Space-X wants to be regulated under the Railway Labor Act? [1] They should be careful of what they ask for. Some anti-union activities such as fussing with the bargaining unit definition don't apply under the RLA. Space-X is going to end up as a union shop.
Airlines are under the Railway Labor Act because Congress put them there in 1932, and they are almost totally unionized.
From a linked article from the first linked article:
> SpaceX quickly fired the employees, with President Gwynne Shotwell explaining in an email to the remaining staff that the “letter, solicitations and general process made employees feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied, and/or angry because the letter pressured them to sign onto something that did not reflect their views.”
> “Blanketing thousands of people across the company with repeated unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters and fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day is not acceptable,” Shotwell wrote to SpaceX staff. The fired employees filed charges with the NLRB in November 2022.
Let's set aside whether or not you like Mr. Musk at all. Personally I think saying he's been a "frequent source of embarrassment" is being generous to him. And also set aside whether it is or isn't "like an airline" or whatever. Just to speak of the complaint itself, does it strike anyone else as absurd? If I start circulating messages to thousands of my coworkers that "Mr. CEO is an embarrassment and terrible, sign my petition blah blah blah" I would not think it unfair that that same guy stops signing my paychecks. What am I missing here about US "labor laws"? I know you're protected from retaliation when you are whistleblowing, reporting harassment, etc. -- but these people's problem seems to just be that they hate their CEO (but still claim to want to work for him).
First, this is taking Shotwell’s characterization at face value, that is not a great idea when dealing with a Musk corporation. Musk and his executives lie like other people breathe.
Second, one might believe in a company’s mission or be interested in working in that area without supporting or even liking the owner. Requiring you to like the owner would be disastrous for many if not most industries.
Lastly, how do you imagine unions get formed without communication among employees?
> Approximately one year after eight former SpaceX employees represented by Lieff Cabraser and Burgess Law Offices filed unfair labor practice charges against SpaceX, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has concluded its investigation and issued a complaint against the company alleging 37 separate violations of law. The charges stem from the company’s response to the employees’ letter to SpaceX’s executive team, which expressed concern about allegations of sexual harassment by CEO Elon Musk, and his harmful behavior on Twitter that hurt the company’s reputation, infected the company culture and created a toxic work environment. In response to the employees’ plea for systemic change to correct these concerns, SpaceX launched a campaign of intimidation and coercion: pulling employees into clandestine interrogations by HR, falsely claiming the meetings were attorney-client privileged, and telling employees to keep the meetings a secret even from their managers. SpaceX also fired nine employees for their involvement in the letter.
> The NLRB’s complaint includes 37 separate violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act: 11 for coercive statements, 2 for coercive statements/implied threats, 7 for interrogation, 4 for unlawful instructions, 3 for impression of surveillance, and 10 for retaliation for involvement in protected concerted activity.
The complainants allege they did more than just complain about Elon's personality, and that SpaceX did more than just fire them. I'm not familiar with US labor laws but campaigning for better work conditions sounds union-adjacent.
> Charging Party Deborah Lawrence said: “SpaceX’s ‘mission above all else’ mentality hurts everyone in the organization by allowing people to get away with harmful behavior, including harassment, groping, and physical violence, directed disproportionately at women. The toxic culture has resulted in many hard-working people, who were otherwise highly motivated by the company’s mission, quitting. We wrote the open letter to leadership not out of malice, but because we cared about the mission and the people around us. We believed that SpaceX could be a better place and that you can have a healthy, safe workplace and still reach the stars.”
Caveat that I know very little about these labor relations laws. However from what I gathered from the article some entities like airlines and railroads are regulated differently than normal companies because they provide movement for essential goods. This means it involves more steps to go on strike etc. And now spaceX is considered to be one of those types of companies. As rocketry because more critical for our space infrastructure, I feel like this makes sense.
> As rocketry [becomes] more critical for our space infrastructure, I feel like this makes sense.
The justification for denying workers rights they would otherwise have was the extreme importance of moving essential goods. We're not going to have famines if SpaceX has a month long strike.
> We're not going to have famines if SpaceX has a month long strike.
