Apple CEO Tim Cook expresses need to protect 'principles of basic human dignity' in Auburn speech

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 115
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Where do you live? I’ll come kill you. After all, you’re not automatically granted the right to life, much less anything else.

    Where are rights in nature? How’s this: where are humans in nature? We aren’t. We’re sapient. We’re better than this. We left nature. Right now, you reading this after I wrote it is about as far removed from nature as humans can be.
    None of that has anything to do with what was being discussed. As ever, you're out of your depth TS, retire now and save some face.

    I'll help you out by not replying to your wittering any more.
  • Reply 102 of 115
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Fair enough. I consider the matter closed.

    Have a good holiday.
    Cheers, you too.
  • Reply 103 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     

    It's true that anti-poaching agreements were determined to be illegal, but there are also State laws, unfair competition laws or specific statutes where employee poaching may be illegal as it is considered tortious interference with business (contractual) relations. This occurs when a company intentionally causes an employee to breach his/her employment contract.

     

    Furthermore, I believe there have been successful lawsuits over one company poaching a large number of employees from another under "unfair business practices" statutes.   

     

    So it's not completely clear cut.   Furthermore, it's obvious that many employees have indeed moved from company to company.   Note that even the anti-poaching agreements did not mean that you couldn't hire an employee from another company, it just meant that you couldn't cold call employees in that company and encourage them to leave.

     

    In any case, while this may have been illegal and ruled as such, IMO, it doesn't rise to the level of racial, gender, age and other types of discrimination.     


     

     

    My god, it took you 3 days to come up with this convulated BS!

     

    This has nothing to do with torts. It's not ok to break the law because you "think" you are preventing someone else from breaking the law.

    Your logic would be... "If I see someone that looks like a hoodlum in my neighborhood, I should shoot him before he robs my house."

     

     

    This lawsuit is about conspiring with competitors to reduce employee pay by eliminating competition for skilled labor. They broke Antitrust and California laws.

     

    These laws are to protect employees just like there are laws to protect gays.

  • Reply 104 of 115
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

     

     

     

    My god, it took you 3 days to come up with this convulated BS!

     

    This has nothing to do with torts. It's not ok to break the law because you "think" you are preventing someone else from breaking the law.

    Your logic would be... "If I see someone that looks like a hoodlum in my neighborhood, I should shoot him before he robs my house."

     

     

    This lawsuit is about conspiring with competitors to reduce employee pay by eliminating competition for skilled labor. They broke Antitrust and California laws.

     

    These laws are to protect employees just like there are laws to protect gays.


    1.  Maybe you spend your whole life on here, but I don't.   So it didn't take me three days because I didn't read your post until today.

     

    2.  I know what the lawsuit is about as I stated.   Let's say that Apple and the other companies never made any anti-poaching agreement.    And then because there was no agreement, they poached.   There are other laws under which they could have been sued for that poaching.   (I was involved in such a case.)    So all I was saying is that while they did indeed break the law, the overall situation is not so clear cut.   

     

    3.  I have a hard time believing that in the case of the companies named, the idea was to reduce employee pay because most of the companies named actually pay quite well and extraordinarily well in the executive ranks.   I think the illegal agreement was more about not having their businesses disturbed by constant turnover and in the case of Apple, it was probably also driven by the paranoia about secrecy.   They didn't want their employees poached because they didn't want other companies knowing what they were planning.   Doesn't matter because it was still illegal, but I think you've got the motivation wrong. 

     

    3.  While serious, I still don't think it rises to the level of other types of discrimination and your last comment doesn't really make any sense because I could say that about anything:  "There are jaywalking laws to protect pedestrians just like there are laws to protect gays."      The problem is that it's most certainly not "just like".    But if you think it's the same, fine, be happy.   Obviously, no one is ever going to be able to convince you otherwise.     You've decided that Tim is evil and therefore he has no right to speak about anyone's rights.   I just happen to disagree.

