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

91–100 of 322 posts

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

#91

Post by alt_retaliation »

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.

It's not politics though, it also involved them asking to have Musk stop joking about sexual harassment, which is a protected activity.

And of course some higher up dismissing it and telling them to stop complaining just makes it worse.

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

#92

Post by nyokodo »

mixdup wrote: post #68
lettergram wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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.

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

#94

Post by throwaway914 »

lokar wrote: post #89
Skunkleton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Right to work” is the new speak for “at-will”

Incorrect. Right to work is about not having to join a union or pay dues. At will is about the rules for firing.

I appreciate you making this distinction; it's one I haven't understood clearly. My outside impression is that right-to-work is a campaign to smear unions, though I understand in some areas/professions they can only hire union workers.

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

#95

Post by alt_retaliation »

lessbergstein wrote: post #43

[flagged]

Throwaway because I speak from experience, but the NLRB (and California equivalent) just respond to complaints filed by the ex-employees. It doesn't require some top down command.

It's a pretty common thing actually, it's just getting press because it involves Musk.

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

#96

Post by lokar »

JackFr wrote: post #62
michael1999 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AIUI, if you want to enforce rules like that they need to be uniform. Eh you can say “business communication only, only email people who need to know, don’t spam, etc”. You can’t allow someone to sell Girl Scout cookies but then not discuss working conditions.

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

#97

Post by gnopgnip »

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.

A group of employees asking their employer not to joke about sexual harassment is protected concerted activity. That is why it was illegal retaliation to fire them

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

#98

Post by sumeno »

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…

His conception of free speech is that he should be able to say whatever he wants with no consequences. It doesn't go beyond that, he doesn't want other people to be able to say whatever they want with no consequences unless they're saying nice things about him.

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

#99

Post by mixdup »

nyokodo wrote: post #92
mixdup wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your job is...not criticize the owners of the company outside of work So companies now own 24 hours of their employees' day?

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

Let's just set aside how much of a right a company should have over its employees activities outside of work if they're legal and don't directly affect the employees'job performance

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)

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

#100

Post by throwaway09223 »

mixdup wrote: post #68
lettergram wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Certainly not.

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.

Post reply on HN