Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 12th Jul 2014 00:44 UTC
Legal

If you think only Apple, Google, Intel, and several other technology companies flagrantly broke the law by illegally robbing their employees of wages - think again. As it turns out, the digital animation industry - centering around Steve Jobs' Pixar, unsurprisingly - was just as bad.

[Pixar's] Catmull's deposition and emails from the lawsuit confirm that he was instrumental in operating a secret wage-theft cartel that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. But it's even worse than you think. The cartel orchestrated in large part by Catmull robbed potential wages and job opportunities from thousands of animation industry workers at other studios, including DreamWorks, Lucasfilm, Robert Zemeckis’ ImageMovers, the now-defunct Orphanage, and Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Pando Daily has the meat on this story (here and here).

The wage fixing scandal is way, way more sprawling than anyone could have originally anticipated. The sad thing is that the criminals behind this illegal behaviour - Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt, George Lucas, Ed Catmull, and many, many more - will never have to face any serious consequences for their crimes.

Order by: Score:
The lesson is simple
by WereCatf on Sat 12th Jul 2014 01:28 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

If you're going to do something illegal form a company first and do the illegal thing in the company's name. If you're caught, at worst you'll just lose some of the money you paid yourself and your company.

It's like the walk-out-of-jail-free card in Monopoly.

Reply Score: 14

v Tom, exaggeration is not necessary.
by sergio on Sat 12th Jul 2014 03:39 UTC
linux-lover Member since:
2011-04-25

It might be wrong or illegal but calling it a "crime" is ridiculous.


So you are telling me that doing something illegal is NOT a crime? What are you smoking?

Also you seem to really overestimate how much these workers get paid.

Edited 2014-07-12 03:53 UTC

Reply Score: 11

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

sergio,

It's ridiculous in the way Tom used it... implying that Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt, George Lucas are criminals.


It's undoubtedly taboo to discuss negatively about highly respected individuals in this way, but if the emails show that they were personally involved with and even the masterminds of some crimes, then why not?

Reply Score: 9

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Isn't it funny though how it's NOT taboo to discuss the very same things when the involved are not "highly respected individuals" (aka assholes).

Reply Score: 5

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It's ridiculous in the way Tom used it... implying that Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt, George Lucas are criminals.


Being guilty of illegalities does, by very fucking definition, make them criminals.

Reply Score: 13

abstraction Member since:
2008-11-27

But they are not guilty until the court has decided they are so they can't technically be criminals yet because they have not been convicted... I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning.

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Breaking the law is a crime.

Reply Score: 8

BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

It's ridiculous in the way Tom used it... implying that Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt, George Lucas are criminals.


Sergio, I think that I speak for all of us here when I say that you appear to be a fucking imbecile.

Reply Score: 11

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, maybe You are right and I'm stupid, but this stupid thinks that calling "criminals" to brilliant people like George Lucas or Steve Jobs is an exaggeration at very least.

But hey, that's what happens when you mix news with cheap demagogic anti-corporate left-wing rhetoric.

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Well, I'll be damned. Apparently the previous poster wasn't using imbecile as an insult but as a statement of fact.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

but this stupid thinks that calling "criminals" to brilliant people like George Lucas or Steve Jobs is an exaggeration at very least.


Well, yeah, sorry but being "brilliant" doesn't mean you're not a criminal. Doing illegal acts makes you a criminal, regardless if you're a CEO, an engineer or a bum.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Unfortunately it's unlikely that anyone involved in this will do any time.

that's what happens when you mix news with cheap demagogic anti-corporate left-wing rhetoric.


Flattery will get you nowhere.

Reply Score: 4

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

What you'd expect, IIRC he's a catholic; overlooking abuses of authority is in his blood.

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Well, maybe You are right and I'm stupid, but this stupid thinks that calling "criminals" to brilliant people like George Lucas or Steve Jobs is an exaggeration at very least.

But hey, that's what happens when you mix news with cheap demagogic anti-corporate left-wing rhetoric.


As opposed to the right-wing suck-up-to-the-rich-and-powerful-hoping-they'll-reward-your-loyalty?

It's amazing how people such as yourself will let rich people off the hook in the hopes that you'll get rich someday, not realizing the fact that letting the rich get away with crimes is the biggest thing stopping you from making your own riches.

Reply Score: 3

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt, George Lucas, Ed Catmull, and many, many more - will never have to face any serious consequences for their crimes."

