SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
In support of this: Shotwell not only fired these employees, but made a loud spectacle out of it—emailing the entire company to announce their firing. This, deterrence, was the reason.
[0] https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/the-nlrb-recov...
As a result, GDPR is pretty well followed. As an American living in Europe, I have to use a VPN to access many of my American financial institutions, because they don't think the GDPR risk is worth it and have chosen to simply block access from Europe.
But you can already just not work for Elon if you think he’s an asshole.
What’s the compelling state interest here?
The compelling state interest is to keep working with ethical companies.
In cases where mostly everyone is doing it, the only thing to choose for you is who’s going to abuse you/your data. But not the fact that it’s happening in the first place.
Basically more (good) competition is better.
She also answers to the laws of the society she lives in, which supersede and contractual obligations (or, rather, nullify them).
I've read a book or two that interview/discuss-what the elderly and what regrets they've had about their life: one of the common ones is that they didn't live their life with as much as integrity as they'd like to.
If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.
Abuse is abuse regardless of whether it is normalized in a company, but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'.
> If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant.
Law IS the norm. And I could definitely bet there is no law in US which says that employee can spam other employees about how their boss is bad.
That is exactly what this case is alleging is the law that was violated. What do you think this is all about?
> The case is scheduled to go before an administrative judge in early March unless SpaceX agrees to a settlement beforehand. A spokeswoman for the labor board said it was seeking make-whole remedies like reinstatement and back pay for the workers.
The sheer number of historical atrocities this would excuse is almost hilarious.
Domestic abuse was always abuse. It always looked like abuse. We always knew it was abuse.
But, for a very, very long time, society was totally cool with it.
And what happened to the employees in this case who tried to challenge that norm from within?
What they initially wrote the letter about the boss doing might not have been illegal, but it sounds like the government agency whose job it is to monitor this sort of thing thinks firing them for it is in fact illegal.
> It's fine in most companies to complain about the boss to HR or to the boss themselves, but not fine to complain it to someone else.
There's "fine" and "not fine" as personal opinions, and then there's "legal" and "illegal"; both of those things you listed are in fact legal regardless of whether you personally consider them "fine", but firing someone for them is not.
I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not right as to be obviously corrupt".
Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?
To be absolutely clear, politely communicating with fellow employees is absolutely the constructive way to handle work disagreements. The problem here obviously wasn't the constructiveness, but that there was any disagreement at all.
That's toxic leadership, but no surprise given the leader of the company.
if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long.
Good leadership means being able to recognize criticism from your employees, but this can't come from grassroots effort within the company - it must come from the top.
If the employee disagrees with the direction of the company, and the leadership doesn't want to change (e.g., after voicing the opinion thru sanctioned feedback channels), their only option is to quit, or acquire a controlling share and _become_ the leadership.
Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator - and you know how that will go.
This comment is so close to realizing why our current corporate structures are bullshit. Keep going, you're almost there.
It is hilarious that you (and many other people in this thread, it seems) would consider this letter "undermining leadership's authority". If someone's authority is undermined by a letter like this, they are not much of a leader.
I have worked at companies led by other zillionaires you may have heard of, and seen letters circulate and questions asked live in an all-hands meeting that went much farther than this letter. Those employees got good faith answers to their questions, and still work there. Now that's leadership.
That's like claiming bank-robbery is fine because "there's no law against holding money in your hands, everyone does it." For some reason you're leaving out all the most important details that make things different than normal.
In this case, those details are that certain "disagreements"--an obvious case being "we're underpaid, let's unionize"--are disagreements which that CEO is not legally permitted to fire you for.
Is there a line you would draw somewhere? Anywhere?
This equity stake gives you a vote for which you can use to influence the actions of the board and thus the CEO.
Being financially dependent on the company to provide employment by no means gives you power over the CEO. Of course, criticism is not black and white - but being an asshole CEO is not illegal, and putting yourself out to "fight the good fight" sounds good on paper, but do you no good at all.
And there is a difference between acknowledging it and causing a scene. Rank and file employees engaging in a political attempt to topple the CEO is certainly unprofessional. That level of manoeuvring is purposefully causing damage.
Criticism is healthy and should be respected. Even if it is "unprofessional", that doesn't give the company the right to just fire someone for that. If you would allow companies to fire their employees for criticism, that sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me.
