They critized Musk, factually. Musk is not their employer, SpaceX is, but you just proved their point since you believe Musk and SpaceX are one and the same.
sounds like running towards the dictator trap with open arms. If I wanted to get to Mars then I would suggest its poor company behaviour to suppress criticism like this as I doubt that doing so to protect personal twitter behaviour is helpful to the org's mission statement.
Arguably it depends somewhat of the skill of those hired but if that's arbitrary (i.e. their skill isn't related to the firing) one can easily argue that SpaceX's management practices are extremely questionable right now. So from an 3rd party employee's perspective today you have to tell the boss he's fucking shit up if you _really_ want to get to Mars.
SpaceX are quite literally the only company on the planet capable of what they're doing. Elon is the sole reason Mars is even a possibility, as the rest of the world had given up on it. Same goes for EV's.
Musk is the CEO, he has the right to fire any employees that damage the company's reputation. You could argue that Musk is doing it himself and that the employee was simply stating facts, but it doesn't change the fact that the board decide to place him in-charge. Any other CEO would have done the same.
It is the board that should be holding him accountable, but they aren't. Most boards today are lame ducks to collect a paycheck. No one is challenging him because he is delivering results (although I would argue it's actually Gwynne Shotwell keeping the shipping sailing). So there's that.
He does not have the universal right to fire people who talk about working conditions. Workers enjoy protections that allow them to speak about their work, even if that would be embarrassing for their employer.
The letter was about how rooms
Elon's tweets impacted working conditions.
Eg
Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more.
There is so much nonsense in this thread. The letter has nothing to do with working conditions.
I take that back:
The letter was spammed to all employees using company resources, which means its authors and supporters were creating a hostile work environment. Firing the dead-weight woke cry bullies was the proper move.
I’m not saying Musk should have fired them, but I’m pretty skeptical that the CEO’s abrasive behavior in public statements unrelated to SpaceX is properly considered an aspect of working conditions. (It seems clear to me that their vague discussion of other issues is a pretext to support their eventual lawsuit, but YMMV.)
If the CEO makes it harder to land contracts or recruit talent, that's a direct impact to working conditions. I loved SpaceX and would consider working there if not for Musk, for instance.
No, that's a very indirect impact to any one individual's working conditions.
FWIW, I think firing the organizers is an overreaction and that it would be in SpaceX's best interest to muzzle Elon, but it's hard to conjure up a legal argument that they can't do it. And you'll notice that the company's statement said nothing about the content of the letter, only that it's inappropriate to organize it with company resources and on company time.
Considering how simple-minded and toxic work-cancer employees are, and how harmful and corrupt a union can be; it is no surprise that Musk is 3 steps ahead of them.
What wouldn’t count as working conditions under such a broad standard? Could I circulate an open letter demanding that I get a tech lead position instead of my rival because I don’t think people will enjoy working on their team? Could a salesperson circulate an open letter demanding that you should be punished because your bad engineering cost the company a big contract?
What I'm saying is that I think the open letter's attack on Musk was also a simple personal grievance. The signatories don't like Musk, they're distracted and embarrassed by his Tweets, so they demand that the company denounce him. (The letter said more than that, but if broader systemic reforms were their primary goal, why include an inflammatory attack on one specific executive?)
The courts have covered this. Generally, individual grievances are not protected. Whistleblowing may not be protected. Egregious or offensive language or coerced speech is not protected. Language that is disparaging without being an attempt to improve conditions is not protected.
Wouldn’t a counter point be that the CEO’s behavior filtering out employees that care about Tweets deeply be positive?
Knowing that people like you with your reasons for not working there are not present and harassing people towards your view point could be a recruitment draw no?
Inconsistent enforcement of the company's rules, which is the core of the letter is very much working conditions, and his behavior very clearly shows that he is not bound by those rules.
That's not even close to being considered protected activity.
Given you've spammed this misinformation all over this thread, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly, I'm not sure you're acting in good faith.
I've been corrected by folks going, "nuh uh". A discussion about retention, recruitment, enforcement of workplace policies, and airing of collective grievances is within bounds for protected. Provided it isn't deliberately offensive, an individual grievance, or knowingly false.
He has the universal right to fire people for whatever he wants as long as it's not for a reason protected by US labor law. There are very few instances of "protected speech" with regard to employment.
