[HN Gopher] SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX is suing to bust up federal union protections
Author : cdme
Score : 35 points
Date : 2024-01-04 22:11 UTC (50 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| el-dude-arino wrote:
| 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.
| PM_me_your_math wrote:
| Unions are cancer. This isn't the late 19th century anymore.
| Unions do very little but enrich themselves and exert political
| power.
| kibwen wrote:
| I'll happily get rid of unions once we also get rid of
| corporations ruled by wannabe-dictators. Until then, unions
| are a necessary counterbalancing force to keep executive
| behavior in check.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Exactly. And, just like governments, they themselves need
| checks and balances more than anything. However groups of
| people organizing for collective power is difficult to
| argue with, imo.
| BudaDude wrote:
| Sounds like those Walmart propaganda training videos got to
| you. I suggest doing your research on what unions are doing
| in the 21st century to protect employees.
| standardUser wrote:
| > This isn't the late 19th century anymore.
|
| Nope, it's the early 21st century, and inequality in the
| country is higher than it's been since the Gilded Age. Not
| exactly a comparison we should want to be making. And the
| trajectory is still moving primarily in the wrong direction.
| legitster wrote:
| It's not actually clear that Musk was involved in this at all.
|
| By all accounts, he has not really been present at the day-to-
| day operations of SpaceX in years.
| JaceLightning wrote:
| Title is misleading. Has nothing to do with union protections.
|
| Sounds like a strong case. Why should companies be forced to
| employ people who actively work to harm the reputation of said
| company?
| standardUser wrote:
| Some people think it's ok for employers to be mini-dictators.
| Most people, for example those who need to work for a living,
| do not.
|
| But however you slice it, is is absolutely one-hundred percent
| a labor rights issue.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> Why should companies be forced to employ people who actively
| work to harm the reputation of said company?_
|
| The irony being that the content of the letter is in regards to
| Elon Musk's work to actively harm the reputation of said
| company. By this token, why should employees be forced to work
| under petulant, capricious, myopic executives who undermine the
| efforts of the people with boots on the ground who do all the
| actual work?
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| Because unlike what "Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand says, checks and
| balances on positions of power is usually a socially good
| thing.
| yuliyp wrote:
| > Has nothing to do with union protections.
|
| Preventing employer retaliation for discussing the conditions
| of employment are a pretty significant part of the protections
| around unions. An open letter discussing the conduct of the CEO
| falls under discussion of the conditions of employment.
|
| There are limits to what companies can do to try and prevent
| unions from forming. SpaceX is claiming that those restrictions
| and the way in which they're enforced by the NLRB are
| unconstitutional. Seems pretty fair to characterize that as
| something which would bust up some federal union protections.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| You're right about the outcome SpaceX is seeking. But the
| critical thing you're missing is the _argument_ they are making
| against NLRB. The legal arguments aren 't really about the
| specific facts of the case but, rather, about constitutional
| issues that go to the heart of how NLRB adjudicates labor
| disputes. From the article:
|
| > 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.
| flerchin wrote:
| 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?
| kevingadd wrote:
| How is collectively criticizing your boss and requesting a
| better work environment not a labor action?
| legitster wrote:
| > 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, and several
| other regulatory agencies. If you get charged of a crime by a
| public prosecutor, you get the ability to argue the facts in
| front of a court of law. If you get charged of a crime by a
| regulatory agency - you don't even get to argue the facts.
|
| I... might kinda side with SpaceX on this one? I am not trying to
| die on a corporate rights hill, and not that I think SpaceX is
| innocent of the charges, but it does seem like they should at
| least be able to argue the factualness of the crime they are
| being charged with? This does seem like something that should be
| done by the justice department.
|
| Still, it's almost surely going to get thrown out. They are
| trying to turn a NLRB infraction into a Constitutional law case
| in a hail-Mary attempt that it would get escalated to the Supreme
| Court.
| kevingadd wrote:
| 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
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-04 23:02 UTC)