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.
It is quite a stretch to say that the letter was about working conditions.
Working conditions is things like working hours, your physical environment, your responsibilities [1]. The SpaceX letter was basically "Musk is uncouth, and we don't like that". A fair criticism, but nothing about working conditions.
The text of the letter can be found at [2], if anyone wants to judge for themselves.
The following passage is one of many about workplace behavior, which therefore is part of working conditions:
Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
This really does not fall into working conditions, in the legal sense of the word. "Musk is an asshole because of how he tweets" says nothing about the working conditions of SpaceX.
If the letter alleges that Musk directly harassed employees, that would be entirely different. But it doesn't; it merely says that Musks behavior in the public sphere is unpleasant (again, that's fair).
Working Conditions means the conditions under which the work of an employee is performed, including physical or psychological factors.
The things that that letter discusses affects the psychological factors of the work. Committing to making people feel included, defining what toxic behavior will not be accepted, and so on.
Your linked definition includes in working conditions, "...all existing circumstances affecting labor in the workplace." This fits with the definition that I gave - the behaviors that you have to put up with from coworkers affects labor in the workplace.
The argument you're advancing here, though it may be popular with some kinds of lawyers, is tantamount to arguing that any discussion at all could be considered about working conditions. Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions" you're starting a fast track to eventually having working conditions be stripped of its legal weight, as it'll turn into just another rule being exploited by woke culture warriors in ways it was never meant to be used.
> Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions"
This is way too reductionist. These aren't just "Musks tweets", they are directives about employee policies that are publicly stated, but not private enforced (because, to the author's criticism, they have no strict definitions). Furthermore they have clear (or at least implied clearly) repercussions: "don't behave they way we want to or you're fired".
> all could be considered about working conditions.
Actually, I think what the author is asking for is clarity about working conditions, not necessarily the working conditions are good/bad - they're just ambiguous.
Is there anyone asking for anything in a workplace that you wouldn't call a "woke culture warrior"? Using that kind of language marks you as pretty disingenuous to the argument.
You are attempting a reductio ad absurdum by saying that since the potential consequences of the rule you outline leads to a result that you don't like, said rule cannot actually exist.
This is backwards. There are lots of rules out there which I'm sure you dislike. Therefore your dislike of this one is irrelevant.
And I say that despite agreeing with you about how it might be abused. And despite wondering whether the people calling for more diversity and exclusion in this letter may be the kind of people to abuse it that way. Rules are rules, and we should try to apply them fairly, especially when applied to people we dislike.
The SEC does, because at least Tesla states that they are an "official corporate communication channel". Though Tesla was pressured (by who?) to do so because shareholders were complaining about how they should interpret his tweets.
Forcing a trucker to drive 20 hours straight is working conditions. Refusing to install proper lighting in a warehouse is working conditions.
Having a policy saying "don't be an asshole", and then enforcing it in a way that is perceived as unfair, is not working conditions.
If the letter had directly alleged that Musk or other leadership was abusive towards the employees, they would have a case. But just saying "we thing Musk is an asshole, and we have a no-asshole policy" is not protected speech.
I don't know what to tell you, every legal training I've ever had has said that capricious application of workplace policies and playing favorites is a good way to land oneself into an NLRB discussion. And that the NLRB, juries, and courts tend to bias towards workers.
The NLRB only has jurisdiction when the matter concerns labor organizing. This has a specific definition and does not automatically cover any collective action by employees like open letters or petitions.
Many employment laws just create causes of action for civil litigation. I.e. they define types of harm for which the employee can seek compensation in the courts.
Very specifically for this case, they protect the right of employees to talk to an employer about improving workplace conditions. With or without a union, and with or without any interest in unionization.
If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer. If company values are enforced internally but publicly the CEO is acting against those values, then it becomes harder to understand what someone might be disciplined for. The connections are, imo, there.
> If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working hours become longer.
This statement is false in the general case. If the contract says 40 hours, I'm leaving after 40 hours, and if you want me to stay longer I better have a large share of the company. Your inefficiencies as a manager are not my problem as an employee, unless I'm also a shareholder.
I don't think anyone is defending the culture, just saying that this letter is not about workplace conditions and is not protected, no matter how much you wish it was.
His tweets are official company communications. They are every bit as relevant to workplace conditions as would be owning a cat or dog inside your office.
They have said that official company communications can come from his Twitter account. They have not made the claim that all communications from his Twitter account constitute official company communications.
You, a stranger and not an employee of SpaceX or Tesla, come across Elon Musk on the street while walking to get a chili dog. He looks at you and goes "That is the most hideous shirt I have ever seen" and walks off.
Is that workplace conditions?
Also, oddly enough, "official company communications" is not workplace conditions. You do not have a legal right to discuss company communications!
I think many here are getting sick of workplace activism and the self-involved crowd pushing it. I didn't become an engineer to deal with their bullshit. I just wanna work on interesting problems. If I'm unhappy I'll switch teams or get another job.
There is an increasingly troublesome number of people entering the industry who simply don't enjoy working hard. I think every company would do better to fire them.
Honestly, I think you have a point. It would go back to what the reason was for termination. SpaceX has indicated that the terminated employee's actions went beyond simply writing the letter.
I do not take company statements like that at face value, as they have their own interests to protect. However, it does leave the possibility that termination was not related to statements about working conditions.
Tesla cars are garbage, speaking as a Tesla owner. They demo nicely, but they are put together poorly. The minute there's any meaningful competition they'll crumble.
Combined with the risks from their autopilot system and their mistreatment of workers and their CEO being a right wing edgelord? There's plenty of reasons to think Tesla might not be on a good path.
They've also been topping the lists of unreliability.
Many people like the things Tesla does well enough to not be bothered by the things it does poorly so are satisfied.
Tesla seems to have the best EV drivetrain in the business (I'm counting the battery as part of the drivetrain) and the best charging network, but seem to be worse in most other aspects.
My guess is that the other car companies will catch up on EV drivetrains faster than Tesla can catch up on the rest of a car.
They did top the lists, but they've dropped off as owners deal with the reality of owning them.
An electric car, competently built, will wow most folks. Remember that the satisfaction numbers are comparing apples to oranges, given the limited competition Tesla has at the moment.
This depends a lot on the factory / year of production. E.g. the 2021/2022 from Giga Shanghai have great quality. Of course, consistency is the key, Tesla has to achieve it across all of the factories.
And I have no idea what 'risks' are you talking about regarding autopilot.
There are many worker coops that operate as a democracy, some of them quite large. From manufacturing to food service to coding to agriculture, they are in nearly every sector.
Maybe this is news to you, but the arrangement isn't that uncommon.
Whoever leaked this without redacting names put lives at risk. Whoever published it without redacting names likewise.
And before anyone jumps in to say, "they should have not posted in slack if they didn't want the world to read!" There are people who will get harassed and doxxed from this purely because they mentioned being queer or having a darker skin tone.
Disgusting behavior in the name of pursuing a few clicks and social credit points.