  • Reply 105 of 115
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post



     

     

    This lawsuit is about conspiring with competitors to reduce employee pay by eliminating competition for skilled labor. They broke Antitrust and California laws.

     


     

    I actually wish they were burned harder on the anti-poaching agreements, and by that I mean hard enough that they would never attempt such a thing ever again. That goes for every company involved. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable under the majority of circumstances in California. Anti-poaching agreements were simply an attempt to circumvent that.

  • Reply 106 of 115
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    None of that has anything to do with what was being discussed. 

     

    Sure; life certainly isn’t a right or anything.

     
    I'll help you out by not replying to your wittering any more.

     

    Thanks for giving up.

  • Reply 107 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     

    1.  Maybe you spend your whole life on here, but I don't.   So it didn't take me three days because I didn't read your post until today.

     

    2.  I know what the lawsuit is about as I stated.   Let's say that Apple and the other companies never made any anti-poaching agreement.    And then because there was no agreement, they poached.   There are other laws under which they could have been sued for that poaching.   (I was involved in such a case.)    So all I was saying is that while they did indeed break the law, the overall situation is not so clear cut.   

     

    3.  I have a hard time believing that in the case of the companies named, the idea was to reduce employee pay because most of the companies named actually pay quite well and extraordinarily well in the executive ranks.   I think the illegal agreement was more about not having their businesses disturbed by constant turnover and in the case of Apple, it was probably also driven by the paranoia about secrecy.   They didn't want their employees poached because they didn't want other companies knowing what they were planning.   Doesn't matter because it was still illegal, but I think you've got the motivation wrong. 

     

    3.  While serious, I still don't think it rises to the level of other types of discrimination and your last comment doesn't really make any sense because I could say that about anything:  "There are jaywalking laws to protect pedestrians just like there are laws to protect gays."      The problem is that it's most certainly not "just like".    But if you think it's the same, fine, be happy.   Obviously, no one is ever going to be able to convince you otherwise.     You've decided that Tim is evil and therefore he has no right to speak about anyone's rights.   I just happen to disagree.


     

    1. I joined AI on March 2010 (45 mos ago) and have 221 posts. That's 4.9 posts per month.

    You joined December 2007 (72 mos ago) and have 1067 posts. That's 14.8 posts per month.

    You spend 3x more time here than I. No email notifications?

     

    2. It is very clear cut. You're making up far-fetched situations that don't apply. So you're saying Steve was trying to protect those other companies from being sued by each other? Apple poached people from YSL and Burberry. Where are the lawsuits?

     

    3. It wasn't about reducing employee pay, it was about capping employee pay. Apple did not want to up people's pay to make them stay. Executive ranks do get paid well but the No Poach Agreement wasn't about them. See my YSL & Burberry reference.

     

    4. Tim wants people to think he cares about people being treated fairly. But not speaking up when Steve was around and not speaking up today, I can see he truly doesn't care. To me, he has traits like a two-faced politician.

  • Reply 108 of 115
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

     

     

    I actually wish they were burned harder on the anti-poaching agreements, and by that I mean hard enough that they would never attempt such a thing ever again. That goes for every company involved. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable under the majority of circumstances in California. Anti-poaching agreements were simply an attempt to circumvent that.


     

    The case is still ongoing.

    If you know anybody from the affect companies with the following job descriptions, have them register as a potential class member.

     

    "The suit represents software and hardware engineers, programmers, animators, digital artists, Web developers and other technical professionals, according to the ruling. Kelly Dermody, a lawyer representing them, said in an e-mail that there are as many as 64,626 potential class members."

     

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-25/apple-google-must-face-group-antitrust-hiring-lawsuit.html

  • Reply 109 of 115
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Sure; life certainly isn’t a right or anything.

     

    Thanks for giving up.


     

    Do you fail to distinguish shame or humiliation?

     

    You were derided as a moderator, what are you still doing here?

  • Reply 110 of 115
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

    Do you fail to distinguish shame or humiliation?


