6 ms·

Cool, maybe Ed could split his part between all the workers he exploited.

by mdre 7y ago

tomashubelbauer 7y ago
I didn't know about this so I looked it up: > The plaintiffs in the lawsuit presented substantial evidence that implicated Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios president Ed Catmull as a ringleader of the illegal wage-fixing scheme. The Walt Disney Company has done nothing to reprimand or punish Catmull for his questionable actions, and he continues to serve as the leader for both Disney and Pixar animation studios. https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/animation-workers-set-to-receive-170-million-payout-from-wage-theft-lawsuit-161482.html https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/animation-workers-... Pretty damning if true. Anyone got a better/additional source?
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  Disney has a long history of exploiting their workers financially, conversely the workers have a long history of loving working for Disney. It's a strange symbiotic relationship.
  - pixelpoet 7y ago
    Sounds a lot like Apple, that other Steve Jobs company.
  - RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
    Working at one's "dream job" is an easy way to be taken advantage of, sadly.
    - chadcmulligan 7y ago
      indeed, I know one guy in particular that really stands out for me - he's working as an editor and hasn't been paid in years, they keep saying 'they're getting investors' then they'll pay him, his parents are giving him money. One of the many reasons I'm not in the vfx industry - how do you compete with people that are willing to work for free.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    It almost makes one question the definition of "exploitation." "Hey, your employer is extracting far more value from you than they're paying you for. You should be paid more." "Yes, but I don't really need to be." Is that "exploitation?"
    - ehnto 7y ago
      But where else would they get paid for their work? They can't leave to "The other blockbuster animation studio" because there is only a handful, and they've all agreed to fix wages at a certain rate so they don't get into a wage-war. If demand for their talent drove their wages, their wages would be much higher. Small studios don't make enough money to pay higher, so big studios hold all the cards and exploit that fact to draw down wages. It's the same issue airline pilots have. If they had the choice to move to a different airline paying higher, they would, but they accept the conditions they're given because the whole industry pays similar rates, and their skills aren't transferable to any other industry. Essentially they're trapped, lest they choose an entirely new career.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Right. The answer in the large is "They'd decide animation is a sucker's game and do something else entirely." Which they could do, and that's the natural back-pressure on wage-fixing cartels driving prices to zero (as opposed to the "unnatural" back-pressure of laws that say "companies aren't allowed to collude on fixing wages", which almost universally translates to "... in ways we can see," because every major industry with a few players and a non-union staff does it somehow. To be clear, I think those laws are wise, but they're a sub-optimal solution because they're very easily gamed and the ROI for gaming them is very, very high). There were not many Google engineers who felt actually slighted by Google when the company was fined for price-fixing along with Apple, Pixar, eBay, &c. At least, if they did feel slighted, they sure didn't demonstrate their frustration by unionizing, leaving, or actually taking more action than accepting their one-time payoff from the class-action settlement. And why would they? They're already paid far above average wages for employees countries Google operates in (and significantly above most of the tech sector in the US).
  - lallysingh 7y ago
    It's called Stockholm Syndrome.
- mprovost 7y ago
  Doesn't mention Catmull specifically but here are the DOJ settlements: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six-high-tech-companies-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-lucasfilm-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee-solicitation https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-l...
- mdre 7y ago
  What's really funny is that this guy had the balls to publish a book named "Creativity inc." which talked about the "culture of candor", the egalitarian culture of Pixar... much of this talk was later challenged by numerous women who opened up about the sexism and misogyny they'd faced there. And of course the other guy that founded Pixar, John Lasseter, turned out to be a molester and so was laid off. Great company!
  - toyg 7y ago
    The two things need not be exclusive: you can have a company that is egalitarian and candid in matters related to the actual creative work and definitely superior to other companies at the time, and still have issues at the interpersonal level. I can think a person is unlikeable and stay as away as possible from them, and then have a productive conversation with them in an open meeting that advances the company output. Even the Beatles didn't like each other that much, and I'm sure the production of Casablanca was plagued by "couches", but they still made masterpieces that were superior to anything seen before.
