Elon Musk Vows to Pay Legal Bills to Battle Employers ‘Unfairly’ Treating Workers Over Twitter Posts

[Magna]

Maybe you tweet about your gay or autistic experience or progressive political thinking, or you're a MAGA fan. Your employer doesn't like it? That's too bad for them. What you do when you're not on the clock is your business, not theirs. They don't get to control your political or sexual or religious, or recreational expression when you are off the clock.

^ There are certainly places in the world where people's political or sexual or religious, or recreational expression is controlled. But...I believe most anyone having a choice wouldn't want to live in such places.

 

[Kalinychta]

If I didn't know better, I'd say his real idol is a fictional character- Charles Foster Cane. - "Rosebud"

Haha! That’s hilarious.

 

[Au Naturel]

Just another fool who thinks their money alone can transcend more than two hundred years of law at the highest levels establishing the might of the private sector as well as the real and practical limits of "free speech".

He's free to make enemies of his peers in the private sector, but I hope he realizes their collective ire against him may amount to more capital and influence than even he has.

If I didn't know better, I'd say his real idol is a fictional character- Charles Foster Cane. - "Rosebud"

To go from a "visionary" to a cartoon character. Sad...

Still a visionary. Yesterday I watched a Falcon 9 go up from Vandenberg from my back yard. 250+ successful launches and one fail. The safest and least expensive in its class by a wide margin. Starship is absolutely visionary in every sense of the word.

Because you don't like some aspects of a person does not make them the failure you wish they were. Musk is autistic and is expressing his traits in a unique fashion, amplified by 150 billion dollars. What baffles me is why anyone cares about his politics. His vision there isn't quite as sharp.

 

[Crossbreed]

Employers combing through social media of their current employees and firing said employees who make comments or "likes" about any number of things that aren't even work related. Explain how such practices are somehow different in practice and principal to the same tactics performed by totalitarian governments. Be careful what we as a society accept as acceptable behaviors.

Good for him if it helps people.

Example and there are endless examples: If I were an employer and an Atheist who accepts LGBT et al and I fired an employee, not for any work related issue but because perhaps I saw on their social media that they were Christian and they posted (on their own time) that they did not support gay marriage. Shame on me as an employer.

That is why I do not use my real name on-line...

When I was working, I never used my real name on-line accept where it was professionally flattering.
That would be

• my Linked-In account &
• my patent.

(I don't even use my real name on Facebook.)

 

[Au Naturel]

Employers combing through social media of their current employees and firing said employees who make comments or "likes" about any number of things that aren't even work related. Explain how such practices are somehow different in practice and principal to the same tactics performed by totalitarian governments. Be careful what we as a society accept as acceptable behaviors.

Good for him if it helps people.

Example and there are endless examples: If I were an employer and an Atheist who accepts LGBT et al and I fired an employee, not for any work related issue but because perhaps I saw on their social media that they were Christian and they posted (on their own time) that they did not support gay marriage. Shame on me as an employer.

Sounds like some very bored employers.

There are states where you can be fired because the boss didn't like your name.

The problem with antidiscrimination laws is that only certain lucky subgroups are protected. There are lots of specious and unjust reasons for firing that a person has no legal protection against.

 

[Outdated]

The problem with antidiscrimination laws is that only certain lucky subgroups are protected.

When complaining about discrimination against homeless people I got a very direct response from the Australian Human Rights Commission:

"This Commission can investigate complaints of discrimination on the grounds of social origin in employment/occupation. Unfortunately, it is not clear that being homeless could arguably be considered to be a social origin."

In layman's terms that says that because homeless people aren't a recognised group then there can be no case of discrimination against homeless people.

 

[Mary Terry]

In the example I gave in my post directly above yours, do you believe employers should have the right to fire an employee based on the employee's ideology or beliefs, whatever they may be if said ideologies or beliefs have nothing to do with the employee's work performance?

Employees typically work at the will of the employer although there are exceptions to that general rule. Employers can fire anyone anytime for any reason or no reason at all. Prospective employers often investigate potential new hires' social media postings and there are some very solid reasons to do so. A smart employer doesn't want to hire incels, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists, etc. because they don't want to burden their companies with the potential liability that can flow from those people.

 

[Magna]

Employees typically work at the will of the employer although there are exceptions to that general rule. Employers can fire anyone anytime for any reason or no reason at all. Prospective employers often investigate potential new hires' social media postings and there are some very solid reasons to do so. A smart employer doesn't want to hire incels, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists, etc. because they don't want to burden their companies with the potential liability that can flow from those people.

Pre-employment screening including perusing social media of applicants, if available, is a common practice. However, once employees are hired, if said employees are effective at doing their jobs, I don't see how it could be viewed as discriminatory for an employer to look at employees' social media they participate in in their non-work hours and fire them for comments, beliefs, statements, etc (that's aren't illegal) because they don't align with corporate beliefs. I know it happens, but it's a shameful affront to a person's autonomy and individuality.

 

[Mary Terry]

Pre-employment screening including perusing social media of applicants, if available, is a common practice. However, once employees are hired, if said employees are effective at doing their jobs, I don't see how it could be viewed as discriminatory for an employer to look at employees' social media they participate in in their non-work hours and fire them for comments, beliefs, statements, etc (that's aren't illegal) because they don't align with corporate beliefs. I know it happens, but it's a shameful affront to a person's autonomy and individuality.

Did you mean to say that you don't believe that it could be viewed as non-discriminatory for an employer to peruse an existing employee's social media?

Just as most private employers have the right to hire and fire whomever they want, an employee has the right to seek other employment that aligns with the employee's beliefs. It is very much a two-way street. Don't like the corporate culture/mentality where one works? Then get another job that suits one's personal beliefs.