Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group

Do you believe that businesses should have the same legal status as individuals? There's been a tiff over that for the last decade or so.

The difference boils down to what the purpose of laws are. Ultimately they exist to sustain a reasonably egalitarian free society. Obviously there are times and specific situations where we deviate more or less from the "ideal" society but the law shepherds us back toward an agreed-upon path.

Basically the root of antitrust law is that concentration of power is anti-democratic and therefore must be controlled. In a situation of people colluding around work standards, there is a parallel to some extent but there isn't a clear power-player who emerges (except for the "Union" itself but that's made up of all the employees in a different way than the corporation is owned by its owners because individuals in a union are all essentially equally important to the union's strength, where in corporate ownership it's very clear that some individuals wield significantly (orders of magnitude) more power through wealth and control.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1239985?uid=3739560&ui...

But, given nobody else thinks this way, then no, unions are not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is pretty much defined as such when everyone involved constantly tells each other "don't tell anyone" which is what these jackasses did (go read the emails). Unions are very public about going on strike and have big votes on it, thus not a conspiracy. Same with consumers organizing a strike, or just about everything you came up with.

Collusion is also not bad unless it's illegal, and what we've decided in the US is that gigantic billion dollar companies are not allowed to get together and screw over poor work slobs who make maybe $100k/year with their collective MegaCorp trillion dollar might. In fact, any decent human being would be enraged at a giant corporation using its power to smash a little guy to make a few thousand more per employee a year.

Unions aim to redress that imbalance, and there are specific laws in many countries detailing what they can/cannot do.

IANAL but AFAIK there are fewer and less strong cases where companies can legally collude in most jurisdictions.

A couple of personal thoughts:

- The impact of unions is different in different situations. It's easy for us to pick and choose examples based on pre-existing biases, but the details are more nuanced.

- People often think of unions as being for low-skilled workers, or those where the choice of employers is limited (e.g. teachers in the UK). However, many professional guilds (like national doctors' associations) also provide many of the same functions (lobbying, collective bargaining, coordination of industrial actions, ...).

The theory is that this is in the public's best interests.

So, in theory, if you have two giant companies that control 95% of the distribution of widgets, you might decide that they cannot merge into one entity. But if widgets are made by a bunch of tiny independents and sold to those two distributors, you might allow the independents to form a co-operative association.

In practice, lawyers and lobbyists will say and do anything to get an advantage for their clients. But that's the theory, and that's why it's generally easier to form a union than it is to form a cartel.

A cartel is several companies colluding to raise prices above/below the market price.

A labor union might be though of in the same way, but in practice is is very hard for a union to really control the supply of labor, because it is made up of thousands of people. It is only when they are tacitly allowed to use force/violence that unions can effectively prevent strike-breakers.

So given how ineffective they are at permanently raising wages (perhaps they raise wages a bit, but not nearly as much as if they had a true monopoly), unions should probably be allowed since if people choose to join them, they must provide some other benefits, such as representing individual workers with grievances, etc.

(E.g.) A Google employee sends his/her resume to Apple, then Apple tells Google that said employee is looking for work elsewhere.

Unions are a good thing for civilization, so much so that forming a union the very first purpose that is stated in the list of reasons for writing the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Workpla...

2) Power imbalance. Others have addressed this already, so I'll let it lie.

3) This agreement in particular was an attempt to create and abuse a monopsony position, which is in itself illegal. Many markets are regulated in order to ensure competition, by e.g. blocking mergers. Secret negotiations are often an attempt to bypass pro-competition regulations, by having two entities act in concert while pretending to be independent. In short, ends matter. Collusion to commit a crime is viewed differently than collusion to ask for a raise or collusion to not by a product.

As you grow older, you realize what the world really is and how vulnerable we really are.

Employers have a natural organizational advantage, as well as advantages of capital and resources. Given that virtually any workplace has a 1:n relationship with its employees, the bargaining advantage is with the employer. Within a labor market as a whole, a small number of companies may affect a huge number of workers (the case lists a handful of firms and 60,000 or more employees).

This was recognized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations:

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment. In the long run, the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and, one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.

And on for a number of paragraphs.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#link2H...

Chapters VII and X of book 1 discuss labour, wages, and various differentiators among them. They're impressively comprehensive and informed, vastly more liberal than you might have been lead to believe of Smith (he really is quite the liberal philosopher), and still highly applicable today. I strongly recommend reading both sections, and more of Smith if at all possible.

Not when the DOJ has subpoena power.

After a Google recruiter reached out to an Apple engineer, Steve Jobs in an email to Eric Schmidt:

    "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would
    stop doing this,"

    "Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening?"

    "[The recruiter who contacted the Apple Employee] will be terminated within
    the hour."

    "Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs."

We get paid so much because we produce that much value. But if these allegations are true, we aren't getting paid enough.

You've just described collusion. They colluded to prevent the wages of their top talent from being boosted by the normal process of competition in the labor market. Sure it's not like they stole money directly out of their star employees' pockets, but in the end the effect was the same.