    - therealcamino 7y ago
      Well, they don't need to be exclusive as long as you're in the group that's not being excluded or treated badly. If you are, then you don't have the luxury of ignoring it and separating those issues so cleanly.
      - toyg 7y ago
        I agree, but those groups have always had that problem, and progress on that front is orthogonal to other issues.
  - itronitron 7y ago
    I very much doubt that he wrote most of that book.
  - vlunkr 7y ago
    Of all the people in Hollywood who we've found out are creeps, Lasseter is the most depressing. He seemed like such a wholesome guy.
- slavik81 7y ago
  Some previous discussions on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8023005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8023005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12257152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12257152
- bleair 7y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-19/apple-google-no-poaching-evidence-triggers-more-lawsuits https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-19/apple-goo... "“Like somehow we’re hurting some employees? We’re not,” Catmull said. “While I have responsibility for the payroll, I have responsibility for the long term also,” Catmull said. “I don’t apologize for this."
greggman3 7y ago
As someone that once ran a company I could have easily and without malice been accused of something like wage fixing had I not had a partner more wise than me. Recruiter called, told me he wanted to recruit my employees. I asked my partner. My partner said it was up to the employee to decide, not us. My gut would have been different. I would have considered that losing some of those employees could have killed the company and then all the other employees would be out of a job. I don't know that's the decision I would have made but the thought would have crossed my mind and it's possible I'd have made the wrong decision not knowing it was illegal. The point I'm trying to make is it's possible Mr. Cathmull had no malicious intent and thought he was doing the right thing at the time to protect a 400 person company. If true that doesn't excuse the actual crime but it does mean he might not be the monster he's being painted to be here. Half of HN seems to worship Steve Jobs who was also caught wage fixing. No excuse for him either.
- tayistay 7y ago
  You're missing important details. The wage fixing scheme lasted well into my time at Pixar, in which the company was over a thousand people (I received money in the settlement). Multiple executives at different companies were involved. It seems unlikely that an executive would not either know about the law, or have counsel advising on it. Let alone multiple executives at different companies. After all, in your case, it took just two people, presumably neither lawyers, to know what not to do. Pixar was paying software people significantly less than other companies. And they would try low-balling you, which sadly many of my colleagues fell for, all starry eyed about making movies, for whatever reason. That's just par for the course I suppose, but the wage fixing on top of that was a bit gross.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- awal2 7y ago
  I can buy this argument for a new leader of a small company, but at the time these things took place, Ed was a senior leader at a very high level for ~ten years. Also, at the time that the lawsuit covers, it was definitely not 400, but probably closer to a thousand employees, and more importantly for at least most of that period Pixar was a wholly owned component of one of the largest entertainment companies in the world (Disney). So Ed either should have known, or he shouldn't have been in a position to make those kinds of decisions. Furthermore, at the time of the lawsuit, this was not some small mom-and-pop shop trying to eke out an honest living, but was the most successful animation studio in the world for a decade, whose films were producing hundreds of millions in profits every twelve to eighteen months, so it's not like they were in some tight pinch and couldn't afford to compete on wages, they just didn't want to. As one of the principle people behind Pixar, Ed also benefited enormously from the studio's success, so to see him trying to suppress the wages of others is disappointing. In light of all this, the "oopsie, didn't mean to" line doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. With that said, he's done a lot of cool things, and deserves recognition and credit for a lot of important pieces of technology. This award is deserved. For reference, I was involved in the class-action lawsuit as an employee of one of the other studios involved in the price fixing ring.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Cool, maybe Ed could split his part between all the workers he exploited.

