this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
227 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37742 readers
577 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 84 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They aren't 'Tweets' anymore. They are Xcretes.

[–] Michal@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except when they're used in court as evidence, then they're called "xzibits"

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

Yo dawg we heard you like evidence

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 year ago

Xcretions lmao

[–] Xylight@lemmy.xylight.dev 7 points 1 year ago
[–] smellythief@beehaw.org 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

fired employees that criticized him on twitter

I hope one of those employees sues him. And asks him publicly to pay their legal fees.

[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

I am surprised that nobody has sued the former president for those paying out when he said the same thing.

[–] Yepthatsme@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

He’s fishing for fascists.

[–] CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyi 32 points 1 year ago

Dude was forced to buy Twitter because he couldn't stop his big mouth. Seems he hasn't learned. Lmao.

[–] Karlos_Cantana@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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@beehaw.org 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] viq@social.hackerspace.pl 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@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 @prole

[–] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 7 points 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@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

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..

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 8 points 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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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")

[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I didn't say I think I'm friends with my company but to expect consequences when you get caught talking shit.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blunderworld@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ive defended these musk posts in the past, but sorry... This story has nothing at all to do with technology.

[–] terny@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Be liberal with your filters. I for one, am now filtering this, I'm tired of musk showing up in my feed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 19 points 1 year ago

Does Trump's "Will be wild!" tweet count? He got impeached and now has 4 felony counts in relation to that one... I'm sure he'd LOVE to stick someone else with the bill for it...

[–] YMS@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

What will people do? Sue him to provide the promised legal funds they need to sue their employers?

[–] totallynotfbi@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, this has nothing to do with technology. It's a useless article anyway, because it doesn't seem to actually say what his tweet said...

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technology doesn't exist in a void, and pretending it does is how we get Wernher von Brauns.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] binaryphile@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Musk fighting at-will employment now. How socialist of him. /s

[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

Not sure how this relate to "Technology".

[–] Hyggyldy@sffa.community 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Lauded or applauded. Plauded is wordn't.

Edit: I am rightn't.

load more comments
view more: next ›