6 ms·

The behavior is not acceptable. This is a cartel to "fix" the wages of workers - esp. when these tech companies claim their workers are the most important resou

by sremani 13y ago

The behavior is not acceptable. This is a cartel to "fix" the wages of workers - esp. when these tech companies claim their workers are the most important resource. Now, I am not surprised the book price fixing Apple did with the publishers. But both Apple and Google get a pass - think if it is done by Oracle or MSFT, well we would be talking about Evil Empire and Death-star

Piskvorrr 13y ago
Yup. "It was St.Steve of Cupertino, and the Do-No-Evil Company Inc., so that makes it quite all right."
mikeash 13y ago
What do you mean "get a pass"? This story has been on and off HN's front page for months and the companies involved, including Apple and Google, have received nothing but strong criticism every time.
- davidw 13y ago
  > What do you mean "get a pass"? This is what he's referring to: > all this outrage over the attitudes of the executives seems overblown to me I'm no "occupy wall street" fan, but I think taking millions of dollars from the pockets of a lot of workers is very much something to be outraged about.
  - kefka 13y ago
    It really comes down to this: If you are working, you don't want to jeopardize your job with a lawsuit against your employer. Lest you do, you get blackballed. If you aren't working, you cannot afford a lawyer. End of discussion. Perhaps the Justice department can do something... But then again, I'm sure it will be smoothed out with greased palms to both parties.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    He's specifically talking about outrage over the attitudes, as in how the execs handled this one incident. His entire point is that the attitudes displayed in this e-mail chain are unrelated to the larger wage-fixing scheme. Of all the discussion forums on the internet, I'd expect HN to be one where it's possible to discuss things rationally and discuss individual aspects of an issue separate from the whole in a reasonable manner, without being called out for failing to express the proper quantity of outrage at every step. Of course, this is completely naive of me as it ends up being proven wrong over and over.
    - davidw 13y ago
      I get where you are coming from and appreciate the desire to keep things rational. But sometimes there is a time and place to get angry about things that are wrong. Everyone has their own issues, and I can see that this particular one wouldn't get everyone fired up, but it certainly flips my bits: they summarily fired and "made a public example" of a person for not following an illegal policy.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I can understand getting upset about this. I personally see it as a sort of "double dipping" on outrage in this case, but that's just a difference of opinion. My main point here is simply that not getting outraged at the attitudes displayed here is far from giving these companies a pass on what they've done.
  - antimagic 13y ago
    I agree with Mike here. Bear in mind that we're talking about the attitude of the execs, not the substantive issue at hand. Imagine if the issue at hand had been a Google employee deliberately breaking Google Maps for iPhone (back in the day when Google and Apple got on fine). Would anyone be surprised / outraged by Google firing the employee, and Steve Jobs forwarding the email informing him to Scott Forestall with a smiley face? I would think not. Now, just to be extra clear, I agree with most people on HN that the substantive issue of non-poaching agreements is not acceptable. I expect all companies that were involved to be justifiably raked over the coals for it. But Steve Jobs responding with a smiley when he receives confirmation that the agreed-upon policy has been enforced? Total non-issue.
    - davidw 13y ago
      Even the attitude irks me. You need to fire someone, you fire them, you don't "make a public example" of them as a sign of obeisance to the head of a competing company. I want to know my boss has got my back, rather than thinking they're willing to throw me under the bus without so much as asking me about it if they get a harshly worded email from someone else.