I'm shocked at how many closeted authoritarians here on HN crawl out of the woodwork to defend Musk every time that he faces criticism for his dictatorial actions.
However, it certainly would not make you popular with the true believers in the room. You would definitely feel the discontent amongst your peers in a conviction led company.
if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much?
>That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top.
firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer, an echo chamber, but perhaps for your product an echo chamber is the business strategy you chose. Steve Jobs was famous for his attention to detail, reinforcing and staying on message, "hold it up just this way, show everybody, look how thin it is! echo that or don't work here." Freedom needs to include the freedom to set a strategy and stick to it, and if setting the strategy is not your job but your dream, find that job for yourself, don't think you should get paid to undermine it for somebody else.
The whole (internal! Until leaked) open letter is near the bottom of that article. Wasn’t paywalled for me.
Reading it cleared up the noise in this thread pretty neatly. Sure looks like this has a great shot of counting as protected discussion of work conditions. I now know posts in this thread dismissing the letter as just “politics” or just “criticizing the CEO” have no connection to reality. It’s very restrained and focused.
Primary sources are cool.
>SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon’s personal brand.
If you had a company in which you were the majority shareholder and CEO would you put up with the people you hire circulating letters to condemn your behaviour?
Merriam-Webster defines polemic as "an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another", so that demand is clearly an anti-Elon polemic.
Yes I think that should be law. You should be able to attempt to help self correct your company by speaking up and not have the your life blown up because of the misaligned interest of a select few at the top. Just quitting is the the most extreme form of protest, but not the most feasible because we all can't find jobs tomorrow. This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws.
>firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer, an echo chamber, but perhaps for your product an echo chamber is the business strategy you chose.
I take it you haven't read the article. The ask by employees was for SpaceX to uphold THEIR OWN STANDARDS by distancing themselves from Elon's bad actions through his tweets. You do not get to create rules within a company and then ignore your own codified rules while firing people for non-codified ones ("deeming" speech "insubordination").
As for Musk's tweets in relation to his company, when you create company from a cult of personality, your actions for the cult and the company are blurred. So you have to be on your best behavior for both.
--
You are confusing the topic here (I think purposefully).
The first idea is whether asking an employer to hold another employee accountable for the rules of conduct agreed to by all employees is allowed. It is. It falls under protected speech at work in the United States. This has been codified for decades (largely as a result of unionization efforts) and the courts know how, and were designed to, "handle it".
Second, Elon's personal actions with respect to it's effect on SpaceX. This would be for the Board of Directors to handle, but their is also clear prior art for a CEO's actions outside of their job as CEO having impact on the company. We've literally seen this with Elon before.
Elon's track record is doing things that have made him the richest person in the world, winning at multiple games many other very clever people are trying very hard to win, including engaging in fields of endeavor that the "socially conscious" among you claim that they endorse. Even Lenin and Mao would admit that Elon has accomplished things that they would wish to accomplish themselves.
That alone gives Elon credibility that vastly outpaces, collectively, yours, these disgruntled employees, and the Democratic Party who have decided he's public enemy number one because he got fed up with Twitter cooperating with a one party state to subvert the 1st amendment and suppress speech they don't like.
Let him be him, why do you have this incredible urge to control other people and make them say things you like, or punish them if they don't? Elon has earned the right to control Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX, and Twitter was subverting democracy before Elon arrived, and that's what upsets you.
I don't care if you are disingenuous, if you're not, your sincerely held beliefs are dangerous to other people around you.
Your erroneous rationale is the paragraph about "the ask". The boss said "no assholes" (among other things) and then violated those rules (in the employees' eyes, and yours, and mine). The employees delicately asked the sub-boss to choose insubordination, and the request was denied, with additional consequences. Nobody was confused about who the boss was, or what actual rules were in place.
Your authoritarian rationale -- which I agree with -- is in your final paragraph: he ought to hold himself to a higher standard if he wants to be so rich and influential. I'd push a button that would make that the rules of the world. But that's an authoritarian POV.
it's not your company, until you own a controlling share.
> This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws.
the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.
When you enter into an employment contract with a company, you have a legal connection. The use of "your" is appropriate.
>the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.
They are one in the same. Speaking about conduct and activities which can affect working conditions within a company is the basis of whistleblowing protections under the law (in the US). Speaking about conduct of a CEO in relation to the rules of conduct within your company is the same legal concept.
