Musk is one. And apparently, Musk is now a minority owner.[1] And as chairman and CEO, Musk has a fiduciary duty to the other owners to act in the best interests of the company. I would argue that he failing to abide by that directive by failing to apply the "no assholes" policy to himself (along with the other points the letter makes), thereby harming recruitment and branding efforts.

Also, you're comparing complaints about the company's double standards with a cleaner complaining about shitty interior design? Do you really think those two things are equivalent?

1. https://wccftech.com/elon-musk-now-owns-less-than-half-of-sp...

And in the context of SpaceX, how exactly has he been "an asshole"?

People don't have to like him, but it doesn't seem he's actually done anything other than make people work hard at their jobs...

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell on Monday said the aerospace company's "no a--hole" work policy ensures everyone is heard and creates space for staff to propose big ideas.

"At SpaceX, we have a 'no a--hole' policy," Shotwell said in a virtual speech to graduates in Northwestern University's 2021 commencement ceremony. "These kinds of people — a--holes — interrupt others, they shut down or co-opt conversation, and they create a hostile environment where no one wants to contribute," Shotwell said. She is also SpaceX's chief operating officer.

Interrupting others stifles innovation and stops people solving difficult problems, Shotwell said.

"In short, the best way to find solutions to hard problems is to listen harder, not talk louder," she said. "Embrace the ideas of your fellow workers, especially when they differ greatly from yours."

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-president-gywnne-shot...

> And in the context of SpaceX, how exactly has he been "an asshole"?

Why does it matter whether his actions are in the context of SpaceX? He is associated with his companies (and vice-versa) to a greater extent than probably any other current head of business. Separating Musk from his companies in the minds of the public would be an exercise in futility, and his personal branding and thirst for public attention seem designed to encourage this. Therefore, every public action he takes has an effect on each of his companies, including SpaceX, regardless of whether said action took place "in the context of" those companies.

With that said, here are some of Musk's "greatest hits":

1. The tweet comparing Bill Gates to the pregnant man emoji [1]

2. referring to the guy who rescued the Thai cave divers as a "pedo" [2]

3. committing securities fraud [3]

4. tweeting that he'd start a STEM school called Texas Institute of Technology & Science (aka TITS) in an industry already rife with casual sexism [4]

5. implying that Tesla employees would lose their stock options if they unionized [5]

6. branding Tesla's driver assist technology as "autonomous", implying it requires no human intervention and therefore meets the criteria for full self-driving. [6]

The above actions range from needlessly trollish to outright illegal. One could argue that you don't build multiple billion-dollar companies without being an asshole to some of the people some of the time, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that these are not the actions of an asshole.

1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496

2. https://time.com/5339219/elon-musk-diver-thai-soccer-team-pe...

3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/elon-mu...

4. https://qz.com/work/2082746/elon-musks-tweet-captures-everyd...

5. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808

6. https://screenshot-media.com/technology/ai/tesla-autopilot-u...

> Why does it matter whether his actions are in the context of SpaceX?

Well it does matter, because these people consciously came to work at HIS company.

It's like people that move into a noisy neighbourhood and then start to complain about the noise.

Elon is eccentric, yes he tweets some things that people don't like, but he's also built friggin SpaceX...

Unless he's specifically done something to the people at SpaceX then I really don't think they've got anything to complain about... it smells of entitlement and the outrage culture that's appeared in recent years.

Because people died fighting for democracy in politics. Yet we accept complete authority when it comes to our private lives. Ridiculous.

Well, you could say the same about all dictatorships, whether organizations or countries: if you don't like it, leave it (unless you can't, e. g. North Korea). But I think this argument is flawed, to say the least. After all, an employment contract (and labour law in general) acts both ways - it's not a subordination of an employee to an employer.

"His organization"? Does SpaceX not partially pay employees in stock options / RSUs? How about other shareholders?

It's amazing, someone fires a bunch of people for writing an open letter, and it's the latter who need to "get over themselves". Outstanding.

Well yes, they need to get over themselves to the extent that they even thought their letter was appropriate in the first place, and would have no negative consequences for themselves.

> How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate?

You're asking questions that were answered in the letter:

"Elon’s behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent weeks... As our CEO and most prominent spokesperson, Elon is seen as the face of SpaceX — every Tweet that Elon sends is a de facto public statement by the company. It is critical to make clear to our teams and to our potential talent pool that his messaging does not reflect our work, our mission, or our values."

