
Musk broke the law with anti-union tweet - AndrewDucker
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/09/tesla-broke-the-law-with-anti-union-efforts-judge-rules/
======
legitster
This is following a UAW complaint from last year:
[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/05/25/uaw-
tesl...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/05/25/uaw-tesla-labor-
complaint-stock-options-musk-tweet.html)

> "Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock
> options for nothing?"

Not to defend Musk, but UAW has never, ever negotiated for stock options as
part of compensation plans. And from the union's perspective, it would be dumb
to fight over stock options over actual money in the hand of its members (in
the form of pensions or healthcare).

This was the bigger deal:

> The judge ruled that Ortiz's firing was illegal. "An employer may not
> terminate an employee for lying in response to questions regarding" union
> organizing, the judge wrote.

This is a good lesson. If someone has a protected legal right, they have the
right to lie about it too. Firing someone for lying about a disability is the
same as firing someone for having a disability.

~~~
leetcrew
> This is a good lesson. If someone has a protected legal right, they have the
> right to lie about it too. Firing someone for lying about a disability is
> the same as firing someone for having a disability.

is it really the same? I could see having a legal protection for "no comment"
but it seems like you should be able to fire anyone who directly lies to you.
if it's illegal to fire people for having a disability, isn't it better just
not to ask in the first place?

~~~
tadfisher
> it seems like you should be able to fire anyone who directly lies to you.

Incorrect, depending on the question asked, the context of the question, the
state of mind of the asker and askee, etc. Firing someone for lying about
activity related to their protected status is making an employment decision
related to their protected status. For another hypothetical, someone may lie
about being transsexual for any number of reasons, and firing them for lying
about it is directly violating the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (or at least our
judiciary's modern interpretation of it).

> if it's illegal to fire people for having a disability, isn't it better just
> not to ask in the first place?

From the employer's perspective, yes. They must make reasonable accommodations
for the employee if asked to do so, but directly asking if someone has a
particular disability is a liability can of worms no matter what the response.
In general, these things are disclosed as part of the onboarding process,
where the employee themselves are asked to volunteer any disabilities which
require accommodation.

------
quirkafleeg3
god i hate elon musk

~~~
dang
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