"their crimes"?? C'mon We are talking about highly specialized workers with sky-high wages... probably better than any other worker in the world (thanks to innovative industries created by the people that you are calling "criminals").

Companies trying to keep the higher wages in a sane level for the industry is not a crime, it's business. It might be wrong or illegal but calling it a "crime" is ridiculous.



You act like the people affected just walked into these jobs right out of high school. Most of them are highly educated professionals in a field that largely reinvents itself every 5-7 years. They deserve every penny they can get. Having companies collaborate to keep their wages down is bullshit when you consider the large profits these companies make are directly linked to these individuals. Where would Google or Facebook or Microsoft be without software engineers? No where. Just because you may not be able to earn money like them doesn't mean that they aren't deserving of it.

Reply Score: 8

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

"their crimes"?? C'mon We are talking about highly specialized workers with sky-high wages...


"Sky-high" wages? I'm sorry, but 30k-150k (as per glassdoor.com) is not sky-high... It could be worse, but it could be alot better too.

probably better than any other worker in the world (thanks to innovative industries created by the people that you are calling "criminals").


Wow. I really want to just tell you off at this point - but I'd rather this not devolve into poop throwing. Let me try this - the "innovative industries" you are talking about were created by the very people you are deriding in your comments as not deserving of fair compensation. People like Jobs, Schmidt, Catmull, etc. not only did not create these industries, I would argue they could barely feed themselves without the mountains of talent that surrounded them. Yes, they played important roles, but you give them WAY too much credit. Steve Jobs without the other Steve would probably have ended up handing out pamphlets at airports...

Companies trying to keep the higher wages in a sane level for the industry is not a crime, it's business.


Um, just no. It IS a crime. Its a form of collusion, generally termed wage fixing, and is illegal in the US and has been for over 100 years. People can, and have, gone to prison for it. If there was any justice someone will go to prison for this too - but I doubt it. These guys literally stole money from their employees, ALOT of money. Its exactly the same as if each day when these artist came in for work their bosses picked their pocket and stole half their money. Everyday. For years.

They are fucking assholes and deserve a special place in hell for it.

It might be wrong or illegal but calling it a "crime" is ridiculous.


The term most English speaking natives use to describe illegal activity is "crime" - sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities...

Reply Score: 11

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Sorry to respond to my own post, but this makes me so mad...

Lets do some math. The class in the lawsuit was 65000 guys, making somewhere between 30k and 150k. Lets say 80k on average.

65,000 * 80,000 = 5.2 billion

That is 1 years salary. This went on for 10 years at least...

5.2 billion * 10 = 52 billion

Lets say this collusion affected the average salary by 5% (being generous).

52 billion * 5% = 2.6 billion

That comes about to about $40k that was stolen from each of these guys. That is what an additional 5% of salary over 10 years would have gotten them.

They are getting less than $8k each in the final settlement...

So basically these assholes stole 2.6 billion dollars and they only gave back about 20% of it. No criminal prosecution, no punitive action at all. They didn't even return all of the money.

Those of you who are saying "they didn't get away with it" are idiots.

Edited 2014-07-12 19:42 UTC

Reply Score: 5

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Those of you who are saying "they didn't get away with it" are idiots.


It's really concerning for modern civilization that people can decide whether something is a crime based on how horrified it makes them feel rather than something breaking a law (and not even understanding the historical reasons for those laws that make them important).

Reply Score: 5

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

5%? Usually when poaching the poacher offers a raise of 25% or more. The more competetive and specialized the business is the higher that can get, to the point where they just offer to double their salary like some cliché.

Reply Score: 4

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

5%? Usually when poaching the poacher offers a raise of 25% or more. The more competetive and specialized the business is the higher that can get, to the point where they just offer to double their salary like some cliché.


I'm just trying to be impartial. The lawyer's came up with a figure of 3 billion in damages (which is probably much more accurate) but I was shooting low just to demonstrate even with a much less aggresive damage calculation these poor guys are still getting screwed.

If this went to trial, they would get treble the requested damages if they won (9 billion). That is something like 150k each. They settled on literally 5% of that. It is a travesty...

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

C'mon We are talking about highly specialized workers with sky-high wages


Oh God help us if people doing the actual work would get well paid instead of the executives at the top. Oh the horror!

It might be wrong or illegal but calling it a "crime" is ridiculous.


Uh, you do understand that doing something illegal is a crime, right?

