4 ms·

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." -Santayana This is yet another iteration of American labor politics. That it involves workers with

by olefoo 12y ago

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." -Santayana This is yet another iteration of American labor politics. That it involves workers with greater skills than in previous iterations is not germane. The reason that labor unions arose in the first place was that capitalists actively exploited workers. And, guess what? Capitalists still exploit workers, even when the workers tools are laptops and VMs rather than steam engines and Bessemer converters. How easily we forget that our grandfathers fought and died for the forty-hour work week. How easily we give that up, because we're working for "disruptive startups". If you want to know what previous iterations of no-hire agreements looked like; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(employment) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(employment)

dmix 12y ago
This is the market reacting to malicious behaviour by large organizations. As far as I can tell, in this situation it seems to be working. The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit. I'd much prefer courts handle this than solving the problem by creating a second problem. Which in your example, the unions themselves eventually become too powerful or negatively effecting the job market and upward mobility of smaller players. We would see benefits in the early days then eventually reach by a stasis where everything starts moving extremely slowly and consumed by bureaucratic process. Then only those embedded within the union system benefit, while competing global markets without constraints operate more efficiently. While smaller players in the job market start hiring less due to the high bar needed to hire union workers. I've witnessed this first hand as an electrician in my family ran a successful business, until the workers organized into a union and he had to shut it down because their demands made it completely unprofitable (they demanded expensive benefits programs and high wages, keep in mind we live in Canada with public healthcare). The workers lost their jobs and most ended up working for another much larger company. Unions create bigger companies and bigger unions.
- x0x0 12y ago
  The court system isn't putting up with it? You must have a liberal definition of punishment, if you expect $300mm to change behavior. If you add a zero it may have an actual impact, but at $300mm it's possible the companies net saved money. edit: for a (very rough) estimate of how much money google saved, remember that in late 10 they gave their entire staff a 10% raise, effective 1 Jan 11. So if you look at their 2011 10k [2], a very rough underestimate of their comp expenses -- looking at R&D alone -- is $5,162 (numbers in millions). So if 1.1x = 5162, then x = 4692 and that 10% raise cost google $470m. A fine less than the savings of one year of your illicit behavior -- and for just one company! -- discourages behavior exactly how? [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703523604575605273596157634 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870352360... [2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312512025336/d260164d10k.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125120...
  - dmix 12y ago
    Considering it is not a criminal offense and instead a civil one, the only option for the courts is to fine them. But I actually agree with you, as an alternative to unions the reaction I'd like to see is strengthening the courts ability to punish malicious acts by corporations and have more individual responsibility. As we've seen where banks destroy thousands of peoples lives by purposely gambling their savings away. Or pharma companies mislabeling products every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Largest_Pharmaceutical_Settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Largest_Pharmaceutical... While these cases are much worse than conspiracy to not hire people, I agree settlements aren't always the best solution because it seems to keep happening. There needs to be stricter and real punishment for businesses. One reason is we need to stop protecting those executives directly involved with the conspiracy from being shielded by corporate legal entities, who can easily pay out the fines. Which is why I agree with the judge the current settlement is insufficient. Unfortunately a greater fine is the courts only option, that is the real problem IMO.
- phaus 12y ago
  >The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit. If the court system does not deliver damages that equal or exceed the amount of money these companies made by fucking their employees over, then the court is making it clear to the American people that they fully support such behavior. We keep seeing large corporations taking part in unethical moneymaking schemes because they always come out ahead, even when they get caught.

by olefoo 12y ago

dmix 12y ago

This is the market reacting to malicious behaviour by large organizations. As far as I can tell, in this situation it seems to be working. The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit. I'd much prefer courts handle this than solving the problem by creating a second problem. Which in your example, the unions themselves eventually become too powerful or negatively effecting the job market and upward mobility of smaller players. We would see benefits in the early days then eventually reach by a stasis where everything starts moving extremely slowly and consumed by bureaucratic process. Then only those embedded within the union system benefit, while competing global markets without constraints operate more efficiently. While smaller players in the job market start hiring less due to the high bar needed to hire union workers. I've witnessed this first hand as an electrician in my family ran a successful business, until the workers organized into a union and he had to shut it down because their demands made it completely unprofitable (they demanded expensive benefits programs and high wages, keep in mind we live in Canada with public healthcare). The workers lost their jobs and most ended up working for another much larger company. Unions create bigger companies and bigger unions.

x0x0 12y ago
The court system isn't putting up with it? You must have a liberal definition of punishment, if you expect $300mm to change behavior. If you add a zero it may have an actual impact, but at $300mm it's possible the companies net saved money. edit: for a (very rough) estimate of how much money google saved, remember that in late 10 they gave their entire staff a 10% raise, effective 1 Jan 11. So if you look at their 2011 10k [2], a very rough underestimate of their comp expenses -- looking at R&D alone -- is $5,162 (numbers in millions). So if 1.1x = 5162, then x = 4692 and that 10% raise cost google $470m. A fine less than the savings of one year of your illicit behavior -- and for just one company! -- discourages behavior exactly how? [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703523604575605273596157634 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870352360... [2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312512025336/d260164d10k.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125120...
- dmix 12y ago
  Considering it is not a criminal offense and instead a civil one, the only option for the courts is to fine them. But I actually agree with you, as an alternative to unions the reaction I'd like to see is strengthening the courts ability to punish malicious acts by corporations and have more individual responsibility. As we've seen where banks destroy thousands of peoples lives by purposely gambling their savings away. Or pharma companies mislabeling products every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Largest_Pharmaceutical_Settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Largest_Pharmaceutical... While these cases are much worse than conspiracy to not hire people, I agree settlements aren't always the best solution because it seems to keep happening. There needs to be stricter and real punishment for businesses. One reason is we need to stop protecting those executives directly involved with the conspiracy from being shielded by corporate legal entities, who can easily pay out the fines. Which is why I agree with the judge the current settlement is insufficient. Unfortunately a greater fine is the courts only option, that is the real problem IMO.
phaus 12y ago
>The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit. If the court system does not deliver damages that equal or exceed the amount of money these companies made by fucking their employees over, then the court is making it clear to the American people that they fully support such behavior. We keep seeing large corporations taking part in unethical moneymaking schemes because they always come out ahead, even when they get caught.