This feels like something that's nice to say, but the semantics and details of it will end up not amounting to much.
But, if even one big case makes waves from it it'll put a significant amount of hesitation in all future possibilities of this happening. So I'll hope he can make it work for at least one, which I feel he will just for the applause and attention.
I thought that as well, but Musk also said that he'd not just help sue the company, but go after the board of directors as well. It seems that he means business.
He does not even need to fund every case. There is an old Chinese saying: "Execute one to deter a hundred others". That's why the backlash against Bud Light is so great, not because it's significant per se.
One such idiom is "kill a chicken to scare the monkeys"- make an example. Take a scalp like what happened to Budweiser and watch all the other companies recoil in fear even during the peak of Pri[de mon]th.
It's just big talk. There's no way XX_LiteralNobody420_XX is going to get Elon Musk to pay his legal bill after getting fired from Panda Express for liking a tweet.
And besides, even if people were fired for Tweet liking, HR is in the business of hiding that stuff like it's crown jewels. Employee fired for something they did on twitter, everyone knows they did, everyone knows why they were fired, but there simply won't be smoking gun evidence of "fire this man for Twitter behavior." Even lazy wine-drunk leftist HR departments do that much correctly.
Yeah I thought this was bizarre primarily because in most states you can be fired for any reason. It's legal to fire people for liking Tweets. He could be thinking from a California mindset though. There is a statute in California that you can't be fired for your political beliefs.
And besides, even if people were fired for Tweet liking, HR is in the business of hiding that stuff like it's crown jewels.
Odds are you are violating some HR policy at work without even knowing it. 15 years ago it was internet use. Everyone spent all day on Facebook and EBay and the company never cared. Until they decided that they wanted to fire you for cause and then they have your browsing logs for the entire time you worked there to use against you. It didn't matter that everyone else was doing it.
I imagine everyone just uses their phone for web browsing now, so computer misuse is probably out of fashion as the de facto "misconduct" used to fire people. I'm sure they've got something new though.
Maybe this is a a way to open the door to Elon becoming a partner on these cases, creating precedent and then using it to start deformation lawsuits against companies using Twitter/X posts as a reason for dismissal when it doesn't relate to their profession.
It's a stretch but I can imagine a team of lawyers planning a trap like this.
I always wondered why this tactic wasn't taken more often, both in firings, but also when getting canceled by Big Tech or banks. Yes in plenty of those cases HR is smart enough there was no reason beyond performance given, but a lot of times especially with public figures, we'd get an official statement along the lines of "We have been forced to let X go because we don't support hate and we won't employ racist cunts"... basically. I also think they released public statements giving a BS reason for high profile bans like Trump on Twitter and Apple. They should be forced to prove in a court that the person committed the "crime" they alleged.
This blurring of the lines between hyperspace and meatspace has been a problem since the advent of social media.
Not sure if it will go anywhere, as "unfairly" sounds nebulous, but it'd be great if this behavior was stamped out. The attitude comes off as though employers own their employees, or some egregious version of the far-left terminally online mobs trying to make them responsible for their employees' actions when not on the job.
This might be a total clusterfuck. I can see some good that could come of it, but not enough for the avalanche of cases with dumb shit people end up posting about online that got them in trouble.
A lot of people seem to be missing the word 'unfairly'.
Musk will decide if you were punished unfairly, which precludes your belief that there will be a lot of cases with 'stupid shit' - unless Musk disagrees with that qualificaton.
Lawfare is one of the few socially acceptable and effective mechanisms we have in this country to fight against the zombies. So it's no surprise that Republicans never did anything with it. Great move by Elon though.
This feels like something that's nice to say, but the semantics and details of it will end up not amounting to much.
But, if even one big case makes waves from it it'll put a significant amount of hesitation in all future possibilities of this happening. So I'll hope he can make it work for at least one, which I feel he will just for the applause and attention.
I thought that as well, but Musk also said that he'd not just help sue the company, but go after the board of directors as well. It seems that he means business.
He does not even need to fund every case. There is an old Chinese saying: "Execute one to deter a hundred others". That's why the backlash against Bud Light is so great, not because it's significant per se.
One such idiom is "kill a chicken to scare the monkeys"- make an example. Take a scalp like what happened to Budweiser and watch all the other companies recoil in fear even during the peak of Pri[de mon]th.
It's just big talk. There's no way XX_LiteralNobody420_XX is going to get Elon Musk to pay his legal bill after getting fired from Panda Express for liking a tweet.
And besides, even if people were fired for Tweet liking, HR is in the business of hiding that stuff like it's crown jewels. Employee fired for something they did on twitter, everyone knows they did, everyone knows why they were fired, but there simply won't be smoking gun evidence of "fire this man for Twitter behavior." Even lazy wine-drunk leftist HR departments do that much correctly.
Yeah I thought this was bizarre primarily because in most states you can be fired for any reason. It's legal to fire people for liking Tweets. He could be thinking from a California mindset though. There is a statute in California that you can't be fired for your political beliefs.
Odds are you are violating some HR policy at work without even knowing it. 15 years ago it was internet use. Everyone spent all day on Facebook and EBay and the company never cared. Until they decided that they wanted to fire you for cause and then they have your browsing logs for the entire time you worked there to use against you. It didn't matter that everyone else was doing it.
I imagine everyone just uses their phone for web browsing now, so computer misuse is probably out of fashion as the de facto "misconduct" used to fire people. I'm sure they've got something new though.
People should never have fallen for the "attach your real name to your account" trap.
Maybe this is a a way to open the door to Elon becoming a partner on these cases, creating precedent and then using it to start deformation lawsuits against companies using Twitter/X posts as a reason for dismissal when it doesn't relate to their profession.
It's a stretch but I can imagine a team of lawyers planning a trap like this.
I always wondered why this tactic wasn't taken more often, both in firings, but also when getting canceled by Big Tech or banks. Yes in plenty of those cases HR is smart enough there was no reason beyond performance given, but a lot of times especially with public figures, we'd get an official statement along the lines of "We have been forced to let X go because we don't support hate and we won't employ racist cunts"... basically. I also think they released public statements giving a BS reason for high profile bans like Trump on Twitter and Apple. They should be forced to prove in a court that the person committed the "crime" they alleged.
This will help you to imagine it more clearly.
This blurring of the lines between hyperspace and meatspace has been a problem since the advent of social media.
Not sure if it will go anywhere, as "unfairly" sounds nebulous, but it'd be great if this behavior was stamped out. The attitude comes off as though employers own their employees, or some egregious version of the far-left terminally online mobs trying to make them responsible for their employees' actions when not on the job.
Big if true.
This might be a total clusterfuck. I can see some good that could come of it, but not enough for the avalanche of cases with dumb shit people end up posting about online that got them in trouble.
A lot of people seem to be missing the word 'unfairly'.
Musk will decide if you were punished unfairly, which precludes your belief that there will be a lot of cases with 'stupid shit' - unless Musk disagrees with that qualificaton.
Musk knows what the ideology begets, he came from a nation of such ideologies after all. Makes sense he'd fund it.
He should put in a clause to exclude people that have already publicly bent the knee, admitted to wrong-think and groveled for forgiveness.
They deserve their continued soy armed virtual wedgies.
Lawfare is one of the few socially acceptable and effective mechanisms we have in this country to fight against the zombies. So it's no surprise that Republicans never did anything with it. Great move by Elon though.