Protecting people who speak up against authority is the exact opposite of authoritarian.
also, not trying to be on Musk side, of course he has made some embarrassing and stupid tweets. But if you created a letter that your CEO's public comment is "frequent source of embarrassment", won't you get fired in any other company??
in meta, someone even got fired for being a youtuber, criticising the CEO and spreading the letter is worse right??
That said as history has shown over and over I would not put it past people doing illegal things to document the illegal things they are doing.
“Yo, stop bringing politics to work, your job is to make flight controls - not criticize the owners of the company outside of work. You’re being disruptive - stop.”
Idk, Musks behavior is what it is, idk why these employees thought it was their role within the company to continue to speak out.
So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day?
The open letter used work resources and hours to go after what their boss did outside of work. Worse, after being told to stop, they continued.
You might find more sympathy for your point of view if it were not enforced as criminally illegal behavior. Workers don't need to respect an illegal order just because it comes from their master - it's a free country with protected categories of speech.
Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?[1] It's about how they don't want to work for a company owned by a person expressing their opinion in the public sphere because it causes embarrassment in their own social spheres being voluntarily associated with that.
The court case is now about them demanding to have their jobs reinstated to a company owned by that exact same person where absolutely nothing has changed.
I agree that workers should have freedom of speech, but the owner of the company they work for also has that same right, a right they oppose and which seems to be the root of all their problems leading to this case.
Freedom of speech was never freedom from consequences was it.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
The sections regarding unacceptable behavior seem like potential candidates:
> SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change.
> [snip]
> 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.
What's your opinion? Do you allow ceos to have private lives?
I’ll leave the specifics of the law and this case to the authorities, but in principle it’s not unreasonable for an employer to expect discretion in public about said employer. It’s a far cry from “owning” that time and not in principle even determining what the discourse otherwise involves.
If I understand correctly they were actually fired for internal discussions and petitioning within the company complaining about Musk's behavior. This wasn't an engineer going on CNN and bashing Elon or SpaceX, these folks were advocating internally for changes in terms of things they saw affecting their jobs and the company (which is why the NLRB can be involved here, since that is a form of organizing activity)
I have received some comments about criticism of the company's vendors on LinkedIn in the past. Note: Not even clients or our company itself! Just vendors, companies that sell stuff to us. Unfortunately some entanglement is always happening.
But to fire someone over it and claim this publicly is bringing it out in the open.
In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements.
If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave.
If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee.
It's astounding that the NRLB is defending an insubordination termination after accusations were made against the executive. This is pretty obviously a political prosecution and the end result won't be good for anyone.
> If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave.
> If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee.
If an employee loses their job they may not be able to pay rent or buy groceries. If SpaceX fires an employee they have 10,000+ that can pick up the slack. Similarly, companies often have large legal teams on retainer whereas getting legal repression can be difficult for individuals.
It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.
That's why unemployment is important.
None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to whether someone can be laid off. Criticizing the CEO isn't a protected activity in any event.
Except they are not, even in the US with its meagre employee protections there are entire classes of protected activity that you cannot be fired for, and discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected.
>>This is pretty obviously a political prosecution
Going after the people who break the law is political now? Fascinating. What's next, we let burglars walk free if they are of a specific political belief?
Discussing working conditions is unrelated to criticizing the CEO.
> Going after the people who break the law is political now?
They didn't break the law. Wait and see.
Come on, don't be ridiculous. The NLRB is operating a farce with this suit. They're used to companies negotiating and not fighting. Their position here is untenable.
Maybe - I guess the courts will have to decide. But courts also regularly rule that complaining about you boss isn't a valid reason for dismissal - the only difference here is whether doing it on such a wide scale and in this way is or isn't acceptable.
I wouldn't call it a farce at all - I think neither one of us can predict what the court will rule here.
It is undoubtedly a farce.
It seems like the NLRB disagrees with you.
I could also say “shut up your job is to make the stock go up, this isn’t twitter tea party time” to the owner
In fact if I said that to our customers I would probably be fired.
At a public event. On camera.
And of course some higher up dismissing it and telling them to stop complaining just makes it worse.
[edit - but in this case looks very much female]
And the root means "white", which if it's going to be coded as one sex or the other is again always going to be female.
