> And someone isn't entitled to spit in your face just because they pay you. Respect for people should go both ways, and the view that just because someone is rich, above you in the ladder, you should just shut up and take it, isn't a good one too.
How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate? These people need to get over themselves. Not everything is about them. They're free to leave.
> How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate?
You're asking questions that were answered in the letter:
"Elon’s behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent weeks... As our CEO and most prominent spokesperson, Elon is seen as the face of SpaceX — every Tweet that Elon sends is a de facto public statement by the company. It is critical to make clear to our teams and to our potential talent pool that his messaging does not reflect our work, our mission, or our values."
His behavior devalues their work and denigrates the image of the companies they work for.
Er no, as employees they're also paid partly in stock options (RSUs?). They're literal shareholders in the company, they have a say in how it's run.
And I don't know about you, but many people don't just run away when faced with a difficult situation - they face it head on and try to improve it.
Furthermore, if I spent years of my life contributing to a mission that I believe in, giving a company my best work, I'm not going to just walk away because of the actions of a single entitled individual, no matter how rich he is.
So employees compensated by their employer via stock options are entitled to attempt to sabotage their company’s leadership from within without repercussion?
They're not trying to sabotage anything. They're asking for SpaceX to disassociate itself from statements made by Musk, an individual, which harm the company.
Well yes, they need to get over themselves to the extent that they even thought their letter was appropriate in the first place, and would have no negative consequences for themselves.
It's his organization. Why is that so hard to understand? The leader and some person working there are not the same. If I hired a cleaner and she started posting publicly how shitty my interior design, I would fire this person. It's not what you pay her to do.
I would argue it was a good move. Like I said, its a distraction and completely out of line. Imagine you were managing someone and they think its okay to arbitrarily go above your head and call you out publicly. This is incredibly toxic and not a person living in the real world.
Technically, the organization belongs to a group of shareholders, of which Musk is one. And apparently, Musk is now a minority owner.[1] And as chairman and CEO, Musk has a fiduciary duty to the other owners to act in the best interests of the company. I would argue that he failing to abide by that directive by failing to apply the "no assholes" policy to himself (along with the other points the letter makes), thereby harming recruitment and branding efforts.
Also, you're comparing complaints about the company's double standards with a cleaner complaining about shitty interior design? Do you really think those two things are equivalent?
SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell on Monday said the aerospace company's "no a--hole" work policy ensures everyone is heard and creates space for staff to propose big ideas.
"At SpaceX, we have a 'no a--hole' policy," Shotwell said in a virtual speech to graduates in Northwestern University's 2021 commencement ceremony. "These kinds of people — a--holes — interrupt others, they shut down or co-opt conversation, and they create a hostile environment where no one wants to contribute," Shotwell said. She is also SpaceX's chief operating officer.
Interrupting others stifles innovation and stops people solving difficult problems, Shotwell said.
"In short, the best way to find solutions to hard problems is to listen harder, not talk louder," she said. "Embrace the ideas of your fellow workers, especially when they differ greatly from yours."
> And in the context of SpaceX, how exactly has he been "an asshole"?
Why does it matter whether his actions are in the context of SpaceX? He is associated with his companies (and vice-versa) to a greater extent than probably any other current head of business. Separating Musk from his companies in the minds of the public would be an exercise in futility, and his personal branding and thirst for public attention seem designed to encourage this. Therefore, every public action he takes has an effect on each of his companies, including SpaceX, regardless of whether said action took place "in the context of" those companies.
With that said, here are some of Musk's "greatest hits":
1. The tweet comparing Bill Gates to the pregnant man emoji [1]
2. referring to the guy who rescued the Thai cave divers as a "pedo" [2]
3. committing securities fraud [3]
4. tweeting that he'd start a STEM school called Texas Institute of Technology & Science (aka TITS) in an industry already rife with casual sexism [4]
5. implying that Tesla employees would lose their stock options if they unionized [5]
6. branding Tesla's driver assist technology as "autonomous", implying it requires no human intervention and therefore meets the criteria for full self-driving. [6]
The above actions range from needlessly trollish to outright illegal. One could argue that you don't build multiple billion-dollar companies without being an asshole to some of the people some of the time, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that these are not the actions of an asshole.
> Why does it matter whether his actions are in the context of SpaceX?
Well it does matter, because these people consciously came to work at HIS company.
It's like people that move into a noisy neighbourhood and then start to complain about the noise.
Elon is eccentric, yes he tweets some things that people don't like, but he's also built friggin SpaceX...
Unless he's specifically done something to the people at SpaceX then I really don't think they've got anything to complain about... it smells of entitlement and the outrage culture that's appeared in recent years.
Well, you could say the same about all dictatorships, whether organizations or countries: if you don't like it, leave it (unless you can't, e. g. North Korea). But I think this argument is flawed, to say the least. After all, an employment contract (and labour law in general) acts both ways - it's not a subordination of an employee to an employer.
How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate? These people need to get over themselves. Not everything is about them. They're free to leave.