Elon Musk’s ‘fund your legal bill’ tweet is a brand new level of bullshit
Elon Musk’s ‘fund your legal bill’ tweet is a brand new level of bullshit
Such hypocrisy
Sorry, another news from this asshole, but this is too much assholery to don't be shared
Despite him being a shitty boss that fired employees that criticized him on twitter, he promised an "unlimited" legal defense fund to fight against employers that fired employees because of something they wrote on Twitter.
Under his tweet a lot of "verified" (=right wing) accounts plauded this and asked to fight employers who fired employees for having written something homophobic
You're viewing a single thread.
We make our employees sign a form when they're hired stating that they will not mention our company or any of its employees on social media in a negative way. It's standard practice. Any company big enough to have its own lawyer(s), they will advise them to do that because it can help prevent serious legal Issues.
We make our employees sign a form when they're hired stating that they will not mention our company or any of its employees on social media in a negative way. It's standard practice
The NLRB ruled that non-disparagement clauses are not enforceable
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/27/labor-board-says-non-disparagement-clauses-are-unlawful
It's a clear violation of the first amendment... Also, referring to the company you work for as "we" while talking about firing another employee is cringe as fuck.
It has literally nothing to do with the first amendment.
The first amendment gives you zero protections from anyone but the government. All other entities are entitled to respond to your speech however the fuck they want.
@conciselyverbose
No, they need to do so within existing law and ideally also social norms. It's not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle just because you said you don't like his hairstyle. That he can fire you for the same is atrocious.
@Moonrise2473 @Karlos_Cantana @proleGoing after you with a rifle is illegal in its own right. The first amendment is not a factor in any way.
Firing you for it is unambiguously and unconditionally legal, unless you're in a state that has other limitations on your ability to terminate employees.
There is no scenario you can contrive where a non-government employer firing an employee for speech can be connected to the first amendment in any way. The first amendment can only possibly be relevant to the government.
It's not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle because threatening someone with a weapon is illegal by itself. Firing someone is not
Oh ok... So I guess that means the National Labor Relations Act is unconstitutional (it's not, it was upheld by SCOTUS in the 30s), because it explicitly prevents employers from firing or otherwise retaliating against employees for discussing salary.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
Or do you think an employer should be allowed to fire someone for that?
Maybe don't give this current Supreme Court any ideas given their blatant disregard for stare decisis/precedence, and Chevron deference..
This is a bad faith argument through and through. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this.
You should work on your reading comprehension. None of this has any relationship to the first amendment.
The First Amendment protects the right to organize in addition to free speech. The NLRB (and the Wagner Act, the law that gives us the right to discuss wages, as well as unionize, without retaliation) have a storied history of being challenged on first amendment grounds.
People have tried arguing that an employer's first amendment rights are violated by a law that prevents them from firing someone for any reason they want. The government codifying what an employer can and can't fire an employee for is directly related to the first amendment.
Any time you're talking about protected speech, or the right to organizing, its directly related to the first amendment. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Since it's abundantly clear that you've never actually read the 1st amendment, let me help you out:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you can see, employment disputes are not part of the 1st amendment. As you can also see, it restricts establishing a state religion, exercising your religion, protects you from prosecution when peacefully assembling and when you are giving the government the finger.
I suggest reading through the Constitution and it's amendments. It's not a long read.
When the government tells an employer that they can't fire a person for x reason, the first amendment gets involved. Because that's the government limiting the speech of a private citizen (or in the case of a company/corporation, a group of private citizens that apparently gets all the rights of a person).
Which is when employment law does swerve into first amendment territory
The first amendment only applies to the government. Any person telling you that it can under any circumstance be applied to the relationship between an employer and employee is a piece of shit lying to you. It's not in any way ambiguous.
The government regulating employment law is not connected to the first amendment in any way.
The first amendment only applies to the government
I'm wondering if you even read my comment...
Yeah idk man, I would not call it "a clear violation" based on your link. This is basically the NLRB's opinion and they expect to be challenged on it.
