How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by yeahitslikethat » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

module0000 wrote: post #121

munk-a wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, there is far too much ability to transfer liability in the modern world which lets this sort of stuff get abstract and easier to dismiss. Companies should be held accountable to the extent their growth has encouraged bad behavior, but individuals at that company committed the behavior and, if they were instructed to do so and blindly followed then... 1. "Just following orders" isn't now and has never been a…

>> 1. "Just following orders" isn't now and has never been a valid excuse Yes it is, see: https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/corporate-immunity/ That said..I agree with the spirit of your post. The only officers that cannot receive corporate immunity are the CEO and CFO - they can be held liable in criminal and civil litigation.

Then why aren't they being held accountable? Ever? Banking scandals. This example.

Why aren't those who are tasked with enforcing the law enforcing the law?

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

#172

Post by cubano » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #45

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…

This is a powerful insight, thank you. I am fascinated by the way "fitness landscapes" manifest in companies OUTSIDE the financial fitness of the company's trade. People often act like trade fitness is the only realm where we compete in capitalism, but there are so many more. Moat fitness for a company doesn't benefit their trade at all. Customers don't benefit when you kill a competitor, but you do. Similarly PowerP…

Wow...I've heard PowerPoint called many things in my 30 years in corporate trenches, but never something as poetic as "a tool for employee theater"

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

#173

Post by ariwilson » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #167

pathseeker wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>equally with management in the returns. Managers at Google don't make much more and in some cases don't make more than the SWEs they manage. Did you mean to say shareholders?

I was told by someone in HR that has HR friends at Google that the manager of a group always makes at least as much as the highest paid employee in that group.

This is definitely incorrect.

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

#174

Post by Skunkleton » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #160

Skunkleton wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One person doesn't need billions of dollars either. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Real estate is a good investment.

I'm speaking empirically, not abstractly here. I know a number of pre-IPO Googlers, as well as a couple folks who have struck it rich with startups. For the most part, they own their own (pretty nice) home, and have little interest in owning other homes. A couple owned double homes, a big suburban one in the South Bay and either a condo in SF or a beach home in Santa Cruz that they could stay at for weekend getaways.…

Speaking empirically, I have plenty of friends that are renting rooms in investment properties owned by rich people.

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

#175

Post by turc1656 » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #42

turc1656 wrote: post #11

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…

Meh. It really wasn't that big of a deal. They got caught and fined and that feels like an appropriate level of punishment. There are times when a prison-term against bad-actor executives is the right punishment ... this isn't it. >If this was a couple of small, local competitors who were the only two [whatever] in the area and they did this, I guarantee you the owners would be individually indicted. No. 100% NO. I g…

"...they will work with you to get you under compliance"

Sure, as long as they are doing so in good faith. An act like this is clearly not in any sort of good-faith attempt to be in compliance with the law. It's obviously illegal. I would expect (hope?) that regulators and law enforcement would act swiftly and with much more than strongly worded letters and small fines for anyone who does this.

Yes, you are correct that I would definitely claim that this was an egregious action. If people are conspiring to limit the employment prospects and potential income of others and are doing so in a manner that violates the law - yeah that's pretty f'ed in my book and they should, in my opinion, be subject to the harshest punishment the law allows for these instances.

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

#176

Post by tomcam » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #45

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…

This is a powerful insight, thank you. I am fascinated by the way "fitness landscapes" manifest in companies OUTSIDE the financial fitness of the company's trade. People often act like trade fitness is the only realm where we compete in capitalism, but there are so many more. Moat fitness for a company doesn't benefit their trade at all. Customers don't benefit when you kill a competitor, but you do. Similarly PowerP…

In my mind/experience structuring a short PowerPoint deck, the much-dreaded bullet points included, is a clarifying exercise for both presenter and audience if done right. Properly done it’s pretty much an outline for an essay.

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

#177

Post by state_less » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

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.

In this case, the friends at the table receive their bill from the top bureaucrat rather than directly. The bureaucrat tells them what they owe. It's more than what the bill calls for, but if they don't like it, they can go to another table where there is another top bureaucrat running the same scheme (more or less).

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

#178

Post by nostrademons » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

Skunkleton wrote: post #174

nostrademons wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking empirically, not abstractly here. I know a number of pre-IPO Googlers, as well as a couple folks who have struck it rich with startups. For the most part, they own their own (pretty nice) home, and have little interest in owning other homes. A couple owned double homes, a big suburban one in the South Bay and either a condo in SF or a beach home in Santa Cruz that they could stay at for weekend getaways.…

Speaking empirically, I have plenty of friends that are renting rooms in investment properties owned by rich people.

How many of them are rich people who previously founded or worked as an early employee at tech companies?

I've spent plenty of years renting apartments from investment properties owned by rich people as well, but every single one of them has been a rich person (or corporation) who borrowed money from a bank to buy a multi-family property, not someone who cashed out a startup and invested the proceeds in real estate.

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

#179

Post by Retra » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #96

rightbyte wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power Point? What have PPT ever done to you?

No offense to PowerPoint fans! I've observed people making pointless presentations to shore up their brand as employees, not to facilitate trade. It has other uses but... Have you not seen what I describe? That would be a useful data point for me if true.

I've seen it a couple different ways. When a supervisor asks a subordinate to produce a powerpoint that the supervisor will edit/present to higher-ups, it generally looks as you describe. When a team leader produces a set of slides for their team, it's not so transparently theatric.

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

#180

Post by deogeo » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

keepper wrote: post #138

deogeo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now compare the wages against CEO and shareholder compensation.

How about we compare to engineering wages in other companies with similar profits? Pretty much any other large engineering company. Or how about the oil industry? where profits are higher, the risk to life way higher, yet engineers make 80-100k? What you have in these companies are single large shareholders vs institutional or family shareholders. That's what you're ultimately uncomfortable with. One person having so…

> How about we compare to engineering wages

Why? Why not vs. CEO compensation? Is there some rule that CEOs and shareholders must make absurdly more money than workers, or society will collapse? CEO salaries are routinely defended with "that's what they're worth" - why does this not apply to the lowly worker?