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

261–270 of 322 posts

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

#261

Post by maxbond »

imgabe wrote: post #258
maxbond wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mistake re DEI. I searched for "diversity," not sure why it didn't come up, guess I must've made a typo. The point that it wasn't what they were asking for stands. > That's not illegal. I think what you may be discovering is that you have more rights as an employee than you previously thought. Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, rig…

> Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right? Maybe. Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. Given Musk's other misadventures in labor relations, it would stand to reason that the people at the NRLB are not fans of his. Maybe the 8 people who were fired are just hoping for a quick se…

Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing.

Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours.

So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at trial or that we don't need to conduct trials.

You seem to be suggesting this isn't and can't be related to working conditions. But it's far more likely you're mistaken than that the NLRB is engaged in a conspiracy. The employees wanting a quick payout doesn't make a difference in that calculus, especially since they aren't the ones making a decision about whether or not this is actionable. It's not like they were the ones who brought the suit, they filed a complaint with a regulator.

> At any rate, I'd give 10:1 odds that 90% of SpaceX employees are relieved these 8 no long work there.

I think it's worth reflecting on whether you are reasoning from the evidence here, or whether you are allowing your biases to contaminate your conclusions. You seem to have identified the employees as people you don't like or are politically or ideologically opposed to.

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

#262

Post by piva00 »

fsckboy wrote: post #252
piva00 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bad corporate leadership does not require govt oversight and intervention. And employees don't decide who is breaking the rules, just like crime victims don't actually run our courtrooms: it's not a good idea, noble as it sounds in a childish sort of way. So who does? Not the government, not the employees, who decides the corporate leadership is acting in bad faith and needs to be accountable? Stop the boring soapb…

define acting in bad faith, you can't just soapbox it, then get your way. After you've defined it, then point out who is the counterparty in that transaction. that person/entity has the recourse they have, it can vary. Once you decide you don't like transacting with a person, you can stop. Everything doesn't necessarily work out the way you want, we all take lumps. "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn'…

Acting in bad faith in this case is pretty clear, no? Going against the agreed code of conduct that all members of the organisation should follow is pretty much in bad faith.

Some (or even most) of the employees speaking up are also shareholders, so even in your very narrow definition of whom should have the power to criticise actions in bad faith of leadership would grant those employees that power.

> "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.)

You are basically giving carte blanche to the owners of capital to do whatever they want, even if that would negatively impact a whole organisation and the workers producing the value for such organisation. That's a very corporate-centric worldview which I don't abide to. Capitalism is an amoral system, we humans need to instill some morality into it so it can function in a way that's more beneficial than damaging, employees speaking up against leadership in a very clear case of such leadership breaking their own agreed code of conduct is well within bounds of what should be acceptable.

Bosses are not slave masters, the employment relationship can be economically viewed as a transaction for market modeling, but as a societal relationship we should strive to lessen the intrinsic power imbalance of it, employees generate value, no company would exist without them, reducing that to "owners can do whatever they want under the bounds of contract/civil/criminal law" transfers more of the power to employers since those have much more capital to deploy on lobbying, lawyering and so on. The system doesn't work "fine", it works but it can always be better.

And in this specific case the actions taken were even illegal, so the employees had the right to speak up. I don't understand what you are defending.

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

#263

Post by mrpopo »

junofan wrote: post #256
jwestbury wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just give the government reasonable power to enforce things. GDPR, as an example, has been very effective, because the fines which can be levied for violations are genuinely impactful to businesses. The maximum fine is 4% of global annual revenue. Alphabet, for instance, could theoretically be liable for up to $11b, or around 20% of their net income. Amazon could be liable for up to $20b -- almost double their ope…

GDPR is about giving control to people by disallowing data controllers from just passing the buck to 3rd party data processors. But you can already just not work for Elon if you think he’s an asshole. What’s the compelling state interest here?

No, you don't have a choice, if you want to work on building rockets that actually ship (thanks to constant government backing and de facto monopoly, confirmed in recent years after the failure of Blue Origin and others to dethrone them).

The compelling state interest is to keep working with ethical companies.