But Ukrainian soldiers can and will die on the battlefield if Starlink has issues. We already know that it is vital for the Russians because their battle plans fell apart once SpaceX, the US and the Ukrainian government finally introduced a whitelist for terminals allowed to connect on Ukrainian soil. And SpaceX IIRC also operates a separate Starlink system for the US military.
This didn't pose an issue in the past because the DoD ran stuff on its own, no third party companies required... but heh, privatization rules...
There could be a world where mineral supplies are exhausted/inaccessible to the point that extraterrestrial metals are needed to maintain the supply chains we need to feed billions of people.
Edit to say - that's probably a long way off / not likely
for all that elon is quite horrible by times, spacex is a meritocracy (that is hiring), and you have exactly one right in a meritocracy,
which is to work harder and smarter.
I feel that companys must be allowed to set up as meritocracys,(spitballing)for which I would add one twist, that they MUST hire a certain proportion of new people, on a first come first serve basis ie: anyone can give it a go, once.
This is the key passage. That may be true at some point, but it isn't now:
> The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”
> SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.
SpaceX rockets move goods essential to our astronauts, DoD missions, and even our foreign policy via Starlink. I’ll go out on a limb and say you’d be unhappy if Elon cut Ukraine’s Starlink access and restored Russia’s, right?
I believe that SpaceX launches and operates satellites for the Department of Defense, which regards both its communications and surveillance satellites as 'essential goods'.
Good. Otherwise this President Reagan quote comes to mind:
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
This is so completely dishonest and fraudulent, but also completely in line with the kind of corporate bribery and favoritism towards the family and friends and donors and bribers/lobbyers of the Trump administration.
SpaceX is not a mail carrier or common carrier by any means. It is executing contracts for launches. And comparing it to railroads and classifying it similarly is also unethical. Railroad workers have been grossly abused by companies like BNSF, with terrible working conditions and pay and little ability to push back.
Finally, the fact that the Trump administration would apply this to all of SpaceX, including Twitter, is also insane.
Sure historically you could probably take educated guesses with a little homework on PAC donations, etc.. as to how different CEOs voted. And occasionally they took (or more often, they would allow their company PR department to take) stands on the social issues on the day.
But we are in entirely uncharted waters the last 2 years of CEOs going all-in fanboying, actively campaigning for, debasing themselves with political swag, and enabling the grifting of the current administration. In some cases we have wild eyed conspiracy theory posting and accusations of treason/disloyalty/whatever against the other party by said CEOs (and VC bros).
Insanely, many of these CEOs run companies where the US government is one of their main customers. Eventually the parties rotate, and these guys have opened themselves up to a large backlash.
Under US law, the NLRB excludes employers subject to the Railway Labor Act. xAI and X would need their own classification. It does not propagate automatically through ownership or mergers.
Even if you believe that unions are uniformly a bad thing, this instance is a case of abusing the law to reward friends of the administration. SpaceX is not a mail carrier and the law was not intended to apply to it in this way. It's clear that Musk wants help with his union problem, and this is the solution.
> this instance is a case of abusing the law to reward friends of the administration
I don't think this is an interesting take for anyone, but this reminds me of how the nineteenth century American political system was called the spoils system, and this seems like a twenty first century echo of that.
That is a completely apt comparison, especially in light of a recent SCOTUS decisions that allow the president to appoint loyalists to positions previously supposed to be non-partisan.
Space-X wants to be regulated under the Railway Labor Act? [1] They should be careful of what they ask for. Some anti-union activities such as fussing with the bargaining unit definition don't apply under the RLA. Space-X is going to end up as a union shop.
Airlines are under the Railway Labor Act because Congress put them there in 1932, and they are almost totally unionized.
[1] https://nmb.gov/NMB_Application/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/R...
Pretty sure Elon believes in 5-10 years when unionization is a threat, most union-type workers will already be Optimus drones anyway
Pretty sure he doesn’t believe anything of the sort but is coasting from promise to promise to keep the investments rolling in.
To be fair he does enough hallucinogens he may actually believe his own bullsit.
A Union that can't strike is a union in name only.
A work to rule union would probably do more damage to space x than a strike…
From a linked article from the first linked article:
> SpaceX quickly fired the employees, with President Gwynne Shotwell explaining in an email to the remaining staff that the “letter, solicitations and general process made employees feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied, and/or angry because the letter pressured them to sign onto something that did not reflect their views.”
