It's almost as if Elon is being sued to ensure that he follows through with his obligations, since he's so consistently doesn't. Strange. It's like there is a purpose to the lawsuit.
That's not how lawsuits work. You don't sue someone for something they might do with zero indication that they will. When you buy a company headquartered in California and elect to layoff half of it, you probably know your legal obligations.
The person suing got their termination notification on 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their termination actually entails than you or I do.
Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to laws?
pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things. Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to that level of businessmen without making all the right decisions.
If I may white knight for one of the most powerful men in history for a moment: It's entirely possible that Bezos and his wife just drifted apart over the decades and separated amicably. And half of that fortune was always Mackenzie's from the start, that's how marriage works in the USA.
I mean we don't know anything about the internals of their relationship, and "hitting the news cycle is" I guess just some arbitrary hassle from their point of view. We could suppose that they grew distant, they basically separated, he started a new relationship/affair, and then they formalized the divorce.
Regardless, their money was realistically getting split anyway, so the decision of when to start the affair probably didn't cost him anything.
> Jeff Bezos's decisions about where to stick his weiner cost him tens of billions of dollars.
People are allowed to want to divorce without it being referred to as "where he sticks his weiner". I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on top of this that people just actively ignored.
> People are allowed to want to divorce without it being referred to as "where he sticks his weiner".
No they're not. Getting a divorce doesn't give you the right to control how other people talk about your divorce.
> I think what grosses me out is that revenge porn was laid thickly on top of this that people just actively ignored.
People care about revenge porn because it hurts vulnerable people (i.e. the vast majority of us.) People don't give a shit about revenge porn about people who aren't vulnerable in any way.
Not a fan of Bezos by any means imaginable, but I think that the revenge porn thing that happened to him was the work of a state actor, more exactly of Saudi Arabia.
Not saying that that makes it better, quite the contrary, just that most probably it wasn’t something personal, just a raison d’etat thing.
People try and get out of deals all the time. It's a normal part of business.
Edit: I take it many of you haven't been a part of a company that gets an offer that falls apart later, tried to buy/sell property, etc etc. Deals fall apart constantly, trying to get out of a deal isn't indicative of anything meaningful in and of itself. The only really unusual thing that happened in the Twitter deal was Twitter forcing the consummation.
He waived his ability to do due diligence which is part of the normal business process that allows for backing out of a deal, because he was so confident in buying Twitter. Then he almost immediately tried backing out by claiming that things that would have been found out during the due diligence phase were a surprise to him(bots).
It was forced because he left himself open to the deal being forced which was the idiotic mistake
I think we can take it that you haven’t been part of many businesses that actually had to compete and operate with other businesses with equal leverage. The way a business negotiates when it’s getting bought out due to failing investor goals is a lot different than when the two opposing parties have equivalent leverage
He did not claim that bots were a surprise -- in fact, getting rid of bots was the premise of his offer in the first place. His issue with the bots was that he thought there was evidence that there were far more bots than claimed and Twitter was dodging his requests for info. There are some plausible arguments that even outside due diligence that bot problem would be meaningful, like that it's a materially adverse change.
But that's all beside the point. These kind of antics happen all the time in the business world. The buyer threatens to back out, the seller takes them to court, they settle. LVMH & Tiffany comes to mind as a very recent example: it wasn't a due diligence argument there, either.
This is insane. We don't live in a meritocracy. The idea that someone only gets to that level of wealth and business ownership because they make good decisions or understand the laws or requirements isn't something you can demonstrate with any consistency. Deciding to simply trust that he is correct because of his status is a dangerous game to play.
That is a dangerous Calvinist line of thinking. If someone lies/steals/cheats their way to the top, you’d never notice because you are ascribing virtue to the person solely by their success
It’s a branch of Protestantism, the specific belief of theirs I was referencing was one that can be reduced to believing that the rich are because they are good and god wanted them to be and the poor and destitute are such because they are bad and god is punishing them
Edit: the other poster here has a much better summary, with sources
Just the Protestant Work Ethic, which is pure Calvinism.
> Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other people were damned and nothing could change that since God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person's daily life and deeds, and success in one's worldly endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God's chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930).
> Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990).
> Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930).
This seems like a troll comment, given how disastrously Musk has handled the Twitter acquisition so far, and how many times he's been in trouble over mishandling things at Tesla and SpaceX.
In a drug-induced haze, Elon offered to buy Twitter at a price that was a weed meme and after sobering up, went on a full court press in the media to get out of his deal. It required a absolute shitpounding in the Delaware court of chancery for him to cop to the legal obligations he clearly wasn't aware of.
