huhwat

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.

Unequal enforcement of company policies is not working conditions?

Then more directly, the letter specifically called out unequal enforcement of company policy. That's direct.

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.

The letter specifically called out, eg, unequal enforcement of workplace policies.

> many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies.

Sure sounds like a discussion about workplace policies and enforcement to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course the company says organizing shouldn't happen on company time/resources. Can't be having the workers thinking they could collectively act!

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.

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.

The letter makes that fairly clear. It's more challenging to focus on their mission, reducing opportunities for SpaceX, etc.

Turns out discussing working conditions is one. And a very reasonable argument could be made that this letter is explicitly discussing working conditions.