> “Blanketing thousands of people across the company with repeated unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters and fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day is not acceptable,” Shotwell wrote to SpaceX staff. The fired employees filed charges with the NLRB in November 2022.
Let's set aside whether or not you like Mr. Musk at all. Personally I think saying he's been a "frequent source of embarrassment" is being generous to him. And also set aside whether it is or isn't "like an airline" or whatever. Just to speak of the complaint itself, does it strike anyone else as absurd? If I start circulating messages to thousands of my coworkers that "Mr. CEO is an embarrassment and terrible, sign my petition blah blah blah" I would not think it unfair that that same guy stops signing my paychecks. What am I missing here about US "labor laws"? I know you're protected from retaliation when you are whistleblowing, reporting harassment, etc. -- but these people's problem seems to just be that they hate their CEO (but still claim to want to work for him).
First, this is taking Shotwell’s characterization at face value, that is not a great idea when dealing with a Musk corporation. Musk and his executives lie like other people breathe.
Second, one might believe in a company’s mission or be interested in working in that area without supporting or even liking the owner. Requiring you to like the owner would be disastrous for many if not most industries.
Lastly, how do you imagine unions get formed without communication among employees?
> Approximately one year after eight former SpaceX employees represented by Lieff Cabraser and Burgess Law Offices filed unfair labor practice charges against SpaceX, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has concluded its investigation and issued a complaint against the company alleging 37 separate violations of law. The charges stem from the company’s response to the employees’ letter to SpaceX’s executive team, which expressed concern about allegations of sexual harassment by CEO Elon Musk, and his harmful behavior on Twitter that hurt the company’s reputation, infected the company culture and created a toxic work environment. In response to the employees’ plea for systemic change to correct these concerns, SpaceX launched a campaign of intimidation and coercion: pulling employees into clandestine interrogations by HR, falsely claiming the meetings were attorney-client privileged, and telling employees to keep the meetings a secret even from their managers. SpaceX also fired nine employees for their involvement in the letter.
> The NLRB’s complaint includes 37 separate violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act: 11 for coercive statements, 2 for coercive statements/implied threats, 7 for interrogation, 4 for unlawful instructions, 3 for impression of surveillance, and 10 for retaliation for involvement in protected concerted activity.
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/2024/01/lieff-cabraser-and-co-...
The complainants allege they did more than just complain about Elon's personality, and that SpaceX did more than just fire them. I'm not familiar with US labor laws but campaigning for better work conditions sounds union-adjacent.
> Charging Party Deborah Lawrence said: “SpaceX’s ‘mission above all else’ mentality hurts everyone in the organization by allowing people to get away with harmful behavior, including harassment, groping, and physical violence, directed disproportionately at women. The toxic culture has resulted in many hard-working people, who were otherwise highly motivated by the company’s mission, quitting. We wrote the open letter to leadership not out of malice, but because we cared about the mission and the people around us. We believed that SpaceX could be a better place and that you can have a healthy, safe workplace and still reach the stars.”
Caveat that I know very little about these labor relations laws. However from what I gathered from the article some entities like airlines and railroads are regulated differently than normal companies because they provide movement for essential goods. This means it involves more steps to go on strike etc. And now spaceX is considered to be one of those types of companies. As rocketry because more critical for our space infrastructure, I feel like this makes sense.
> As rocketry [becomes] more critical for our space infrastructure, I feel like this makes sense.
The justification for denying workers rights they would otherwise have was the extreme importance of moving essential goods. We're not going to have famines if SpaceX has a month long strike.
> We're not going to have famines if SpaceX has a month long strike.
But Ukrainian soldiers can and will die on the battlefield if Starlink has issues. We already know that it is vital for the Russians because their battle plans fell apart once SpaceX, the US and the Ukrainian government finally introduced a whitelist for terminals allowed to connect on Ukrainian soil. And SpaceX IIRC also operates a separate Starlink system for the US military.
This didn't pose an issue in the past because the DoD ran stuff on its own, no third party companies required... but heh, privatization rules...
There are also paths for the government to deny labor rights for military reasons.
That will come as well, this was just easier to do.
SpaceX is one of the few companies left that China isn't able to copy.
Yet
Not yet, at least not until the space rock mining begins.
Not then either, unless you like eating space rocks.
