101–110 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shareholder can, and do, sue for damages from fines as the result of poor decisions by executives and the board.
Interesting -- are there some good examples of that happening?
Notice the difference: " Top executives of leading tech companies secretly agreed among themselves not to hire each other’s employees" "...brought charges against the companies " They should have been indicting both, or just the executives for their explicit role in this criminal behavior. I really detest the lack of individual accountability in all these cases when we deal with large companies. If this was a couple…
How do they enforce this agreement?
Reminds me of Phoebous cartel agreeing to produce lightbulbs below certain lifetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
FWIW, I didn't feel particularly underpaid at the time, given that I was making way more than I'd ever had at any other point in my life, although I was relatively junior then and didn't have a good grip on the market. It ended up just being a bonus for essentially no effort on my part. I don't hold any major personal antipathy towards any part of the process.
It's interesting the lengths they'll go to rip off their own workers, and yet they won't even make the slightest effort to hire in locations where labor is much cheaper. There's countless places in the US where they could've fairly paid 1/3 less. And significantly more savings outside the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only $6796.87 per person.
Depending on how much the mean/median person's base salary is that's on the order of a bonus. On one hand it's not that much. On the other hand I'd be pissed if I didn't get my bonus because of some back room deal between execs.
It's likely far less, considering the fees paid to the law firm(s).
...and it's probably denominated in gift cards to the various companies' stores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So while this is bad... I don't know how to feel about this. Just to be clear: you are saying it's possibly ok for a cartel of billionaires to collude to suppress wages for a bunch of people making six figures? Because those employees have it "pretty good" and should be happy with what they're given, even though they are working to build world-historical fortunes and power for the business owners?
Serfdom
Note well: I'm not saying that this is OK, either legally or morally. I'm just saying that the parent is way overhyping the problem.
The critical thing here is that if pay was uncontrolled, then skilled employees could market themselves to the highest payer, and that would put more of the profits of the work of those employees into employee pay instead of into company margin (aka profit). It is pretty clear when you look at the revenue per employee numbers at some of these 'digital product' companies (specifically Google and Facebook), that rank a…
> That is not to say that pay is bad, or that wage theft is going on (extreme positions), employees in California at least are at will and can quit at any time to offer their services to another player. The regulatory requirement though is to identify and prevent collusion between those players in keeping salaries low. Wait, but isn't this situation actually making them getting hired at other players much more diffic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reads like Stockholm Syndrome at its finest. You're OK with them paying you less because you still got paid well by some standard? You (and as a result many other people) would be making more both in the past and today if they hadn't colluded. For at least some subset of those affected by this collusion the salary lost will make a significant difference in their families' and their own quality of life either now…
It was never OK, but it was settled, they don't do that anymore, and besides, Steve Jobs (who apparently started it) is dead. And as for the people theoretically adversely affected, you'd have to figure out who they are, which wouldn't be easy, since it's people who were in demand enough that they might have started a bidding war. There is not much more justice to be had in this case. If you're interested in pursuing…
And reading your comments on this page, I have to ask: are you representing nobody's opinion but your own, on your own terms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transfer of liability? There are candid emails between Steve jobs and Schmidt about the topic. Edit: They made a minor settlement and there was a lawsuit that got a tiny amount of press. http://time.com/42322/steve-jobs-chilling-response-after-get... Edit 2: there was not even a slap on the wrist legally speaking: "The proposed settlement, which if accepted by the court will be in effect for five years, prohibits the…
...am I understanding it correctly that their 'punishment' was having to promise not to break the law again? But only for five years??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you got it the other way around. They have decreased the price of labour and thus increased the demand for it. This is more or less an employer union.
I don't get your point. As I understand it they have decreased the demand to decrease the price.
It's a subjective matter of semantics, though.