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

Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#21

Post by blazespin »

pron wrote: post #16
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…

"A workers union in itself does not exploit employers." No, pretty much all unions exploit workers via forced due paying. Unions sucks in the same way corporations colluding suck.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#22

Post by blazespin »

zasz wrote: post #10
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…

IANAL, but unions are highly visible, while this "agreement not to poach" was not.

Also, none of these tech workers unionized. Though I guess this group action is a sort of union.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#23

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#24

Post by raganwald »

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 theory, at least, the reconciliation is to side with the little guy. When there's a massive imbalance of power, there's an idea that you will be more restrictive of the powerful side.

The theory is that this is in the public's best interests.

So, in theory, if you have two giant companies that control 95% of the distribution of widgets, you might decide that they cannot merge into one entity. But if widgets are made by a bunch of tiny independents and sold to those two distributors, you might allow the independents to form a co-operative association.

In practice, lawyers and lobbyists will say and do anything to get an advantage for their clients. But that's the theory, and that's why it's generally easier to form a union than it is to form a cartel.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#25

Post by smtddr »

Hmm... so while we have the whole gentrification thing going on, those on the outside of tech are watching us complain that maybe we don't get paid enough. Imagine what the outside-of-tech people think when reading this article. The recession and/or effects of it isn't over for a lot of them. If there was an article about bank or oil company execs complaining that they don't get enough money we'd probably all be exploding with rage.

Just saying....

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#26

Post by zedshaw »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #19
zedshaw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oooh boy, I get to PG you and point you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man as my answer for your first comment. Breaks down like this: I said this law is right. You then say I'm saying all laws are by definition good and then attack that restatement of my position, which isn't what I said.

Your disagreement on semantics is just plain wrong. If the law they broke is a "conspiracy" law, then the fundamental difference between what these companies did and what a union does is the "secret" part of a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy if everyone knows about it. In addition, them going around warning each other to keep it secret is a direct admission of guilt that they knew it was illegal. Some of the emails even say it's illegal, so they knew it was illegal and conspired to do it anyway. Get it? That's a conspiracy.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#27

Post by chii »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #19
zedshaw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

laws are ostensibly enacted to the benefit of the majority (tho of late, i m not sure if that's true anymore). Therefore, anything "illegal" is bad under the above assumption.

Also, you made the implicit assumption that a corporation is like a human. It isn't, and you should not be using values of a human but apply it to a corporation.

A corp should be treated with more strict rules, to prevent it from becoming too powerful, because the collective mandate of a corporation is profit, and if it were to be judged as a human, would look like a high functioning sociopath hell bent on doing anything possible to make a buck. Therefore, it should not deserve the same rights as actual humans.

Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

#28

Post by chii »

dmazin wrote: post #6
sdoowpilihp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't about being fair on the companies part; not poaching each others employees was a form of cost control.

What I'm saying is that while it may seem wrong to poach employees, employers have a greater duty to the workforce than to other companies, ethically.

> employers have a greater duty

employers have no duty, but that of making profit. Don't misplace your loyalty, because employers certainly don't place theirs in you (the emoployee).

Post reply on HN