by mdre 7y ago

Cool, maybe Ed could split his part between all the workers he exploited.

I didn't know about this so I looked it up: > The plaintiffs in the lawsuit presented substantial evidence that implicated Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios president Ed Catmull as a ringleader of the illegal wage-fixing scheme. The Walt Disney Company has done nothing to reprimand or punish Catmull for his questionable actions, and he continues to serve as the leader for both Disney and Pixar animation studios. https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/animation-workers-set-to-receive-170-million-payout-from-wage-theft-lawsuit-161482.html https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/animation-workers-... Pretty damning if true. Anyone got a better/additional source?

chadcmulligan 7y ago
Disney has a long history of exploiting their workers financially, conversely the workers have a long history of loving working for Disney. It's a strange symbiotic relationship.
- pixelpoet 7y ago
  Sounds a lot like Apple, that other Steve Jobs company.
- RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
  Working at one's "dream job" is an easy way to be taken advantage of, sadly.
  - chadcmulligan 7y ago
    indeed, I know one guy in particular that really stands out for me - he's working as an editor and hasn't been paid in years, they keep saying 'they're getting investors' then they'll pay him, his parents are giving him money. One of the many reasons I'm not in the vfx industry - how do you compete with people that are willing to work for free.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  It almost makes one question the definition of "exploitation." "Hey, your employer is extracting far more value from you than they're paying you for. You should be paid more." "Yes, but I don't really need to be." Is that "exploitation?"
  - ehnto 7y ago
    But where else would they get paid for their work? They can't leave to "The other blockbuster animation studio" because there is only a handful, and they've all agreed to fix wages at a certain rate so they don't get into a wage-war. If demand for their talent drove their wages, their wages would be much higher. Small studios don't make enough money to pay higher, so big studios hold all the cards and exploit that fact to draw down wages. It's the same issue airline pilots have. If they had the choice to move to a different airline paying higher, they would, but they accept the conditions they're given because the whole industry pays similar rates, and their skills aren't transferable to any other industry. Essentially they're trapped, lest they choose an entirely new career.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Right. The answer in the large is "They'd decide animation is a sucker's game and do something else entirely." Which they could do, and that's the natural back-pressure on wage-fixing cartels driving prices to zero (as opposed to the "unnatural" back-pressure of laws that say "companies aren't allowed to collude on fixing wages", which almost universally translates to "... in ways we can see," because every major industry with a few players and a non-union staff does it somehow. To be clear, I think those laws are wise, but they're a sub-optimal solution because they're very easily gamed and the ROI for gaming them is very, very high). There were not many Google engineers who felt actually slighted by Google when the company was fined for price-fixing along with Apple, Pixar, eBay, &c. At least, if they did feel slighted, they sure didn't demonstrate their frustration by unionizing, leaving, or actually taking more action than accepting their one-time payoff from the class-action settlement. And why would they? They're already paid far above average wages for employees countries Google operates in (and significantly above most of the tech sector in the US).
- lallysingh 7y ago
  It's called Stockholm Syndrome.
mprovost 7y ago
Doesn't mention Catmull specifically but here are the DOJ settlements: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six-high-tech-companies-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-lucasfilm-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee-solicitation https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-l...
mdre 7y ago
What's really funny is that this guy had the balls to publish a book named "Creativity inc." which talked about the "culture of candor", the egalitarian culture of Pixar... much of this talk was later challenged by numerous women who opened up about the sexism and misogyny they'd faced there. And of course the other guy that founded Pixar, John Lasseter, turned out to be a molester and so was laid off. Great company!
- toyg 7y ago
  The two things need not be exclusive: you can have a company that is egalitarian and candid in matters related to the actual creative work and definitely superior to other companies at the time, and still have issues at the interpersonal level. I can think a person is unlikeable and stay as away as possible from them, and then have a productive conversation with them in an open meeting that advances the company output. Even the Beatles didn't like each other that much, and I'm sure the production of Casablanca was plagued by "couches", but they still made masterpieces that were superior to anything seen before.
  - therealcamino 7y ago
    Well, they don't need to be exclusive as long as you're in the group that's not being excluded or treated badly. If you are, then you don't have the luxury of ignoring it and separating those issues so cleanly.
    - toyg 7y ago
      I agree, but those groups have always had that problem, and progress on that front is orthogonal to other issues.
- itronitron 7y ago
  I very much doubt that he wrote most of that book.
- vlunkr 7y ago
  Of all the people in Hollywood who we've found out are creeps, Lasseter is the most depressing. He seemed like such a wholesome guy.
slavik81 7y ago
Some previous discussions on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8023005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8023005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12257152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12257152
bleair 7y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-19/apple-google-no-poaching-evidence-triggers-more-lawsuits https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-19/apple-goo... "“Like somehow we’re hurting some employees? We’re not,” Catmull said. “While I have responsibility for the payroll, I have responsibility for the long term also,” Catmull said. “I don’t apologize for this."

greggman3 7y ago

As someone that once ran a company I could have easily and without malice been accused of something like wage fixing had I not had a partner more wise than me. Recruiter called, told me he wanted to recruit my employees. I asked my partner. My partner said it was up to the employee to decide, not us. My gut would have been different. I would have considered that losing some of those employees could have killed the company and then all the other employees would be out of a job. I don't know that's the decision I would have made but the thought would have crossed my mind and it's possible I'd have made the wrong decision not knowing it was illegal. The point I'm trying to make is it's possible Mr. Cathmull had no malicious intent and thought he was doing the right thing at the time to protect a 400 person company. If true that doesn't excuse the actual crime but it does mean he might not be the monster he's being painted to be here. Half of HN seems to worship Steve Jobs who was also caught wage fixing. No excuse for him either.

tayistay 7y ago
You're missing important details. The wage fixing scheme lasted well into my time at Pixar, in which the company was over a thousand people (I received money in the settlement). Multiple executives at different companies were involved. It seems unlikely that an executive would not either know about the law, or have counsel advising on it. Let alone multiple executives at different companies. After all, in your case, it took just two people, presumably neither lawyers, to know what not to do. Pixar was paying software people significantly less than other companies. And they would try low-balling you, which sadly many of my colleagues fell for, all starry eyed about making movies, for whatever reason. That's just par for the course I suppose, but the wage fixing on top of that was a bit gross.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
awal2 7y ago
I can buy this argument for a new leader of a small company, but at the time these things took place, Ed was a senior leader at a very high level for ~ten years. Also, at the time that the lawsuit covers, it was definitely not 400, but probably closer to a thousand employees, and more importantly for at least most of that period Pixar was a wholly owned component of one of the largest entertainment companies in the world (Disney). So Ed either should have known, or he shouldn't have been in a position to make those kinds of decisions. Furthermore, at the time of the lawsuit, this was not some small mom-and-pop shop trying to eke out an honest living, but was the most successful animation studio in the world for a decade, whose films were producing hundreds of millions in profits every twelve to eighteen months, so it's not like they were in some tight pinch and couldn't afford to compete on wages, they just didn't want to. As one of the principle people behind Pixar, Ed also benefited enormously from the studio's success, so to see him trying to suppress the wages of others is disappointing. In light of all this, the "oopsie, didn't mean to" line doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. With that said, he's done a lot of cool things, and deserves recognition and credit for a lot of important pieces of technology. This award is deserved. For reference, I was involved in the class-action lawsuit as an employee of one of the other studios involved in the price fixing ring.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]