21–30 of 62 posts
https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-x-pace-x-faces-new...
> 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…
Feels like it's really just an attempt to drag out the proceedings further so that any labor law dispute turns into 8 years worth of trials and appeals and is ineffective at remedying problems
...
"on an unrelated topic"
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?
How is collectively criticizing your boss and requesting a better work environment not a labor action?
> 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…
One prong of that strategy is to undermine administrative law courts, courts that operate in the executive branch rather than in the judicial branch. Their function is to efficiently and fairly adjudicate, including providing due process, decisions that are within the executive branch's purview (permitted by the Constitution, legislated by Congress, and approved by a President). One way to think of the courts is that the Executive already has this power; the make it's admistration more fair by using a judicial process.
At least some, but possibly all administrative law courts allow appeal to the judicial branch (i.e., federal courts, article III of the Constitution).
Without administrative law courts, it's hard to imagine how to govern fairly or effectively. Either the executive branch can't carry out its duties, or I guess (not being an expert) they carry them out more arbitrarily, without due process, which permits more politicization and corruption - both outcomes are actually sought to at least some people in the conservative movement, to radically reduce the power of government and/or to empower the President.
I very much doubt there is capacity in the judiciary to take on the very many decisions in administrative law.
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.
How does that differ from business owners? Such as private equity?
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.
But there aren't any unions here anyway - this is a federal agency that facilitates unions.
Frankly this case seems pretty silly on all sides. Some employees sent an open letter to everyone in SpaceX... what did they expect to happen? I think SpaceX was fully within its rights to fire them, and I also support unions.
But also SpaceX's legal argument here is kind of insane. It's predicated on their assertion that the president would definitely have intervened in this dispute if he could have! The law says he can't and that's apparently unconstitutional. Maybe so but it'll probably get dismissed as irrelevant because how are they going to show that the president would have intervened?
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.
Unifor just won a 25% raise for Stellantis workers 2 months ago.
Just 2 months ago the Writers Union just won raises to compensation, health benefits, pensions, and protections against AI.
Just a few weeks ago SAG-AFTRA reached a tentative deal to secure compensation increases, benefits, improvements to royalties & residuals, and protections against AI.
So literally in the last 3 months we've seen unions win major compensation improvements for nearly 2 million workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is collectively criticizing your boss and requesting a better work environment not a labor action?
Calling your boss an asshole is not a labor action. Asking for a better work environment might be, but that wasn't the title of the letter.
Do you have a link to a full copy of the open letter or a screenshot where it called him an asshole?
The version of it here doesn't look like it deserves to be tone-policed in this way: https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
To cite a small portion of it:
> SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change. As a starting point, we are putting forth the following categories of action items, the specifics of which we would like to discuss in person with the executive team within a month:
Since they apparently had a "no asshole" policy it would seem that if anything, calling your boss an asshole is officially endorsed.
> 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…
I think one's attitude toward this case (independent of Musk / SpaceX) comes down to how much you value separation of powers as a check on government vs consolidation of government power as a check on the power of corporations.