What on earth has this man done to make you think that he knows his legal obligations?
He doesn't have to know them, he probably has enough management and lawyers on retainer to warn him about stuff like that. It's highly unlikely they haven't warned him about this.
Of course he does. But he tends to just do shit and let his lawyers figure it out later. Speculating from his past behavior, he almost certainly just fired everybody and his lawyers were like "yeah, you can't just do that, you have to do x, y, and z as well". At least this time, it seems that he's going to actually listen to his lawyers and pay out the garden leave.
Ehh, I assume he does when it comes to money. I might have a very low opinion of him but I'm holding out a tiny shred of good faith in him not being an actual lunatic. However unlikely that seems as time goes on.
>In a drug-induced haze, Elon offered to buy Twitter at a price that was a weed meme and after sobering up, went on a full court press in the media to get out of his deal. It required a absolute shitpounding
There's no reason to take your comment seriously when you open like this. You clearly have a bias against the man and you're willing to run with assumptions as facts. Until there is evidence that Twitter was not going to pay for 60 days of employment as required by law, this is a frivolous suit filed out of spite. Otherwise, similar suits would be filed against Stripe, Opendoor, Lyft, and the many other companies that did layoffs recently which are virtually identical to this one.
It is entirely reasonable to exhibit bias against someone who has repeatedly demonstrated gross irresponsibility. If Musk wishes to be taken seriously, then at this point the burden is on him to demonstrate that he deserves to be taken seriously. We are no longer willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt.
It's not at all reasonable to accuse someone of being on drugs when making an offer to buy a billion dollar company just because you don't like them. Stick to facts and you'll have others' support (including mine).
Not to fall into a gossip-rag mess, but Elon Musk was allegedly on acid when he tweeted "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." so this isn't some sort of insane off the wall claim being made here.
He did something similar at Tesla with layoffs that violated the WARN Act. The lawyers filing this case were the lawyers on that case. They've seen this happen before.
I probably like him even less than the average person in this discussion. Believe it or not, it's possible to take a neutral unbiased stance based on facts instead of foaming at the mouth at every opportunity. Even serial killers have lawyers defending them. No one should take me any more or less seriously than anyone else here and just like everyone else here I am entitled to voice my opinion.
It is possible? Amusing coming from the guy that went into a fit over the mention clutches pearls... drugs. I'll take note. As if Musk isn't known for getting high on weed or taking other drugs.
Who said you couldn't voice your opinion? I was pointing out you haven't given anyone any reason to take your post more seriously than the one you insist shouldn't be taken seriously.
> It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal).
That is exactly how lawsuits work. They can be used to get a legal judgement to force a party to Cary out a contract when there is reason to think the other party wouldn’t otherwise comply.
Elon didn't even read the contract that bought the company. He spent the last 6 months in court trying to get out of the contract, not realizing it was ironclad.
He was trying to get out of it because it was a stupid deal at that price, not because he couldn't understand a contract. He was trying to limit the dumb consequences of his dumb impulse.
Failing at that, he might as well lean into it. He's got enough money to make billions of stupid mistakes, and this stupid mistake gave him ownership of his favorite thing. A favorite thing that incidentally gives him leverage against a US government desperate to control social media, a US government who is basically a business partner on every company he has.
He's likely to extract a load of profit out of twitter through that, anyway, we just won't see it because it will show up in his other businesses in the form of contracts, favorable regulation, and favorable legislation.
If a reasonable person can't figure out what has happened in a job contract they can treat the other side as at fault and any competent court sides with them.
Was this incorrect notification process or a lock out? Both are at odds with the job responsibilities and benefits.
This is proper advance notice as long as he pays for 60+ days of employment. There is no law that requires employers to let you do whatever you want with access to company resources for 60 days.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m literally just parroting the very first line of the article:
“Twitter is being sued for not giving employees advance notice of a mass layoff that began in earnest early Friday.”
I don’t think Elon is playing 5d chess. I think he’s being an enormous asshole about what is likely a justifiable thing to do at Twitter if you’re someone with purely capitalistic intentions.
I’m also saying that he’s not being sued for something he might do later as the poster I replied to suggested, he’s being sued for something he’s already done.
Consider: I'm going to sue you to make sure you don't steal my car. Makes sense right? You shouldn't be stealing cars so my lawsuit will be reasonable. I just want to make sure you follow through with what you should do
