this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023

328 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

34904 readers

638 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

328

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

submitted 1 year ago by mrmanager@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.ml

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year 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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year 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.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year ago

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

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

That would fit with his other companies, sure.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year 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 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I wonder what the common thread is here and at Tesla

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Shocker

[–] JasSmith@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 -17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago

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

[–] athos77@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[+] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe they're paid less because they aren't as good. If you owned a business and you had to choose between a black woman who isn't qualified or a white man who is more qualified, what would you do?

I'm completely unbiased in this topic. All I'm saying is that the most qualified person should get the higher paying jobs. That's how I would run my business. If it just so happens to be a trans black lesbian, then so be it.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

women and minorities who are equally (or sometimes more) qualified regularly get paid less on average than their white male peers. you claim to be unbiased, yet this information is neither new, nor it is uncommon knowledge. still, you continue imply that these people are paid less because they are worth less.

I am, once again, asking you to explain why you believe that’s the case.

[–] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what else to say. I don't look at race and genitals as a qualifying factor in pay.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Yet somehow it never is!

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 year ago

lol

lmao

[–] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 5 points 1 year 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.