Silicon valley wage fixing

[billvon 2,407]

>I read with about this with some quizzical interest- the saga of Silicon Valley
>companies getting caught (allegedly) making back-room agreements not to recruit
>each other's workers.

"Not to recruit?" - I would think that's not actionable. Companies can use any criteria they want not to recruit in some places.

"Not to hire?" - That might cross the line into anti-trust behavior.

[airdvr 198]

I would expect nothing less from the over-privileged Tesla driving douche-bags.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Stumpy 256]

airdvr's slightly strange anti-capitalist ravings aside, I'm very much in two minds about this. I think agreeing not to POACH is fine - but if an employee of their own volition gets up and approaches another company, then that should be up to them.

If the intent was to drive (or at least keep) wages down then yep, thats not exactly fair. As an aside, I know a lot of people at Mountain View, and the vast majority wouldn't ever dream of going to Microsoft or Apple under any circumstances - they would pretty universally aim for start up world.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Remster 24]

Quote

I think agreeing not to POACH is fine

Collusion between competitor is exactly what anti-trust laws are about.

Remster

[billvon 2,407]

>I would expect nothing less from the over-privileged Tesla driving douche-bags.

You've moved the target of your hate from Prius drivers to Tesla drivers! Or do you still hate Prius drivers? Or just successful people in general?

[airdvr 198]

billvon

>I would expect nothing less from the over-privileged Tesla driving douche-bags.

You've moved the target of your hate from Prius drivers to Tesla drivers! Or do you still hate Prius drivers? Or just successful people in general?

Just the over-privileged Tesla driving Silicon Valley species. I could tell you stories.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 3]

Nothing any company does to ensure wages are kept low, including conspiracy to collude with their competition, surprises me in the least. I'm surprised more older and high-paid employees aren't found floating face down in rivers, but I guess when companies can layoff employees for no actual stated reason it's not really required.

I don't think Jobs is unique in this, simply one that got caught and since he's dead can't really defend himself. He's the easy target.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[base698 1]

Quote

Just the over-privileged Tesla driving Silicon Valley species. I could tell you stories.

The venture capitalists with net worth in the $10s of Millions or the lowly peon software engineer making $200K, paying $3000 a month for a house and supporting a family?

[Stumpy 256]

airdvr

over-privileged

AKA self made billionaires and probably some of the smartest people on the planet. I can see where your jealousy would come from.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[champu 1]

airdvr

***>I would expect nothing less from the over-privileged Tesla driving douche-bags.

You've moved the target of your hate from Prius drivers to Tesla drivers! Or do you still hate Prius drivers? Or just successful people in general?

Just the over-privileged Tesla driving Silicon Valley species. I could tell you stories.

If, in about 50 years, someone wants to call the grandchildren of today's Silicon Valley well-to-do "over-privileged" then it might make more sense but as it stands your complaint is bizarre.

Silicon is boring anyway, the really cool shit is in GaN and InP.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

billvon

>I read with about this with some quizzical interest- the saga of Silicon Valley
>companies getting caught (allegedly) making back-room agreements not to recruit
>each other's workers.

"Not to recruit?" - I would think that's not actionable. Companies can use any criteria they want not to recruit in some places.

"Not to hire?" - That might cross the line into anti-trust behavior.

The two are effectively the same along the lines of court rulings that restrictions affecting a significant number of abortion-performing physicians (like requiring them to have hospital privileges) constitute an illegal ban on the procedure itself.

Software engineers competent enough to cross the hiring threshold for companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Qualcomm rarely look for work because we usually don't need to. That holds for the overwhelming majority of companies doing software in a core capacity in the core (doing it better provides a sustainable competitive advantage) and context (you need to do it to be in business) paradigm popularized by Geoffrey Moore.

To quote noted software engineer essayist Joel Spolsky

Quote

If you’re lucky, if you’re really lucky, they show up on the open job market once, when, say, their spouse decides to accept a medical internship in Anchorage and they actually send their resume out to what they think are the few places they’d like to work at in Anchorage.

But for the most part, great developers (and this is almost a tautology) are, uh, great, (ok, it is a tautology), and, usually, prospective employers recognize their greatness quickly, which means, basically, they get to work wherever they want, so they honestly don’t send out a lot of resumes or apply for a lot of jobs.

When you agree not to recruit you're effectively agreeing not to hire the majority of competent software engineers and keeping them unaware of market conditions which they could leverage when asking for more money.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

airdvr

***>I would expect nothing less from the over-privileged Tesla driving douche-bags.

You've moved the target of your hate from Prius drivers to Tesla drivers! Or do you still hate Prius drivers? Or just successful people in general?

