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

51–60 of 289 posts

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

#51

Post by skybrian »

cliffy wrote: post #35

The settlement is laughable given the number of people whose salaries were held down as a result of this collusion. It's not just workers at these companies that suffer. It has a network effect of holding salaries down at companies which aren't even colluding. Another example of (usually giant) companies deciding to risk breaking the law because its cheaper in the long run to do so.

It was a long time ago. I got a raise out of it and later retired early, and I'm a pretty average software engineer, for Google anyway. Your argument that I "suffered" when actually they treated me very well by almost any standard isn't going to work.

Based on what I've heard about current salaries for in-demand people, I think it's safe to say that any depressing effect on software engineers' salaries is long gone?

And if not, and this is what holding down salaries looks like, imagine what the housing market would be like without it.

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

#52

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

It's interesting the lengths they'll go to rip off their own workers, and yet they won't even make the slightest effort to hire in locations where labor is much cheaper. There's countless places in the US where they could've fairly paid 1/3 less. And significantly more savings outside the US.

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

#53

Post by ChuckMcM »

The critical thing here is that if pay was uncontrolled, then skilled employees could market themselves to the highest payer, and that would put more of the profits of the work of those employees into employee pay instead of into company margin (aka profit).

It is pretty clear when you look at the revenue per employee numbers at some of these 'digital product' companies (specifically Google and Facebook), that rank and file employees are not sharing equally with management in the returns.

That is not to say that pay is bad, or that wage theft is going on (extreme positions), employees in California at least are at will and can quit at any time to offer their services to another player. The regulatory requirement though is to identify and prevent collusion between those players in keeping salaries low.

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

#54

Post by rightbyte »

DINKDINK wrote: post #43

I wonder how much small firms/startups have /benefited/ from this arrangement. By artificially reducing demand for labor, big tech firms have effectively made it more profitable for smaller firms to compete against them.

I think you got it the other way around. They have decreased the price of labour and thus increased the demand for it.

This is more or less an employer union.

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

#55

Post by ummonk »

DINKDINK wrote: post #43

I wonder how much small firms/startups have /benefited/ from this arrangement. By artificially reducing demand for labor, big tech firms have effectively made it more profitable for smaller firms to compete against them.

That, along with regulatory enforcement, was basically what broke the collusion scheme. Facebook as a growing company did not want to play ball, and aggressively poached from the other tech companies with bigger offers, forcing them to raise their compensation to retain employees.

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

#56

Post by rightbyte »

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…

Power Point? What have PPT ever done to you?

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

#57

Post by richardwhiuk »

crowdpleaser wrote: post #33
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…

"Just following orders" was a valid excuse until the Nuremberg trials.

It was rejected in 1474 - rather a long time before Nuremberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#The_trial_of_P...

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

#58

Post by nathanvanfleet »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #53

The critical thing here is that if pay was uncontrolled, then skilled employees could market themselves to the highest payer, and that would put more of the profits of the work of those employees into employee pay instead of into company margin (aka profit). It is pretty clear when you look at the revenue per employee numbers at some of these 'digital product' companies (specifically Google and Facebook), that rank a…

> That is not to say that pay is bad, or that wage theft is going on (extreme positions), employees in California at least are at will and can quit at any time to offer their services to another player. The regulatory requirement though is to identify and prevent collusion between those players in keeping salaries low.

Wait, but isn't this situation actually making them getting hired at other players much more difficult due to the collusion?

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

#59

Post by ipsocannibal »

crowdpleaser wrote: post #33
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…

"Just following orders" was a valid excuse until the Nuremberg trials.

If read https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/789376.The_Nuremberg_Tri... I believe you will find this is not the case.

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

#60

Post by cliffy »

skybrian wrote: post #51
cliffy wrote: post #35

The settlement is laughable given the number of people whose salaries were held down as a result of this collusion. It's not just workers at these companies that suffer. It has a network effect of holding salaries down at companies which aren't even colluding. Another example of (usually giant) companies deciding to risk breaking the law because its cheaper in the long run to do so.

It was a long time ago. I got a raise out of it and later retired early, and I'm a pretty average software engineer, for Google anyway. Your argument that I "suffered" when actually they treated me very well by almost any standard isn't going to work. Based on what I've heard about current salaries for in-demand people, I think it's safe to say that any depressing effect on software engineers' salaries is long gone?…

This reads like Stockholm Syndrome at its finest.

You're OK with them paying you less because you still got paid well by some standard? You (and as a result many other people) would be making more both in the past and today if they hadn't colluded.

For at least some subset of those affected by this collusion the salary lost will make a significant difference in their families' and their own quality of life either now or in the future.

Post reply on HN