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

#264

Post by 93po »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #193
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #170

I was pretty dismayed that Gwynne Shotwell's actions were so blatantly egregious. I'd expect something like that (or probably worse) from Musk, but my view of Shotwell was that she was always "the adult in the room" at SpaceX. So a bit sad to see that she didn't even realize the illegality of her actions (as other comments mentioned, all her actions were clearly put in writing).

Keep in mind she answers to Musk, you can't assume she had the leeway in this instance, especially since he likely got a bee in his bonnet about it and took an uncompromising position.

She has zero problem saying no to Musk and has countless times before

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

#265

Post by imgabe »

maxbond wrote: post #261
imgabe wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right? Maybe. Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. Given Musk's other misadventures in labor relations, it would stand to reason that the people at the NRLB are not fans of his. Maybe the 8 people who were fired are just hoping for a quick se…

Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing. Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours. So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at tri…

I never claimed that the case is invalid on its face or I know more about this than the lawyers. It's worth noting that the NLRB is not some disinterested third party who is only trying to find the objective truth. They are an advocate for one side. There is another side. The NLRB is going to promote arguments that reinforce their side and ignore or downplay anything that does not support their case. That is not a conspiracy, that is literally how the adversarial justice system works. I am not saying it can't be related to working conditions, I'm presenting an argument for why I think it's not. Of course, the NLRB's argument is that it is related to working conditions, that is their job to make that argument. But it's just that, an argument. It's not some divine truth revealed to us by the holy authority of the NLRB.

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

#266

Post by maxbond »

imgabe wrote: post #265
maxbond wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing. Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours. So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at tri…

I never claimed that the case is invalid on its face or I know more about this than the lawyers. It's worth noting that the NLRB is not some disinterested third party who is only trying to find the objective truth. They are an advocate for one side. There is another side. The NLRB is going to promote arguments that reinforce their side and ignore or downplay anything that does not support their case. That is not a co…

> Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit.

This the suggestion of a conspiracy, albeit a mild one.

I don't have anything new to say to say regarding the rest of your comment, so I'll spare us both from my repeating myself, you obviously understand what my position is.

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

#269

Post by junofan »

maxbond wrote: post #261
imgabe wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that both of us have acknowledged we're not lawyers - we should assume the NLRB understands this better than us, right? Maybe. Maybe they just don't like Musk so they throw everything they can at him regardless of merit. Given Musk's other misadventures in labor relations, it would stand to reason that the people at the NRLB are not fans of his. Maybe the 8 people who were fired are just hoping for a quick se…

Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing. Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours. So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at tri…

Questions of law are settled by the courts, not private lawyers and federal agencies. If police officers show up and arrest somebody, the public is allowed to have an opinion. We don’t just throw up our hands and say police officers know better than we do. They work on our behalf.

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

#270

Post by maxbond »

junofan wrote: post #269
maxbond wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some lawyers took a look at it. They decided it was worth pursuing. Their knowledge of the law is presumably greater than ours. So when we find ourselves confused about how the law works, and we think that the case is invalid on it's face - we should take that as an indication that our assumptions are incorrect and we probably don't understand the law as well as we thought. That doesn't imply the case will win at tri…

Questions of law are settled by the courts, not private lawyers and federal agencies. If police officers show up and arrest somebody, the public is allowed to have an opinion. We don’t just throw up our hands and say police officers know better than we do. They work on our behalf.

I agree people are perfectly entitled to express their opinions and that it's important for civil society to engage with these things, especially with regards to the police. (NB: we're not talking about the police, however.)

My suggestion was that, given we're laypersons, if we're confused how this could be illegal and it conflicts with our understanding of the law, it's probably a safe assumption the regulators understand the law better.

Not commenting at all or passing judgement without trial isn't what I'm advocating for. It was a descriptive statement, not proscriptive one. If you asked what I would suggest as a response to realizing you might not understand the situation, it would be doing some more research into the law.

If that research leads you to the conclusion that this genuinely is an overreach, so much the better - before you had a suspicion, and now you have evidence for it.

Post reply on HN