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Thank you. That's 100% correct. You don't make them a public example. I think Sharon is finding out what it's like to be a public example right now.
        antimagic 13y ago
        Just for your information, I've been on three separate management courses which say the contrary - when you're trying to set a cultural norm in your company, making a public example of infringers is practically considered the textbook response. The example given usually concerns sexual harassment. You make the punishment of the harasser public as a way of reinforcing that you're serious about the issue. That said, most management courses will also tell you to privilege process over people - if something goes wrong it's because the process failed, not the person, and as such most of the time a public correction of someone making a mistake is not appropriate, unless it is felt that the person acted knowingly and deliberately against the rules... So unless the recruiter in question had already been corrected on this error, not only should they not have been fired, but they should not even have been reprimanded in public.
  - sjg007 13y ago
    "Meet the new boss same as the old boss."
javert 13y ago
Agreements between companies to not recruit each others' workers are not actually immoral. There are many immoral laws, and whatever law is being thrown at them in this case is one such. I also think it was immoral to stop MSFT from selling their product as they saw fit---with Windows and IE bundled. So you can't accuse me of being partial to one set of companies over another.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Collusion is, if not immoral, at least inconsistent with free markets.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Not, really. In a free market, everything is allowed, no? There is no arbiter to enforce any rules.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      You cannot have efficient free markets without rules, because of the presence of externalities and monopolies. That's Econ 101. Beyond that, I'd argue you can't have markets at all without rules. Markets do not generally develop in situations where killing your counter-party and taking his stuff is allowed.
      - jeffcox 13y ago
        >You cannot have efficient free markets without rules Wouldn't that be the most efficient free market? One in which only the most brutal and powerful ideas and companies prevail (with money)?
        rayiner 13y ago
        An efficient free market maximizes production. Markets in which companies can externalize costs or engage in monopoly behavior produce less than markets in which these behaviors are prevented. "Free market" is not synonymous with "anything goes." It's a specific economic (rather than ideological) concept. Most economists believe that certain rules and restrictions are necessary to have any functioning market at all.
jonas21 13y ago
> But both Apple and Google get a pass Seems like the opposite. Apple and Google are being called out for their behavior on a regular basis in the tech press, while the other companies named in the suit (Adobe, Intuit, etc.) are barely mentioned.
- pvarangot 13y ago
  The other companies don't get the online press their well deserved pageranks and clicks in news aggregators that Apple and Google do when used in headlines.
roc 13y ago
First, Apple and Google haven't been getting "a pass" they've been called out as the primary perpetrators every single time this story has come up. Which has been many times, for several months now. Second, you don't need your hypothetical: Oracle and MSFT were both involved. And, if anything, they're getting "a pass" because their involvement has always been a secondary data point under the headlines about Apple and Google. In any case, if the board or geeks in general had any special reserve of outrage for those two companies, that should have surfaced by now, right? So where is it?
- blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
  Suck it bro...Apple and Google have had this crazy honeymoon with the press for a long time. No ones beating up on MS or ORA because it's not news that they are companies that do that kind of thing. Apple and Google have been selling this image of being liberal and touchy feely and "not evil"...its a fucking joke and an insult to peoples intelligence.

