Live data from Hacker News

Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

reuters.com

121–130 of 180 posts

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

#121

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…

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

If you ever own a business, you deserve for it to fail.

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

#122
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm familiar with anti-trust theory. The idea of collusion reducing competition is fallacious because market competition is not a quantity, but a process by which goods and services are exchanged.

Price fixing and hiring agreements do not involve force, fraud, or misrepresentation- yet the regulation or prohibition thereof directly violates the property rights of the market participants.

I've read the Wikipedia entry you've linked to in its entirety, so I kindly ask that you will read this one: https://mises.org/daily/4397

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

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that's a good idea but in the context of this story... Who lives in this ultra expensive real estate? The execs stiffing the developers on pay while making bank on their work.

My point is that it is not the execs fault for it being expensive. There is an artificial limit on supply. If supply is kept low, the producers (the landlords) usually benefit at the expense of poorer consumers.

I agree with the real estate issue.

My point is that people CAN afford to live in these places and those people built their fortunes on the back of a labor supply with artificially suppressed wages.

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

#124
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

Seems taken out of context. In a [post] on his blog Horowitz describes a scenario in which a person currently employed at a company that is "important" to you comes in for an interview. The recommended course of action is to 1: block the hire, 2: inform said company about it. There are two things i just can't agree with at all: * The part about informing the current employer: about 50% of the time it will end with ru…

You are taking it out of context, though. BH is basically talking about an issue that could kill your startup. Whether or not you like that reality, there is a real risk that the other company will retaliate for something they see as an adverse breech of trust.

Note that logic: the problem is not with the company ben is advising. The issue is at the third part company. If that company decides to "go nuclear" and sever all ties because you poached/goaded or otherwise got involved in their "interal politics" (note: this is not a per-se issue of math/economics/money), bad things might happen to your firm.

CEOs of startups have a fiduciary duty to avoid "bad things", and even that choice is a catch-22 (ie, two bad things...) you pick the worst-bad one. And that is what he is saying.

In other words, he's talking about something that is a real-world problem. If you want to vent out about the issue, it really sits with the third part company. They are typically the one with all the power in the situation.

Example:

Startup A had 80% of its business tied to a single company, BigCo B. Like it or not, the CEO of startup A needs to avoid a situation where the CEO of BigCo B comes to the conclusion that he won't do business with A becaus of Politics (note: not economics).

Whether or not poaching is politically sensitive (or offensive) and/or warrants this type of "nuclear" response, is a function of many thing. But none of that is BH's responsibility in the larger world.

This dynamics is something that has played out for millenia from kings and queens and royal courts to how the predisent and Y combinator select their staff and senior leadership.

At a certain level of the game, its all about trust. And polticial power is essentially a combination of trust and goodwill. And its easy to disolve and can reak havok on any company of any size when systemically undermined. So you need to pay attention to it.

In other words, this is a much bigger issue. The tack of trying to shoot or lynch the messenger is sort of misplaced. Because the startup is the employer and may have a power asymmetry with a potential hire; but that startup is in itself subject to potential power assymetries at much higher levels.

(This goes for pissing off BOD members, VCs, and Key clients alike...maybe it suck/isn't fair...etc... but the reality is you need to pick your battes as a small company. And picking fights with the consituents you need to help you build your biz is ~dysfunctional and needs to be understood as such.)

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

#125
post #105
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 nor the market isn't putting up with their shit.

If the court system does not deliver damages that equal or exceed the amount of money these companies made by fucking their employees over, then the court is making it clear to the American people that they fully support such behavior.

We keep seeing large corporations taking part in unethical moneymaking schemes because they always come out ahead, even when they get caught.

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

#126
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>There's nothing wrong with people (employers) making agreements with other people (employers) regarding the things they own (their money). If you ever own a business, you deserve for it to fail.

Personal insults aren't an argument.

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

#128

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.

Collusion leads to artificially suppressed wages, which makes the labor market inefficient, to the detriment of the employees.

In general, completely unregulated free markets lead to monopolies and price manipulation, among other problems.

So no, collusion is wrong.

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

#129

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?

Because when two people freely work together peacefully to break the law, it's called conspiracy. What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? To collude to deny others the right of free association and free employment is just as wrong. The CEOs of major corporations that dominate an industry can have a disproportionate impact on an industry, so this is especially wrong.

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because when two people freely work together peacefully to break the law, it's called conspiracy. What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? To collude to deny others the right of free association and free employment is just as wrong. The CEOs of major corporations that dominate an industry can have a disproportionate impact on an industry, so this is especially wrong.

> What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down?

I think this should be obvious, but burning a factory down is fundamentally different from hiring agreements, in that it is destruction of someone elses property. A hiring agreement does not involve the destruction or restriction of property, but laws against such agreements do.

> To collude to deny others the right of free association and free employment is just as wrong.

Hiring agreements do not deny anyone the right of free association or free employment. Employment is a free exchange between the employee and the employer. Not coming to an agreement (not offering you a job) in no way is a restriction of your right to make an agreement in the first place. If I don't want to work with you, that doesn't restrict your right to form an agreement with me or with someone else.

> The CEOs of major corporations that dominate an industry can have a disproportionate impact on an industry

I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that laws against hiring agreements are laws against free association.

Post reply on HN