His behavior devalues their work and denigrates the image of the companies they work for.

> His behavior devalues their work and denigrates the image of the companies they work for.

Then they should go work elsewhere if it bothers them that much. Nobody is forcing them to work for a company ran by Elon Musk.

Er no, as employees they're also paid partly in stock options (RSUs?). They're literal shareholders in the company, they have a say in how it's run.

And I don't know about you, but many people don't just run away when faced with a difficult situation - they face it head on and try to improve it.

Furthermore, if I spent years of my life contributing to a mission that I believe in, giving a company my best work, I'm not going to just walk away because of the actions of a single entitled individual, no matter how rich he is.

So employees compensated by their employer via stock options are entitled to attempt to sabotage their company’s leadership from within without repercussion?

They're not trying to sabotage anything. They're asking for SpaceX to disassociate itself from statements made by Musk, an individual, which harm the company.

> Workers have very little power to fight back

Workers (especially the average HN reader) have incredible power to fight back… find a new job and switch companies. Lots a companies are hiring even with the macro economic issues.

From an employee perspective it’s insane to me that one would put so much energy into fighting their leadership rather than just leaving the company for a better one.

Because their motivation is becoming some sort of public martyr, not actual change or principled behaviour

That's quite a reach, this was posted in an internal Teams channel and leaked. The original authors might not have wanted to become "some sort of public martyr".

> Workers (especially the average HN reader) have incredible power to fight back… find a new job and switch companies.

Outside of the tech industry (and even then), this ain't anywhere near as easy as you assert. Lots of companies are "hiring"... for positions with shit pay and inflated qualifications.

> From an employee perspective it’s insane to me that one would put so much energy into fighting their leadership rather than just leaving the company for a better one.

From an employee perspective it's insane to me that one would be entirely oblivious to both the risks inherent in quitting (especially given the current economic conditions) and the notion that maybe people might like everything about their company aside from one or two things that need changed.

Flip it over: if you worked for Apple and wrote and circulated an open letter criticizing Tim Cook's advocacy of LGBTQ rights, what would happen?

I bet you'd be fired.

I said the same thing by the way about the guy who got fired from Google for circulating a misogynistic rant about female engineers. That was also stupid and unprofessional at the very least.

Politics at work can be generally problematic. Political rants at work that criticize leadership or coworkers or are broadly offensive are probably going to get you fired.

Strawman to compare criticizing a gay man’s LGBT advocacy to asking a leader to stop being a jackass on Twitter. I am sure board members have made the same statements to Musk because there is fiduciary responsibility to not alienate your customers. As a shareholder in Tesla, I would love to see Musk get off of Twitter.

What would happen if the letter criticized Tim Cook for being a homophobe for inviting MBS to Apple.

Yes, I know Tim is gay.

These people can go work for other employers, or even start competing businesses. This type of agitative behavior is detrimental to productivity and serves no purpose. If they wanted the company to succeed so much why didn’t they just become management themselves and have a positive impact that way?

There's this long lost dark art known as "tact." Folks who came of age after the advent of social media seem to be completely unfamiliar with it.

It's something you use when trying to address a delicate subject whilst minimizing the blowback. Calling out the head of your organization publicly via a scathing open letter would not be it.

Wasn't this a non-public communication which was leaked?

"SpaceX, the private rocket company, on Thursday fired employees who helped write and distribute an open letter criticizing the behavior of chief executive Elon Musk, said three employees with knowledge of the situation."

First paragraph of the article.

And of course there is also this, "In an email, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president, said the letter had made other employees “feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied.”"

That doesn't answer the question, obviously. An open letter shared in a private medium is not public. I get the impression that neither the general public nor Musk himself were the intended audience of the letter.

I find the entire notion of calling for the CEO's ouster with "tact" a bit disingenuous.

circulate a document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong.

It didnt say Elon was "all wrong"... it criticized 1 or 2 things. For all we know they agree with the other 99%.

This is a common in these responses defending Elon. They take the letter, turn it into something much much worse.. and then say: dont they deserve to be fired?

The version of the letter youre describing does not exist.

"all wrong" in this case was ambiguous. I interpreted it as meaning "all members of leadership are wrong about something" not that "leadership is wrong about all things".