Turns out discussing working conditions is one. And a very reasonable argument could be made that this letter is explicitly discussing working conditions.
Protected concerted activity is the legal term, and broadly encompasses protections for workers who collectively discuss and attempt to improve, among other things, the conditions in their workplace.
I'm not redefining anything, the courts have broadly held that workers, when acting as a group and not just airing individual grievances, have protections for their speech. Things like corporate values, retention, recruiting, public sentiment, workplace diversity, etc are all potentially workplace conditions.
Workplace Conditions has a legal definition, but it is interpreted by the courts and those courts have the ability to adjust those definitions or interpret them as appropriate.
Do you have any example of where a state labor dept. or court applied your logic to a closely matching situation in a sustainable/unambiguous way (meaning it wasn’t overturned on appeal or settled)?
I ask because in your many comments all you’re doing is stating a hypothetical complaint that sounds plausible but I, as well as many others evidently, think would not have legs, ultimately. I can think of several examples in my career where employees have been fired for disruptive behavior or being a negative influence on morale - well within an employer’s rights. Those examples seem to line up more closely with this example at SpaceX than actual workplace conditions complaints I’ve seen.
I mean, props to you for going to the mat on this, but it’s past time you provide some evidence of your logic carrying the day in a real world example. Otherwise you’re just proposing wishful thinking as reasoning.
In theory, the board can still hold him accountable. There are laws that protect minority shareholders. But those board members will unlikely be around the next year.
Free speech is about opposing restrictions in the public sphere though. If the employees had made a public letter to the internet (not an internal mailing list), using their own resources (not company's resources), it would be a different situation.
If a guest in your house started screaming at you, it wouldn't be a paradox of free speech to tell them to get out.
The (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a de facto one, which is why people like Musk want to treat it as such.
And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined in another comment: the right to not have to tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone from saying whatever they want on your private property.
Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association and private property rights as Musk?
>And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined
They do have those rights, which is why they can ban people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto public square, not a legal one, because it's where a massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is trying to buy them to make their product more consistent with a legal public square.
Personally I think it can't be done without the government getting involved at some point.
Due to the way the internet evolved, it is now the case that the majority of discourse flows through a handful of private companies.
If you are a private company absolutist, I guess you could argue that these companies have the same rights to prevent people from saying whatever they want on private property.
Others believe that these platforms are large and powerful enough to warrant a different set of views and regulatory scrutiny.
This[0] appears to be a good explanation of what a "free speech absolutist" is, and it isn't "you have to allow free speech in all settings by everyone"
In fairness, that explanation also agrees that Musk's extension of "free speech absolutist" extends to apolitical speech and an rights to be heard on social media no matter what corporations might think is inconsistent with his longstanding policy of punishing and trying to silence internal and sometimes external critics of his company...
I don't think there is a phrase for it, but I can see why it would be a common misunderstanding to think that that is "free speech absolutism." As far as I know, there is no concept that requires a private citizen (A) tolerate another private citizen (B) saying whatever they want on A's property. Maybe some form of anarchy.
Thanks for bouncing the idea around. Sounds like naming such an idea would be a powerful shortcut to reach the root of many free speech discussions. Since I'm not above coining neologisms, "speech anarchy" will be the term I will use going forward.
Why isn't telling someone to shut up protected free speech? There is no requirement to comply. He could have just as easily responded: "No" and continued to tweet as he wanted.
The employee/employer relationship is what’s different, along with the context (workplace activity) of where the communication is taking place. Unclear on why this is being disregarded. When did we start presuming that freedom of speech included the ability to, without consequence to your performance evaluation, talk shit about your employer or boss? The employer/employee relationship is all about your performance in relation to your compensation. Talking shit in a consequential way (in view of employer) reflects poorly on your performance for many and various reasons. When threshold of nuisance is exceeded, gtfo. Your contribution is eclipsed by your distraction.
>> Why isn't telling someone to shut up protected free speech?
You know the first amendment doesn't apply to people right? It's a restriction on what the government can or can not do. The government can't restrict your free speech. Your employer can. Twitter can too, and that's what Elon is against.
I agree that he could have just ignored them, but he chose to ignore them completely by getting them out of his company. That's his choice.
