330

Lawsuit alleges SpaceX underpays women and minorities (gizmodo.com)

submitted 9 months ago by mrmanager@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.ml

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 9 months ago

It's an Elon company so that checks out..

What doesn't check out is why the government still gave them a new contract between this and Starlink and SpaceX colluding with the Russian military against Ukraine

[-] besbin@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 9 months ago

Cause the US government is just a bunch of corporations under a trench coach. They want to privatize space using public money just like everything else on Earth. If it's not space X then it's gonna be Boeing, Ratheon, Amazon, etc that take that position. The age of public space exploration is closing, be ready for enshittification and exploitation in space.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 3 points 9 months ago

The US government is getting something out of the deal they're not talking about. Probably CALEA-like access to what's going across the Starlink network.

[+] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -7 points 9 months ago

AFAIK, Starlink didn't "collude" with anyone, they just stopped offering free service. I think that was a jerk move, but I doubt there's any kind of political collusion.

[-] firadin@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Turning it off right when Ukraine was about to launch an offensive, definitely no collusion there what a coincidence on the timing.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

My comment was inaccurate, here's a potentially more accurate reason for why Starlink didn't enable access for Ukraine:

Musk was now claiming that at the time of the in-question situation, Starlink access around Crimea was not turned on. The reason was because the U.S. had imposed sanctions on Russia, and SpaceX was not allowed to turn on connectivity in Crimea without explicit government approval. Moreover, Musk said, Ukraine didn't give SpaceX any "advance warning or heads up." He said he got urgent calls from the Ukrainian government in the middle of the night saying that he needed to turn on Starlink access in Crimea.

Basically, Starlink never operated in Crimea due to US sanctions on Russia, and the Ukrainian president made urgent calls to enable it. Musk continues:

He added that although he's not U.S. President Joe Biden's biggest fan, if he had received a presidential directive to turn on Starlink connectivity in Crimea, he would have done so, because he does "regard the president as the chief executive officer of the country." But no such requests came through, he said.

So that sounds reasonable. Starlink never operated in Crimea, and enabling it for Ukraine there could be considered an act of war.

So again, I don't see political collusion here, instead the opposite: Musk didn't want to spark more hostilities.

[-] LemmeLemmeLemmeLemme@sh.itjust.works 22 points 9 months ago

In regards to EAR and ITAR work, the US Federal Government has strict requirements about it being restricted to US Citizens (and maybe green card holders).

I'm no SpaceX fan boy but the mention of the second lawsuit is nuanced.

In regards to this particular article, not surprised but it sucks. I've heard fr9m several past-employees about there being a "good ol boys" club mentality there.

Also, fuck musk.

[-] Chunk@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Is it absolutely a good ol boys club. Like, oh my God it's unbelievable. To be fair, most people aren't like that but they have a shit ton of young, talented, neurotic, male engineers who just graduated college and have been told they are super geniuses. These are not the creme de la creme when it comes to emotional intelligence.

[-] drdabbles@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

That would fit with his other companies, sure.

[-] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 19 points 9 months ago

No, not Elon musk he would never do that. /s

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

It's owned by Elon Musk, who grew up in apartheid South Africa. Now I'm not saying that The two are connected. After all, correlation does not equal causation.

[-] bappity@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

what a surprise
the company owned by a shit person has shit practices

[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

I wonder what the common thread is here and at Tesla

[-] ulkesh@beehaw.org 3 points 9 months ago

Shocker

[-] JasSmith@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Foltz claims that she received a $92,000 annual salary while men with the same duties and qualifications received an annual salary of $115,000.

Foltz also claims that SpaceX uses different job titles for the same position as a way to pay women and minorities less than their white or male counterparts, TechCrunch reported.

This is an empty claim. She didn’t even have the same job titles as the people she was comparing herself against. There are a thousand reasons one person can be paid more than another. Often it’s just negotiating prowess. Often it’s the responsibility of the job title, and the risk and hours that entails. Often it’s tenure at the company, or social skills. Her claim amounts to, “pay me more because I have a vagina.” No.

[+] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -16 points 9 months ago

I believe you should be paid what you're worth. Just because you have a vag or different color skin shouldn't automatically qualify you for more money.

[-] athos77@kbin.social 15 points 9 months ago

When your boss is both a misogynist and a racist, sometimes you need to file a lawsuit to get paid fairly.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 9 months ago

I agree, white men shouldn't be paid more than any other group just because other white men are in charge of hiring.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago

Explain why the people you describe are worth less, as you imply.

[-] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -3 points 9 months ago

I'm not talking about anybody in particular. All I'm saying is that genitals and skin color shouldn't automatically make you equal to the best man/woman in the room.

How is this a controversial take?

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago

You said that people should be paid what they’re worth and then said people with “a vag” or different skin color shouldn’t get more money because of that. It’s well-known that women and minorities get paid significantly less than their white male peers on average.

So, logically, your implication is that women and minorities are paid less because they’re worth less. I’m asking you to explain why you believe that. It’s not that complicated.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago

So the highest paid person in the room is automatically the best, which statistically just happens to be white men? That sure is interesting.

[-] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -5 points 9 months ago

I didn't say anything about skin color or gender.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 months ago

Yes, you are side stepping to avoid acknowledging that women and/or anyone who isn't white tends to make less than their white male colleagues of the same (or worse) qualifications, while simultaneously framing the higher earners (who coincidentally happen to be disproportionately white men) as the "best" people in the room.

[-] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -4 points 9 months ago

I don't believe race or genitals are a qualifying factor in any of this

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You're still doing it, despite multiple people pointing out that someone's pay doesn't mean they are the most qualified.

What lesson are you trying to get people to take away here? Because "gender and race are irrelevant" and "the highest paid people in the room (who happen to mostly be white men) are the most qualified" are exclusive messages. You're also very insistent on casting only women and minorities as getting jobs for reasons other than their qualifications.

Do you think Elon Musk is the most qualified person working at Space X?

[-] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Doing what? 😂 I'm against discrimination. I don't believe anybody should be held to a higher standard because of sex/gender and skin color. How is this a controversial opinion? I don't know how else to say it.

Elon musk is the most qualified boss of space x. He created it, he funded it, he leads it and they are doing great things. It's his business and he can run it how he sees fit. What's the problem there? I feel like I'm talking circles here.

[-] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 months ago

lol

lmao

[-] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

Yes but I am king, I consider you worth -1000, now you owe. Conform to me and stop your nonsense about it. I won't hear any other complaints about what you think you are worth just because you have a penis, I am king.

this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023

330 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

33711 readers

571 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml