4 ms·

"Unions are a nightmare that we don't want or need in an in-demand field like software." Given the well documented case where certain California based tech com

by fsloth 11y ago

"Unions are a nightmare that we don't want or need in an in-demand field like software." Given the well documented case where certain California based tech companies used their combined leverage to hold wages down (through the non-poaching pact) I would say that your view of the leverage of employees over employers is overly optimistic. (i.e. http://www.macrumors.com/2015/03/03/anti-poaching-lawsuit-415m-settlement/ http://www.macrumors.com/2015/03/03/anti-poaching-lawsuit-41...) If employers gang up against non-unionized employees I would say it is obvious who has the short end of the stick. There are areas in tech where your statement may hold true, and superstar performers usually hold more cards at the negotiation table than employers do but for the general software engineering populace it's not as clear cut as that.

cookiecaper 11y ago
I've actually defended Catmull et al for that "cartel" so unfortunately it's not very convincing to me. I see the no-poach agreements as a) not universally applicable in either terms or employers, so not seriously limiting employee mobility, and b) critical to minimizing turnover and successfully managing a long-term project like a CGI movie. The prosecution of the companies involved in this "cartel" is politically motivated.
- kybernetikos 11y ago
  > critical to minimizing turnover and successfully managing a long-term project like a CGI movie There are other ways of reducing turnover, such as finding whatever would convince your key employees to leave and offering it to them to stay before they get that offer from a competitor. It's certainly true that blanket no-poach agreements can help an employer reduce turnover without making the employees lives any better, but that's part of the reason they artificially restrict wages and are unfair.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    The employees' lives are made better by consistent and stable employment, which can't be achieved if the company has turnover so disruptive that it can't successfully release a product. Even if companies were be able to thrive by constantly outbidding each other and taking one anothers' employees, the employees would be unhappy (most people desire a reasonable degree of continuity in their employment). My understanding is that the no-poach agreements forbade only unsolicited pursual of employed individuals. Dissatisfied employees were still free to seek employment at the other competitors. All these agreements did was keep others from fomenting discontent by dangling carrots in front of potential employees (which would've been unlikely to be fulfilled). It was a voluntary arrangement entered into by the industry's recruiters. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
    - kybernetikos 11y ago
      > My understanding is that the no-poach agreements forbade only unsolicited pursual of employed individuals. Dissatisfied employees were still free to seek employment at the other competitors. http://www.scribd.com/doc/78818102/TechCrunch-High-Tech-Employee-Antitrust-Litigation-Conference-Statement-1-19-2012-Analysis-here-http-tcrn-ch-yQt31M#scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/78818102/TechCrunch-High-Tech-Empl... > The documents also demonstrate that Defendants did not extend an offer to an employee of another Defendant without prior approval from the candidate's current employer, regardless of whether the candidate applied without being solicited first. It's also obvious from now public emails that many of the employers knew that these agreements were probably illegal, with Google explicitly saying internally that they didn't want to create a paper trail that they could be sued over, and Palm flat out telling Jobs that his suggestion was probably illegal.

by fsloth 11y ago

cookiecaper 11y ago

I've actually defended Catmull et al for that "cartel" so unfortunately it's not very convincing to me. I see the no-poach agreements as a) not universally applicable in either terms or employers, so not seriously limiting employee mobility, and b) critical to minimizing turnover and successfully managing a long-term project like a CGI movie. The prosecution of the companies involved in this "cartel" is politically motivated.

kybernetikos 11y ago
> critical to minimizing turnover and successfully managing a long-term project like a CGI movie There are other ways of reducing turnover, such as finding whatever would convince your key employees to leave and offering it to them to stay before they get that offer from a competitor. It's certainly true that blanket no-poach agreements can help an employer reduce turnover without making the employees lives any better, but that's part of the reason they artificially restrict wages and are unfair.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  The employees' lives are made better by consistent and stable employment, which can't be achieved if the company has turnover so disruptive that it can't successfully release a product. Even if companies were be able to thrive by constantly outbidding each other and taking one anothers' employees, the employees would be unhappy (most people desire a reasonable degree of continuity in their employment). My understanding is that the no-poach agreements forbade only unsolicited pursual of employed individuals. Dissatisfied employees were still free to seek employment at the other competitors. All these agreements did was keep others from fomenting discontent by dangling carrots in front of potential employees (which would've been unlikely to be fulfilled). It was a voluntary arrangement entered into by the industry's recruiters. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
  - kybernetikos 11y ago
    > My understanding is that the no-poach agreements forbade only unsolicited pursual of employed individuals. Dissatisfied employees were still free to seek employment at the other competitors. http://www.scribd.com/doc/78818102/TechCrunch-High-Tech-Employee-Antitrust-Litigation-Conference-Statement-1-19-2012-Analysis-here-http-tcrn-ch-yQt31M#scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/78818102/TechCrunch-High-Tech-Empl... > The documents also demonstrate that Defendants did not extend an offer to an employee of another Defendant without prior approval from the candidate's current employer, regardless of whether the candidate applied without being solicited first. It's also obvious from now public emails that many of the employers knew that these agreements were probably illegal, with Google explicitly saying internally that they didn't want to create a paper trail that they could be sued over, and Palm flat out telling Jobs that his suggestion was probably illegal.