7 ms·

Surprised? I'm not. Capitalists are well known to conspire together and create capitalist unions to block workers of all stripes. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/

Surprised? I'm not. Capitalists are well known to conspire together and create capitalist unions to block workers of all stripes. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/technology/silicon-valley-antitrust-case-settlement-poaching-engineers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/technology/silicon-valley... Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe in this one.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay here. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/ftc-brings-first-wage-fixing-enforcement-action-following-joint-doj-ftc-human-resources-guidance https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/ftc-brings-first-wage-fixin...

lupire 8y ago
The article is about non-tech employees' wages dropping.
rayvy 8y ago
I'm sure you'll get downvoted to kingdom come, but I actually checked out the included links - interesting stuff
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > I'm sure you'll get downvoted to kingdom come, but I actually checked out the included links - interesting stuff Oh, indeed I shall. Still, we're sold a bundle of goods by the capitalists that "unions are evil" and et cetera, yet when when it is advantageous to the very capitalists, they form unions of their own to hold down the very workers' wages. Now, some unions do indeed suck. They were ineffective and only lacklusterly fought for employee rights. Yet, many demanded fair compensation and safe working conditions. And with companies forming unions, are pushing both of those down. Look at FAANG on glassdoor and news websites. They're no rosy pictures, unless you're in ML at the top. But that price bump is just temporary. It'll come down in time. What I'd hope is that tech realizes that the capitalists are treating us IT people as yet more line workers. Where once we had rooms, they dissolved to cubicles. From cubicles, we only wish we had them as now it is "open office" concepts. Insurance premiums keep going up, and compensation keeps lowering. And with more automation, the demand for more work skyrockets. 'Fire 2 and let the 3rd take over'. Ive read those stories again and again. IT needs unions, now more than ever. It is the only counteracting force when 'They' (capitalists) are indeed out to get us.
  - Arbalest 8y ago
    I think for organisations such a thing is called a cartel. Cartels are usually illegal, but only ever get noticed on the sale side, and some are downright legalised (eg OPEC).
    - GeneralMayhem 8y ago
      I don't think calling OPEC "legal" is particularly meaningful, considering the entities participating in the cartel are nation-states.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    They are not out to get you. They’re just doing what makes most sense for them.
  - refurb 8y ago
    It's less about capitalism and more about people just lining their own pockets. It's human nature. It's not like unions aren't susceptible to the same thing. [1] [1]http://nlpc.org/2018/01/18/top-ten-union-corruption-stories-year-8/ http://nlpc.org/2018/01/18/top-ten-union-corruption-stories-...
  - thepp1983 8y ago
    Also as I previously replied to your original statement capitalism != corporatism. The large tech companies should have been broken up about 5 years ago. The only reason that any of us have job is because capitalists in the 70s and 80s popularised computers so they were small enough and low enough in price for anyone to own. It really pains me that most are completely ignorant of anything that happened in computing before the mid-90s. Regulation and Unions help corporations because it makes it raises the bar of difficultly for startups to enter any market. As for working environment. I work from home and I freelance. I run a high end modern workstation with dual 4k screens, a nice sound system for music and my choice of caffeinated beverages. If you don't want to be a slave to the man, work for yourself.
hazz99 8y ago
Edit: I'm not a mod, nor trying to masquerade as one. > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity [0] Please keep your ideological battles away from HN. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Rather than threats, I'd like to hear commentary. If anyone's "destroy[ying] intellectual curiosity", its the one threatening bans. I've made a point, from multiple sources, that SV major players are retarding salaries from all but the C-level positions. Considering that YC is in that area, it would be a rather interesting discussion to hear from the VC's vs workers vs founders. But, threats.
  - hazz99 8y ago
    > it would be a rather interesting discussion to hear from the VC's vs workers vs founders. I'd love to hear that conversation, I think it'd be very interesting. That is very tangential to commentary on capitalism itself, which is purely ideological.
- tomcam 8y ago
  Sticking up for my ideological opposite crankylinuxuser again. HN is constantly used for political and ideological battle. Why is crankylinuxuser's different?
  - hazz99 8y ago
    Disclaimer: I'm not a mod, so you don't have to listen to my opinion. This article is about low-skill workers, and has nothing to do with tech companies being against unions. But, it could simply be a tangential discussion, and those are often interesting! My main concern was the Capitalists are well known to conspire together and create capitalist unions to block workers of all stripes. generalization, which turned a potentially interesting discussion of tech unions into an "capitalism vs. xyz" ideological battle.
tomcam 8y ago
Upvoted not because I agree (I'm a happy capitalist who happens to hate corporate welfare) but because many, many people on HN have views like this. Don't know why parent should be downvoted for them. Why single this person out?
thepp1983 8y ago
Capitalism != Corporatism. We have a problem with corporatism not capitalism. Please learn the difference.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Capitalism != Corporatism. True. > We have a problem with corporatism not capitalism. In the U.S., we have a problem with something much closer to capitalism. (People occasionally indicate that it is a problem with “crony capitalism”, but cronyism has always been a feature or capitalism, it is not an aberration or alien feature.) In China (and even maybe Mexico, though much moreso during the PRI one-party era) there is a problem with corporatism, which is not th same thing as (even crony) capitalism. Both are problems of global impact, to be sure.
  - thepp1983 8y ago
    > Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class. No crony capitalism is not a feature of capitalism. Crony capitalism is a feature of corporatism. You clearly don't understand the terms you are using. China is a totalitarian state that as long as those businesses keep in line and bring enough benefit to the state (which is run by wealthy elites). Businesses are allowed to exist if they don't challenge this status quo. In China an individual has no property rights unlike most of the Anglo-sphere. This is because property rights are an important pre-requisite to many of the other rights we enjoy in the western world.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > No crony capitalism is not a feature of capitalism. Yes, it's a feature of the real world system for which the term capitalism was coined by it's 19th Century critics, and it's been a prominent feature of every real example (including, to a varying extent, the modern mixed economies that have completely replaced the original system named “capitalism”, but retain significant elements of its structure, and are often referred to as “capitalism”.) It may not be a feature of the incoherent and unworkable “ideal” capitalism dreamed up as a defense after the criticism in which “capitalism” was named, but that fantasy has little relevance to anything. > Crony capitalism is a feature of corporatism. No, it's not. Capitalism, crony or otherwise, isn't an essential feature or corporatism, though some versions of corporatism have encompassed elements of capitalism though sometimes at a fairly superficial level. It's true that corporatism provides strong opportunities for cronyism, though.

