5 ms·

I personally don't care if employers agree not to hire each other's employees. People are free to make agreements if they want to, just as employees are free t

I personally don't care if employers agree not to hire each other's employees. People are free to make agreements if they want to, just as employees are free to not work for them. There's nothing immoral about it. Are you free to use the power of the state to try an boost your salary? I don't think you should be able to do that. But apparently many people do.

dippyskoodlez 13y ago
It's a little different when these are the primary tech giants in the field even offering those positions and they work together to keep your position at a lower salary. "Not work for them" would mean leaving the industry.
doktrin 13y ago
> People are free to make agreements if they want to, just as employees are free to not work for them. No, they're not. This is anti-competitive wage suppression. It's illegal. > Are you free to use the power of the state to try an boost your salary? I don't think you should be able to do that. But apparently many people do. Pretty sure that's illegal too.
- n09n 13y ago
  You're pretty sure raising the minimum wage is illegal?
  - doktrin 13y ago
    The original statement clearly implied government corruption. After all, those raising the minimum wage don't earn it themselves. Thus, they're not "using the power of the state to boost their salary".
    - stretchwithme 13y ago
      What I was referring to was trying to prevent people from making agreements that make it easier to keep their employees. Putting a stop to that would be using the state as a way to make more money. And, yes, those lobbying for something are a different group than those approving. But I bet if I lobby for something you don't like that gets implemented, I'd be responsible for it, if not wholly responsible.
- stretchwithme 13y ago
  I wasn't arguing that its legal. I merely argued that there's nothing immoral about it. No rights to do anything are being violated. People are just agreeing to not exercise their rights. And rights are not duties. We can exercise them or not. Just because people are wildly successfully and in charge doesn't take away their basic rights, even if you don't like the outcome. Everybody is still free to work with whoever will agree to work with them. There is no right to coerce others to do what we would prefer.
camus2 13y ago
cartel =/= free market.
acchow 13y ago
Compared to corporations, individuals are relatively weak. These laws are meant to keep power in check.
ElComradio 13y ago
Problem is employees are getting into agreements the full terms of which are not known. In effect part of their contracts/understandings are written in invisible ink- A non-compete of which they are not aware.
bluecalm 13y ago
Yeah, oil barons could voluntarily agree on selling for 500$/barrel as well and you could voluntarily not buy from them. Same goes for cable companies or electricity vendors or any other monopoly. That would kinda suck if people controlling most of the resources (or all of them in given area) would agree to not compete. That's why it's immoral and illegal.
lmm 13y ago
So the rich and powerful should be free to make agreements to lower salaries, but the poor and weak should be prevented from making agreements to raise salaries? Too many on the right seem to think it's bad when the government does something but have no problem when corporations do the same. But in reality a government is just a bunch of people agreeing to act in certain ways, just as a corporation is.

dippyskoodlez 13y ago

It's a little different when these are the primary tech giants in the field even offering those positions and they work together to keep your position at a lower salary. "Not work for them" would mean leaving the industry.

doktrin 13y ago

> People are free to make agreements if they want to, just as employees are free to not work for them. No, they're not. This is anti-competitive wage suppression. It's illegal. > Are you free to use the power of the state to try an boost your salary? I don't think you should be able to do that. But apparently many people do. Pretty sure that's illegal too.

n09n 13y ago
You're pretty sure raising the minimum wage is illegal?
- doktrin 13y ago
  The original statement clearly implied government corruption. After all, those raising the minimum wage don't earn it themselves. Thus, they're not "using the power of the state to boost their salary".
  - stretchwithme 13y ago
    What I was referring to was trying to prevent people from making agreements that make it easier to keep their employees. Putting a stop to that would be using the state as a way to make more money. And, yes, those lobbying for something are a different group than those approving. But I bet if I lobby for something you don't like that gets implemented, I'd be responsible for it, if not wholly responsible.
stretchwithme 13y ago
I wasn't arguing that its legal. I merely argued that there's nothing immoral about it. No rights to do anything are being violated. People are just agreeing to not exercise their rights. And rights are not duties. We can exercise them or not. Just because people are wildly successfully and in charge doesn't take away their basic rights, even if you don't like the outcome. Everybody is still free to work with whoever will agree to work with them. There is no right to coerce others to do what we would prefer.

camus2 13y ago

cartel =/= free market.

acchow 13y ago

Compared to corporations, individuals are relatively weak. These laws are meant to keep power in check.

ElComradio 13y ago

Problem is employees are getting into agreements the full terms of which are not known. In effect part of their contracts/understandings are written in invisible ink- A non-compete of which they are not aware.

bluecalm 13y ago

Yeah, oil barons could voluntarily agree on selling for 500$/barrel as well and you could voluntarily not buy from them. Same goes for cable companies or electricity vendors or any other monopoly. That would kinda suck if people controlling most of the resources (or all of them in given area) would agree to not compete. That's why it's immoral and illegal.

lmm 13y ago

So the rich and powerful should be free to make agreements to lower salaries, but the poor and weak should be prevented from making agreements to raise salaries? Too many on the right seem to think it's bad when the government does something but have no problem when corporations do the same. But in reality a government is just a bunch of people agreeing to act in certain ways, just as a corporation is.