But I also disagree with their argument simply because Musk's actions are very public and represent the employees who stand behind him. It would be one thing if these were internal decisions that employees disagreed with, but that's not the situation. Musk is a leader, and the people who choose to stand behind him rely on him to represent them well. If they feel he is not doing his job, they are well within their rights to voice their concerns to him. If he reacts like a baby-man who can't take criticism, then the workers should be ready to take their skills elsewhere.

> At your place of work, circulate a document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong. Make sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the organization. See what happens.

Ha! We do that all time at the university and nobody cares. At all. Nothing happens. Ever. It is somewhat infuriating, to be honest!

Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?

> Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?

Universities are a unique creature where ideas and debate are the whole point, “more so than getting things done.” That’s also part of the “real world” in some sense, but it isn’t the world nearly all of us reside in. I would recommend any organization that wants to be successful outside of that unique context to not emulate the model of universities. That includes non profits and NGOs. Hierarchy exists almost universally in human organizations. That’s not an accident—it’s necessary for groups of humans working together to be effective.

People have been fired for a lot less at universities. Often time its not even attacking the organization or people, just for saying the wrong thing about a political issue.

Academia follows some really strange rules, including things like tenure regarding academic freedom and speech. They also hire copious amounts of teacher assistants at poverty wages called "stipends", which also seem to bypass minimum wage laws.

Even though they too act like businesses, because of 500-year precedents, wouldn't be a fair comparison.

> Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?

Saying it's "not the real world" is unfairly denigrating, but people have made the argument that academia is it's own bubble with different rules to the world of private enterprise. Challenging existing ideas is a core tenet of higher education, but that can cause blowback in the private sphere. The existence of tenure, and sidelining of the profit motive (not quite elimination) also changes things.

I’d argue that a university is a very different type of organization than a company like SpaceX, with vastly different expectations on employee behavior.

Implying that academia is anything like the real world that 99% of people exist in is something only an academic would be foolish enough to imply.

There's surely two orders of magnitude more people working in academia than in rocket science. Does your argument prove, then, that SpaceX is not the real world, either?

We are all in the same world; this whole "you are not real enough" argument is ridiculous, and doesn't really mean anything.

People working at a rocket company work under the same basic value structure that a person working at a concrete company does.

People in academia do not. The fact that you missed this and thought comparing the number of people in a particular industry subset of a capitalistic enterprise to academia would somehow prove a point basically shows me how poor the thought/logic skills are in academia... The one thing they're supposed to be better at.

The "real world" refers to everything outside of academia, where things are done differently compared to inside academia.

I'm not the person you're responding to, but yes I would argue academia is not the real world i.e. private sector companies. Its academia. There are a whole different set of rules because it is not a privately run for-profit company. And nothing ever happens specifically because that's absolutely par for the course in academia. There's a whole different culture there.

> Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?

If you are attempting to compare liberties those in academia have to corporate employees e.g. most people who are employed, no its not like the "real world".

The environment in academia is absolutely not the same as a corporate environment.

Perhaps. Would you say working in academia is mo different from working in industry?

> Here's an experiment. At your place of work, circulate a document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong. Make sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the organization.

This happens often: I'm guessing about once a month, and nothing happens. The difference is that Zuckerberg is not a needy, thin-skinned billionaire,and will directly address employee criticism in Q&As - as well as press leaks like a well-adjusted adult

No, the difference is Meta is a publicly traded company, SpaceX is not. Meta don't want this kind of negative publicity since it directly affects their stocks price, mishandle these things can lead to lawsuit from investors. For SpaceX, they don't have to care about any of those things.

I don't really think Zuckerberg cares that much about short term fluctuations in the stock price. He has majority control, the market has effectively zero power if he doesn't like its ideas.

> For SpaceX, they don't have to care about any of those things.

They do if they want customers. ULA and Blue Origin would love nothing more than for SpaceX's leadership to piss off NASA and burn some of those juicy government contract opportunities.

No, the difference is that Zuckerberg, for all his faults, is not a narcissitic sociopath.

> Meta don't want this kind of negative publicity

No, it does not, but it still happens. Most of our internal[1] Q&A discussions leak to the press (especially criticisms of leadership[2]), but Zuckerberg decided it's the cost of internal openness. I'm yet to hear of anyone fired for leaking company discussions, or even witch-hunts to find leakers. Musk is being a baby, I hope they bleed irreplaceable talent.

