Brent E. Zepke
California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-Oceanside, recently tweeted that she stood by her tweeting “F— Elon Musk” on May 9, 2020. She continued in that tweet with “California has highly subsidized a company that has always disregarded worker safety and well-being, has engaged in union busting and bullies’ public servants,” before adding “I probably could’ve expressed my frustration in a less aggressive way. Of course, no one would’ve cared if I tweeted that.”
“F— Elon Musk” reminded me of how threatened my wife and I, both senior citizens, felt as we inched through Santa Barbara during a peaceful pre-election car rally with many red-faced people running towards our convertible screaming “F— Trump.” Imagine how Mr. Musk felt when a member of the California Assembly not only tweeted it but even after having a year to reflect on her actions, repeated it.
Ms. Gonzalez’s opening salvo had to insult Mr. Musk. Her words, and her retweet a year later, instead of an apology, reflects on her character as an elected representative to the California state assembly.
With that beginning, Ms. Gonzalez’s tweet connects her allegations to a company Mr. Musk founded and runs: Tesla.
What were state Assemblywoman Gonzalez’s intentions?
Elon Musk is, among other things, the founder and head of revolutionary auto manufacturer Tesla, that the other lawmakers in California value so highly that they offer special tax incentives to buyers. Tesla employes approximately 57,000 people at their Fremont facility.
Despite Ms. Gonzalez’s district being hundreds of miles from Fremont, her tweet indicates that she had some knowledge of their operations. If her intent was to correct her alleged injustices: she failed.
The authorized way is to file a complaint with the appropriate California agency, as will be discussed below.
“Safety & well-being” is confusing as the phrase “well-being” has no meaning in the law. Complaints about “safety & health” in the workplace can be filed with Cal OSHA, a state agency certified by federal OSHA, who certified to administer OSHA in California.
Trials by an administrative law judge are available to review potential misapplications of the law. An example is when I represented General Motors (GM) in a Cal OSHA charge of “unsafe flooring” in their Fremont facility. When I discovered that there was only one loose tile in a floor of a million square feet, I asked GM “what is this really about?”
The response was “This is the ninth frivolous complaint this year by our unions using Cal OSHA to harass us. This time GM wants to actually try this case in order to end the harassment.”
At the trial the administrative law judge refused to permit me to call as a witness the federal OSHA employee who had approved the certification of Cal OSHA. When I said I would appeal, the judge knew his bias ruling would be exposed and he dismissed the case. Apparently, our message was understood as the harassment ended. GM eventually stopped manufacturing at the Fremont facility.
“Union busting” is regulated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which handles complaints about union-management issues as is discussed in my book Labor Relations (Littlefield, Adams). Trials are before an administrative law judge.
“Bullies public servants” is the reverse of the tweet where public servant Gonzalez appears to trying to intimidate private citizen Mr. Musk. Imagine the volume of the response if Mr. Musk tweeted” F— Gonzalez,” followed by a string of accusations and an admission of “No one would’ve cared if I had tweeted that” indicating her tweets were done for publicity. \
Yet the reaction of other public servants to Ms. Gonzalez’s tweet was reminiscent of the Simon and Garfunkel’s song “The Sound of Silence” from the party whose U.S. Attorney General declared parents who speak to school boards as “terrorists.”
Since Ms. Gonzalez’s tweet was ineffective at addressing her allegations, was it effective at insulting Elon Musk? A hint as to how Mr. Musk felt about Ms. Gonzalez’s tweet was contained in a recent article from Tesla’s news website entitled “Tesla moved its HQ to Texas following explicit offer (interesting way to describe her words) from California assemblywoman.” Mr. Musk replied, “Exactly.” A rough comparison could be when New York congresswoman AOC was openly hostile towards Amazon, they switched their new facility away from her district and the state.
If it was not the intent of Assemblywoman Gonzalez to contribute to the reasons for Mr. Musk and Tesla to leave California, she should have considered the saying “Think twice, the impression is not always the intention” (Ezekiel). Since her tweets Mr. Musk, one of the 1% who pay 37% of federal taxes and a large proportion of California taxes, has moved to Texas and only one of the following proposed Tesla facilities is in California. Others are:
— In Shanghai, China, with an undetermined number of employees
— In Berlin Germany, with 10,000 employees
— In Austin, Texas, with 10,000 employees
— A tentative one for 2,022 in Lathrop, Calif.
Mr. Musk’s “Exactly” spoken in response to a Q&A in a publication he controlled is a hint of his exasperation with the tweet and the attitude indicated by the lack of criticism by public servants or the media. Mr. Musk has noted that today his Fremont is the only remaining vehicle manufacturing facility in California, and his aerospace facility the only remaining one manufacturing aerospace vehicles.
Ms. Gonzalez tweeted “I probably could’ve expressed my frustrations in a less aggressive way.” Of course, no one would’ve cared if I tweeted that.” She achieved her intentions of at least Mr. Musk “caring” as may the taxpayers of California long after she is no longer in office.
Brent E. Zepke is an attorney, arbitrator and author who lives in Santa Barbara. Formerly he taught at six universities and numerous professional conferences. He is the author of six books: “One Heart-Two Lives,” “Legal Guide to Human Resources,” “Business Statistics,” “Labor Law,” “Products and the Consumer,” and “Law for Non-Lawyers.”
The author lives in Santa Barbara.
