How Silicon Valley’CEOs conspired to drive down 100,000 tech engineers' wages

[Bito Corleone]

So source it with a legal definition or precedent, or be labeled as unfit to debate.

Be labeled unfit to debate...

http://thelawdictionary.org/commerce/

Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on

Wasted effort I'm sure... You'll predictably say you don't agree with labor qualifying as "the means and appliances by which it is carried on"

[TeyshaBlue]

lol WildObfuscator.

Ive never seen anyone more willfully ignorant outside of boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

Be labeled unfit to debate...

Wasted effort I'm sure... You'll predictably say you don't agree with labor qualifying as "the means and appliances by which it is carried on"

Really? How does: "the means and appliances by which it is carried on" of removing a recruitment method affect the trade of commodities?

[Winehole23]

labor is a commodity sold by workers. it's exchanged for a cash equivalent.

[Winehole23]

Scott already walked you through this...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

labor is a commodity sold by workers. it's exchanged for a cash equivalent.

Do you think he understands what people are talking about when they say 'labor market' or 'service industry?'

[Winehole23]

No. The rational self-interest of owners to retain and hold the labor force clearly trumps individual laborers, who are after all free to seek employment wherever owners do not conspire to limit them.

[Winehole23]

WC upholds the freedom of owners to combine against free labor, to restrict the compensation and mobility of putatively free individuals in a putatively free market.

[Winehole23]

It would be to their disadvantage not to. To respect the freedom of individuals would tend to attenuate the freedom and profitability of corporations.

[TDMVPDPOY]

cracking down on illegals or cheap labour hire

why not crack down on the big boys at the higher end of town who shift all money to tax havens

[scott]

No.

ing morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the ing moron.

Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.

Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.

Your failure to see lots of things is self-evident, and provides insight as to why you're just an angry old man who thinks it is okay to stalk young women on the internet.

The law does not cover what all you lib s want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.

LOL, anti-trust law and compe iveness are "lib " ideas now? No wonder you've gone Comrade Cobra on us... you are just fighting the Liberal Free Market Agenda

Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?

Why not just use the same one that's been in place for 124 years?

[Winehole23]

lol Comrade Cobra

[Wild Cobra]

WC upholds the freedom of owners to combine against free labor, to restrict the compensation and mobility of putatively free individuals in a putatively free market.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote to assume that.

[Wild Cobra]

Your failure to see lots of things is self-evident, and provides insight as to why you're just an angry old man who thinks it is okay to stalk young women on the internet.



LOL, anti-trust law and compe iveness are "lib " ideas now? No wonder you've gone Comrade Cobra on us... you are just fighting the Liberal Free Market Agenda



Why not just use the same one that's been in place for 124 years?

No Scott. I see you don't to understand what I am saying. You're like talking to a parrot.

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't you guys see that I am only disagreeing that the unethical practice being sued over isn't covered by that first part of section 1 of the law cited? I am not saying I agree corporations should be ably to, i am saying I don't see the law keeping them from doing so.

I consider those of you accusing me of standing up for the corporations to be morons. If you refuse to accept the distinctions I am making, then why should I consider you guys to have any intelligence. It is one thing to disagree on point, but to paint a picture of me that doesn't apply. you all who are so ing unethical to do so.

[Winehole23]

Pearls before swine. Counselor Cobra's sharp legal mind is obviously wasted here.

[Winehole23]

it's too bad the judge in the case disagrees; not dismissing the lawsuit means she saw issues of fact worth trying in court.

[Winehole23]

clearly, Counselor Cobra parses An rust law, which he was alerted to yesterday by other ST posters, with greater fidelity than a Federal judge.

[pgardn]

It's not for suppression of wages, but protection of propitiatory information. A no recruitment clause simply meant they could not try to take a valued employee. It did not mean the employee could not apply for the job, nor did it keep them from hiring them. I also had two employers that had me sign agreements that I could not work for the compe ion for two years after leaving them for the same reason. Proprietary knowledge. After that two year window, such information was less useful to compe ion. It did not exclude me from working for the customer, which I did do once. However, they were not allowed to ask me to work for them.