Reply Score: 12

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Dafuq dude? So it is OK to artificially stifle wages?
People like you make me sick. We have CEOs of corporate America paying themselves ridiculous wages, bonuses, golden parachutes/handshakes while they squeeze the wages of the people that actually make their business successful.

So much for the free market BS such industry leaders bitch and moan about.

Reply Score: 12

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Getting to angry about it is like getting angry about rain at the weekend.


Rain at the weekend is NOT ILLEGAL. Wage fixing is ILLEGAL. If you cannot get angry at PEOPLE breaking the law, what can you get angry about?

Allowing corporations to get away with this because it's common place leads to greater excesses and flouting of the law.

Weeds and pests needs to be stamped out before they take a foothold.

Reply Score: 7

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

They didn't get away with it


You said some get away with it, some don't, and getting angry at that is a waste of time. You weren't referring JUST to this incident. You clearly state that your attitude of APATHY is the correct one for people getting away with illegal behaviour.

and crimes are committed every second of every day so you could end up being very angry a lot of the time.


It is not for you to say how people should react. Some are angry, others aren't. You have no right to say other people shouldn't be angry. Those people who are angry are the ones who make your livelihood possible. If those people did not get angry over wage fixing, which you seem to not care about, you would not be living and working in relative comfort.

Society needs to be vigilant about backsliding into the past, and your apathy, while all holier-than-thou, is the exact thing that allows people to get away with it.

What seems to be lacking here is a sense of proportion. This is a storm in a tea cup.


It must be nice for you to sit there and enjoy the fair labour laws that people fought for in the past and think it will continue like this forever and ever, or at least, until you die, and screw whoever comes after, right?

Reply Score: 9

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

What seems to be lacking here is a sense of proportion. This is a storm in a tea cup.


Something that directly affects the livelyhood of tens of thousands of people is...a storm in a tea cup? Talk about sense of proportion right there -- the loss of such sense, more specifically!

Reply Score: 9

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

They didn't get away with it.


Did some one go to jail? Are there plans to prosecute on criminal charges that I have not heard about?

If not I can only assume you mean the settlement. They didn't get away with it right?

They were seeking 9 billion, they got 325 million in settlement - a settlement at least a few hundred of the class publicly violently disagreed with. That is like maybe $8000 per person after the lawyers take their 80 million dollar slice.

It amounts to "Here's like maybe 5% of what I stole from you. We good now right?"

Sounds like they got away with it to me.

Edited 2014-07-12 18:50 UTC

Reply Score: 7

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

"They didn't get away with it.


Did some one go to jail? Are there plans to prosecute on criminal charges that I have not heard about?

If not I can only assume you mean the settlement. They didn't get away with it right?

They were seeking 9 billion, they got 325 million in settlement - a settlement at least a few hundred of the class publicly violently disagreed with. That is like maybe $8000 per person after the lawyers take their 80 million dollar slice.

It amounts to "Here's like maybe 5% of what I stole from you. We good now right?"

Sounds like they got away with it to me.
"

If they were so sure to win why did they take the settlement?

As for jail, you seem to be under the popular delusion that jail time has any affect on criminal behaviour

Reply Score: 1

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

If they were so sure to win why did they take the settlement?


Don't know. A lot of people are asking the same question. One of the class representatives (out of the 5) opposed it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/technology/plaintiff-maligns-deal....

A few others were reported to have said they weren't happy about it either, but no names were given.

As for jail, you seem to be under the popular delusion that jail time has any affect on criminal behaviour


I personally don't agree with that - I think actual jail time is a really effective deterrent for white collar crime, were it to be consistently applied.

That said, it isn't the deterrent effect that would make me feel better here - it is purely that I think these people deserve punishment of some kind.

Reply Score: 4

Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

Jail time does have an impact on criminal behavior.

The irony of course is that the jail disincentive is typically applied to the wrong people. The threat of jail DOES work against people who already have a good life and would not want to lose it. This is your middle and upper class people.

Punitive sentences work very well on this segment of society. If CEOs were sent to jail for negligence, let's say GM's autoparts scandal or the whole financial industry, do you think their behavior would change? They're already very well paid. It would not be worth it for them to risk jail time in exchange for a greater bonus or profit.

Right now, for most executives, like the lower class criminal sent to jail, it is worth it for these executives to commit crimes or gross negligence. They can make even more money and have even more power, and the penalty they face... is just a fine.