I would never have expected the name to be masculine. I'm surprised to see males reach 50%. (Actually, in the Wikipedia list, 55%.)
(Looking into it a little farther, the same name in Irish appears to be Finn, a legendary (male) hero. Probably relevant.)
- "7. About June 15, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, through an email unlawfully restricted employees from distributing the Open Letter."
- "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open Letter."
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.3... (pdf)
How do Musk’s personal statements/opinions outside of work count as work-related issues?
Genuinely asking, I don’t understand how these rules are enforced.
Apple has locked down internal communications about non work-related topics on internal slack and email in the wake of RTO discussions. If this is grounds for a lawsuit, I think other companies are probably open to these kinds of lawsuits too.
For starters, firing someone introduces legitimate damage and liability for those damages if done illegally
But also, firing a group of people who are organizing seems like it will run afoul of union protection laws.
And to your first question, Musk’s social media tantrums have caused a lot of collateral damage for his companies. I believe the Tesla board also raised concerns that his Twitter meltdown had negatively impacted Tesla. It’s not hard to see how.
Are the communications from an account listed as their corporate disclosure account?
When you list a social media account as a disclosure account for a business, it should then be clear that there's liability to all such communications through such account.
I took that impression from here.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacex-illegally-fi...
I tried to find the particular case; according to Reuters' initial coverage (linked in the above article) these charges were filed November 2022, but I couldn't find one from that time on the NLRB website.
https://www.nlrb.gov/search/case/Tesla?sort=desc
As a side note - I don't know what a normal number of NLRB cases is for a large corporation, but this seems like a lot?
ETA: I had a brain fart and thought we were talking about Tesla, but the example is illustrative nonetheless.
You can fire people in retaliation for stealing or screwing up or for wasting everyone's time complaining about Twitter drama instead of doing their job or lots of other reasons. Simply firing in retaliation is not illegal.
I think if, for instance, a group of roof tile workers were discussing how they thought their safety straps needed to be replaced, and were fired for doing so - whether or not the straps needed replacing would be immaterial. The discussion is protected.
In the same way, I don't think it's material whether Twitter is disruptive to their work. NLRB's argument, if I'm understanding correctly, is that they were discussing their conditions, and that such a discussion is protected.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726
Musk regularly tweets about his companies. His tweets regularly move the share price, so it makes sense to me that they might regularly impact employees (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation).
Also, if you listen to Musk, he has no regular personal and working hours, they're constantly intermingled.
I think many people in the thread have a misconception that because Twitter is something kinda silly that it couldn't possibly matter. I think it can be helpful to mentally substitute "Twitter" with "public statements."
As a thought experiment, if the CEO of your company went on a drunken bender (not saying this is what Musk did, just a hypothetical) and they started tweeting a bunch of really offensive stuff, do you think that could impact your job? Say, if you were a startup about to do another round of fundraising - they might alienate investors, and you might end up losing your job.
I don't think it means "every conceivable thing in the world that might affect the share price". If the Fed changes the interest rates, that could affect the share price. Does that mean that if I want to email my 13,000 co-workers my thoughts about the Fed's interest rate policy this is a protected discussion of workplace conditions? I don't think so.
The test seems to be "workplace conditions" not "things that impact employees" or "things that can affect the share price" which could be literally anything at all.
> (not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen, just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation)
Public statements can contribute to a hostile work environment. What is being alleged is that joking about sexual harassment and a lack of clarity around workplace policies have created a hostile work environment. That is directly related to working conditions. (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.)
I invite you to read the open letter for yourself. https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
Or the passages quoted here, for the especially relevant parts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863726
If something affects the share price, then it is relevant to business operations
Musk's tweets affect the share price
Therefore Musk's tweets are relevant to business operations.
I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies, management doesn't want to, the employees wouldn't shut up about it and so they got fired.
Discussing a policy could fall under workplace conditions, I suppose. But they weren't fired for discussing it. They discussed it, they got an answer, they wanted to keep on discussing it. At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. It's not a legal requirement like "fix the safety straps" either, so at what point do you tell the employees to either let it go or get out? Are the required to allow employees to endlessly spam communication channels after management has made the decision about a policy?
I think you're distorting what I said, actually. What I said was that it is reasonable to believe that the tweets are disruptive, not that everything which impacts the stock price or even the operations of the business is relevant to working conditions.
