No post body was provided.
SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
901–910 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#902Earlier quoted context omitted.
Activist employees are toxic to company culture. We created a rule that politics and religion were not appropriate topics at work. A couple of people quit in response, and morale improved dramatically.
So, firing James Damore was the correct thing to do, after all? Him and his manifesto, and his subsequent behaviour were pretty distracting, political, toxic, critical of his employer, and wasted workplace resources...
Interesting. Was he the originator, or reacting to others?
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#903Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless they had received direct orders not to criticize Musk at all, internally or externally, they are not guilty of refusing to obey orders Wouldn't it be ironic if a man who is "fighting to preserve free speech" fired employees for their speech he disagrees with? Oh, wait...
If Musks buys Twitter, do you think he’ll allow the Elon Jet Twitter account to remain?
Yes.
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#904Quoted post unavailable.
IANAL, but you may want to edit or amend this comment if you're in a leadership position because it might technically be illegal (assuming U.S.), even though it's satire. See Ben Shapiro's and Ben Domenech's recent NLRB ULP charges. Shapiro had his thrown out because he RT'd an Employees Rights poster (which is more or less the remedy anyway), and Domenech got lucky and had a judge reach a "no-coercion conclusion" in…
You're right about one thing...you are not a lawyer, you are a worker.
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#905Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is pretty hypocritical though for Mr. Free Speech to fire people who have concerns rather than address those concerns in a civil dialogue. Musk likes to whinge about “censorship” amounting to banning a Twitter account but seems perfectly okay firing someone and removing their livelihood for speaking critically of him. Also retaliation is very much still illegal, not that it matters.
This is the crux of the matter right here. I hate that people are doing all these weird gymnastics to reconcile being a champion of free speech and firing people that criticize you. Yeah, guys, it might be legal (maybe not) but it IS hypocritical. If you want to champion free speech you can't do this shit. Stop with the debate team bullshit and exercise some common sense.
Some call it "debate team bullshit", others would call it "applying basic logic".
Why let a pesky little thing like intellectual honesty stand in the way of jumping on a good hate bandwagon?
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#906This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your employer via a public letter. Criticize internally all you want, and influence the changes that you want to see happen. Employment is a two-way relationship. If you don't like your employer, you are free to leave. If they don't like you, they are free to fire you (within legal bounds). Publishing an openly critical letter and signing it is a quick way to get…
It is pretty hypocritical though for Mr. Free Speech to fire people who have concerns rather than address those concerns in a civil dialogue. Musk likes to whinge about “censorship” amounting to banning a Twitter account but seems perfectly okay firing someone and removing their livelihood for speaking critically of him. Also retaliation is very much still illegal, not that it matters.
Not that I'm sympathetic to the decision to fire here based on what I know (which is really just this article and what I've read in this thread), but the two issues seem to be somewhat orthogonal, in that I could imagine a consistent moral framework falling either way with different opinions on them. Someone might believe in the importance of minimising consequences for speech on a public forum such as Twitter (whose end purpose is supposedly such speech, and which is one of the main venues in which public political discourse in fact happens), while simultaneously not believing that employees of a company have the right to speak up against the interests of that company (whose purpose is making widgets and money) and be protected from the company terminating the working relationship in return. Conversely, someone might think of unfettered political debate as harmful, and believe in the importance of suppressing certain opinions they find dangerous and harmful from the public sphere, while also believing that letting employees criticise and organise against their employer is important to guarantee the welfare of employees and keep the power of employers in check. In fact, the two combinations seem respectively pretty close to the proclaimed ethos of the US and the Soviet Union respectively a century ago.
Criticism of Musk's action here may come both from those who in fact are in the "free speech absolutist" camp and want both the Twitter deplorables and the corporate gadflies to be protected from retaliation, and from those who are just in the latter position and want the opposite pattern, but I think only the first group can bring a charge of hypocrisy (still incorrect, as it ignores the orthogonality) without it making themselves guilty of higher-order hypocrisy.
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#907I can't imagine trashing my CEO and expecting to keep my job. Maybe that's a Gen-X thing?
> Maybe that's a Gen-X thing?
I'd guess not. We (gen x) grew before social media wokeism and have an understanding that thrashing your company or boss publicly isn't the smartest move. I bet these are some entitled zoomers right out of a college.
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#908Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren't inconsistent. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences, if said consequences do not restrict future freedom of speech.
Can somebody explain me "free speech"? What does it even mean? Does it mean that you are "free" to speak out whatever you want, but after you have done that, we can decide to punish you? Or does it mean, you can speak out freely without the fear of punishment(consequences)? If I know I will be fired for speaking out, is it still free speech?
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#909> In an email, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president, said the letter had made other employees “feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied.”
I don't think that was the letter, I think that was the firing.
Re: SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
#910Musk may end up being the most influential person to: 1. Electrify our vehicular infrastructure 2. Get humans to the Moon, if not to Mars 3. Accelerate the unionization of Silicon Valley tech workers His approach to remote-vs-in-office work is less that of a data-informed futurist and more that of an autocrat. Just as he's loudly supporting public free speech as long as it's his speech, I predict within a few months…
2. Get humans to the Moon, if not to Mars I think there is a misconception here, SpaceX does not send anyone to space, NASA, ESA etc .. does. SpaceX builds rockets that's it, they don't train astronaut or have a program for space exploration or missions.
> I read only TSLAQ propaganda
Inspiration 4, Axiom 1, Polaris Dawn, ...