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

#201

Post by rcw4256 » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

yeahitslikethat wrote: post #171

module0000 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

Because they're actually tasked (implicitly or otherwise) with protecting capital. In many cases this means enforcing the law, but in cases of corporate misbehavior, usually means ignoring it.

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

#202

Post by skybrian » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

tbarbugli wrote: post #136

> estimated $3 billion in lost wages. Before the case went to trial, the companies settled for a total of $435 million So you get busted doing something illegal and walk away with a 2.5Billion in your pocket and 0 jail time. How do you expect execs to not do this all the time?

We are talking about a hypothetical wage calculation with many unknowns versus a cash settlement. In truth, nobody knows what would have happened in the counterfactual case, but settlements require picking a number.

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

#203

Post by deepakhj » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:10 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #122

So I was at one of these companies when the scandal broke. I didn't get screwed quite so much as my coworkers, since I'd only been working there for a year or so. The settlement was a joke - I got about $1100, but my compensation increased by roughly $100K/year the year after the cartel broke, and kept rising. Can't say I'm terribly pleased about either the wage-fixing or the settlement, but... My wife works in phila…

"In the early 1960s, CA’s population was 15 million & we built 250K-300K homes/year.

Today, CA’s population is 40 million & we build 80K homes/year.

So our population nearly tripled while housing production dropped by over 2/3.

And people wonder why housing is so expensive."

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

#204

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:13 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #199

joshuamorton wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect he means rank and file employees including middle management vs. Execs, which is probably limited to the set of people who are VP or above. (maybe Director, but I think the data would disagree).

Yes, I was generally draw the line at the same point, although I expect Director is in there too. Much of the director and above remuneration is in stock and bonuses which benefits disproportionately from profit.

From what I've seen, director level compensation follows mostly the same structure as non-director compensation, but with the dials turned up in much the same way. That is to say, L5 -> L6, L6 -> L7, and L7 -> L8/Director modify your compensation structure in similar ways.

This ignores things like truly discretionary cash bonuses and one-time stock grants which exist, but I'd have no visibility into.

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

#205

Post by skybrian » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:17 PM UTC

goobynight wrote: post #131

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serfdom doesn't pay that well. 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.

Naw. You're underhyping it. Creating this artificial ceiling in the low 6 figures is awful, regardless of how badly people making less than that are getting screwed. As far as I'm concerned, they're as hopeless as a bucket of crabs and we shouldn't use them as a bar or relative bar for anything. Do I-bankers look at they're comp and say "yeah that's pretty good. I'm ok getting screwed out of any more"? I think we sho…

These aren't the only choices. I think our industry is actually a little better with that, where we have some software engineers advocating for more money for the contractors. [1]

[1] https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18293900/google-contractors-ben...

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

#206

Post by yourbandsucks » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:19 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.

It's a cynical view but certainly not 1-dimensional. Money for tips isn't an issue here.

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

#207

Post by skybrian » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

daniel-cussen wrote: post #108

skybrian wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A bidding war is precisely what should have happened. It's called competition and is the number one way capitalism is supposed to end up serving the public interest. And reading your comments on this page, I have to ask: are you representing nobody's opinion but your own, on your own terms?

Yes, just my own opinions.

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

#208

Post by geodel » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #175

macspoofing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Or may law be changed to make executives get electric chair or lethal injection and then shutdown the company? Or you still think it is just slap on wrist?

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

#209

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

NoodleIncident wrote: post #116

rand84545 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think how it goes is you collect the money. The other diners include tips and tend to round up. You take their tips and use it to pay your own bill. The waiter/restaurant lose their tips, your friends lose face and are tricked out of they're generosity, you get food for no money.

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

#210

Post by nine_k » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 11:47 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.

Hey, it reads "in good faith". This only works when an officer in question could not know (s)he is breaking a law. Knowingly doing illicit things is not covered, afaict.