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

121–130 of 322 posts

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

#121

Post by systemstops »

maxbond wrote: post #63
bboygravity wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Maybe - but the deluge of anti-Musk articles in the media the last few months is a probably more newsworthy. We can't ignore the fact that after buying Twitter and getting rid of some of the speech restrictions, he has been sued by several federal agencies, lost major federal contracts and all sorts of (questionable) scandals about him are now suddenly being discovered.

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

#122

Post by karpatic »

jeswin wrote: post #102
AlexandrB wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Intentionally is my guess.

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

#123

Post by gertlex »

emmelaich wrote: post #114
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.

FWIW 'gwynne' is typically a male's name. [edit - but in this case looks very much female]

She's well-known in this context, not a random exec we've never heard of, so there's no doubt about the pronouns to use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

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

#124

Post by llbeansandrice »

jeswin wrote: post #102
AlexandrB wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s not confusion it’s a comparison. The other commenter is trying to highlight Musk’s cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand, he wants to support “free speech” on his platform (being able to say what you want _publicly_ and not get fired).

On the other, his employees are getting fired for things they are saying internally. Obviously less of a moral crime, but one speech he is okay with squashing because it’s criticism of him.

So given these two situations, what is Musk’s definition of “free speech”? A value he claims to hold very dearly and earnestly, but also tramples if it’s speech he doesn’t like.

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

#126

Post by karpatic »

AlexandrB wrote: post #78
bboygravity wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is anything negative that happens to/is said about Musk his own doing, or is everything just a ploy by external entities to bring down a great man?

How is it MUSK's doing that a middle manager fired an employee?

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

#127

Post by YetAnotherNick »

geysersam wrote: post #103
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.

Abuse of power is a relative term. If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse. It's fine in most companies to complain about the boss to HR or to the boss themselves, but not fine to complain it to someone else.

If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.

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

#129

Post by wkat4242 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #28
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.

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'm very socialist but I kinda agree with this. Often the unions here in the Netherlands are too entangled with the company's management and don't actually represent my interests. As such I don't pay them (and their ridiculously overpaid CEOs).

Unfortunately in the last 30 years the grassroots unions got corrupted by big business when the left (red) and right (green) parties worked together (we called it the "purple" cabinets). And the union leaders became entangled into the business cultures, also known as the "polder model". They basically made underhanded deals and cashed out. Our prime minister at the time himself started out on the barricades with a megaphone and ended up in luxury commisary appointments. Most unions are a joke now, just corporate puppets. I don't want to pay for their puppet show :P

The left-wing party got severely punished for this betrayal and is only on its way back into the political scene 20 years later, but unfortunately they left a vacuum which meant the country has deteriorated a lot (to the point of the extreme-right winning the last election).

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

#130

Post by Eisenstein »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #127
geysersam wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Abuse of power is a relative term. If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse. It's fine in most companies to complain about the boss to HR or to the boss themselves, but not fine to complain it to someone else. If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves…

> If something is the norm, then doing it is not abuse.

Abuse is abuse regardless of whether it is normalized in a company, but it is also against the law in this case specifically, so it is obviously not 'the norm'.

> If I had bad boss who isn't doing anything illegal or breaks company's policy, I would likely switch my job rather than taking the impossible task of fixing them if they don't want to fix themselves.

That's nice. It is also irrelevant.

Post reply on HN