I agree that there are pros and cons to remote work, and that it should be possible to have a frank discussion about where the balance lies.
However, that is sadly irrelevant to this news item, as Musk isn't banning remote work because of any logical consideration of its merits. He's banning remote work because he's an authoritarian micromanager who believes that workers are to be treated like cattle.
> In conversations with 35 current and former Tesla employees, CEO Elon Musk is described as a polarizing figure who inspires but micromanages to an extreme.
HN is full of strong comments like this. A lot worse has been said about many tech people on here (Larry Ellison comes to mind).
Part of the cost of being a public figure and a multibillionaire is that people will talk about you without the same collegial tone that they'd use with their peers.
No, that's why we have labor laws. Being a billionaire doesn't make you a king.
Every company is spending "their own money" to pay employees. It doesn't matter if there are a thousand shareholders or just one. There is still a corporate structure and formal employee relationships. They are employees, not serfs, and they deserve the respect that entails.
Yes, I’m sure a narcissistic egomaniac would never condone or encourage such behaviour, and there’s no bootlicker out there who’d do it for brownie points. Completely unheard of.
Why is it so hard to believe that Musk may kind of be a jerk? Why do you have to deflect and find reasons to throw out evidence, especially when there are piles and piles of it?
Er no. There are both social and legal norms around employment. I’m not saying he’s breaking any laws here, but companies are a certain scale aren’t just the playthings of the boss they exist at the convenience and for the benefit for society at large (ie they are granted the privilege of being a company). That means there are constraints on corporate behaviour.
That doesn't make him immune from criticism or being described as authoritarian. A negative view on an employer may not have an immediate impact but medium to long term it can make hiring and retaining difficult, which can drive up costs.
Just because certain scummy behavior is legal doesn't make it ethical or a good business decision. Given what I have seen of his behavior I want absolutely nothing to do with Elon and his companies, either as a customer or employee, and am sure many others feel the same.
I assume this is a reference to the lawsuits accusing Tesla of racial discrimination, including calling an area staffed with Black workers "The Plantation"
First of all, that isn't the word that racist, slave-owning, plantation-owning population would use. If you are going to make a reference to our sad history in the United States of chattel slavery, use the accurate word. It doesn't do anyone a service to water down the absolute dehumanization the enslaved experienced at the hands of their "owners" (I quote that word to show disdain for the concept of humans owning humans, not to minimize the fact of ownership).
Secondly, you have some gall to compare a CEO setting policies that are well within the confines of labor laws with human slavery. Beyond the absurdity of your comparison, don't forget that Twitter employees literally have the right to walk away. That is the antithesis of slavery.
You are doing your own argument a massive disservice by making such absurd accusations. Instead of arguing on the merits of remote vs. in-person work, you invite an argument on your analogies. This is the same as calling anyone you disagree with politically a Nazi. Not only does it debase the absolute evil practiced by actual Nazis, it ends any chance of effective debate.
I didn't take the comment you are responding to in that way at all (comparing Musk's actions to that of a slave-owner). I believed the OP was reacting to the "it's Musk's money he can treat his employees as he likes" — by way of an analogy that you thought too extreme.
(To be sure, if OP had used the "N-word" I am quite sure there would be much more condemnation though that would have unfortunately then entirely missed the point.)
> I believed the OP was reacting to the "it's Musk's money he can treat his employees as he likes" — by way of an analogy that you thought too extreme.
That is exactly the problem. The analogy was that Musk akin to a plantation owner, and his prerogative vis-à-vis twitter employees (by virtue of being CEO, a position he gained through a takeover with his "money") is akin to the rights plantation owners practiced vis-à-vis slaves on the plantation. This is exactly what the person I replied to implied.
The problem I had was never with whether a CEO has a right to set policies like banning employees from remote work. The problem is that the analogy directly compared employees to slaves. The former have the right to walk away, the latter never did (without risking death). No matter what the antecedent is (CEOs vs. plantation owners) the subsequent is a false likeness (slave vs. employee).
