Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 322 posts

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#61

Post by AlexandrB »

Musk's conception of free speech is completely incoherent. On the one hand he claims to want to fund the legal defense of people fired for their tweets[1], on the other hand we have stuff like this. The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing?

[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...

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#62

Post by JackFr »

michael1999 wrote: post #15
bediger4000 wrote: post #3

[flagged]

I thought Musk supported "free speech".

The specifics if this case notwithstanding (I recognize that communications about workplace conditions are protected), if someone was on a slack channel, bulk emailing other employees undermining and disparaging their manager, were asked to stop and they didn’t, isn’t that grounds for termination?

They’re free to speak and tweet about it all they want. They’re just no longer an employee.

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#63

Post by maxbond »

bboygravity wrote: post #45
imgabe wrote: post #36

8 out of 13,000 employees wanted to circulate a letter complaining about Musk's tweets and the Labor board claims they were "illegally" fired over this. Which law specifically requires employers to permit every employee to spam the company with their personal grievances? This isn't union organization or whistleblowing. They could use a little more detail on how and why they believe this firing is illegal.

[flagged]

It's clearly newsworthy. Lots of news organizations are reporting on it, not just NYT. I don't think we need to assume that a newspaper is corrupt for reporting that the government published a document, that's a huge part of their job.

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#64

Post by mensetmanusman »

AlexandrB wrote: post #54
stephen_g wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not "using Musk's money" - wages paid to employees are owed to the employees for their work, and are no longer the employer's money in any way, shape or form!

And a lot of that money originally came from taxpayers[1]. [1] https://qz.com/elon-musks-spacex-and-tesla-get-far-more-gove...

This is called an investment by taxpayers, and the return has been much greater than 1.0

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#65

Post by Dig1t »

pram wrote: post #44
imgabe wrote: post #36

8 out of 13,000 employees wanted to circulate a letter complaining about Musk's tweets and the Labor board claims they were "illegally" fired over this. Which law specifically requires employers to permit every employee to spam the company with their personal grievances? This isn't union organization or whistleblowing. They could use a little more detail on how and why they believe this firing is illegal.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

>You have the right to act with co-workers to address work-related issues

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.

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#66

Post by lettergram »

tw04 wrote: post #35
robertwt7 wrote: post #27

how are they able to prove this in court though? surely the HR wouldn't be that stupid to document the reason of firing is "criticising the CEO". 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 b…

Shotwell literally wrote an email telling them they had to stop discussing the issue or she would consider it insubordination then fired them the next day. No need for HR to do anything when the person in charge is incriminating themselves.

I mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager.

“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.

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#67

Post by mixdup »

MBCook wrote: post #32
KennyBlanken wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what right-to-work means. Right to work was invented by conservatives to give employees the "right" to not pay dues to a union that represents employees at the company. It's just one of the many ways employers have managed to weaken unions in the US over the last half-plus century.

I think they meant that since they are in a right to work state having something like this to show that that doesn’t automatically mean you can be pushed around would be a good thing.

again, right to work has nothing to do with it

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

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#68

Post by mixdup »

lettergram wrote: post #66
tw04 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shotwell literally wrote an email telling them they had to stop discussing the issue or she would consider it insubordination then fired them the next day. No need for HR to do anything when the person in charge is incriminating themselves.

I mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager. “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.

>your job is...not criticize the owners of the company outside of work

So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day?

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#69

Post by throwawaymaths »

yinser wrote: post #23

Does anyone know where these employees were employed? I’m a worker in a right-to-work state and would love it if this set a precedent for icing out employers from retribution style separations.

I think you mean "at-will", not "right-to-work"

Re: SpaceX Illegally Fired Workers Critical of Musk, Federal Agency Says

#70

Post by camhart »

AlexandrB wrote: post #61

Musk's conception of free speech is completely incoherent. On the one hand he claims to want to fund the legal defense of people fired for their tweets[1], on the other hand we have stuff like this. The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation…

Freedom of speech does not mean employees can say whatever they want and not be fired. Freedom of speech means the government can't silence its citizens.
Post reply on HN