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

Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

pando.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#21

Post by corysama »

cookiecaper wrote: post #17
incision wrote: post #8

I think the referenced bit on PandoDaily [1] has a bit more meat and seeing exactly what was said really drives home the point. From Ed Catmull's email to Steve Jobs: "...one of our department managers told me that she was offered a position as producer for Sony’s first CG film and is likely to accept. "The director of the movie is REDACTED [Jill Culton, ex-Lucasfilm and on Pixar-produced Monsters Inc—M.A.] who start…

I don't see anything exceptionally dirty about that mail. I went to the article to get the full context and still don't see it. The intimation of the article and, in fact, everything I've heard on this stuff, is that all anti-poaching agreements exist solely for the purpose of depressing employee wages, but I don't think that holds true. It may be technically illegal, but the potential moral implications of a no-poac…

Quick reminder to everyone: Please don't downvote comments that contribute to the conversation just because you disagree with them.

You might think that cookiecaper is an insensitive clod. But, he's not posting fluff, off-topic or otherwise distracting material.

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#22

Post by wpietri »

cookiecaper wrote: post #17
incision wrote: post #8

I think the referenced bit on PandoDaily [1] has a bit more meat and seeing exactly what was said really drives home the point. From Ed Catmull's email to Steve Jobs: "...one of our department managers told me that she was offered a position as producer for Sony’s first CG film and is likely to accept. "The director of the movie is REDACTED [Jill Culton, ex-Lucasfilm and on Pixar-produced Monsters Inc—M.A.] who start…

I don't see anything exceptionally dirty about that mail. I went to the article to get the full context and still don't see it. The intimation of the article and, in fact, everything I've heard on this stuff, is that all anti-poaching agreements exist solely for the purpose of depressing employee wages, but I don't think that holds true. It may be technically illegal, but the potential moral implications of a no-poac…

Prices arise through market forces: the competition of buyers for the same goods. If the largest purchasers of a given good agree not to compete, then prices are absolutely harmed.

Understanding where staff is going is reasonable. Making it so that your staff doesn't have opportunities to go anywhere? That's a criminal conspiracy to rig a market.

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#24

Post by cookiecaper »

wpietri wrote: post #22
cookiecaper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything exceptionally dirty about that mail. I went to the article to get the full context and still don't see it. The intimation of the article and, in fact, everything I've heard on this stuff, is that all anti-poaching agreements exist solely for the purpose of depressing employee wages, but I don't think that holds true. It may be technically illegal, but the potential moral implications of a no-poac…

Prices arise through market forces: the competition of buyers for the same goods. If the largest purchasers of a given good agree not to compete, then prices are absolutely harmed. Understanding where staff is going is reasonable. Making it so that your staff doesn't have opportunities to go anywhere? That's a criminal conspiracy to rig a market.

I agree that a likely effect was artificial depression of employee salaries, but I don't think we've seen it adequately demonstrated that that was the primary intended effect and not just an unintentional or tertiary side effect of the agreement. Frequent poaching is often considered unsportsmanlike competition by business people; I know several of the companies I've been affiliated with have felt that way. It's possible that Pixar et al had the best intentions when establishing this protocol.

It doesn't really leave the employee without somewhere to go, it just makes it harder for them to find employment at a direct competitor while still employed. I would bet that most people who would've been poached would've been hired by a competitor within hours of resigning at their current employer.

That doesn't make it OK, and like I said, it's very possible all of this was illegal from the get-go. I'm just saying there's no need to jump to the conclusion that malice and conspiracy were the primary motives behind these compacts, and there's no need to drag someone's name through the mud when definitive evidence doesn't exist.

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#25

Post by samstave »

chris_mahan wrote: post #19
forrestthewoods wrote: post #11

This is so disappointing. I've always really respected Catmull. He has given many presentations and speeches with incredible value. His actions here are, I think, by definition evil. Decisions made with selfish intent with willful disregard to the negative consequences it has on others. That's my definition at least, everyone has their own. How utterly disappointing. :(

Agreed. I'm reading his book Creativity Inc. right now, and it's chock-full of goodness. Except that now, I question the very motives and integrity of the author, so the whole thing is completely suspect, and I might just not continue reading.

I think the thing is that while people can do good things, they can also do really bad/weird things to others when all of their hierarchy of needs is met.

I he has money, power, comfort, is top-of-his-game -- then its very easy to really act as though it is a game and his actions only strengthening his position and the position of the system that supports his position (the company).