lupire 8y ago

The article is about non-tech employees' wages dropping.

rayvy 8y ago

I'm sure you'll get downvoted to kingdom come, but I actually checked out the included links - interesting stuff

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> I'm sure you'll get downvoted to kingdom come, but I actually checked out the included links - interesting stuff Oh, indeed I shall. Still, we're sold a bundle of goods by the capitalists that "unions are evil" and et cetera, yet when when it is advantageous to the very capitalists, they form unions of their own to hold down the very workers' wages. Now, some unions do indeed suck. They were ineffective and only lacklusterly fought for employee rights. Yet, many demanded fair compensation and safe working conditions. And with companies forming unions, are pushing both of those down. Look at FAANG on glassdoor and news websites. They're no rosy pictures, unless you're in ML at the top. But that price bump is just temporary. It'll come down in time. What I'd hope is that tech realizes that the capitalists are treating us IT people as yet more line workers. Where once we had rooms, they dissolved to cubicles. From cubicles, we only wish we had them as now it is "open office" concepts. Insurance premiums keep going up, and compensation keeps lowering. And with more automation, the demand for more work skyrockets. 'Fire 2 and let the 3rd take over'. Ive read those stories again and again. IT needs unions, now more than ever. It is the only counteracting force when 'They' (capitalists) are indeed out to get us.
- Arbalest 8y ago
  I think for organisations such a thing is called a cartel. Cartels are usually illegal, but only ever get noticed on the sale side, and some are downright legalised (eg OPEC).
  - GeneralMayhem 8y ago
    I don't think calling OPEC "legal" is particularly meaningful, considering the entities participating in the cartel are nation-states.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  They are not out to get you. They’re just doing what makes most sense for them.
- refurb 8y ago
  It's less about capitalism and more about people just lining their own pockets. It's human nature. It's not like unions aren't susceptible to the same thing. [1] [1]http://nlpc.org/2018/01/18/top-ten-union-corruption-stories-year-8/ http://nlpc.org/2018/01/18/top-ten-union-corruption-stories-...
- thepp1983 8y ago
  Also as I previously replied to your original statement capitalism != corporatism. The large tech companies should have been broken up about 5 years ago. The only reason that any of us have job is because capitalists in the 70s and 80s popularised computers so they were small enough and low enough in price for anyone to own. It really pains me that most are completely ignorant of anything that happened in computing before the mid-90s. Regulation and Unions help corporations because it makes it raises the bar of difficultly for startups to enter any market. As for working environment. I work from home and I freelance. I run a high end modern workstation with dual 4k screens, a nice sound system for music and my choice of caffeinated beverages. If you don't want to be a slave to the man, work for yourself.

