Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#111

Post by dreamdu5t »

bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

Why is that disgusting? What's wrong with two people freely working together peacefully?

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#112

Post by x0x0 »

dmix wrote: post #105
olefoo wrote: post #76

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." -Santayana This is yet another iteration of American labor politics. That it involves workers with greater skills than in previous iterations is not germane. The reason that labor unions arose in the first place was that capitalists actively exploited workers. And, guess what? Capitalists still exploit workers, even when the workers tools are laptops and VM…

This is the market reacting to malicious behaviour by large organizations. As far as I can tell, in this situation it seems to be working. The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit. I'd much prefer courts handle this than solving the problem by creating a second problem. Which in your example, the unions themselves eventually become too powerful or negatively effecting the job market and upward…

The court system isn't putting up with it? You must have a liberal definition of punishment, if you expect $300mm to change behavior. If you add a zero it may have an actual impact, but at $300mm it's possible the companies net saved money.

edit: for a (very rough) estimate of how much money google saved, remember that in late 10 they gave their entire staff a 10% raise, effective 1 Jan 11. So if you look at their 2011 10k [2], a very rough underestimate of their comp expenses -- looking at R&D alone -- is $5,162 (numbers in millions). So if 1.1x = 5162, then x = 4692 and that 10% raise cost google $470m. A fine less than the savings of one year of your illicit behavior -- and for just one company! -- discourages behavior exactly how?

[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870352360...

[2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125120...

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#113

Post by dreamdu5t »

There's nothing wrong with "collusion." Collusion is nothing more than free association. Same with "poaching" for that matter. There's nothing wrong with two people agreeing to work for each other. People should be free to negotiate their own agreements.

The arguments for criminalizing such free association are based in sentiment not reason.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#114

Post by cgjaro »

MangezBien wrote: post #28

Is there any recourse for the engineers who weren't directly affected by the collusion but were affected by the indirect effect on the market as a whole?

I highly doubt it, but maybe you can contact the lawyers on the prosecution side and see what they suggest.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#115

Post by cma »

alexqgb wrote: post #82
undata wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

Not convinced this helps the investors either, if the employee is staying within their broader portfolio of companies. Yes, he may cost a bit more, but presumably he's moving to do more valuable and / or productive work, so the uptick in salary should pay for itself several times over.

Let's say all he does is leverage your offer to get a raise at his current job. That raise comes out of investor dividends.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#117

Post by dreamdu5t »

bkeroack wrote: post #98
codezero wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you can walk away, but that's not the point. The point is that if I want to get a better offer, and I seek that at another company, it's not fair to ask my current employer if they're willing to let me take that offer, because they may also not be willing to improve your compensation, so you end up stuck where you are just because your company wants you and you are skilled enough for other companies to want you t…

It's not just that, though. There is a really profound, fundamental mismatch in power between employers and employees: an employee depends upon the employer for the means of basic existence, while the employer does not have the same dependence on any given single employee. That disparity in power means that there must be very strong legal and social constraints on employers to make the labor market reasonably fair an…

Your definition of a "free labor market" is a contradiction in terms. A free labor market is one where people are free to exchange their labor (collusion), not one where a third party decides who gets to exchange what labor and for how much.

Laws against hiring and pricing agreements are interventions in the market. Laws against hiring agreements are not consistent with a free market.

There's nothing wrong with people (employers) making agreements with other people (employers) regarding the things they own (their money).

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#119

Post by dmix »

x0x0 wrote: post #112
dmix wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the market reacting to malicious behaviour by large organizations. As far as I can tell, in this situation it seems to be working. The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit. I'd much prefer courts handle this than solving the problem by creating a second problem. Which in your example, the unions themselves eventually become too powerful or negatively effecting the job market and upward…

The court system isn't putting up with it? You must have a liberal definition of punishment, if you expect $300mm to change behavior. If you add a zero it may have an actual impact, but at $300mm it's possible the companies net saved money. edit: for a (very rough) estimate of how much money google saved, remember that in late 10 they gave their entire staff a 10% raise, effective 1 Jan 11. So if you look at their 20…

Considering it is not a criminal offense and instead a civil one, the only option for the courts is to fine them.

But I actually agree with you, as an alternative to unions the reaction I'd like to see is strengthening the courts ability to punish malicious acts by corporations and have more individual responsibility. As we've seen where banks destroy thousands of peoples lives by purposely gambling their savings away. Or pharma companies mislabeling products every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Largest_Pharmaceutical...

While these cases are much worse than conspiracy to not hire people, I agree settlements aren't always the best solution because it seems to keep happening. There needs to be stricter and real punishment for businesses. One reason is we need to stop protecting those executives directly involved with the conspiracy from being shielded by corporate legal entities, who can easily pay out the fines.

Which is why I agree with the judge the current settlement is insufficient. Unfortunately a greater fine is the courts only option, that is the real problem IMO.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#120

Post by JDShu »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #117
bkeroack wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that, though. There is a really profound, fundamental mismatch in power between employers and employees: an employee depends upon the employer for the means of basic existence, while the employer does not have the same dependence on any given single employee. That disparity in power means that there must be very strong legal and social constraints on employers to make the labor market reasonably fair an…

Your definition of a "free labor market" is a contradiction in terms. A free labor market is one where people are free to exchange their labor (collusion), not one where a third party decides who gets to exchange what labor and for how much. Laws against hiring and pricing agreements are interventions in the market. Laws against hiring agreements are not consistent with a free market. There's nothing wrong with peopl…

As always, wikipedia is a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_law_theory

Post reply on HN