[rkochman]

“The other signatories, a majority of whom were engineers, declined to publicly disclose their names because they did not want to jeopardize employment at Blue Origin or harm their prospects in the aerospace industry for other jobs.”

That’s not how signing works.

[tehjoker]

It's what happens when there aren't enough colleagues willing to also sign. Once a majority are willing to sign, it's a lot easier to make your name public. Unfortunately, prior to that point there is a ding you take on credibility. However, it's pretty odd for employees to want their company to get criticized like this unless it deserves it. Why start something unless its real when the consequences are fighting the first or second richest man in the world?

[nsoxo]

Or maybe they just disagree?

[tehjoker]

Possible, but unlikely. Usually when workers speak up they're the tip of the iceberg. This is different from e.g. celebrities because when they say something, they get attention, adulation, sell shit etc. When workers speak up, they are risking mostly negative consequences and so most speech is repressed.

[staysafeanon]

"It's so toxic there that I will virtue signal by non-publically signing an essay, but not toxic enough to pen my name openly and quit."

[prepend]

My organization had an “open letter” published that claimed hundreds of signatories but wouldn’t disclose the signatures due to fear of reprisal.

I’m not sure how effective this can be as the whole point of names signed is that they are real. A claim of signatures is not very useful.

Cynically, every time I see a “secret list of signers” I just figure the number is zero or a bazillion as it doesn’t matter.

It’s like Nixon’s “silent majority” of supporters.

[philwelch]

> It’s like Nixon’s “silent majority” of supporters.

The term "silent majority" referred to people in the 1968 and 1972 elections who held moderate-to-conservative views that weren't represented in the mass protests and domestic terrorism of the time. Considering that Nixon won both presidential elections--1972 in an utter landslide--it turned out that the "silent majority" actually existed--quite unlike these anonymous signatories.

[kelnos]

I get what you are saying, but then what is the solution for people who have legitimate complaints, but fear reprisal if they don't remain anonymous?

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to go up against their employer without repercussions that are worse than the original complaint. But that doesn't mean people should just have to suck it up and put up with unjust (and perhaps illegal) behavior.

[angelzen]

"This org is kind of shitty. Sadly, I need to move on.". That's what the vast majority of people do. Unless there are clearly illegal acts, say withholding pay or physical endangerment, not sure why people would want to pick a public fight with their employer. It's a lose-lose proposition.

[prepend]

I think the solution is to not make unverifiable claims. Just write a letter and have it stand on its merits.

If I can’t disclose the identity of 21 people and have no way of verifying that 21 people did someone, I can just not mention that part.

[bumby]

"Fear of reprisal" is one of the primary measures of a toxic culture. But I get what you're saying about it almost being an unfalsifiable claim.

[WalterBright]

It seems odd to me that highly skilled aerospace engineers would have any trouble finding other jobs if they were unhappy at Blue Origin.

[gameswithgo]

They have very rare skills, but also live in a small pool employers as well.

[AlwaysRock]

Exactly this. You can be the best Physical Security - Spacecraft Engineer (making up a title obviously) on the planet who can make sure no unauthorized entities get into a spacecraft but if you piss off the 5 people who run spacecraft companies you will be unemployed.

[WalterBright]

Oh phooey. Expertise like that is very transferable. I didn't have any trouble transitioning from being an aerospace gearbox expert to writing software and then compilers.

[_moof]

Ok. And if you don't want to write compilers?

Not everyone wants to make a career change, especially not folks in the space business.

[WalterBright]

If you decide that you only want to work in a very narrow niche that only exists in one company, it's a prison of your own making. Not the company's.

P.S. I was also offered a position at Sikorsky working on helicopter designs.

[bumby]

My experience agrees with the OP. Aerospace is sometimes considered a subset of mechanical engineering which is a very broad field that can be applied across many domains.

Now if you've spent your career in a very narrow subset of that field and not developed transferrable skills along the way, I'm not sure the fault is entirely the employer's.

