US labels SpaceX a common carrier by air, will regulate firm under railway law

Pretty sure Elon believes in 5-10 years when unionization is a threat, most union-type workers will already be Optimus drones anyway

A Union that can't strike is a union in name only.

First, this is taking Shotwell’s characterization at face value, that is not a great idea when dealing with a Musk corporation. Musk and his executives lie like other people breathe.

Second, one might believe in a company’s mission or be interested in working in that area without supporting or even liking the owner. Requiring you to like the owner would be disastrous for many if not most industries.

Lastly, how do you imagine unions get formed without communication among employees?

> Approximately one year after eight former SpaceX employees represented by Lieff Cabraser and Burgess Law Offices filed unfair labor practice charges against SpaceX, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has concluded its investigation and issued a complaint against the company alleging 37 separate violations of law. The charges stem from the company’s response to the employees’ letter to SpaceX’s executive team, which expressed concern about allegations of sexual harassment by CEO Elon Musk, and his harmful behavior on Twitter that hurt the company’s reputation, infected the company culture and created a toxic work environment. In response to the employees’ plea for systemic change to correct these concerns, SpaceX launched a campaign of intimidation and coercion: pulling employees into clandestine interrogations by HR, falsely claiming the meetings were attorney-client privileged, and telling employees to keep the meetings a secret even from their managers. SpaceX also fired nine employees for their involvement in the letter.

> The NLRB’s complaint includes 37 separate violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act: 11 for coercive statements, 2 for coercive statements/implied threats, 7 for interrogation, 4 for unlawful instructions, 3 for impression of surveillance, and 10 for retaliation for involvement in protected concerted activity.

https://www.lieffcabraser.com/2024/01/lieff-cabraser-and-co-...

The complainants allege they did more than just complain about Elon's personality, and that SpaceX did more than just fire them. I'm not familiar with US labor laws but campaigning for better work conditions sounds union-adjacent.

> Charging Party Deborah Lawrence said: “SpaceX’s ‘mission above all else’ mentality hurts everyone in the organization by allowing people to get away with harmful behavior, including harassment, groping, and physical violence, directed disproportionately at women. The toxic culture has resulted in many hard-working people, who were otherwise highly motivated by the company’s mission, quitting. We wrote the open letter to leadership not out of malice, but because we cared about the mission and the people around us. We believed that SpaceX could be a better place and that you can have a healthy, safe workplace and still reach the stars.”

> As rocketry [becomes] more critical for our space infrastructure, I feel like this makes sense.

The justification for denying workers rights they would otherwise have was the extreme importance of moving essential goods. We're not going to have famines if SpaceX has a month long strike.

Rockets do not move essential goods. This feels like a oligarchy giveaway to Elon more than anything.

IIRC, SpaceX and some of their suppliers were considered essential personnel during the early covid lockdowns.

This is the key passage. That may be true at some point, but it isn't now:

> The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”

> SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.

Just more ammunition to nationalize SpaceX once the wheel turns in the other direction.

No, they would have to qualify as transportation carriers. They are still subject to the NLRB.

Even if you believe that unions are uniformly a bad thing, this instance is a case of abusing the law to reward friends of the administration. SpaceX is not a mail carrier and the law was not intended to apply to it in this way. It's clear that Musk wants help with his union problem, and this is the solution.

What’s the relevance on that quote here?