Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
1–10 of 623 posts
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#2Glad to see the NRLB still has teeth. I was worried it basically fell to the wayside nowadays.
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#3To repeat the key info from this case that makes one question the NRLB ruling (from reddit originally):
The tweet is https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808
> Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare.
where he is talking about the fact that other companies with the UAW do not have stock options for their employees , which he even clarifies in this next tweet https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999415738967277568
> Exactly. UAW does not have individual stock ownership as part of the compensation at any other company.
This is apparently "intimidation". And as for the guy fired
> In another incident, a union-affiliated worker, Jose Moran, accessed Workday, Tesla's internal HR system, to look up information about an employee who opposed the union. Moran took a screenshot of the other worker's Workday page—which included his name, photo, job title, and other information—and texted it to another union-affiliated employee, Richard Ortiz. Ortiz wound up using the anti-union employee's picture in a post on a private Facebook group for pro-union Tesla employees.
> Richard Ortiz was fired after the incident , but because Tesla did not have standing rules against browsing employees' profiles on Workday or screenshotting them , apparently that's not allowed.
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#4To repeat the key info from this case that makes one question the NRLB ruling (from reddit originally): The tweet is https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 > Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcar…
Because of all of the above I disagree with the ruling. While yes Elon's tweet is borderline "intimidation", the guy was fired for very legitimate reasons, taking internal company information about employees and basically doxxing them on facebook. The NLRB shouldn't be defending doxxers.
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#5To repeat the key info from this case that makes one question the NRLB ruling (from reddit originally): The tweet is https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 > Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcar…
> Richard Ortiz was fired after the incident , but because Tesla did not have standing rules against browsing employees' profiles on Workday or screenshotting them , apparently that's not allowed.
The real question is if they'd have been fired for doing that if they weren't a union organizer. And perhaps more importantly, whether you'd be able to convince a judge that looking up co-workers on an internal directory and/or posting about them privately on Facebook is always a firable offense.
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#6To repeat the key info from this case that makes one question the NRLB ruling (from reddit originally): The tweet is https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808 > Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcar…
> Richard Ortiz was fired after the incident , but because Tesla did not have standing rules against browsing employees' profiles on Workday or screenshotting them , apparently that's not allowed. The real question is if they'd have been fired for doing that if they weren't a union organizer. And perhaps more importantly, whether you'd be able to convince a judge that looking up co-workers on an internal directory an…
I don't quite get that objection though, why do you need stated rules that a certain internal site is internal information? Everything is assumed to be internal information unless stated otherwise. That violates any HR policy anywhere. More so the guy was putting it on facebook to literally get people to stalk the guy. So I'm surprised he didn't get criminal charges.
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#7If they want to work for the UAW, then they should join GM or other factories.
Why join Tesla if you really wanted to work for the UAW?
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#8If they want to work for the UAW, then they should join GM or other factories. Why join Tesla if you really wanted to work for the UAW?
Or Tesla’s workers can collectively decide for what’s best for themselves?
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Richard Ortiz was fired after the incident , but because Tesla did not have standing rules against browsing employees' profiles on Workday or screenshotting them , apparently that's not allowed. The real question is if they'd have been fired for doing that if they weren't a union organizer. And perhaps more importantly, whether you'd be able to convince a judge that looking up co-workers on an internal directory an…
I don't quite get that objection though, why do you need stated rules that a certain internal site is internal information? Everything is assumed to be internal information unless stated otherwise. That violates any HR policy anywhere. More so the guy was putting it on facebook to literally get people to stalk the guy. So I'm surprised he didn't get criminal charges.
You don't need the rules to know that sharing information from internal sites might be prohibited. You need them to be able to prove that sharing information like this would get somebody fired. The other possibility (which the NLRB seems to believe) is that Tesla normally would have been OK with this sort of sharing or given only a warning, but this time was specifically looking for an excuse to fire the employee.
Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Richard Ortiz was fired after the incident , but because Tesla did not have standing rules against browsing employees' profiles on Workday or screenshotting them , apparently that's not allowed. The real question is if they'd have been fired for doing that if they weren't a union organizer. And perhaps more importantly, whether you'd be able to convince a judge that looking up co-workers on an internal directory an…
I don't quite get that objection though, why do you need stated rules that a certain internal site is internal information? Everything is assumed to be internal information unless stated otherwise. That violates any HR policy anywhere. More so the guy was putting it on facebook to literally get people to stalk the guy. So I'm surprised he didn't get criminal charges.
Do you have info on the stalking? It is common practice when organizing a union to note the likely strongly anti-union people, to not solicit them, and inform them last of the effort. I say this because I presumed they were just screenshotting the guy's employment photo and name, and posting in the private group, "don't solicit this guy, he might scupper the effort."