The billionaire owner and CEO Linda Yaccarino dialed in from out of town, vaguely touting new features that will roll out in the coming months.
There is very little surprising about Elon Musk’s methods of running X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, seemingly into the ground. A year after Musk officially took over the platform, both he and recently installed X CEO Linda Yaccarino held a joint all-hands Thursday to address some of the changes at the company and suggested that X might be a new financial platform.
Neither Musk himself nor Yaccarino showed up, according to a report from Fortune Thursday. The two executives dialed in remotely from Austin and New York City, respectively, citing an anonymous source within the company. Musk and Yaccarino skipping out on an in-person appearance during the all-hands comes after the former demanded employees return to office 40 hours per week last November, according to Insider, in one of his first sweeping changes as owner.
read more: https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-called-in-remotely-to-first-x-all-hands-1850966088
archive link: https://archive.ph/2F2SZ
My boss recently did the same because he “accidentally” schedule his vacation at the same time of our yearly goal setting meeting. Lol.
But fuck me for buying plane tickets for my vacation 6 months in advance when they were on sale and I didn’t have the days approved off. $300 wasted and a giant fuck you a year later. 👍
That’s the thing though. When we schedule those days off, it is more of a friendly notice than a request. I am going, you can’t stop me. If you would rather have to replace an employee and retrain them, be my guest. Its not worth it for them unless you do something easily replaceable.
Exactly! It is not a Time Off Request. It is a Time Off NOTIFICATION.
Yeah. As a manager, I’m often surprised that team members who report to me don’t actually realize this.
Actual conversation I’ve had:
“Thanks for letting me know your time off plans. I have to cover this logistic, but we will work around it.”
“I mean, I can change it if it’s too much trouble.”
“How would your spouse feel about that?”
“Pissed.”
"And if your spouse wanted you to change jobs, how long would that take?
“Oh.”
(Oh meaning - At most, four weeks in an average market for their skillset, more like 3 months in the current unprecedentedly slow market. Either way, it’s hell for me covering their lost expertise and then training their replacement.)
“Yeah. Thanks for letting me know. We will make it work. Tell your spouse I said ‘Hi’ and ‘thanks’ for the early heads up.”
Yeah I wish more people would realize this. If a business can’t afford to give you vacation time, they are even less able to afford losing that employee entirely.
And if push comes to shove, you don’t quit and go on vacation anyways. You go on vacation anyways and let them fire you when you get back if that’s what they’re inclined to do about it.
You are completely misrepresenting the power dynamic between employer and employee. The entire reason unions exist is to attempt to correct that power imbalance.
I agree and disagree. For the average low paying job that doesn’t require any skill or knowledge, a union is the only arguing power you have. However, if you are hard to replace because of skill/knowledge and you know it, the power balances back. You have the power to say no without consequences.
Obviously don’t push it to where the cost of replacing you is worth it for your employer, but you have more power than most realize. Making yourself invaluable only increases your say in how things go. So getting the time you requested off is certainly doable.
I have seen plenty of companies can someone with specialized knowledge, no mater how much you are the only person to know something, you are still less important than your bosses vacation, or the department financing, and this is from tel-co development, where island knowledge is almost the norm
But for taking their requested vacations? I would highly doubt that for specialized employees. It is very costly to replace an employee like that. Unless the employer is an actual idiot (which can certainly be the case) they know they can’t afford to lose you.
If you work for the kind of employer that fires the very critical person for a job without a great reason for doing so, do you really want to stay there? They probably aren’t a great employer.
The point is, if it’s an otherwise good job, and you don’t want to have uproot and move your family to a different state again. If you want stability in your and your family’s life. Maybe it doesn’t make sense to individually attempt to bargain for yourself.
Maybe you bargain collectively with your coworkers, and get better conditions for EVERYBODY. And then you don’t have to move again and force you children to meet new friends. Again.
It bums me out when I see people like you who would be a force of good in a union, then it turns out that they’re 100% just in it for them (not even their family).
first off, they don’t care about “being a good employer” they care about cost optimization, if they can get someone to do the job for cheaper, even if to a significantly lower standard they will do it
This just isn’t how life works in reality, and (no offense, but) unfortunately it’s bullshit anti-union propaganda that you’re pushing whether you realize it or not.
I am in a highly specialized STEM field, and I’m in a union, and that union has been nothing but amazing for myself and my colleagues. In fact, we are in the process of negotiating a great new contract that would never have even been on the table sans union.
Without collective bargaining, everyone is much worse off. You just take what contract they give you or walk. Great way to build a career. Don’t buy the hyper-individualist, “they’ll all just bring you down,” bullshit rhetoric.
There’s a reason management is (nearly) always dead set against it, to the point where they’ll spend millions convincing working class folks to vote against their interests, and it isn’t out of the kindness of their hearts.
I agree, I would rather have a Union.
It’s a common misconception, in most countries the time off you get is a right but not when you get it.
If your boss wants you to take specific days off you must oblige. If they say spread your vacation out over the next 10 Tuesdays that’s the end of it.
I think they’re arguing that unless you make yourself easily replaceable, you don’t have to make it a negotiation. They aren’t arguing the law, they’re just talking power dynamics.
That is exactly what I meant.
But I’m saying it’s not a freindly notice, it is a request and it can be denied and dictated at any time.
Most companies aren’t idiots about it, and I would quit on the spot if my company denied my time off at the last minute, but you don’t know their situation. That’s why we need rights!
Nah, fuck that noise. I’m not a child or a slave. It’s a notice not a request. You don’t get to dictate my time just cause you are paying me to sell you my time. If you’re such a child that you are incapable of doing your job as a manager. Then I didn’t need this job anyway, there are plenty more.
Your point regarding the legalities of the situation wasn’t missed. I agree with you that we need rights, but the point on the other side is while they can indeed say no, they cannot compel you to come in through means other than threatening firing you. They can say no and attempt to intimidate you, but firing and retraining for most non-entry level roles is a lot of work and often not worth the time and effort compared to letting an employee have a week off.
So while it is formally a request, we as employees can present it as an ultimatum and often if you aren’t terrible at your job, the power-tripping boss will realize it is easier for them to acquiesce and let you have your vacation than it is to go through the hiring process.
I see, so the situation is simple. All you need is a good job. Man, why didn’t I think of that.
Why don’t all these people living on the street go home?