The lower class person has little to lose. It is often worth the risk of drug dealing or being in a gang.


The problem of course comes that people don't want to apply jail time to middle and upper class people as they're typically, 'productive' members of society. Such is the irony of jail as a deterrent.

Reply Score: 4

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Yamin,

I wanted to vote you up, but could not. You make some very good points. I would add that it has to do with the extremely biased representation we see due to the concentration of power in upper class ranks. I wonder if the problem is worse in the US? I honestly don't know.

These are very interesting links about the over-criminalization in the US, if you have time to read them.

http://www.thenation.com/article/177519/everyone-criminal-over-poli...

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

Some cases are outright ridiculous, lawyers win and justice fails.

Badly drafted laws create traps for the unwary. In 2006 Georgia Thompson, a civil servant in Wisconsin, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for depriving the public of “the intangible right of honest services”. Her crime was to award a contract (for travel services) to the best bidder. A firm called Adelman Travel scored the most points (on an official scale) for price and quality, so Ms Thompson picked it. She ignored a rule that required her to penalise Adelman for a slapdash presentation when bidding. For this act of common sense, she served four months. (An appeals court freed her.)

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In everyday common sense use the term ‘criminal’ is used in relation to someone who routinely organises their lives and livelihood around committing crime. Is that relevant in this case?


Considering this clearly illegal behaviour went on for years and years and years, was systemic, highly organised, and very well documented, yes, I'd say the answer to your question is "yes".

They are criminals. Plain and clear to anyone but corporate cheerleaders. If a black American steals a wallet, he ends up in jail. If a CEO steals millions and millions of dollars, he's a hero.

If you think that's okay, you are a bad person.

Edited 2014-07-12 14:17 UTC

Reply Score: 11

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

In everyday common sense use the term ‘criminal’ is used in relation to someone who routinely organises their lives and livelihood around committing crime. Is that relevant in this case?


Well lets see... All these people are running companies in the same industry - they are competitors. But they secretly agree to artificially suppress their employees pay through collusion. Obviously, this is done in an effort to reduce costs - in effect to make more money.

So you can literally say that every penny of the additional money they made through this process was stolen from their employees.

This is what infuriates me about about your apologetic view of this: They are in an industry that makes billions of dollars a year in revenues. The amount of money they stole from their employees (in their grand view of things) is probably minuscule - it doesn't amount to more than a rounding error to them. On the other hand, I promise you their employees would have noticed if they got say 10% more pay... Yet they go to the trouble of doing it anyway, giving a big f*ck you to the very talent that makes the products that makes their company's investors all that money...

What you seem to be saying is that because they weren't primarily in the business of screwing their employees, we shouldn't be making such a big deal about it. To me that is exactly the reason we should make a big deal about it. It's not like they were stealing because they couldn't feed their families - they were stealing just to be assholes.

Yeah, I'm pissed about it. Its a f*cking crime. These guys are criminals.

The problem with hyperbolic language, which is tediously prevalent on the web, is that it devalues language to such an extent that it is no longer possible to describe anything that really warrants strong terms in a way that makes any sense.


Your worried about devaluing language??? What about devaluing careers? These guys were stolen from. That isn't hyperbole, its straight up facts.

Companies will individually and collectively try to arrange the labour market to suit their corporate
interests. Is that a surprise to anyone? In order to balance that perpetual attempt to shape the labour market to just suit the employers rules are made and trade unions organised. Mostly the rules are obeyed. Sometimes the rules get broken. Sometimes those breaking the rules get caught, sometimes they don’t. The world does not come to an end. Getting to angry about it is like getting angry about rain at the weekend.


I'm not angry about it happening. Your right, it happens all the time. I'm angry about the fact that no one is going to go to jail. THAT makes me angry.

Reply Score: 8

cpiral Member since:
2006-04-19

The corporate head did something that landed a painful metaphysical blow the corporate body. Collusion proved to be the way.

But don't worry. "There is strength in numbers." "Pain is temporary. Glory is forever."

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


The problem with hyperbolic language, which is tediously prevalent on the web, is that it devalues language to such an extent that it is no longer possible to describe anything that really warrants strong terms in a way that makes any sense.



I'd say the bigger problem with hyperbole is when people use hyperbole to lecture others on how hyperbole is bad...

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Both are wrong and both break the rules but one seems to warrant the description of ‘criminal’ more than the other.


