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

101–110 of 322 posts

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

#101

Post by geysersam »

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.

Why? Is it good for the overall wellbeing of people, for economic productivity, that we don't criticize our leaders, be it our bosses or our politicians? No it isn't. It's free speech.

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

#102

Post by jeswin »

AlexandrB wrote: post #90
brandonagr2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get "and not get fired" from? You seem to be just inventing your own definition and falsely attributing it to Musk. 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.

To quote Musk's Tweet[1] on the topic: > 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…

"On this platform".

That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels.

How are we confusing these two?

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

#103

Post by geysersam »

roamerz wrote: post #48

If I was openly criticizing the boss my expectation would be I was putting my continued employment at risk. That ain’t rocket science.

That's the opposite of meritocracy. And abuse of power on your bosses part. Don't know why so many in this thread seems to support obviously corrupt behavior.

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

#104

Post by richbell »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #100
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?

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 ac…

> 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.

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.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

Dig1t wrote: post #65
pram wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compan…

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by disclosureacct »

Dig1t wrote: post #65
pram wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compan…

> How do Musk’s personal statements/opinions outside of work count as work-related issues?

Are the communications from an account listed as their corporate disclosure account?

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

#107

Post by wahnfrieden »

lettergram wrote: post #83
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?

Ah should have said “not criticize what the owners of the company does outside of work” 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're allowed to discuss working conditions at work, it's protected by law. You're advocating for criminal behavior by suggesting they should be fired in retaliation for a protected category of organizing.

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.

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

#108

Post by femiagbabiaka »

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.

There’s nothing to leave aside, the only thing that matters is the law.

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

#109

Post by femiagbabiaka »

geysersam wrote: post #101
nyokodo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why? Is it good for the overall wellbeing of people, for economic productivity, that we don't criticize our leaders, be it our bosses or our politicians? No it isn't. It's free speech.

Unfortunately mainstream conservatives don’t believe in free speech anymore, that was a 2000s era flash in the pan.

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

#110

Post by lokar »

throwaway914 wrote: post #94
lokar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a range of rule by state/history:

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

Post reply on HN