4 ms·

It would be difficult to prove active collusion, its more like institutionalized collusion, and I doubt that's a crime. e.g. the same consulting firms are hire

by pm90 4y ago

It would be difficult to prove active collusion, its more like institutionalized collusion, and I doubt that's a crime. e.g. the same consulting firms are hired by all companies, and they will give the same advice when dealing with falling revenues, plunging stock prices etc.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> It would be difficult to prove active collusion Unless an IT admin stumbles across some interesting emails...
- shagie 4y ago
  A story I heard long ago when I was a contractor at Sun about the default settings for bounced email in sendmail (this was likely the early 90s when it happened - I heard it in '97). At one time, messages that bounced were sent to postmaster - possibly in hopes back then (when things were smaller) that the postmaster would know who it should have been sent to and pass the email on. One of the night shift sysadmins who was responsible for postmaster at Sun got an email that was misaddressed between a few manager+ level people for what would be considered constructed dismissal of a number of people. The following day, the people mentioned in that email found a printout on their chairs. ... and a change request when in to only include the headers(?) of the email message to postmaster rather than the body.
- rachelbladdow 4y ago
  [flagged]
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Nobody needs to collude or conspire when interests align.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  that's not necessarily true, as timing still can matter.
- piva00 4y ago
  Interests and incentives align perfectly: make more money at the top (stock goes up after a layoff if the company isn't going bankrupt), crush employee's power and morale, afraid employees either work harder or quit. The price for that is just some more attrition and losing a bit of culture, both things that aren't priced in for their bonuses/stocks and so the C-level couldn't care less.
treis 4y ago
Also, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Growing head count 50% over 2 years and then pulling back 5-10% isn't breaking the back of workers. It sucks for the 5-10% but big tech still has much more demand for workers than they have except for like 6 months of their existence.
- pm90 4y ago
  Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, they've taken away or trimmed many benefits and increased expectations around performance. Will a change in hiring make them change the benefits structure, or will this be the new normal? In particular, if there is a large backlog of workers looking for jobs after several quarters of reduced hiring, it will likely allow them to revisit compensation. It all depends on how exactly this pans out.
Pulcinella 4y ago
Also, Powell has said the Federal Reserve is trying to increase unemployment and decrease wages so it’s unlikely to be prosecuted even if there was evidence of intentional and active collusion considering corporations and the government are aligned on this.

by pm90 4y ago

Quarrelsome 4y ago

> It would be difficult to prove active collusion Unless an IT admin stumbles across some interesting emails...

shagie 4y ago
A story I heard long ago when I was a contractor at Sun about the default settings for bounced email in sendmail (this was likely the early 90s when it happened - I heard it in '97). At one time, messages that bounced were sent to postmaster - possibly in hopes back then (when things were smaller) that the postmaster would know who it should have been sent to and pass the email on. One of the night shift sysadmins who was responsible for postmaster at Sun got an email that was misaddressed between a few manager+ level people for what would be considered constructed dismissal of a number of people. The following day, the people mentioned in that email found a printout on their chairs. ... and a change request when in to only include the headers(?) of the email message to postmaster rather than the body.
rachelbladdow 4y ago
[flagged]

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Nobody needs to collude or conspire when interests align.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
that's not necessarily true, as timing still can matter.
piva00 4y ago
Interests and incentives align perfectly: make more money at the top (stock goes up after a layoff if the company isn't going bankrupt), crush employee's power and morale, afraid employees either work harder or quit. The price for that is just some more attrition and losing a bit of culture, both things that aren't priced in for their bonuses/stocks and so the C-level couldn't care less.

treis 4y ago

Also, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Growing head count 50% over 2 years and then pulling back 5-10% isn't breaking the back of workers. It sucks for the 5-10% but big tech still has much more demand for workers than they have except for like 6 months of their existence.

pm90 4y ago
Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, they've taken away or trimmed many benefits and increased expectations around performance. Will a change in hiring make them change the benefits structure, or will this be the new normal? In particular, if there is a large backlog of workers looking for jobs after several quarters of reduced hiring, it will likely allow them to revisit compensation. It all depends on how exactly this pans out.

Pulcinella 4y ago

Also, Powell has said the Federal Reserve is trying to increase unemployment and decrease wages so it’s unlikely to be prosecuted even if there was evidence of intentional and active collusion considering corporations and the government are aligned on this.