No, if convicted they're both criminals.
The definition of a criminal is someone guilty of a crime. It's that simple.
Actually. they don't even have be convicted, they just have to be guilty.

Sometimes those breaking the rules get caught, sometimes they don’t. The world does not come to an end. Getting to angry about it is like getting angry about rain at the weekend.


This applies to ANY crime though. The world doesn't really end because some guy goes on a killing spree so I guess we shouldn't get angry when that happens either. I mean, shit happens but the world keeps turning. It's like getting angry about rain at the weekend.

Edited 2014-07-13 11:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

"In everyday common sense use the term ‘criminal’ is used in relation to someone who routinely organises their lives and livelihood around committing crime."

No, no a criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Whether or not they are convicted (a convicted criminal), or do it as a lifestyle (a career criminal).

Reply Score: 3

Hardly a surprise, is it?
by p13. on Sat 12th Jul 2014 08:19 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

When you let companies into politics through means such as lobbying and "donations", you give them the power to do whatever they like.
They feel like they can get away with anything, so it's only natural for them to "level the playing field". Who wants to pay these pesky non-corporation owning private citizens a fair wage anyway?
Although the stories seem to revolve around american corporations, it is certainly NOT a US only phenomenon.

Say what you will about the US and it's corrupt government and media, but where i live (Belgium), this kind of shit would never reach the media. In the US, it clearly does. And even if it did reach the media here (very rare) ... just like everything else ... it will just "go away" after a while.

I think corporations have grown much too powerful. It's time to banish them from politics once and for all.
Give me ONE good reason why someone belonging to say ... a telco should maintain relations with politicians.
Corporations are to obey and operate within the constraints of the law. Sadly, they don't. Nor do they have to.

This is the same in my country. Large corporations do whatever they like.

A couple of years ago, electrabel (who owns ALL of the electrics infrastructure here) only paid 400K euros in tax.
Now ... you have to remember that EVERY belgian citizen is either directly or indirectly a customer of electrabel. Because even if you go with another provider, you pay electrabel for the use of their infrastructure.
EVERY citizen is thus a customer (yay). Yet they only managed to pay 400K euros in taxes.

Let me try and put this in perspective for you.
I run my own business (yes, that's right, and i hate big corporations just like you do). A lot of my friends run their own businesses as well. If i pool together 5-10 of my friends, then we'd easily get to 400K in taxes. These are ALL one man businesses. I paid about 60K last year.

This was all over the news, and people were suitably outraged. Until the next season of big brother or whatever started.
THAT is the scale of this epidemic.

So:
- Large corporation of which EVERY citizen is a customer (sometimes even multiple times) manages to pay taxes equivalent to about 5-10 healthy one man businesses.
- Media reports it
- People pissed
- Distraction
- LAWL TAXWUT HUH WHAT? HAHA HAVE SOME BEER!

As a small business owner, i can tell you that this has nothing to do with owning a company or whatever. This is just pure evil. The corporation is used as an umbrella, but this kind of corruption is in no way limited to corporations. History is littered with examples of one man shows that held supreme power. This is the same, just a different cast.

Oh, and sorry for the rant, but this kind of hits home with me ...

Edited 2014-07-12 08:21 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Hardly a surprise, is it?
by kwan_e on Sat 12th Jul 2014 11:24 UTC in reply to "Hardly a surprise, is it?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

When you let companies into politics through means such as lobbying and "donations", you give them the power to do whatever they like.
They feel like they can get away with anything, so it's only natural for them to "level the playing field". Who wants to pay these pesky non-corporation owning private citizens a fair wage anyway?


There are also large segments of the population who are scared that placing restrictions on corporations would make them throw a tantrum and leave the country.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hardly a surprise, is it?
by adkilla on Sat 12th Jul 2014 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Hardly a surprise, is it?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

I would more appropriately refer to them as the unthinking masses.

Reply Score: 3

Overall
by Treza on Sat 12th Jul 2014 09:28 UTC
Treza
Member since:
2006-01-11

This behaviour is obviously illegal, so all these individuals are criminals.

but.