Just the over-privileged Tesla driving Silicon Valley species. I could tell you stories.You stuck installing microwave ovens?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ryoder 1,391]

GeorgiaDon

******>I would expect nothing less from the over-privileged Tesla driving douche-bags.

You've moved the target of your hate from Prius drivers to Tesla drivers! Or do you still hate Prius drivers? Or just successful people in general?

Just the over-privileged Tesla driving Silicon Valley species. I could tell you stories.You stuck installing microwave ovens?

Don

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[headoverheels 291]

Iago

I'm really not sure where that would fall in the grand scheme of things. I was a but miffed because this was a pretty large firm and the recruiter was rather definitive about the issue. 'We have a bunch of contractors there so we won't hire you from there to go work here.'

That's just "don't shit where you eat." Not the same as collusion to "stabilize" the employee loyalty.

[billvon 2,407]

>When you agree not to recruit you're effectively agreeing not to hire the
>majority of competent software engineers . . .

I disagree. Most companies decide which colleges to recruit at, and that does not equate to "agreeing not to hire the majority of competent engineers." Indeed, it is often based on previous discussions with the college concerning what kind of internships they offer, what sort of job fairs they have, what their syllabus is like, what their admissions policies are etc. Deciding where to recruit should be a decision each company is free to make.

[Southern_Man 0]

billvon

>When you agree not to recruit you're effectively agreeing not to hire the
>majority of competent software engineers . . .

I disagree. Most companies decide which colleges to recruit at, and that does not equate to "agreeing not to hire the majority of competent engineers." Indeed, it is often based on previous discussions with the college concerning what kind of internships they offer, what sort of job fairs they have, what their syllabus is like, what their admissions policies are etc. Deciding where to recruit should be a decision each company is free to make.

Of course they can decide where to recruit. They can't collude with their competitors on where to recruit...'we will only recruit Cal-Tech and you can have MIT and since we won't be directly competing both of us can offer lower starting salaries'

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[weekender 0]

quade

Nothing any company does to ensure wages are kept low, including conspiracy to collude with their competition, surprises me in the least. I'm surprised more older and high-paid employees aren't found floating face down in rivers, but I guess when companies can layoff employees for no actual stated reason it's not really required.

I don't think Jobs is unique in this, simply one that got caught and since he's dead can't really defend himself. He's the easy target.

in my experience the only reason ever given for layoffs is, "downsized."

Why does an employer need to state a reason to lay off? or why does it even matter? the persons is being payed to provide a service which the company, for whatever reason, feels is no longer needed. i dont understand why an employer needs to justify anything. i got layed off when a large bank i worked for downsized my entire group, eventually about 400 of us. no hard feelings, revenues were down and we had a lot of fixed costs. i was told nothing more than "sorry and thanks." I dont know what more they could have told me or how it would have mattered.

for the record, i completely agree with others that have stated colluding with competitors to fix wages is wrong and should be a crime. its anti free market.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[rehmwa 2]

I'd say it's no more correct for companies to try and fix wages and salaries than it is for the government to try and do it either.

Who wants to discuss this and how it relates to minimum wage laws, health insurance fixing, subsidies, penalties, price fixing, etc by uncle sam?

Let the free market work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Do you want to include work week length, and workplace safety in that discussion too?

If you look to history we do have great examples of how the free market works, if completely unregulated and unrestrained. Employers demanding 12+ hour workdays, 6 days/week, no vacation, no sick leave, absolutely no consideration for workplace safety were the norm. Take it or leave it. Think in terms of Bob Cratchit/Ebenezer Scrooge.

The basic problem with a completely unregulated "free market" is, I think, not that people/employers necessarily want to be cruel or abusive. Rather, it is that those employers who spend any more than they absolutely have to on wages, workplace safety, pollution control, and the like are doing so at the expense of profit, and so place themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to employers who do not spend money on things they don't have to. The employer who pollutes, runs a dangerous workplace, and pays their employees as little as possible while working them as hard as possible can always produce a product at a lower cost, and so out compete the "socially conscious" employer. In an unregulated marketplace, rather quickly it is the "Scrooges" who will be the only employers left for employees to choose between.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[champu 1]

One form of price-fixing the government could do more of that I would get behind is at the borders. There are plenty of sensible regulations the government imposes on things going on inside the US that makes it suck a lot less to live and work here than it does to do so in other countries. They have costs though, and allowing money and jobs to jump ship while admiring how easily accessible the fire exits are in your shut-down and abandoned factory doesn't really accomplish what was intended.