hazz99 8y ago

Edit: I'm not a mod, nor trying to masquerade as one. > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity [0] Please keep your ideological battles away from HN. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Rather than threats, I'd like to hear commentary. If anyone's "destroy[ying] intellectual curiosity", its the one threatening bans. I've made a point, from multiple sources, that SV major players are retarding salaries from all but the C-level positions. Considering that YC is in that area, it would be a rather interesting discussion to hear from the VC's vs workers vs founders. But, threats.
- hazz99 8y ago
  > it would be a rather interesting discussion to hear from the VC's vs workers vs founders. I'd love to hear that conversation, I think it'd be very interesting. That is very tangential to commentary on capitalism itself, which is purely ideological.
tomcam 8y ago
Sticking up for my ideological opposite crankylinuxuser again. HN is constantly used for political and ideological battle. Why is crankylinuxuser's different?
- hazz99 8y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm not a mod, so you don't have to listen to my opinion. This article is about low-skill workers, and has nothing to do with tech companies being against unions. But, it could simply be a tangential discussion, and those are often interesting! My main concern was the Capitalists are well known to conspire together and create capitalist unions to block workers of all stripes. generalization, which turned a potentially interesting discussion of tech unions into an "capitalism vs. xyz" ideological battle.

tomcam 8y ago

Upvoted not because I agree (I'm a happy capitalist who happens to hate corporate welfare) but because many, many people on HN have views like this. Don't know why parent should be downvoted for them. Why single this person out?

thepp1983 8y ago

Capitalism != Corporatism. We have a problem with corporatism not capitalism. Please learn the difference.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Capitalism != Corporatism. True. > We have a problem with corporatism not capitalism. In the U.S., we have a problem with something much closer to capitalism. (People occasionally indicate that it is a problem with “crony capitalism”, but cronyism has always been a feature or capitalism, it is not an aberration or alien feature.) In China (and even maybe Mexico, though much moreso during the PRI one-party era) there is a problem with corporatism, which is not th same thing as (even crony) capitalism. Both are problems of global impact, to be sure.
- thepp1983 8y ago
  > Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class. No crony capitalism is not a feature of capitalism. Crony capitalism is a feature of corporatism. You clearly don't understand the terms you are using. China is a totalitarian state that as long as those businesses keep in line and bring enough benefit to the state (which is run by wealthy elites). Businesses are allowed to exist if they don't challenge this status quo. In China an individual has no property rights unlike most of the Anglo-sphere. This is because property rights are an important pre-requisite to many of the other rights we enjoy in the western world.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > No crony capitalism is not a feature of capitalism. Yes, it's a feature of the real world system for which the term capitalism was coined by it's 19th Century critics, and it's been a prominent feature of every real example (including, to a varying extent, the modern mixed economies that have completely replaced the original system named “capitalism”, but retain significant elements of its structure, and are often referred to as “capitalism”.) It may not be a feature of the incoherent and unworkable “ideal” capitalism dreamed up as a defense after the criticism in which “capitalism” was named, but that fantasy has little relevance to anything. > Crony capitalism is a feature of corporatism. No, it's not. Capitalism, crony or otherwise, isn't an essential feature or corporatism, though some versions of corporatism have encompassed elements of capitalism though sometimes at a fairly superficial level. It's true that corporatism provides strong opportunities for cronyism, though.