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

  •  Karlos_Cantana   ( @Karlos_Cantana@kbin.social ) 
    31•1 year ago

    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.

    •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) 
      37•1 year ago

      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.

          •  conciselyverbose   ( @conciselyverbose@kbin.social ) 
            8•1 year ago

            Going 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.

        •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) 
          4•1 year ago

          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…

            •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) 
              5•1 year ago

              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.

              •  Scary le Poo   ( @Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org ) 
                7•1 year ago

                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.

                •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) 
                  1•1 year ago

                  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

              •  conciselyverbose   ( @conciselyverbose@kbin.social ) 
                6•1 year ago

                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.

      •  GentlemanLoser   ( @GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network ) 
        9•1 year ago

        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

      •  Scary le Poo   ( @Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org ) 
        4•1 year ago

        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.

        •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) 
          3•1 year ago

          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.

      •  DessertStorms   ( @DessertStorms@kbin.social ) 
        14•1 year ago

        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”)