I can understand how that may not have been clear on a first reading, but after I pointed this out and asked you to review what I said, I do think that should have been clear to you.
> I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear.
I don't know if you maybe didn't see this edit because of how HN works, but I did clarify that already:
> (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.)
They are pretty clearly describing a work environment which is hostile. They're saying that they don't have clarity about what the policies are, that their work is interrupted, and that the lack of clarity causes rules to be enforced inconsistently. Call that whatever you want and it's still relevant to working conditions.
> It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies
That's a complete misreading. Where did you even get that? The document has 3 calls to action and none of them are about DEI. They mention the workplace, as it exists, is diverse. That's all I can see and it's completely tangential. (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.)
> But they weren't fired for discussing it.
They literally were.
> "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open Letter."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.3...
> At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not.
At no point does management get the ability to fire people for protected speech, or does the speech stop being protected. Just because management says "no" doesn't mean employees have to stop advocating for themselves.
From the letter:
> But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion [emphasis added] with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo.
> Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more. However, we feel an unequal burden to carry this effort as the company has not applied appropriate urgency and resources to the problem in a manner consistent with our approach to critical path technical projects.
In other words, "nobody asked us to promote DEI throughout the company and it's not part of our job but we're mad that the company doesn't take it as seriously as they do building rockets (the purpose of the company)".
Not every single gripe about your company is protected discussion. I can propose my company implement unlimited PTO. They can say no. I can keep proposing it. I can write open letters demanding it. I can get the media to publish articles about how it's such a tragedy that my company doesn't take my unlimited PTO proposal as seriously as they do making widgets. They can get fed up that I won't shut up about it after they already considered it and said no and fire me. That's not illegal.
> That's not illegal.
I think what you may be discovering is that you have more rights as an employee than you previously thought. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Moreover, a little research would have revealed to you that Shot well publicly stated that the employees were fired for their letter. There is no burden of proof here.
The case numbers are in the header of the document linked in this comment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605
The reason I didn't find the case was I spaced out and looked for Tesla instead of SpaceX, d'oh.
It doesn't say anything about controlling your employers speech on their personal social media accounts.
It's just one of the many ways employers have managed to weaken unions in the US over the last half-plus century.
they meant at-will employment state, which is every state in the country except Montana. at-will employment means you can be fired or you can quit at any time for any reason that is not illegal (such as discrimination)
right-to-work and at will are constantly conflated in situations like this
Unfortunately in the last 30 years the grassroots unions got corrupted by big business when the left (red) and right (green) parties worked together (we called it the "purple" cabinets). And the union leaders became entangled into the business cultures, also known as the "polder model". They basically made underhanded deals and cashed out. Our prime minister at the time himself started out on the barricades with a megaphone and ended up in luxury commisary appointments. Most unions are a joke now, just corporate puppets. I don't want to pay for their puppet show :P
The left-wing party got severely punished for this betrayal and is only on its way back into the political scene 20 years later, but unfortunately they left a vacuum which meant the country has deteriorated a lot (to the point of the extreme-right winning the last election).
Closed shop: must be a full union member to have the job
Fair share: you don’t have to join, but you must pay the portion of dues that go towards contract negotiations and enforcement
Right to work: they can’t make you do anything. In some cases even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
> even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
I'm surprised you frame this as an extreme example. Regardless of one's views on unions (they have their place), it seems way off for the employer to deduct those payments. Perhaps it's a convenience, but as a worker that is my money to pay to the union; if the union and the employer orchestrate the transfer of my membership payment behind closed doors before the money hits my account, it's makes it harder to feel the union is truly acting in my interests.
This is not just a matter of hygiene; for example, I was once in a (notoriously corrupt and socially reactionary) union here in Australia that represents retail workers. I didn't have a choice in the matter and my membership payments were deducted by my employer. About a decade later, a court ruled that a deal made between that employer and the union had left workers worse off (but was in the interests of the union bureaucracy). Incidents like this seriously damage the reputation of the union movement.
Having your dues deducted automatically in an environment of compulsory unionism doesn't seem to have much to do with empowering workers at all!
Now firing people generally requires written warnings and so on, so in that way it would maybe not have been legal.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employ...
