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

> Throughout this thread, your defense of Ed Catmull's actions has been nothing short of heroic. But, to what end?

An even-handed, rational discussion of the issues at hand. In my opinion, the discussion up to this point has been absolutely farcical. Actual comparisons to Hitler? Give me a break.

My hope is that my posts decrease the prevalence of that utterly ridiculous level of hyperbole. We should try to consider the perspectives of all parties involved, especially when the career and good name of a community member is on the line.

>Why would he deserve such a defense and not some random other sociopath in a position of power?

He deserves a defense because you're calling him a sociopath and the trial, if there is one, hasn't even started yet. Even if Catmull had already been convicted, "sociopath" is a clinical term that's not determined by legal proceedings, and it's not appropriate to misapply like this. That's absolutely inexcusable, unprofessional behavior.

Not all criminals are sociopaths. Not all people we disagree with are criminals.

>According to your thesis (i.e. the fashionable disaffection of the have nots against the haves), none of their crimes are heinous enough to justify a slap on the wrist, leave alone jail time.

Personally, I think many insider trading convictions are hogwash. It's possible that some aren't, and some of those guys had mens rea and deserve to be imprisoned for the theft they perpetrated, but I think we should assume good faith until disproven. Nothing in regard to the "Pixar cartel" has yet demonstrated mens rea, and even if such a thing existed, I wouldn't be prepared to demonize Catmull. I don't think we gain much of anything from that type of behavior.

>Do these real people agree with the punishment meted out to the gentlemen I listed above? In all honesty, their crimes affected their "victims" less directly than the actions of Ed Catmull affected his employees and their families.

I can't speak for everyone, but as all of your listed persons were convicted of insider trading, I can say there are definitely people that don't think that should be illegal either, or that believe only egregious cases should be prosecuted.

>We should also see through the cult of the personality that haunts the industry, at the same time and not excuse inexcusable behavior just because someone is accomplished or successful, in one way or another.

I completely agree that we shouldn't give people a pass on criminal activity based solely on their position in a company or government. We do need to have some baseline courtesy here though and recognize that people are innocent until proven guilty, that Catmull has a very long history of good deeds that is at odds with his characterization as an evildoer, and that the consequences of a witch hunt can be very serious and very sad. We have a legal system that handles these sorts of complaints in a fair and civilized manner, and we should at least let that flesh out before we start drawing conclusions, burning books, and arraying computer scientists trying to run a business in league with genocidal fascist dictators.

>You are appealing to a sense of compassion that was completely, utterly and evidently absent in Ed Catmull and other members of the wage-supression cartel. Why do they deserve such kindness, when they showed neither that, nor remorse for their actions?

This is the primary point of contention here. You are assuming that Catmull et al acted with evil intent, and you're applying vastly inappropriate labels even if that were the case. You refuse to acknowledge that a legitimate business purpose could have been addressed by the no-poach agreement, and you refuse to acknowledge that these legitimate business purposes could've been a motivation to the executive staff of the six major animation houses that were party to this agreement.

>Again, you have not clarified the part about your perspective, wherein I asked if you, personally, would have been disadvantaged by the actions of Ed Catmull and friends? There, perhaps, lies the root of disagreement to begin with?

I would have been. While I'm an entrepreneur and reasonably well-paid when all of my income is taken into account, I'm still a middle-class guy who has to work for a living. I couldn't go more than a few weeks without a paycheck of one kind or another (I have both W2 and 1099 income). As much as I'd like to be one of the insanely wealthy people who pop up on HN occasionally, it hasn't happened for me yet. Maybe someday.

I don't see how that's relevant to the overarching argument, though. I can perhaps empathize with Catmull more easily because I've had employees and I've directed organizations before, but I don't think that experience is pre-requisite to understanding that this activity doesn't make someone a monstrosity.

It's not easy at all to enter into a contract with a large number of employees. Nobody wants to do things that way, including the employees. Individual contract negotiations happen only on a small scale; as you stated, typically only for executives or sports teams, which may total I've personally tried to negotiate a contract in an at-will employment state with a company when I accepted a directorship there. They refused to budge on it. It was at-will or nothing, and their excuse was "We've only ever heard of that kind of thing for C-levels". I would've been giving up a lot of flexibility too, and most employees wouldn't be ready for that or willing to do it.

>Every dollar going to the staff is a dollar that isn't available to the executive team.

That's not how corporate structure works, especially corporate structure in a progressive startup like Pixar used to be. Yes, there are performance bonuses for executives, but there are also profit sharing bonuses and stock options for rank-and-file employees, which creates an interest in the company's welfare beyond the universal "I don't want to lose my job". It's silly to act like there's a direct inverse correlation between dollars spent on wages and dollars forwarded to executives' personal bank accounts.

At this point I'm convinced this thread is just an anti-capitalist, anti-business crusade by misguided justice warriors. Pretty disappointing for a platform that's supposed to be intended for entrepreneurs.

I can tell you that my case was atypical. Most people do want at-will employment. They don't want a contract. I usually want at-will employment, and as it turned out, the contract I proposed would've ultimately come back to bite me if it had been implemented. I'm currently employed and I don't want a contract with my current employer (unless my role was completely changed). Again, we don't need to jump right into "business people are evil moustache-twirlers" every time employee-employer relations come up. At-will employment was put in place for Good Reasons, and there are employees (like myself!) who usually want it.

I've done a reasonable amount of interviewing and hiring in my time, and I never had a candidate propose a long-term contract. I know some of the people I hired would probably think it sounds good at the outset, but they would be quite upset when the employer doesn't do the "polite" thing and let them out of their contracts whenever they want to go somewhere else. They would then come on HN and try to name and shame this company that hates its employees and resents their professional development, and is keeping developers in iron shackles while they have to pass up opportunities to make way more money! Then a bunch of social justice warriors will call the corporate heads monsters, claim their actions violate obscure elements of obscure laws, burn effigies, etc.

Others are like me and almost always want the freedom to leave when things start to go awry. There's no need to stay aboard a sinking ship any longer than necessary.

Almost nobody really wants employment-by-contract.