Also I think we need to delineate those folks who are genuinely facing retaliation for discuss working conditions, and those who want Elon to help them sue because they got fired for saying the N slur on Twitter or other troll bullshit
The first amendment only protects you from being prosecuted by the government for things you say (and it's even limited... You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre for instance).
The first amendment doesn't apply here, at all.
Most people work in at-will states so really they don’t even need to say they’re firing you for any particular reason.
Non-disparagement clauses (are intended to) effect people after they've already left the place of employment, usually. That's why they're bullshit and largely unenforceable.
Why they fired you isn't really relevant when they're suing you years later for saying something bad about them on Twitter.
Even if I hadn't agreed to this it would be a no brainer. If you found your friend talking shit about you they wouldn't be your friend anymore, why would an employer react any different?
I don't know what kind of friends you have, but your employer is not your friend, nor your family.
They are there to exploit your labour for profit, and will only ever defend themselves, never you.(this isn't to say I agree with musk or anything, fuck him and anything he does, and fuck the bigots, they deserve consequences to their actions, but the idea that anyone would defend their boss like they would defend a friend makes me sad and angry and massively frustrated. Those contracts Karlos mentioned are 100% ass covering by a company that is more concerned with its reputation than it is with its employees, which when you consider we live in capitalism is to be expected, but it still seems to escape so so many people - 99% of employers don't give two shits about you, including, and maybe especially, those who are really good at convincing you that they value "loyalty")
I didn't say I think I'm friends with my company but to expect consequences when you get caught talking shit.
expect consequences when you get caught talking shit.
Sure, to a point.
Ever wonder why they never fire the bigot before they go public? The bigots I've met in life have really sucked at keeping their mask on, do you really think their employers (and fellow employees) were oblivious? Or was it only when there was publicity involved and the company feared for their own reputation, rather than the safety of their other employees, that they do something about it?
Yet if you tweet "my boss sucks", it probably won't go viral or get any publicity, but your employer can just as easily fire you for "talking shit" that literally didn't cause harm to anyone.You specified:
If you found your friend talking shit about you
Meaning if the company found you talking shit about it, and the fact that you think your employer can and should have that level of control over your thoughts and actions is actually terrifying.
If I find out my company is a piece of shit I'm leaving, why shouldn't they be allowed to end the arrangement?
im just a bystander to this conversation but it really seems like you saw all those words in that comment and treated them like a fart in the wind, and then just wrote whatever you felt like.
If I find out my company is a piece of shit I'm leaving
that's a really privileged position to be in that billions of others don't have
(don't feel the need to add any more, @viq has it more than covered! 👍)
You're doing great!
@VanillaGorilla
Why should they be able to for reasons not related to my work performance or outright violations of work code? Are we back to feudalism, where a lord can do whatever they like, to whomever they like, on a whim, with no control or consequences? Are rules and consequences only for the little people?
@Moonrise2473 @Karlos_Cantana @DessertStormsI'm not talking about them taking a dislike in you. I'm talking about you talking shit about the company or posting shit against laws or just plain offensive. If nobody can connect your profile to you/your company why should they care. If they can, it's about them as well as it's about you.
At least in my country they can't just fire you without reason. If you are a - for example - racist piece of shit on the internet and it can be tracked back to your company then hell yeah, they should at least give you a warning if not set you free.
If one of my coworkers is making up shit on social media because they are angry about being expected to do their job, and as a result we lose contacts and have to fire a bunch of people, yeah I think that person should 100% get fired. Hyperbole cuts both ways.
Hyperbole cuts both ways.
you're the only one talking about people making up shit
also your language (" because they are angry about being expected to do their job") gives away your agenda instantly and shows just how out of touch and/or brainwashed by corporate media you are.Talk about bad faith lmfao...
I said it was hyperbole. What part of that comparison are you missing?
@VanillaGorilla
Company buys 8h of my time per day. They have no business *knowing*, not to mention having an opinion on what I do with the rest of it.
@Moonrise2473 @Karlos_Cantana @DessertStormsDon't broadcast your feelings toward your boss or company on social media if you don't want them knowing.
Or potential future employers
Does that extend to employer review websites like GlassDoor?