Limiting employees wages in the Silicon Valley and the number of persons changing work and using company secrets for their personal advancement, has probably helped a lot to keep things aloft.
There is already too much age bias with overpaid under-30 males which much eventually leave when they get a family and cannot work 60 hours per week anymore.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overall
by Treza on Sat 12th Jul 2014 10:17 UTC in reply to "Overall"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

(Why I cannot edit my comment ? I would like to delete the end.)
If salaries becomes too high, companies will move jobs elsewhere, look at what Boeing (and to a lesser extend Microsoft) has been doing north around Seattle.
What that Ed Catmull failed to understand is that salary 'moderation' would have occurred anyway, they didn't need to setup this cartel.

Politics will not do anything because they know the threat of losing jobs to other parts of the US, or offshoring to India or elsewhere. There were once tax negotiations with Google which threatened to setup a big devlopement lab in Paris. Imagine France cheaper than California for Google...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Overall
by adkilla on Sat 12th Jul 2014 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Overall"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Manufacturing industries and jobs have moved to China. Were American workers in manufacturing paid sky high before the move? Or is it because the US government and China couldn't care any less how their workers are treated as long as it rolls in investment?

So should highly skill tech workers just roll-over and die if the US government were to allow American corporations abuse their own and 3rd world countries for profit? I guess if there isn't oil involved it is alright for the government to close both eyes to people in less fortunate conditions whether at home or abroad.

If these greedy corporations who started up in the US couldn't care about their obligation to their country and their community, let them leave and some other corporation take their place. Why live in fear of those who were nurtured by the very talent pool that made it possible? Ironic isn't it? It is not like there continues to be a lack of innovation in US. It is when people stay quiet to abuse that they leverage this fear with impunity.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Overall
by Soulbender on Sat 12th Jul 2014 11:34 UTC in reply to "Overall"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

has probably helped a lot to keep things aloft.


Or it could have created even more innovation and job opportunities if the wages had not been illegally fixed.
One unsubstantiated guess is as good as the other.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Overall
by Treza on Sat 12th Jul 2014 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Overall"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

You are right. Unsubstantiated claims.

What kind of jobs is it ?

If it is like sports and pop music, rockstar developpers can expect sky high salaries and retire at 35.
If it is a normal job, this is not sustainable.

Reply Score: 2

double standards
by project_2501 on Sat 12th Jul 2014 13:24 UTC
project_2501
Member since:
2006-03-20

Reminds new of the all to common news here in the UK.

If a single parent mother struggling to fwd her children is caught stealing a chocolate bar she is brutality thrown in a police car, paraded in front of cameras, serves jail time and has her children taken into care. For stealing a chocolate bar worth 60 pence. Or 50 cents.

If an executive steals money by fixing salaries, manipulating financial instruments or obfuscating tax to the the of millions of pounds/dollars... He is slapped on the wrist.

Both are crimes.
But something is at play here where one kind is somehow less bad?

In the UK we had yet more politicians' expenses scandals. To the tune of thousands per person. Yet no jail time. No rough handling in cuffs on camera?

Reply Score: 3

RE: double standards
by Vanders on Sat 12th Jul 2014 15:58 UTC in reply to "double standards"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Reminds new of the all to common news here in the UK.

If a single parent mother struggling to fwd her children is caught stealing a chocolate bar she is brutality thrown in a police car, paraded in front of cameras, serves jail time and has her children taken into care.


What? When did this happen?

In the UK we had yet more politicians' expenses scandals. To the tune of thousands per person. Yet no jail time.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Exp...

Four MPs and two members of the House of Lords have so far been jailed as a result of the expenses scandal.


A quick look shows an average sentence of around 14 months.

Reply Score: 3

RE: double standards
by quackalist on Sun 13th Jul 2014 02:07 UTC in reply to "double standards"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

A couple or so politicians did do jail time. Not a lot, time or politicians. Certainly not enough of either. The sense of entitlement they and others of like ilk have is frightening.

Reply Score: 3

RE: double standards
by cpiral on Mon 14th Jul 2014 00:09 UTC in reply to "double standards"
cpiral Member since:
2006-04-19

But something is at play here where one kind is somehow less bad?


The play is on the legislative and judicial stages.

One sentiment in your scenario is affected by a global, impersonal force most interested in the long-term development of infrastructure by corporate means, the other from a personal force interested in the short-term maintenance of ethics on the backs of persons. The question contains a category error.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Lorin
by Lorin on Sun 13th Jul 2014 00:15 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

"The sad thing is that the criminals behind this illegal behaviour - Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt, George Lucas, Ed Catmull, and many, many more - will never have to face any serious consequences for their crimes. "

If there is a Hell, Steve is paying for it right now.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Lorin
by leos on Sun 13th Jul 2014 22:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lorin"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

But there isn't, so he isn't

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Lorin
by RobG on Mon 14th Jul 2014 11:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lorin"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

I'm kind of hoping he's been reincarnated working on an iPlant in China.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Lorin
by tylerdurden on Mon 14th Jul 2014 21:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lorin"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

No need to wish ill on anyone. Jobs died a slow agonizing death from a treatable condition because his hubris eventually got the better of him. That must have been its own particular hell me thinks.