And I agree that using the "n-word" would have probably been flagged immediately. And if it wasn't, it would be the focus of the comment and not the content. My argument is that functionally this is a distinction without a difference. Saying "Negros" may have insulated the poster from the immediate flagging, the thesis of their argument was equally as flawed independent of the words used. Elon Musk is not a slave-owner[1], Twitter employees are not slaves. No amount of hedging could make that analogy accurate.
[1]
Whether the Musk family benefited from de facto slavery within the emerald mining business is a different argument. One that should be discussed, but in the context of exploitation of labor in third-world countries. Furthermore, as others have pointed out in this thread, the treatment of workers in China building Tesla models could be more justifiably argued to be a form of modern-day slavery, as the worker has far less agency to actually quit and still survive. Neither of these points were mentioned in this specific thread, and neither would have much bearing on whether Twitter employees are akin to slaves.
Yeah, sure. Because society and culture does not change and evolve. It's standing still like its 1905 when predatory capitalism was all the rage and people was still angry for loosing all their literal slaves.
At this scale those are not just his "own" money otherwise we are going to have another Nero and Caligula moments again in the future.
During a keynote speech on May 10, Elon Musk commended Tesla factory workers in China for working under conditions that break labor laws in many parts of the world — including those in China, as The Guardian pointed out. The high praise from Elon went out to workers who are being pushed to meet production goals in the middle of pandemic lockdowns, which have been ongoing at the Gigafactory in Shanghai since April. The Tesla CEO went on to compare Chinese workers with their American counterparts, who Musk says lack work ethic he considers impressive and vital for EV companies to succeed.
"There’s just a lot of super talented and hardworking people in China that strongly believe in manufacturing. And they won’t just be burning the midnight oil. They’ll be burning the 3am oil. So they won’t even leave the factory type of thing. Whereas in America, people are trying to avoid going to work at all."
Going by what Musk says, it sure sounds like what they say is true: nobody wants to work anymore. That is, except for workers in China, where conditions enabling Tesla to meet production goals during lockdowns have less to do with burning oil past midnight, and more to do with China’s extreme work culture. Meaning Musk isn’t really praising hardworking people so much as a disregard for labor rules.
During the lockdowns, workers at the Gigafactory reportedly worked 12-hour shifts, six days a week and slept on the floor. Again, that’s not only during recent lockdowns. This is actually common enough to be nicknamed “996.” That’s shorthand for work shifts going from 9am to 9pm, six days a week.
Jerry Pournelle once wrote that "unregulated capitalism will eventually end with human meat sold in market places, and slavery." Seems like Musk and his ultra-libertarian ilk are heading down that same path.
If you knew anything about Pournelle (his books are good, especially his collaborations with Niven), you'd realize he'd be the last to espouse communism. This is someone who arguably came up with the SDI during the Reagan administration.
No, he's advocating for effective, efficient (and limited) government regulation.
I come from the soviet block and I like to see when westerners keep flagging my post for laughing out communist advocates ( they are growing as you see ). My country ( Poland ) was an example for this unregulated capitalism transformation in 90s and I can say, I am glad somebody has tried it. Regarding regulations please see mifid 2 regulation and see how efficient and concise it is ( tousands of pages ). So to all westerners please come to eastern Europe and see these "efficient regulations" - they never are
I don't see how you can so confidently connect labor issues in a Gigafactory to his beliefs surrounding the efficacy of remote work. You still have not addressed this part of your claim:
> He's banning remote work because he's an authoritarian micromanager
You don't know why he's banning remote work, and you're guessing that its the most inflammatory reason you can come up with. You do not know.
We know he's banning remote work, and we know he's an authoritarian micromanager (because he brags about that). What is added to the conversation by quibbling over the precise causative relationship between those two facts?
Really, the idea that there isn't a connection is the less likely option. I think it's on you to prove that, not on others to disprove it. "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."
However, that is sadly irrelevant to this news item, as Musk isn't banning remote work because of any logical consideration of its merits. He's banning remote work because he's an authoritarian micromanager who believes that workers are to be treated like cattle.