Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#11

Post by oinksoft » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 12:50 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

In the US at least, anti-trust laws seek to limit business practices considered anti-competitive. Sure, a "union" could seek to reduce competition/harm businesses, and that is a common accusation, but similar laws for unions are mostly a thing of a past, legacies of a time when state militias did combat with those despicable striking coal miners.

Do you believe that businesses should have the same legal status as individuals? There's been a tiff over that for the last decade or so.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#12

Post by redwood » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 12:56 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

I'm no expert but some thoughts: That's an interesting point: could people be accused of anti-trust violations by agreeing to collude and not work under certain circumstances?

The difference boils down to what the purpose of laws are. Ultimately they exist to sustain a reasonably egalitarian free society. Obviously there are times and specific situations where we deviate more or less from the "ideal" society but the law shepherds us back toward an agreed-upon path.

Basically the root of antitrust law is that concentration of power is anti-democratic and therefore must be controlled. In a situation of people colluding around work standards, there is a parallel to some extent but there isn't a clear power-player who emerges (except for the "Union" itself but that's made up of all the employees in a different way than the corporation is owned by its owners because individuals in a union are all essentially equally important to the union's strength, where in corporate ownership it's very clear that some individuals wield significantly (orders of magnitude) more power through wealth and control.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1239985?uid=3739560&ui...

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#13

Post by redwood » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:07 AM UTC

The problem with laws like this is they're very difficult to prove because you can create fairly arbitrary criteria for what you want in an employee and claim that one of those things you want is for them not to have been significantly molded by a different large bureaucratic entity with its own culture and processes.

It's trivial to prove this is going on, but what I mean is: difficult to reach the legal burden of proof of collusion.

Also ultimately a law suit like this will send $$$ -> lawyers more than anyone else.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#14

Post by mikeyouse » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:14 AM UTC

redwood wrote: post #13

The problem with laws like this is they're very difficult to prove because you can create fairly arbitrary criteria for what you want in an employee and claim that one of those things you want is for them not to have been significantly molded by a different large bureaucratic entity with its own culture and processes. It's trivial to prove this is going on, but what I mean is: difficult to reach the legal burden of p…

> The problem with laws like this is they're very difficult to prove

Not when the DOJ has subpoena power.

After a Google recruiter reached out to an Apple engineer, Steve Jobs in an email to Eric Schmidt:

    "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would
    stop doing this,"

Schmidt, forwarding that email to his team:

    "Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening?"

Google's Staffing Director:

    "[The recruiter who contacted the Apple Employee] will be terminated within
    the hour."

    "Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit-i...

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#15

Post by zedshaw » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:17 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

Yes, if you believe that you can reduce any use of a word down to its most abstract concept giving you the ability to equate anything to anything else. By those standards collusion is also a tomato, a pair of shoes, and my left ear. Very Zen.

But, given nobody else thinks this way, then no, unions are not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is pretty much defined as such when everyone involved constantly tells each other "don't tell anyone" which is what these jackasses did (go read the emails). Unions are very public about going on strike and have big votes on it, thus not a conspiracy. Same with consumers organizing a strike, or just about everything you came up with.

Collusion is also not bad unless it's illegal, and what we've decided in the US is that gigantic billion dollar companies are not allowed to get together and screw over poor work slobs who make maybe $100k/year with their collective MegaCorp trillion dollar might. In fact, any decent human being would be enraged at a giant corporation using its power to smash a little guy to make a few thousand more per employee a year.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#16

Post by pron » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

The reason is that the law attempts to balance power; when there is an imbalance of power, it helps the weaker side. A workers union in itself does not exploit employers. Its purpose is to force a fair distribution of wealth. A collusion of businesses is different, as its goal is to force an unfair distribution of wealth, as workers generally have fewer options than corporations. It's much easier for a corporation to find workers elsewhere than for a worker to move, hence this practice exploits workers' limited choice, and the law tries to defend against this kind of exploitation.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#17

Post by richardfontana » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:28 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

The antitrust laws in the US were revised to largely carve out activities of labor unions. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/17

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#18

Post by rahimnathwani » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:41 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

It's about the balance of negotiation power between the buyers and sellers in the labour market. Once jobs became standardised, and employees easier to replace, individuals had/have little/no negotiating power, so their response to low pay and poor conditions is 'suck it up'.

Unions aim to redress that imbalance, and there are specific laws in many countries detailing what they can/cannot do.

IANAL but AFAIK there are fewer and less strong cases where companies can legally collude in most jurisdictions.

A couple of personal thoughts:

- The impact of unions is different in different situations. It's easy for us to pick and choose examples based on pre-existing biases, but the details are more nuanced.

- People often think of unions as being for low-skilled workers, or those where the choice of employers is limited (e.g. teachers in the UK). However, many professional guilds (like national doctors' associations) also provide many of the same functions (lobbying, collective bargaining, coordination of industrial actions, ...).

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#19

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:45 AM UTC

zedshaw wrote: post #15

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

Yes, if you believe that you can reduce any use of a word down to its most abstract concept giving you the ability to equate anything to anything else. By those standards collusion is also a tomato, a pair of shoes, and my left ear. Very Zen. But, given nobody else thinks this way, then no, unions are not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is pretty much defined as such when everyone involved constantly tells each other "don…

There are many, many problems here.

> Collusion is also not bad unless it's illegal

Did it ever occur to you that laws might be passed despite those same laws not being beneficial? In your model of the world, where legal actions are all, by definition, good, how would legislators decide whether or not to enact a prospective law? If we repealed all our antitrust legislation, can I assume you would agree that employer collusion to hold down wages used to be bad, but was now good?

> no, unions are not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is pretty much defined as such when everyone involved constantly tells each other "don't tell anyone"

I have to agree with the bare semantics here, but... who's alleging that the harm from a bunch of companies secretly agreeing to hold down wages comes, entirely and only, from the fact that the agreement is secret? They do it in secret because it's illegal, and your parent is wondering why employees are legally allowed to do openly what employers must do in secret. Why is there supposed to be a difference? Is there a justification for punishing the companies, other than the fact that their conduct is illegal?

Nothing can be bad because it's illegal; belief following that reasoning is religious, not valid.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#20

Post by blazespin » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:57 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…

The difference is individually, consumers have no power and neither do workers. Which is why unions form. That being said, unions suck as well.