by sremani 13y ago

Piskvorrr 13y ago

Yup. "It was St.Steve of Cupertino, and the Do-No-Evil Company Inc., so that makes it quite all right."

mikeash 13y ago

What do you mean "get a pass"? This story has been on and off HN's front page for months and the companies involved, including Apple and Google, have received nothing but strong criticism every time.

davidw 13y ago
> What do you mean "get a pass"? This is what he's referring to: > all this outrage over the attitudes of the executives seems overblown to me I'm no "occupy wall street" fan, but I think taking millions of dollars from the pockets of a lot of workers is very much something to be outraged about.
- kefka 13y ago
  It really comes down to this: If you are working, you don't want to jeopardize your job with a lawsuit against your employer. Lest you do, you get blackballed. If you aren't working, you cannot afford a lawyer. End of discussion. Perhaps the Justice department can do something... But then again, I'm sure it will be smoothed out with greased palms to both parties.
- mikeash 13y ago
  He's specifically talking about outrage over the attitudes, as in how the execs handled this one incident. His entire point is that the attitudes displayed in this e-mail chain are unrelated to the larger wage-fixing scheme. Of all the discussion forums on the internet, I'd expect HN to be one where it's possible to discuss things rationally and discuss individual aspects of an issue separate from the whole in a reasonable manner, without being called out for failing to express the proper quantity of outrage at every step. Of course, this is completely naive of me as it ends up being proven wrong over and over.
  - davidw 13y ago
    I get where you are coming from and appreciate the desire to keep things rational. But sometimes there is a time and place to get angry about things that are wrong. Everyone has their own issues, and I can see that this particular one wouldn't get everyone fired up, but it certainly flips my bits: they summarily fired and "made a public example" of a person for not following an illegal policy.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I can understand getting upset about this. I personally see it as a sort of "double dipping" on outrage in this case, but that's just a difference of opinion. My main point here is simply that not getting outraged at the attitudes displayed here is far from giving these companies a pass on what they've done.
- antimagic 13y ago
  I agree with Mike here. Bear in mind that we're talking about the attitude of the execs, not the substantive issue at hand. Imagine if the issue at hand had been a Google employee deliberately breaking Google Maps for iPhone (back in the day when Google and Apple got on fine). Would anyone be surprised / outraged by Google firing the employee, and Steve Jobs forwarding the email informing him to Scott Forestall with a smiley face? I would think not. Now, just to be extra clear, I agree with most people on HN that the substantive issue of non-poaching agreements is not acceptable. I expect all companies that were involved to be justifiably raked over the coals for it. But Steve Jobs responding with a smiley when he receives confirmation that the agreed-upon policy has been enforced? Total non-issue.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Even the attitude irks me. You need to fire someone, you fire them, you don't "make a public example" of them as a sign of obeisance to the head of a competing company. I want to know my boss has got my back, rather than thinking they're willing to throw me under the bus without so much as asking me about it if they get a harshly worded email from someone else.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Thank you. That's 100% correct. You don't make them a public example. I think Sharon is finding out what it's like to be a public example right now.
      - antimagic 13y ago
        Just for your information, I've been on three separate management courses which say the contrary - when you're trying to set a cultural norm in your company, making a public example of infringers is practically considered the textbook response. The example given usually concerns sexual harassment. You make the punishment of the harasser public as a way of reinforcing that you're serious about the issue. That said, most management courses will also tell you to privilege process over people - if something goes wrong it's because the process failed, not the person, and as such most of the time a public correction of someone making a mistake is not appropriate, unless it is felt that the person acted knowingly and deliberately against the rules... So unless the recruiter in question had already been corrected on this error, not only should they not have been fired, but they should not even have been reprimanded in public.
- sjg007 13y ago
  "Meet the new boss same as the old boss."

javert 13y ago

Agreements between companies to not recruit each others' workers are not actually immoral. There are many immoral laws, and whatever law is being thrown at them in this case is one such. I also think it was immoral to stop MSFT from selling their product as they saw fit---with Windows and IE bundled. So you can't accuse me of being partial to one set of companies over another.

rayiner 13y ago
Collusion is, if not immoral, at least inconsistent with free markets.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Not, really. In a free market, everything is allowed, no? There is no arbiter to enforce any rules.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You cannot have efficient free markets without rules, because of the presence of externalities and monopolies. That's Econ 101. Beyond that, I'd argue you can't have markets at all without rules. Markets do not generally develop in situations where killing your counter-party and taking his stuff is allowed.
    - jeffcox 13y ago
      >You cannot have efficient free markets without rules Wouldn't that be the most efficient free market? One in which only the most brutal and powerful ideas and companies prevail (with money)?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        An efficient free market maximizes production. Markets in which companies can externalize costs or engage in monopoly behavior produce less than markets in which these behaviors are prevented. "Free market" is not synonymous with "anything goes." It's a specific economic (rather than ideological) concept. Most economists believe that certain rules and restrictions are necessary to have any functioning market at all.

jonas21 13y ago

> But both Apple and Google get a pass Seems like the opposite. Apple and Google are being called out for their behavior on a regular basis in the tech press, while the other companies named in the suit (Adobe, Intuit, etc.) are barely mentioned.

pvarangot 13y ago
The other companies don't get the online press their well deserved pageranks and clicks in news aggregators that Apple and Google do when used in headlines.

roc 13y ago

First, Apple and Google haven't been getting "a pass" they've been called out as the primary perpetrators every single time this story has come up. Which has been many times, for several months now. Second, you don't need your hypothetical: Oracle and MSFT were both involved. And, if anything, they're getting "a pass" because their involvement has always been a secondary data point under the headlines about Apple and Google. In any case, if the board or geeks in general had any special reserve of outrage for those two companies, that should have surfaced by now, right? So where is it?

blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
Suck it bro...Apple and Google have had this crazy honeymoon with the press for a long time. No ones beating up on MS or ORA because it's not news that they are companies that do that kind of thing. Apple and Google have been selling this image of being liberal and touchy feely and "not evil"...its a fucking joke and an insult to peoples intelligence.