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

How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

whenrulesdontapply.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 289 posts

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#111

Post by FireBeyond »

defen wrote: post #36
keepper wrote: post #2

So while this is bad... I don't know how to feel about this. The other side of the coin is that these companies pay WAY ABOVE average salaries. I'm intimately familiar with this having FAANG companies average of 50% more compensation than average. Especially outside of the bay area. Typical range TC Sr. SDE in nyc: 150-250k + Bonus. Typical range TC for Sr. SDE in nyc: for Google/Facebook/Amazon 300-400k ( and goes h…

> 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?

Exactly.

I don't think people really understand the gravity of those fortunes.

Jeff Bezos could now (in theory, at market prices) buy Tacoma, Washington.

As in buy every piece of real estate, private and public, all utilities and infrastructure.

A town of 200,000 people. One man could buy it all. The assessed property value for 2017 was just over $105B, including government-owned, plus wiggle room for other properties.

That "should not" be possible. Buying (or being able to buy, rather) a "mid sized urban city", as an individual.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#112

Post by inlined »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #87
rak00n wrote: post #38

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 not nearly the amount of an annual bonus, which is typically about 15% base pay. This is the order of a spot bonus (e.g. the director wants to thank you for working double time to make a product launch happen in time for a conference). Or it’s the price of 1-3 successful referrals to a company.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#113

Post by rand84545 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #46
i_am_proteus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason modern corporate bureaucracies are so bloated and complicated is to reduce the personal risk to executives by muddying the apparent decision-making process at the top. Executives can make it look like they're people who execute complicated processes rather than decision-makers. They end up taking credit when things go well, and they might look bad when things go poorly, but they essentially never g…

That’s a very one dimensional view. Bureaucracy exists to standardize control and improve consistency. Think of a group of friends who go out for dinner. When the group grows, you generally need to set rules to avoid folks stuffing on tips or itemizing their bill to save a buck.

Out of topic, but what does "stuffing on tips" mean? (not a native and google didn't help.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#114

Post by inlined »

shereadsthenews wrote: post #37
DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #31

Can any member of the class lawsuit here comment on the settlement? How did that work out for you?

Not a member of that class but one of the things that happened as a result of these revelations was that everyone at Google got a large raise (much larger than typical annual raises) and a substantial one-time cash bonus which appeared to be, during the announcement, just Eric being Uncle Moneybags but just after the all-hands we all found out the reason from the newspapers.

Are you talking about the 2010 adjustment or something in more recent years. I don’t remember this.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#115

Post by Frondo »

Frost1x wrote: post #97
fjp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't understand how people don't realize that putting some of our massive, massive wealth towards building a better society would not benefit them. Can you imagine how many more inventions and advancements there would be if everyone had access to good education? Didn't have to worry about going bankrupt or dying because they can't meet medical expenses? If we put money into things that don't necessarily directly d…

When you're super rich, you already have that better society, it just costs a bit more (nothing you can't easily afford). Who cares about the rest of the hoi polloi. That's how our society works and we applaude it by promising the potential to become one of the super rich, when much of obtaining that degree of wealth isn't earned through hard work and innovation but instead, pure situational luck and ability to curb…

You know, this, and you see this in the way the super-rich politicians elected to represent most of the country act.

"We want to grow the pie, rather than redistribute anything, so everyone can live the American dream" -- when in reality, the pie is plenty big but verrrrry badly distributed when you're among the working poor.

There was also a great video making the rounds recently about Rep. Katie Porter grilling Jamie Dimon about the base wages at his bank in Irvine, CA. She got out a posterboard and did the math on a hypothetical single mother working full-time as a teller ($16.50 an hour). After some very straightforward math, the hypothetical single mother is in the hole $587 every month. She kept pressing Dimon for how he expects that role to be filled, and he had no answer (repeating "I'll have to think about it.") Obviously, on some level he doesn't give a shit, but I think it's the sort of thing where he's also simply never confronted with the reality for someone who doesn't make $31 million a year plus whatever other non-cash he takes home.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#116

Post by NoodleIncident »

rand84545 wrote: post #113
Spooky23 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very one dimensional view. Bureaucracy exists to standardize control and improve consistency. Think of a group of friends who go out for dinner. When the group grows, you generally need to set rules to avoid folks stuffing on tips or itemizing their bill to save a buck.

Out of topic, but what does "stuffing on tips" mean? (not a native and google didn't help.

It's probably a typo for "stiffing", i.e. not paying the tips at all, or paying too little.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#117

Post by [deleted] »

rand84545 wrote: post #113
Spooky23 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very one dimensional view. Bureaucracy exists to standardize control and improve consistency. Think of a group of friends who go out for dinner. When the group grows, you generally need to set rules to avoid folks stuffing on tips or itemizing their bill to save a buck.

Out of topic, but what does "stuffing on tips" mean? (not a native and google didn't help.

[deleted]

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#118

Post by Spooky23 »

rand84545 wrote: post #113
Spooky23 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very one dimensional view. Bureaucracy exists to standardize control and improve consistency. Think of a group of friends who go out for dinner. When the group grows, you generally need to set rules to avoid folks stuffing on tips or itemizing their bill to save a buck.

Out of topic, but what does "stuffing on tips" mean? (not a native and google didn't help.

Sorry it was intended to be "stiffing".

Usually when a group grows to a certain size, somebody will decide that rather than chipping in $30, because they "just had a salad", they'll toss in $12.95 for the salad, skip tax and tip and disappear.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#119

Post by elicash »

gok wrote: post #89

> Top executives of leading tech companies secretly agreed among themselves not to hire each other’s employees That's not accurate. The agreement was about recruiters cold-calling each other's employees. Employees were free to reach out on their own between companies. Workers routinely switched companies while the agreement was in effect. I still think it was bullshit, but it wasn't quite as egregious as the article…

Recruitment is a vital part of the work companies do and they traditionally pour a ton of resources into that aspect of hiring. But yes, I agree specifying the deal was "limited" to recruitment hiring would be better and more precise.

That shouldn't be used to diminish how vast of a deal this was. But I generally agree with you.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#120

Post by stirfrykitty »

munk-a wrote: post #92
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you're punished for following orders has more to do with whether or not you're on the side that writes history than anything else.

This is an embarrassment of the victor and never celebrated - atrocious actors on the victorious side have been punished at times throughout history but I agree the bar is higher. It certainly isn't celebrated though - and informed societies can still be outraged (See Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, Yemenese drone strikes under Obama & Trump, the Bay of Pigs, Guatemala... the general familiarity of this list is a testament t…

Depends on the situation. Let's say you have a hostile war captive (enemy combative of a high rank) who is the ONLY one who can provide you with critical, war-winning details. You (metaphorically) would want to do whatever it took to secure those details. I've been in hairy situations before. Everything Hollywood depicts goes out the window. Embedded reporters get a newfound respect for troops once they ride out just one hot encounter. They understand the need for the military to do what they do, and are likewise frustrated when the military's hands are needlessly tied when they shouldn't be. I agree to not engage in heinous acts for their own sake, but sometimes more vigorous actions are needed to win for the sake of innocent lives. Case in point being ISIS. They should have been afforded zero grace. In fact, my aforementioned situation has played out in the real many times over. Imagine if the man above had kidnapped a loved one. You would do and sanction anything necessary to get back your loved one. Failure to see this is a moral failure on the part of the one to make the right decisions. There are some situations where "anything goes" is the way to go. Thankfully they are few and far between.
Post reply on HN