I don't think such scenarios are illegal. The no recruitment was at the workplace. That didn't keep an peer from another company after hours meeting for a beer from telling me I should apply, that I was guaranteed a job if I wanted it...

There are loop holes both ways.

Well it appears you are saying here that this is not a wage suppression move.
You have a notion from your work. Others say it's clearly to suppress wages.

So you don't just think there is an absence of a narrow law that covers the argument, right or wrong. You have sided with the companies based on your situation. This seems obvious by your own posts and by calling people lib s because they don't agree.

And I really don't like to dog pile people. But honestly you and Boots have so much in common and it's amazing to me that you both miss such blatant ideology.

[boutons_deux]

But honestly you and Boots have so much in common and it's amazing to me that you both miss such blatant ideology.

[Winehole23]

ideological blinkers, incoherence, irascibility, obfuscation, grandiosity...the similarities are striking

[pgardn]

ideological blinkers, incoherence, irascibility, obfuscation, grandiosity...the similarities are striking

What is frightening is people like these two get into a position power in government. And you are with them or you are not. No middle ground for a zealot.

[boutons_deux]

ideological blinkers, incoherence, irascibility, obfuscation, grandiosity...the similarities are striking

[Bito Corleone]

Why can't you guys see that I am only disagreeing that the unethical practice being sued over isn't covered by that first part of section 1 of the law cited? I am not saying I agree corporations should be ably to, i am saying I don't see the law keeping them from doing so.

People understand that's what you're disagreeing with. It's just that in order to reach the view point you have as to why it's not covered by an rust laws, you are relying on the (incorrect) assumption that labor is not part of commerce. It's been clearly explained (both in legal, and very simplistic terms) by multiple people why it is, but rather than accept or refute the point of those people, you seem to either outright ignore the reasoning, or move back to latching onto just the part about recruitment.

If the way you are viewing this situation was accurate, I'd actually agree with some (maybe even most) of what you're saying, but the simple fact is you're so focused on your own experience with non-recruit/non-compete employment contracts that it's blinding you from seeing what happened in this particular situation. The issue here isn't that the employers agreed to not recruit each other's employees - because you're right about that being unethical, but not illegal. The issue is that the reason for the non-recruitment agreements, and sharing of wage scales, and punishment of the violators of this agreement, was to artificially lower all of their employees' wages by making sure that there weren't competing firms that could/would offer them a more compe ive salary if they were to apply elsewhere on their own.

That's wage-fixing through collusion, and it is illegal.

[Th'Pusher]

People understand that's what you're disagreeing with. It's just that in order to reach the view point you have as to why it's not covered by an rust laws, you are relying on the (incorrect) assumption that labor is not part of commerce. It's been clearly explained (both in legal, and very simplistic terms) by multiple people why it is, but rather than accept or refute the point of those people, you seem to either outright ignore the reasoning, or move back to latching onto just the part about recruitment.

If the way you are viewing this situation was accurate, I'd actually agree with some (maybe even most) of what you're saying, but the simple fact is you're so focused on your own experience with non-recruit/non-compete employment contracts that it's blinding you from seeing what happened in this particular situation. The issue here isn't that the employers agreed to not recruit each other's employees - because you're right about that being unethical, but not illegal. The issue is that the reason for the non-recruitment agreements, and sharing of wage scales, and punishment of the violators of this agreement, was to artificially lower all of their employees' wages by making sure that there weren't competing firms that could/would offer them a more compe ive salary if they were to apply elsewhere on their own.

That's wage-fixing through collusion, and it is illegal.

I appreciate this attempt at civil discourse, but you gotta know that WC is one of, if not the stupidist mother er that posts in this forum. I mean a real imbecile incapable of grade school level logic and reason. He also displays extremely poor reading comprehension skills. All around, he's a dimwitted man.