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

71–80 of 289 posts

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

#71

Post by glalonde »

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?…

Probably no one is arguing that SV programmers have particularly hard lives in the larger picture, but if you get in the habit of punishing collusion insufficiently because, 'eh, I've got enough flex in my budget', you're being a little selfish. That's like boomers supporting an unsustainable social security system: 'Look, it works well enough for me today. And I'm not going to be in the system when it turns sour.'

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

#72

Post by stcredzero »

Animats wrote: post #68
stcredzero wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With something as complex as employment decisions, there could be a lot of confounding factors. Example: What if A and B are located somewhere more desirable? There may naturally be a desire to stay where you are and less impetus to move. A and B might be in a class of company which confers more prestige, so there would be less impetus to move. A and B might entail more risk somehow. There are many of these. Using bu…

It's not determinative, but it shows who to investigate.

"It shows who to investigate," also implies a predetermined outcome and guilt. It's more that it shows there's something to investigate, period. In 2019, we should be cautious about applying bulk statistics instantly to blame or suspicion. It's that sort of attitude which propagates the 70% wage gap myth, when more detailed analyses narrow this to 94%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI

I think, in the case of Apple and Facebook, there's more than bulk statistics, anyways. The focus should be on that evidence, not such crude measures.

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

#73

Post by mrmuagi »

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?…

The critical point is that, potentially, you were a candidate of having your wages colluded to be depressed illegally. Ponder about this fact for a moment. Now, how could you straightforwardly make an argument that you are okay because they "treated me very well" or that it's a good thing because it helps the housing market (less income on your end)?

These are not in any way, shape or form arguments or defences for these practices.

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

#74

Post by maxxxxx »

yardie wrote: post #70
maxxxxx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been shown repeatedly that boards won't do much and repeated fines are more and more just another cost of business. Either the fines need to be raised to a level where the company loses profit for one or more years or we need to go after individuals.

Don’t bother to fine them. They’ll just use that to punish employees and shareholders. Make the executives liable.

Agree about the executives but if the shareholders and employees feel enough pain they may actually do something. Right now the "punishment" doesn't cause anybody enough pain.

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

#75

Post by throwawwway »

DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #31

Can any member of the class lawsuit here comment on the settlement? How did that work out for you?

I was a member of the class. After the settlement went through, I remember receiving a few large booklets in the mail from a law firm explaining the settlement and offering the opportunity to opt out.

After what seemed like a really long time - at least a year - I received a check for about $5000, which I had to pay taxes on, so it ended up being around $3000 net. I had left the company by that time, but still owned a substantial amount of stock, so I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up losing more from the negative impact on the stock price than I got in the settlement.

The people who really came out ahead in this were the lawyers, who took something like 25% of the settlement for themselves.

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

#76

Post by skybrian »

kjar wrote: post #6
keepper wrote: post #2

So while this is bad... I don't know how to feel about this. The other side of the coin is that these companies pay WAY ABOVE average salaries. I'm intimately familiar with this having FAANG companies average of 50% more compensation than average. Especially outside of the bay area. Typical range TC Sr. SDE in nyc: 150-250k + Bonus. Typical range TC for Sr. SDE in nyc: for Google/Facebook/Amazon 300-400k ( and goes h…

This argument is very weak IMO. Paraphrased “I got paid happily, industry collusion to suppress wages is therefore OK”

It was never OK but was settled long ago and compared to the many, many other forms of injustice in the world that are ongoing and more severe, why focus on this one? Even if you limit your scope to tech companies, there are more important things.

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

#78

Post by ben_jones »

cliffy wrote: post #60
skybrian wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like someone who made enough money to have their empathy towards others seriously diluted.

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

#79

Post by jammygit »

munk-a wrote: post #16
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…

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…

Transfer of liability? There are candid emails between Steve jobs and Schmidt about the topic.

Edit: They made a minor settlement and there was a lawsuit that got a tiny amount of press.

http://time.com/42322/steve-jobs-chilling-response-after-get...

Edit 2: there was not even a slap on the wrist legally speaking:

"The proposed settlement, which if accepted by the court will be in effect for five years, prohibits the companies from engaging in anticompetitive no solicitation agreements. "

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

#80

Post by kjar »

defen wrote: post #36
keepper wrote: post #2

So while this is bad... I don't know how to feel about this. The other side of the coin is that these companies pay WAY ABOVE average salaries. I'm intimately familiar with this having FAANG companies average of 50% more compensation than average. Especially outside of the bay area. Typical range TC Sr. SDE in nyc: 150-250k + Bonus. Typical range TC for Sr. SDE in nyc: for Google/Facebook/Amazon 300-400k ( and goes h…

> So while this is bad... I don't know how to feel about this. Just to be clear: you are saying it's possibly ok for a cartel of billionaires to collude to suppress wages for a bunch of people making six figures? Because those employees have it "pretty good" and should be happy with what they're given, even though they are working to build world-historical fortunes and power for the business owners?

Serfdom
Post reply on HN