[zozbot234]

> That's pretty far into the protected category of talking about improving workplace conditions.

You can't use "talking about improving workplace conditions" as an excuse for creating a hostile work environment by harassing your coworkers (BTW, sending unsolicited emails can very much be harassment). The NLRB has specifically ruled about this as part of the Google-James Damore case.

[chipotle_coyote]

The NLRB's ruling in that case was, and I'm quoting the NLBR general counsel (as quoted in the reporting by The Verge),

> while some parts of Damore’s memo were legally protected by workplace regulations, “the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.”

They didn't rule he was creating a hostile work environment by "sending unsolicited emails"; they ruled that the memo contained statements that were "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment." This just doesn't apply here -- Damore's strongest argument was that he was discussing working conditions, but the arguments in his actual memo about "women's heightened neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution" were the problem.

In this SpaceX case, they were very clearly discussing working conditions in a substantial part of the memo, and it's quite possible that is in fact protected speech. What muddies it up is adding the parts about also needing to tell Elon to stop being an ass on Twitter; that's probably not protected.

[zozbot234]

You're of course right that James Damore never sent mass unsolicited emails. However, this doesn't change the fact that unsolicited email is commonly acknowledged as a possible form of harassment and/or cyberbullying. It should go without saying that this might also create a hostile work environment.

[stefan_]

This is bizarre; are you just reciting random terms you picked up somewhere? Of course none of this reaches any level of "harassment" or "cyberbullying".

[zozbot234]

A New York Times article on the matter https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/technology/spacex-employe... seems to imply otherwise: "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".

[stefan_]

You are citing Shotwell, not the Times!

[oarabbus_]

>In this SpaceX case, they were very clearly discussing working conditions in a substantial part of the memo, and it's quite possible that is in fact protected speech. What muddies it up is adding the parts about also needing to tell Elon to stop being an ass on Twitter; that's probably not protected.

Completely agreed - this reads very much like a protected letter about working conditions, up until the authors made a terrible error by citing the primary action item as addressing Elon's twitter behavior, and putting working conditions as the secondary and tertiary demands. IANAL, but it seems like that will give a lot of ammo to SpaceX's lawyers in what would've otherwise been an open and shut retaliation case.

[btilly]

This is a good point. And it is verified by:

https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-...

You can't be fired for wanting to make your workplace better. You can be fired for making it worse for others. Often the same behavior can be seen as either or both. And courts exist to adjudicate these disagreements.

That said, I hate the example. However discussing that would be a derail, so I won't.