11–20 of 62 posts
Just when you think there's no end to Musk's dip-shittery, he goes and dives head first into a pile of nonsense and butt-hurtedness.
Unions are cancer. This isn't the late 19th century anymore. Unions do very little but enrich themselves and exert political power.
> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept. This is the same argument going against the FTC, SEC, a…
Just when you think there's no end to Musk's dip-shittery, he goes and dives head first into a pile of nonsense and butt-hurtedness.
Unions are cancer. This isn't the late 19th century anymore. Unions do very little but enrich themselves and exert political power.
Nope, it's the early 21st century, and inequality in this country is higher than it's been since the Gilded Age. Not exactly a comparison we should want to be making. And the trajectory is still moving primarily in the wrong direction.
It's not clear to me why the open letter authors are protected under the NRLB at all. They seemed to be criticizing the boss, which is not illegal, but not really a labor action either?
Title is misleading. Has nothing to do with union protections. Sounds like a strong case. Why should companies be forced to employ people who actively work to harm the reputation of said company?
The irony being that the content of the letter is in regards to Elon Musk's work to actively harm the reputation of said company. By this token, why should employees be forced to work under petulant, capricious, myopic executives who undermine the efforts of the people with boots on the ground who do all the actual work?
Title is misleading. Has nothing to do with union protections. Sounds like a strong case. Why should companies be forced to employ people who actively work to harm the reputation of said company?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unions are cancer. This isn't the late 19th century anymore. Unions do very little but enrich themselves and exert political power.
I'll happily get rid of unions once we also get rid of corporations ruled by wannabe-dictators. Until then, unions are a necessary counterbalancing force to keep executive behavior in check.
Title is misleading. Has nothing to do with union protections. Sounds like a strong case. Why should companies be forced to employ people who actively work to harm the reputation of said company?
Preventing employer retaliation for discussing the conditions of employment are a pretty significant part of the protections around unions. An open letter discussing the conduct of the CEO falls under discussion of the conditions of employment.
There are limits to what companies can do to try and prevent unions from forming. SpaceX is claiming that those restrictions and the way in which they're enforced by the NLRB are unconstitutional. Seems pretty fair to characterize that as something which would bust up some federal union protections.
Title is misleading. Has nothing to do with union protections. Sounds like a strong case. Why should companies be forced to employ people who actively work to harm the reputation of said company?
> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept.
It's not clear to me why the open letter authors are protected under the NRLB at all. They seemed to be criticizing the boss, which is not illegal, but not really a labor action either?