News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers. Parent comment

Re:Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Wo... by rchaud on Thursday January 24, 2019 @02:41PM (#18992164)
> the employer side should also be numerous enough to establish an employer organisation.

They are and they have; see US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. From the wiki article:

"DOJ alleged in their Complaint that the companies had reached "facially anticompetitive" agreements that "eliminated a significant form of competition...to the detriment of the affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Unions organize in public, employers collude in secret. The fact that the companies proposed a settlement the day the suit was filed indicates they simply priced that into their cost-benefit analysis when they were colluding.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Wo... by anticensor on Friday January 25, 2019 @07:18AM (#18997327)
I meant a formal employers' union, not a secret agreement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Wo... by rchaud on Friday January 25, 2019 @08:55AM (#18997847)
What would be the remit of such a union? These companies likely compete with each other; Adobe and Apple for example have competing video editing products, and Jobs's letter sent Flash, another popular Adobe product to an early grave.

So what would this employers' union do exactly?

[ Parent | on HN ]