A tariff system with a goal of parity to cost of compliance with domestic business and environmental regulations makes sense to me. I don't know if this is price-fixing so much as it is acknowledging and attempting to balance out indirect price-fixing.

[weekender 0]

GeorgiaDon

Do you want to include work week length, and workplace safety in that discussion too?

If you look to history we do have great examples of how the free market works, if completely unregulated and unrestrained. Employers demanding 12+ hour workdays, 6 days/week, no vacation, no sick leave, absolutely no consideration for workplace safety were the norm. Take it or leave it. Think in terms of Bob Cratchit/Ebenezer Scrooge.

The basic problem with a completely unregulated "free market" is, I think, not that people/employers necessarily want to be cruel or abusive. Rather, it is that those employers who spend any more than they absolutely have to on wages, workplace safety, pollution control, and the like are doing so at the expense of profit, and so place themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to employers who do not spend money on things they don't have to. The employer who pollutes, runs a dangerous workplace, and pays their employees as little as possible while working them as hard as possible can always produce a product at a lower cost, and so out compete the "socially conscious" employer. In an unregulated marketplace, rather quickly it is the "Scrooges" who will be the only employers left for employees to choose between.

Don

i like your post.

i agree we do need regulation to avoid the problems that would arise from none. on the other hand, there is a problem from over regulation too. the U.S. equity markets are highly regulated but are still very much the world standard for fair and orderly. banks understand that its good business in the long run to have this. to your point, i believe it would devolve into a huge mess if the regulators walked away. not because people are evil but because of exactly what you said.

the problem, IMO, is finding the balance. the gov't is driven by short term politics that have similar consequences as short term profit motives. some legislation is hurried for election purposes and that is a problem too.

again, balance is the key.

to reiterate, i do think colluding with competitors to fix wages is wrong and should be criminal. its anti-free market.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[quade 3]

weekender

in my experience the only reason ever given for layoffs is, "downsized."

Why does an employer need to state a reason to lay off? or why does it even matter? the persons is being payed to provide a service which the company, for whatever reason, feels is no longer needed.

Your experience is not the experience of everyone else.

Some layoffs are actually illegal cullings of workers that would otherwise be protected by law for any one of a number of reasons. The company can't simply "fire" the employee, but if they couch it in the lie of "downsizing" then they can fire whoever they want. It's fairly easy to see the lie too when they company just rehires people at lower rates or uses the same people to do the same jobs as "independent contractors."

It's a bullshit move.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rick 67]

quade

***in my experience the only reason ever given for layoffs is, "downsized."

Why does an employer need to state a reason to lay off? or why does it even matter? the persons is being payed to provide a service which the company, for whatever reason, feels is no longer needed.

Your experience is not the experience of everyone else.

Some layoffs are actually illegal cullings of workers that would otherwise be protected by law for any one of a number of reasons. The company can't simply "fire" the employee, but if they couch it in the lie of "downsizing" then they can fire whoever they want. It's fairly easy to see the lie too when they company just rehires people at lower rates or uses the same people to do the same jobs as "independent contractors."

It's a bullshit move.

I have seen companies use the "independent contractor" move before. Usually it is not even close to being true.
The rules are quite specific on what constitutes a independent contractor.
But as far as "The company can't simply "fire" the employee". I am not sure what you mean by that?
Of course all of my experience is in Florida (a right to work state). And also all non-union work.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[weekender 0]

quade

***in my experience the only reason ever given for layoffs is, "downsized."

Why does an employer need to state a reason to lay off? or why does it even matter? the persons is being payed to provide a service which the company, for whatever reason, feels is no longer needed.

Your experience is not the experience of everyone else.

Some layoffs are actually illegal cullings of workers that would otherwise be protected by law for any one of a number of reasons. The company can't simply "fire" the employee, but if they couch it in the lie of "downsizing" then they can fire whoever they want. It's fairly easy to see the lie too when they company just rehires people at lower rates or uses the same people to do the same jobs as "independent contractors."

It's a bullshit move.

i would imagine if any of that was true it would be a legal mess. the costs in attorney fee's would outweigh any gains in wages. according to your scenario the jobs are protected by law. therefore, the company would not only have civil suits but the gov't on them for violating labor laws. all of which, according to your scenario is fairly easy to see. which means it would be fairly easy to stop. i blatant violation of a civil contract and the law.

thats not my experience, nor anyone i have ever known. i would like to meet someone that scenario has actually happened too.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Boomerdog 0]

SOooo...It seems that the Robber Barons of old; the Vanderbuilts, Rockefellers, Hopkins, Stanfords, Carnegies have been replaced...

Meet the new boss!
Same as the old boss!