Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think you're distorting what I said, actually. What I said was that it is reasonable to believe that the tweets are disruptive, not that everything which impacts the stock price or even the operations of the business is relevant to working conditions.
I can understand how that may not have been clear on a first reading, but after I pointed this out and asked you to review what I said, I do think that should have been clear to you.
> I've read the letter, nowhere does the phrase "hostile work environment" appear.
I don't know if you maybe didn't see this edit because of how HN works, but I did clarify that already:
> (To be clear, they never say the words "hostile work environment," that is my interpretation.)
They are pretty clearly describing a work environment which is hostile. They're saying that they don't have clarity about what the policies are, that their work is interrupted, and that the lack of clarity causes rules to be enforced inconsistently. Call that whatever you want and it's still relevant to working conditions.
> It sounds much more like a small group of employees are demanding that management implement DEI policies
That's a complete misreading. Where did you even get that? The document has 3 calls to action and none of them are about DEI. They mention the workplace, as it exists, is diverse. That's all I can see and it's completely tangential. (By the way, the phrase "DEI" doesn't appear in the letter, either.)
> But they weren't fired for discussing it.
They literally were.
> "11. About June 16, 2022, Respondent, by Gwynne Shotwell, in an email to all employees announced that employees had been discharged for their involvement in the Open Letter."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38862605
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CPT.3...
> At some point I think management is allowed to make a decision about whether they're going to implement a policy or not.
At no point does management get the ability to fire people for protected speech, or does the speech stop being protected. Just because management says "no" doesn't mean employees have to stop advocating for themselves.