Reply Score: 3

The start
by Darkmage on Sun 13th Jul 2014 03:59 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

I see a few comments on here talking about how it doesn't matter it's not a crime etc. Here's a bit of information for you people. Are you communists? Because the quickest, most effective way, to establish a soviet state is this: Treat workers like shit. Shit on them, drive them into poverty, force their wages down, and make their unions illegal. Take every scrap of dignity and hope they can live better lives and shit on it.

What you'll do, is spark a fire you can't stop. It will sweep across your entire country and before you know it you'll be lined up against the wall with a bullet in your face.

Every time the balance falls too far away from the general populace you get revolution. America is already rapidly falling down to levels of decay seen in developing, and soon third world countries. All you have left are weapons, and a rapidly growing, impoverished underclass. Soon that underclass will arm itself unless something is done to turn back the corruption. It's sad, but the most likely outcome for the USA is an internal revolutionary war.

That's why these laws exist. To stop greater horrors than most people can imagine from occurring. It's not just the animation industry. These laws govern all for the good of all. A communist revolution in America would hurt the upper classes, and the lower classes. Probably equally badly.

Edited 2014-07-13 04:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: The start
by unclefester on Sun 13th Jul 2014 09:33 UTC in reply to "The start"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

A famous historian gave an interesting argument why England reformed its' politics during the Middle Ages. The reason was that every Free man in England owned a longbow and was an expert archer [in fact it was a legal requirement to own a bow and arrows and practice one day a week.] He could easily take out a nobleman or government official from 100 yards away if he wished.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: The start
by cpiral on Mon 14th Jul 2014 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE: The start"
cpiral Member since:
2006-04-19

In the Internet Age that longbow is a network connection. It can be used for hunting or warfare. Unfortunately, not everyone can wield a network connection yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The start
by tylerdurden on Mon 14th Jul 2014 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: The start"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Historians are also famous for starting with conclusions and selectively comb the record to support them. ;-P

Reply Score: 3

Unions or Professional Association
by Yamin on Mon 14th Jul 2014 14:21 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

Unions or professional association is what most of us need.

Will it slow innovation? Possibly.
Will it keep wages and working conditions better? Probably.

In the end, we are just cogs in the machine. I think a big problem is many tech people go through their whole life being special. Yet, how are they actually viewed by the executives in these tech companies? As cogs and resources... little different from a factory worker.

A few of the chosen might get into the upper echelons, but most remain cogs, churning away.

In that power structure, some kind of worker organization is needed. Be it a union or just professional association.

But of course this becomes hard with globalization, so who knows. These (unions, professional associations) only work when they capture the entire work force.

Reply Score: 5

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Unions were neutralized long ago and rendered basically useless, in fact they're now so compromised they end up being worse than useless. It's a sad reality, at least in the USA.

Things are going to get worse, if anything.

Edited 2014-07-15 01:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Unions are a good counter balance, yet are somewhat taking sometimes a too large power against productivity. Otherwise there would be unionized driven corporations that would outperform standard companies, but that has never been seen anywhere, not even in France.

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Otherwise there would be unionized driven corporations that would outperform standard companies, but that has never been seen anywhere, not even in France.


Never say never. E.g. When Boeing was a union shop, they managed to outperform consistently almost every single other airliner manufacturer in the US.

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Otherwise there would be unionized driven corporations that would outperform standard companies, but that has never been seen anywhere,


Well, let's not forget that the Soviets won every space race until the human moon landing.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a bit more complicated. ;) The Soviet space bureaus were loosely organised, almost free-market-like, competing with each other; vs. centralised NASA.
This was their failure with the moonshot, they couldn't handle such large and complex project with the organisation at hand.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Unions are a good counter balance, yet are somewhat taking sometimes a too large power against productivity.


Well, that's what a counter-balance to, counter the other end to achieve balance. It's obviously not very good on it's own without something to counter.

Reply Score: 2