[AlwaysRock]

Right. I have a skill set from a previous job that I don't use anymore. I could get hired tomorrow to do that job again but I have no interest in it. I guess if we are saying highly skilled people can find another job then I agree but that wasnt the argument.

[heavyset_go]

It's a small world, and painting a target on your back for employers when you need to work to feed your family and see a doctor might not be the best decision for those people at the moment.

I might agree with you if they were better organized and had more leverage. But right now, they aren't and they don't.

[_moof]

Spaceflight is an extremely small world. You will absolutely work with the same people at multiple companies.

[WalterBright]

400,000 people worked on the Apollo program.

[_moof]

Thank you for that statistic from 50 years ago. I'm talking about today. Companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX, etc. are basically a rotating pool. I have personally wound up working alongside several coworkers from previous jobs, and none of us were referrals. It's such a common experience that it's become something of a running joke.

[bumby]

It's only a rotating pool because people want to stay in aerospace. Many of those engineers can transfer to other fields if they really had the desire. They could work in automotive, energy, oil and gas, etc. I assume they either like aerospace or don't feel comfortable enough to branch out to other domains.

Aerospace is one of those fields where many people feel like they are moving backwards if they leave because of the status/prestige attached to it.

[kelnos]

If our job-field selection process has to include "field where most companies in it aren't toxic" as a major factor, that's... not a good sign. I don't think it'd be a good result if people had to leave their field and move to another one because the culture at most companies in their field is toxic.

[WalterBright]

By saying it's a "rotating pool", that implicitly means people aren't trapped at their existing job.

[kelnos]

The issue isn't that people are trapped at their current job (though some people may also feel that way, who knows), it's that if they stand up against poor treatment at their current job, the other companies in the field won't hire them.

Sure, another option is to not say anything at all, and just quietly quit and go to another company, but that doesn't really solve the problem; it just makes it someone else's problem.

And if the pool of companies is small enough, you also run the risk of these bad behaviors cropping up everywhere, with nowhere else to go.

[_moof]

Walter, respectfully, I can see that you aren't interested in trying to actually understand what I'm saying, or acknowledging that things might have changed since you graduated, or respecting that someone who has worked for multiple launch providers might actually know something about them. That being the case, I'm going to end our discussion here.

[tehjoker]

When funding was much higher for space, amounting to percentage points of GDP but still in a small number of organizations.

[bserge]

"Overqualified".

[Invictus0]

> "In 2019, Blue Origin leadership requested that all employees sign new contracts with a non-disparagement clause binding them and their heirs from ever saying something that would 'hurt the goodwill of the company,'" the essay authors write. "Contracts for some departing employees now mandated they pay the corporation’s legal fees if the corporation chose to sue them for breach of contract. The inner circle of leadership tracked who signed and discussed contingency plans for those who did not."

They signed non-disparagement contracts.

[jaytaylor]

> Defamation is essentially, “Don't make up bad things about us to hurt us,” while disparagement is, “Don't say bad things about us—even if they're true.” So, yes, even if your happy-hour venting session or LinkedIn post references something totally true and not malicious, it's still considered disparagement.

[no_butterscotch]

> all employees sign new contracts with a non-disparagement clause binding them and their heirs from ever saying something

uh what? their heirs?

How is that even enforceable?

[Sanguinaire]

I suppose a parent might be held responsible for their kids below a certain age - and getting pissy about what a 15 year old is saying on their Twitch stream is totally in keeping with my experience of Bezos' corporate PR.

That said, this should be laughed out of court regardless of the age of the "heirs". In Europe you could reasonably expect that to happen with minimal bother, but in the US I expect the employee would end up paying a six figure sum for the privilege of getting the case thrown out.

[belval]

Can you actually bind the heirs? How would that work?

[LaundroMat]

Are such things enforceable in court?

[codezero]

Doesn’t need to be, the company has more money than the individual, so the threat remains tangible to many.

[LaundroMat]

I understand that, but I still wonder if it is.

[rpgmaker]

Reminds me of those journalists who penned a letter against censorship but used a pen name to sign it lol.