upvote

points

by paxys3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby rpaik3 minutes ago|
next
[-]
These companies (e.g., Intel, Google, etc.) also had to compensate their employees as a part of the settlement. Especially for people in engineering orgs, many of them received decent settlement checks.
reply
upvoteby sandeepkd1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> anti-poaching

The term make it sounds like a good thing, however I do not know if this was really a net positive. It might have helped the companies but isn't this anti-competitive at the employee level?

reply
upvoteby skeeter20201 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It was mass-collusion between big companies to prevent people from exercising labour mobility. Poaching is illegal, i.e. theft from an individual or the crown; we shouldn't encourage treating people like company property.
reply
upvoteby beambot1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
yes, which is why Apple got massively fined for doing it -- nowhere near enough to compensate all the depressed engineering salaries though.
reply
upvoteby adastra2249 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes and they got in huge trouble for it. It was a massive scandal. The only reason Apple wasn’t made an example of was because all the other big companies followed suit and did the same thing. It was Steve Jobs that drove this monopolistic behavior that could have turned out much worse for Apple.
reply
upvoteby Melatonic3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
And successfully at the time (illegally) squashed unionization efforts by software engineers
reply
upvoteby bilekas2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think that's just standard across the US. But the unions are a people problem not a company problem necessarily. People can still form unions even with massive investments to squash them.. Europe has proven that. But the story told to all US workers SEEMS to be, you have to suffer and grind to make money.

I might be wrong but that's the impression I get when talking with US people about unions and workers rights.

reply
upvoteby WarmWash28 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Unions primarily benefit the weakest workers, and in places like SV, usually the top workers already are getting fat plates and others are pushing hard to get there.

Think of it like a football club holding a vote to flatten player pay. The benchwarmers will be falling over themselves to unionize, and the top players will be looking where to move too.

This is why union efforts fail, which many find perplexing. The most valuable players get better deals negotiating without a union.

reply
upvoteby smackmybishop21 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Players_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Players_As...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Players_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild

Aren't all of these industries where the top workers get fat plates and others are pushing hard to get there?

reply
upvoteby WarmWash8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'll take the L, it was a poor example.

Generally when workplaces unionize, jobs are clearly delineated, and everyone in that role has a defined pay.

reply
upvoteby ralph8416 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
There is no reason pay has to be flat with a union. The highest paid members of MLBPA or SAG-AFTRA are paid 1,000x what the lowest paid members are.
reply
upvoteby adastra2248 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If Silicon Valley had unions, employee stock options would end. And along with it, most of the incentive structure that drives innovation in the valley.
reply
upvoteby dmix42 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not to mention the all remote workers available to fill in, both within the US and outside it.
reply
upvoteby lilbigdoot8 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Bullshit lol
reply
upvoteby cyanydeez16 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
wasn't that just last decade?
reply