So in his mind, he is just being efficient/business minded/shrewd etc... and doesn't realize he is actually fucking up the lives of others -- he is only seeing it from his own perspective; that he is an effective person making shit-tons of money.

Utter lack of compassion/human perspective.

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#26

Post by vanwesson »

incision wrote: post #8

I think the referenced bit on PandoDaily [1] has a bit more meat and seeing exactly what was said really drives home the point. From Ed Catmull's email to Steve Jobs: "...one of our department managers told me that she was offered a position as producer for Sony’s first CG film and is likely to accept. "The director of the movie is REDACTED [Jill Culton, ex-Lucasfilm and on Pixar-produced Monsters Inc—M.A.] who start…

Steve Jobs once said in reference to Ed Catmull (and another Pixar co-founder):

"They're babes in the woods. I think I can help turn Alvy and Ed into businessmen."[1]

I guess training Mr. Catmull to do things like what we see in the above email was part of it...

1: http://izquotes.com/quote/240878

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#27

Post by cookiecaper »

wpietri wrote: post #22
cookiecaper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything exceptionally dirty about that mail. I went to the article to get the full context and still don't see it. The intimation of the article and, in fact, everything I've heard on this stuff, is that all anti-poaching agreements exist solely for the purpose of depressing employee wages, but I don't think that holds true. It may be technically illegal, but the potential moral implications of a no-poac…

Prices arise through market forces: the competition of buyers for the same goods. If the largest purchasers of a given good agree not to compete, then prices are absolutely harmed. Understanding where staff is going is reasonable. Making it so that your staff doesn't have opportunities to go anywhere? That's a criminal conspiracy to rig a market.

As a tangent, one could also argue that there's nothing wrong with these compacts, and that market forces would make them untenable if there were truly a dearth of the needed specialized labor to complete the product. Again, that doesn't mean this practice was legal, but the illegality is non-obvious. It's not something that has to strike the average person as fundamentally immoral and socially harmful. If you cast it as an evil plot to steal money from hard-working middle-class Americans, you'll get people fired up, but again, I don't think that's a self-evident conclusion.

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#28

Post by learc83 »

corysama wrote: post #21
cookiecaper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything exceptionally dirty about that mail. I went to the article to get the full context and still don't see it. The intimation of the article and, in fact, everything I've heard on this stuff, is that all anti-poaching agreements exist solely for the purpose of depressing employee wages, but I don't think that holds true. It may be technically illegal, but the potential moral implications of a no-poac…

Quick reminder to everyone: Please don't downvote comments that contribute to the conversation just because you disagree with them. You might think that cookiecaper is an insensitive clod. But, he's not posting fluff, off-topic or otherwise distracting material.

>Please don't downvote comments that contribute to the conversation just because you disagree with them.

That's a rule on Reddit, but to my knowledge it's never been a rule here.

Here's pg's own words on the subject.

>I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#29

Post by chris_mahan »

samstave wrote: post #25
chris_mahan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'm reading his book Creativity Inc. right now, and it's chock-full of goodness. Except that now, I question the very motives and integrity of the author, so the whole thing is completely suspect, and I might just not continue reading.

I think the thing is that while people can do good things, they can also do really bad/weird things to others when all of their hierarchy of needs is met. I he has money, power, comfort, is top-of-his-game -- then its very easy to really act as though it is a game and his actions only strengthening his position and the position of the system that supports his position (the company). So in his mind, he is just being e…

Exactly right.

They think it's just a game.

Bastards.

Re: Emails, court docs show how Sony stood up to Steve Jobs’ and Pixar’s wage-fixing

#30

Post by yarrel »

cookiecaper wrote: post #17
incision wrote: post #8

I think the referenced bit on PandoDaily [1] has a bit more meat and seeing exactly what was said really drives home the point. From Ed Catmull's email to Steve Jobs: "...one of our department managers told me that she was offered a position as producer for Sony’s first CG film and is likely to accept. "The director of the movie is REDACTED [Jill Culton, ex-Lucasfilm and on Pixar-produced Monsters Inc—M.A.] who start…

I don't see anything exceptionally dirty about that mail. I went to the article to get the full context and still don't see it. The intimation of the article and, in fact, everything I've heard on this stuff, is that all anti-poaching agreements exist solely for the purpose of depressing employee wages, but I don't think that holds true. It may be technically illegal, but the potential moral implications of a no-poac…

The no-poach agreements were clearly made in good faith between the parties involved.

It's the parties who were not party to the agreement but whose wage-earning potential was affected by it that are the problem.

Post reply on HN