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

231–240 of 322 posts

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

#231

Post by chii »

beachy wrote: post #225
jrflowers wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point. Since employees are not shareholders they have no standing to criticize a CEO. Only someone with a financial stake in the future of a company should be able to voice their concerns without fear of retribution

Employees are financially dependant on the company for salary and perhaps stock options - surely that counts as "a financial stake".

the wording is wrong - it's not a financial stake that gives you said power, it's equity stake.

This equity stake gives you a vote for which you can use to influence the actions of the board and thus the CEO.

Being financially dependent on the company to provide employment by no means gives you power over the CEO. Of course, criticism is not black and white - but being an asshole CEO is not illegal, and putting yourself out to "fight the good fight" sounds good on paper, but do you no good at all.

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

#232

Post by chii »

John23832 wrote: post #203
fsckboy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking up against your employer should not threaten your job. if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much? > That's how you get an echo chamber of horrible decisions made by the people who just so happen to sit at the top. firing employees for speaking out might get you, the employer , an echo chamber, but perhaps for your pro…

>if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much? Yes I think that should be law. You should be able to attempt to help self correct your company by speaking up and not have the your life blown up because of the misaligned interest of a select few at the top. Just quitting is the the most extreme form of protest, but not the most feas…

> your company

it's not your company, until you own a controlling share.

> This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws.

the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.

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

#233

Post by Terr_ »

sokoloff wrote: post #134
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.

Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination). I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not…

> If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company

That's like claiming bank-robbery is fine because "there's no law against holding money in your hands, everyone does it." For some reason you're leaving out all the most important details that make things different than normal.

In this case, those details are that certain "disagreements"--an obvious case being "we're underpaid, let's unionize"--are disagreements which that CEO is not legally permitted to fire you for.

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

#234

Post by shawndrost »

saghm wrote: post #177
sokoloff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are productive and destructive ways to handle disagreements with the chain of leadership. If I choose a destructive way, I shouldn't be shocked that I find destruction at the end of that path.

Circulating a letter internally is "destructive"?

A semi-open letter is an escalation. It's an admission that initial discussions have failed, and it is intended to prompt management to make a choice in a more concrete way. It's a powerful tool and it can be destructive or corrective.

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

#235

Post by chii »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #168
sokoloff wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination). I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not…

I would hardly consider this as “take those disagreements public”. It’s not like they talked to the press. This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. Ironically, we would never have heard of it if they didn’t fire these employees in retaliation resulting in this lawsuit.

> This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels.

if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long.

Good leadership means being able to recognize criticism from your employees, but this can't come from grassroots effort within the company - it must come from the top.

If the employee disagrees with the direction of the company, and the leadership doesn't want to change (e.g., after voicing the opinion thru sanctioned feedback channels), their only option is to quit, or acquire a controlling share and _become_ the leadership.

Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator - and you know how that will go.

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

#236

Post by John23832 »

chii wrote: post #232
John23832 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if you mean this as advice, ok, but if you mean it as "this needs to be a law", what are you even talking about, authoritarian much? Yes I think that should be law. You should be able to attempt to help self correct your company by speaking up and not have the your life blown up because of the misaligned interest of a select few at the top. Just quitting is the the most extreme form of protest, but not the most feas…

> your company it's not your company, until you own a controlling share. > This idea is no more authoritarian than whistleblower protection laws. the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.

>it's not your company, until you own a controlling share.

When you enter into an employment contract with a company, you have a legal connection. The use of "your" is appropriate.

>the big difference is that whistleblowing is for protection against retaliation _for_ reporting illegal activities. Last time i looked, being as asshole CEO is not illegal.

They are one in the same. Speaking about conduct and activities which can affect working conditions within a company is the basis of whistleblowing protections under the law (in the US). Speaking about conduct of a CEO in relation to the rules of conduct within your company is the same legal concept.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

chii wrote: post #231
beachy wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees are financially dependant on the company for salary and perhaps stock options - surely that counts as "a financial stake".

the wording is wrong - it's not a financial stake that gives you said power, it's equity stake. This equity stake gives you a vote for which you can use to influence the actions of the board and thus the CEO. Being financially dependent on the company to provide employment by no means gives you power over the CEO. Of course, criticism is not black and white - but being an asshole CEO is not illegal, and putting yours…

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by roenxi »

fumeux_fume wrote: post #217
justrealist wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circulating an open letter point-blank criticizing the CEO is absolutely unprofessional and I'm honestly shocked anyone here thinks they could pull this crap without getting fired.

So it’s unprofessional to acknowledge unprofessional behavior? That’s a pretty cowardly take.

If you're going to flare up every time someone does something unprofessional, you're definitely being unprofessional. It is like politeness; someone else not having it might change how you behave but usually it doesn't.

And there is a difference between acknowledging it and causing a scene. Rank and file employees engaging in a political attempt to topple the CEO is certainly unprofessional. That level of manoeuvring is purposefully causing damage.

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

#239

Post by imgabe »

maxbond wrote: post #210
imgabe wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda think "workplace conditions" would mean, you know, the conditions in which you do your work, like the physical environment where you are working. If the safety straps are old and frayed or the air conditioning in the office is broken, this is a condition of the workplace. I don't think it means "every conceivable thing in the world that might affect the share price". If the Fed changes the interest rates, tha…

Please note I specifically said I wasn't discussing share price. Regarding the Fed, that honestly is a misrepresentation of what I said. Please don't do that. And please review this part of my previous post: > ( not to say the share price is the mechanism by which that would happen , just that it stands to reason his tweets are relevant to the operations of the business if they're relevant to its valuation) Public st…

I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm refuting it. You established a chain of logic like so:

    If something affects the share price, then it is relevant to business operations  
    Musk's tweets affect the share price  
    Therefore Musk's tweets are relevant to business operations.
I provided a counterexample (interest rates) of something that affects the share price but is not relevant to business operations. So the first condition of your argument is false and therefore it is not a sound argument. Simply because Musk's tweets affect the share price, this does not necessarily mean they are relevant to business operations (to the extent that they are protected discussion about workplace environment).

I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear. It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies, management doesn't want to, the employees wouldn't shut up about it and so they got fired.

Discussing a policy could fall under workplace conditions, I suppose. But they weren't fired for discussing it. They discussed it, they got an answer, they wanted to keep on discussing it. At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not. It's not a legal requirement like "fix the safety straps" either, so at what point do you tell the employees to either let it go or get out? Are the required to allow employees to endlessly spam communication channels after management has made the decision about a policy?

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

#240

Post by meheleventyone »

cycomanic wrote: post #157
sokoloff wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination). I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not…

Since when is an internal letter public? Also what happened to the whole "I'm a free speech advocate" spiel? I guess free speech only applies to thinks Musk likes. Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?

This whole sub-thread in general makes it pretty obvious to me that there are a bunch of people who love petty authoritarianism.
Post reply on HN