1. These have remained unchanged post-IPO, have nothing to do with public listing, and Meta would like them to be confidential

2. One of our recently-promoted execs was publicly and vociferously criticized by employees for something they did, and the critics are still employed, because the execs are not petty.

Would you apply the same logic to your leaders drowning the company stock and killing the public image ?

What should the appropriate response be ?

Leave the company?

Your company may make decisions that you don't agree with or are objectively stupid. There is a proper channel to voice your concerns. They may be ignored in which case you can leave if you feel strongly enough about it. This is what adults do.

> This is what adults do.

I am sure the people who wrote the letter are adults. You don't have to insult people you don't agree with.

> This is what adults do

TBF, the behaviors they are complaining about are so far away from "what adults do". Honestly, tma lot of people could be having a better inagine of SpaceX now that their letter is on the open than during the awkward silence phase.

SpaceX isn't a public company.

To have stock (and for it to have value) you don't need to be a public company.

> Here's an experiment. At your place of work, circulate a document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong. Make sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the organization. See what happens. What should the appropriate response be?

At most places, leadership actually… leads. Musk is a token publicity figure at best at this point, a mascot.

Do internal survey results and their "anonymous" verbatim count?

I have seen plenty of examples of scathing verbatim against leaders at several different companies. Not to mention poor and declining scores on questions like "I trust my leadership blah blah" year after year on internal employee surveys. Were those people fired, no!

> These are children that think they can just shout down leadership and suffer no consequences.

Exactly. Although, it's hypocritical of Musk to fire employees who criticize him but criticize Twitter for banning/censoring accounts for spouting opinions that Twitter doesn't align with. If SpaceX has this right, Twitter should too.

You write: """we're not entitled to have someone pay us while we're spitting in their face""" The writer(s) of this letter definitely didn't spit in any Tesla customer's face. Elon is not buying all the Teslas, probably didn't pay for his.

It also just seems ridiculous to try to separate Musk from the companies he's built. He's clearly a major factor in their success and it'd be stupid to remove him.

Why is it clearly he is a major factor? If anything it seems he brought his companies close to bankruptcy multiple times and the government bailed him out. Tesla with a half billion dollar loan from the DOE. SpaceX with it's multi billion dollar NASA contracts. He could just be incredibly lucky or his major skill is knowing how to milk the public for funds.

The loan was paid back early and did exactly what it was supposed to do (incentivize alternative energy company creation). I think they may have even paid an early payment penalty to be done with it? So it wasn't a bailout at all.

SpaceX doesn't get those contracts for nothing - they're the first to commercialize reusable rockets in a serious way and have massively reduced costs as a result.

All of this stuff was explicitly laid out by Musk (despite massive knee-jerk criticism which continues despite the proved success) and his companies were able to execute on it.

It's not luck to do this repeatedly in multiple extremely challenging verticals (at the same time) successfully.

> The loan was paid back early and did exactly what it was supposed to do (incentivize alternative energy company creation). I think they may have even paid an early payment penalty to be done with it? So it wasn't a bailout at all.

Do you know why he paid back early? In the contract the DOE would have had some ownership in Tesla after the payoff period. He paid it early so that the Tax Payer wouldn't benefit from the deal. It would have been a better deal for the US Tax Payer for him to have not paid it back early. It should be clear to anyone owning TSLA stock that we, as the public got screwed there.

And yes, it was a bailout. The government was trying to create a EV market and Tesla was about to fail. The market for EVs just didn't exist at that point and the DOE LPO had a driving mission to create one. So they bailed Tesla out because they wanted a market (notice private equity didn't believe in Tesla succeeding, otherwise Musk would have raised the cash from the private markets).

This is how governments create markets, by paying for technology until the market matures. This is true of Computers and other high technology.

If the government didn't care to create an EV market, Tesla would have been dead a long time ago. Is this Musk's genius or the genius of our policy makers?

SpaceX is exactly the same story. The government wanted a private space industry and so NASA was given a mission to create one. SpaceX is barely surviving now even with the government help.

And of course we have no idea what kind of bribery Musk must have participated in to get the loans and contracts he did from the government. I'm sure time will reveal them. But It's naive to think there wasn't anything.

> hierarchy doesn't exist arbitrarily

Yes, it does.

Does that boot taste good?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com