4 ms·

I used to really look up to Catmull, given all the research he did into early computer graphics, but that wage fixing scandal [1] is just downright disgusting.

I used to really look up to Catmull, given all the research he did into early computer graphics, but that wage fixing scandal [1] is just downright disgusting. There is no way to look up to this guy, unless you get turned-on by those kinds of immoral business practices. [1] http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull-emerges-as-central-figure-in-the-wage-fixing-scandal-101362.html http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull-emerge...

riboflava 10y ago
Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagree with. I think this is necessary for most historical figures (even many living ones) given popular modern ethics. (Edit: with separation you can also work with your coworkers professionally even if they have different politics.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kzhahou 10y ago
  No this is not about separating the work from the man. We're not talking about personal stuff. In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.
  - santaclaus 10y ago
    > senior leader of a major silicon valley company Pixar is in the East Bay, not the valley!
    - kzhahou 10y ago
      SV colloquially refers to the entire region comprising SF, the peninsula, San Jose, and East Bay.
      - santaclaus 10y ago
        No, it does not. Try telling a Berkeley resident they live in the valley and you'll get corrected hella quick.
- sk55 10y ago
  What large tech company during his time did not engage in that practice? I am not saying it was the correct thing to do, however, if it is that common in the industry, then it is a systemic defect versus a personal defect and should be treated as such.
  - Keyframe 10y ago
    He was in a position where he was not really a part of the system. Pixar had its own production and a distribution deal with Disney (at the time). They weren't client-oriented service machine like others. No thin margins for that whale. He could've made an impact, a change in the system other companies were challenged with. Exploitation by studios, which ultimately brought down many VFX houses down and shaked a lot of people's lives. What he did was align with what VFX houses did, where he didn't had to because he was not in the same business as them at all. Lazy approach at best, evil at worst. I still respect all his work he has done though. There is no doubt in that.
sien 10y ago
It was pretty amazing that the first thing he says is all about managers making 'safe environments'. Guess he means safe but where they stitch things up with other managers to pay you less.
dahart 10y ago
I worked for both DreamWorks and Disney while this was going on, and I have a slightly different take. What he did was illegal, no question, I'm not defending it at all, but the Cartoon Brew article and this comment seem slightly hyperbolic to me. I'm not an expert, and I don't know all the details of the lawsuits, I'm just providing an anecdotal data point. Many people I know in the industry, people who've worked with Catmull directly and were surprised by the no-raid agreements and his emails, these people also see and understand there's more nuance here than pure greed/evil/disgustingness. Catmull did make statements about trying to protect the overall business at the expense of individual wages, as well as said things that exhibit a belief that wages were too high. "If the pay goes way up in an industry where the margins are practically nonexistent, it will have a negative effect." And for what it's worth, Pixar is still in business, while both studios I worked for, PDI & Avalanche, have been since shuttered by DreamWorks and Disney, leaving all the employees there without jobs, even while they were making profits. Plus, the VFX industry in the US did in fact collapse almost completely near the end of when this all happened, and it had a lot to do with margins getting too small or going negative, as well as foreign competition and foreign subsidies, so the fears aren't exactly unfounded. I never starved or felt significantly under-compensated while I was at either company, in fact I was paid pretty well, and I know many people who'd prefer to have kept their job with a little less pay than not have a job, or even change jobs or have to switch industries. They're all doing fine, but not by choice in all cases. Anyway, it doesn't take being unredeemingly bad to explain what happened, there are less extreme explanations. Catmull clearly believed he wasn't doing something wrong, because he refused to apologize for it. While I'm certain it was illegal, I'm less certain that it was immoral or disgusting or that his motives were 100% selfish, in the larger context. I'm still curious about him, and the wages thing is a black mark, but he did make many important and foundational contributions to computer graphics. He seems to be a genuinely nice and thoughtful person in his interviews and writings. I'm curious what the discrepancy is between what he says and does, and whether his intentions were as bad as they're being painted to be.
seesomesense 10y ago
The interview is heavy on fluff. His pious statements about management are contradicted by his actual, well documented actions. Reading it makes me feel mildly nauseated.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