Edit: Thinking about this discussion reminded me that "cis" and "cisgender" are considered slurs on twitter and using these terms can get your account suspended[2]. Interesting.
[2] https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-says-terms-like-cisg...
Not being banned from a platform for a legal post that might be unpopular is not at all the same as never getting fired from an employer.
> If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill.
> No limit.
> Please let us know.
Now "unfairly treated" leaves some wiggle room, but the obvious implication here is that if you get "unfairly" fired for Tweeting something Musk will fund your legal bills. Why would he make this offer if he did not believe that you should have freedom to say (Tweet) things your employer hates without retribution such as getting laid off?
That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels.
How are we confusing these two?
Anyway:
"grievances/politics"
It came out that he paid a $250,000 settlement for a sexual harassment suit and he decided to respond to this by making jokes on twitter, quote: “Hi Chad, long time no see! Fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.”
Can we not act like this is "politics"? This is about the basic decency people should expect from any employer.
On the one hand, he wants to support “free speech” on his platform (being able to say what you want _publicly_ and not get fired).
On the other, his employees are getting fired for things they are saying internally. Obviously less of a moral crime, but one speech he is okay with squashing because it’s criticism of him.
So given these two situations, what is Musk’s definition of “free speech”? A value he claims to hold very dearly and earnestly, but also tramples if it’s speech he doesn’t like.
If you think people should be legally protected for anything they say publicly on Twitter, then you should also believe they should be legally protected for anything they say in company internal channels. Anything else is incoherent.
2. That interview is not him acting "fine" with those advertisers leaving; it's him emotionally lashing out in anger at them for doing so.
You can think whatever you will about Media Matter's reporting and Unsworth's analysis, but I don't think that's accepting the consequences of his speech. To me that seems like trying to intimidate people who criticize you.
No; that's about the size of it. This is a surprisingly common stance for people who go on about "free speech" a lot; they often don't mean free speech at all. Freedom from personal criticism would be closer to the mark.
As they did after the first trial, these factors again favor a high punitive damages award here. First and most importantly, Tesla's actions were grievously reprehensible. Diaz was subjected to a grossly racist workplace, with racist conduct perpetuated not only by coworkers or subordinates but also-and perhaps especially-by supervisors like Martinez, who called Diaz racist slurs and drew the racist picaninny, and Hurtado, who directed the N-word at Diaz over 30 times and informed Diaz that he wished he could get all “N-words” fired. Cf. Flores, 873 F.3d at 760; Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1043. Reports to authority often went unanswered and when the company responded, it often failed to interview witnesses or review security footage. Worse yet, a supervisor who learned of Diaz's complaints subsequently failed to investigate and was in fact told by Tesla to not personally investigate the complaint. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Another supervisor was told to stop investigating before he reached a conclusion, and Diaz and his harasser ended up being reprimanded for the conduct directed at Diaz. See Tr. 2387:10-390:18, 395:21-396:7. Martinez, a Tesla supervisor and the main perpetrator of racist conduct, still works at Tesla, nearly a decade after he forced Diaz to endure repeated cruelty and shame. Not only did the company turn a blind eye to the racism, but the jury also could have interpreted the evidence to show that Tesla knew what it was supposed to do and affirmatively chose to not carry out the proper responses.
It should be no surprise that a CEO running a organization that supports grievously reprehensible racist conduct and actively retaliates against worker complaints of shocking racial discrimination and harassment like swastikas on the walls would also support retaliation against people highlighting their less mustache-twirling evil.
If the swastikas on the walls of your car factory do not get you, firing some people over a letter will not either.
DO NOT TALK ABOUT RELIGION, POLITICS OR ADVERSITY AT WORK. EVER.
(SAME GOES FOR CHOICE OF TEXT EDITORS AND COMPUTER LANGUAGES LOL)
Weird, breaking the law for just criticizing a letter written by employees? The judge might overturn this on the basis of free speech.
It was how they got the letter in the first place and creating an environment of coercion and fear for employees conducting legally allowed activities.
In the US workers have rights about what they can say and do in the workplace. Labor activism (agitating for a union) is protected. IANAL but reasonable criticism of the company may be protected to some degree as well.
Agree that Elon looks like a hypocrite, regardless of the legalities involved. My impression is that he is not actually principle-driven in this regard. His motivation seems to be attention and chaos, and an anything-goes forum is conducive to that.