There could be a world where mineral supplies are exhausted/inaccessible to the point that extraterrestrial metals are needed to maintain the supply chains we need to feed billions of people.
Edit to say - that's probably a long way off / not likely
for all that elon is quite horrible by times, spacex is a meritocracy (that is hiring), and you have exactly one right in a meritocracy, which is to work harder and smarter. I feel that companys must be allowed to set up as meritocracys,(spitballing)for which I would add one twist, that they MUST hire a certain proportion of new people, on a first come first serve basis ie: anyone can give it a go, once.
This is the key passage. That may be true at some point, but it isn't now:
> The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”
> SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.
IIRC, SpaceX and some of their suppliers were considered essential personnel during the early covid lockdowns.
Because they were essential?
Or because SpaceX is run by someone who doesn't care if his workers die, is a Covid denying crank and has connections in the Trump admin?
IIRC, at the time they were the only US option to get people to and from the space station.
Rockets do not move essential goods. This feels like a oligarchy giveaway to Elon more than anything.
SpaceX rockets move goods essential to our astronauts, DoD missions, and even our foreign policy via Starlink. I’ll go out on a limb and say you’d be unhappy if Elon cut Ukraine’s Starlink access and restored Russia’s, right?
I believe that SpaceX launches and operates satellites for the Department of Defense, which regards both its communications and surveillance satellites as 'essential goods'.
Sleep with dogs, wake with fleas.
Good. Otherwise this President Reagan quote comes to mind:
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
What’s the relevance on that quote here?
This is so completely dishonest and fraudulent, but also completely in line with the kind of corporate bribery and favoritism towards the family and friends and donors and bribers/lobbyers of the Trump administration.
SpaceX is not a mail carrier or common carrier by any means. It is executing contracts for launches. And comparing it to railroads and classifying it similarly is also unethical. Railroad workers have been grossly abused by companies like BNSF, with terrible working conditions and pay and little ability to push back.
Finally, the fact that the Trump administration would apply this to all of SpaceX, including Twitter, is also insane.
Just more ammunition to nationalize SpaceX once the wheel turns in the other direction.
I think don't think I've wheel will be allowed to turn.
Yeah I was talking about this with some friends..
Sure historically you could probably take educated guesses with a little homework on PAC donations, etc.. as to how different CEOs voted. And occasionally they took (or more often, they would allow their company PR department to take) stands on the social issues on the day.
But we are in entirely uncharted waters the last 2 years of CEOs going all-in fanboying, actively campaigning for, debasing themselves with political swag, and enabling the grifting of the current administration. In some cases we have wild eyed conspiracy theory posting and accusations of treason/disloyalty/whatever against the other party by said CEOs (and VC bros).
Insanely, many of these CEOs run companies where the US government is one of their main customers. Eventually the parties rotate, and these guys have opened themselves up to a large backlash.
> Eventually the parties rotate
They're counting on this not happening.
The CEOs are responding to the relationship Trump wants. He's a king that likes supplicants who bribe him. The captains of industry then oblige.
Reminder that this now includes xAI and X
No, they would have to qualify as transportation carriers. They are still subject to the NLRB.
No, because they merged with SpaceX. They are not separate entities.
Under US law, the NLRB excludes employers subject to the Railway Labor Act. xAI and X would need their own classification. It does not propagate automatically through ownership or mergers.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nlrb-general-counsel-wants...
https://www.hunton.com/hunton-employment-labor-perspectives/...
They did not merge into a single entity, they continue to be separate entities. SpaceX owns xAI, and xAI in turn owns X.
So? This sounds like a good thing.
If it isn't, then voters should vote for the opposite policy--allowing the airlines to stop working whenever they want.
Even if you believe that unions are uniformly a bad thing, this instance is a case of abusing the law to reward friends of the administration. SpaceX is not a mail carrier and the law was not intended to apply to it in this way. It's clear that Musk wants help with his union problem, and this is the solution.
> this instance is a case of abusing the law to reward friends of the administration
I don't think this is an interesting take for anyone, but this reminds me of how the nineteenth century American political system was called the spoils system, and this seems like a twenty first century echo of that.
That is a completely apt comparison, especially in light of a recent SCOTUS decisions that allow the president to appoint loyalists to positions previously supposed to be non-partisan.