riboflava 10y ago

Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagree with. I think this is necessary for most historical figures (even many living ones) given popular modern ethics. (Edit: with separation you can also work with your coworkers professionally even if they have different politics.)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kzhahou 10y ago
No this is not about separating the work from the man. We're not talking about personal stuff. In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.
- santaclaus 10y ago
  > senior leader of a major silicon valley company Pixar is in the East Bay, not the valley!
  - kzhahou 10y ago
    SV colloquially refers to the entire region comprising SF, the peninsula, San Jose, and East Bay.
    - santaclaus 10y ago
      No, it does not. Try telling a Berkeley resident they live in the valley and you'll get corrected hella quick.
sk55 10y ago
What large tech company during his time did not engage in that practice? I am not saying it was the correct thing to do, however, if it is that common in the industry, then it is a systemic defect versus a personal defect and should be treated as such.
- Keyframe 10y ago
  He was in a position where he was not really a part of the system. Pixar had its own production and a distribution deal with Disney (at the time). They weren't client-oriented service machine like others. No thin margins for that whale. He could've made an impact, a change in the system other companies were challenged with. Exploitation by studios, which ultimately brought down many VFX houses down and shaked a lot of people's lives. What he did was align with what VFX houses did, where he didn't had to because he was not in the same business as them at all. Lazy approach at best, evil at worst. I still respect all his work he has done though. There is no doubt in that.

sien 10y ago

It was pretty amazing that the first thing he says is all about managers making 'safe environments'. Guess he means safe but where they stitch things up with other managers to pay you less.

dahart 10y ago

I worked for both DreamWorks and Disney while this was going on, and I have a slightly different take. What he did was illegal, no question, I'm not defending it at all, but the Cartoon Brew article and this comment seem slightly hyperbolic to me. I'm not an expert, and I don't know all the details of the lawsuits, I'm just providing an anecdotal data point. Many people I know in the industry, people who've worked with Catmull directly and were surprised by the no-raid agreements and his emails, these people also see and understand there's more nuance here than pure greed/evil/disgustingness. Catmull did make statements about trying to protect the overall business at the expense of individual wages, as well as said things that exhibit a belief that wages were too high. "If the pay goes way up in an industry where the margins are practically nonexistent, it will have a negative effect." And for what it's worth, Pixar is still in business, while both studios I worked for, PDI & Avalanche, have been since shuttered by DreamWorks and Disney, leaving all the employees there without jobs, even while they were making profits. Plus, the VFX industry in the US did in fact collapse almost completely near the end of when this all happened, and it had a lot to do with margins getting too small or going negative, as well as foreign competition and foreign subsidies, so the fears aren't exactly unfounded. I never starved or felt significantly under-compensated while I was at either company, in fact I was paid pretty well, and I know many people who'd prefer to have kept their job with a little less pay than not have a job, or even change jobs or have to switch industries. They're all doing fine, but not by choice in all cases. Anyway, it doesn't take being unredeemingly bad to explain what happened, there are less extreme explanations. Catmull clearly believed he wasn't doing something wrong, because he refused to apologize for it. While I'm certain it was illegal, I'm less certain that it was immoral or disgusting or that his motives were 100% selfish, in the larger context. I'm still curious about him, and the wages thing is a black mark, but he did make many important and foundational contributions to computer graphics. He seems to be a genuinely nice and thoughtful person in his interviews and writings. I'm curious what the discrepancy is between what he says and does, and whether his intentions were as bad as they're being painted to be.

seesomesense 10y ago

The interview is heavy on fluff. His pious statements about management are contradicted by his actual, well documented actions. Reading it makes me feel mildly nauseated.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]