     

    Now those aren’t rights. You have false views of the Kindle; what are you still doing here? <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 111 of 115
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Sure; life certainly isn’t a right or anything.
    Not one granted by anything other than law, but that really is beside the point. Come over here and kill me, and then try and use the "but it isn't a natural right" argument. The police won't care., because the law says you can't do that.
    Stupid line of reasoning that has no bearing whatsoever on what was being discussed.
    Thanks for giving up.
    Again, as so often, you fail to distinguish intolerance of your pathetic trolling nonsense from you "winning". You will never win, because you're an imbecile who think you can hang out with the big boys by liberally applying badly thought out snark.

    Now I've said that, go ahead and have the last word. And then grow up.
  • Reply 112 of 115
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Not one granted by anything other than law

     

    I only keep pressing because I can’t wrap my head around anyone actually believing this. It’s just really depressing.

     

    PROTECTED by law, not granted.

     

    …but that really is beside the point.


     

    It’s the entire point, in fact.

     

    Again, as so often, you fail to distinguish intolerance of your pathetic trolling nonsense from you "winning".


     

    Well, were I wrong you’d be able to prove it thus. Instead you’re running away.

     

    I dunno; if I knew I was right, I’d be able to prove it, and if I could prove it, I would. That’s me. Maybe the fundamental difference that makes you think we’re not entitled to live also makes you think what you fight for isn’t worth actually fighting for.

  • Reply 113 of 115
    russell wrote: »
    1. I joined AI on March 2010 (45 mos ago) and have 221 posts. That's 4.9 posts per month.
    You joined December 2007 (72 mos ago) and have 1067 posts. That's 14.8 posts per month.
    You spend 3x more time here than I. No email notifications?

    The number of posts one makes is no indication of how much time one spends here. There are plenty of readers that don't even have an account yet they spend time here. But let's say, for argument sake, that we only count those who post; the time it takes to read posts and reply is not static across each person, thread or even between comments so time can not be determined simply by looking at the number of posts. You can't even determine how much time it took to post based on a word count.
  • Reply 114 of 115
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,807member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    None of that has anything to do with what was being discussed. As ever, you're out of your depth TS, retire now and save some face.



    I'll help you out by not replying to your wittering any more.

    QFT!

  • Reply 115 of 115
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

     

     

    Steve Jobs initiated an agreement between companies to not hire regular employees (engineers, programmers...) from each other. Having an agreement is against the law.

     

     

    More than 60,000 tech workers can seek monetary damages from Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Google (GOOG) andAdobe Systems (ADBE) because of a federal judge's ruling in a suit claiming that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs conspired with other local executives to limit the workers' pay by barring them from moving from one company to another.

    In granting class-action status to the suit Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose cited what she termed "considerable, compelling common proof" that the Silicon Valley companies engaged in antitrust behavior by agreeing not to try to lure away each others' employees.

    In her decision, Koh noted that the accusations largely center on former Apple CEO Jobs, because each of the alleged no-hire agreements involved a company under his control or that shared at least one director who was on Apple's board.

    The lawsuit contains several examples of conversations Jobs had with other executives demanding that they not poach Apple's workers. In many cases, the suit claims, the executives complied. In one email Jobs told Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," referring to a Google recruiter contacting an Apple engineer in 2007.

    But not everyone complied with Jobs' demands, according to evidence Koh cited in her ruling. She noted as an example an incident in 2007 when Jobs allegedly threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement if it didn't heed the no-poaching arrangement. In response, Palm's former CEO, Edward Colligan, told Jobs the demand was "not only wrong, it is likely illegal."

    In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer.

    Noting that none of the workers have received that money yet, she added that it remains unclear what additional financial damages might be sought at the trial. But aside from the money, she said, just having the case certified as a class-action suit sends an important message "that people need to pay more attention to employee rights and fairness in the workplace."

    Oct 25, 2013 http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-class-action-suit-against-apple-intel-google-adobe

     

    Tim Cook talks out of both sides of his mouth.

    What did Tim Cook do while this was happening? Nothing.

    What is Tim Cook doing about it today? Nothing. He is speaking out for equality for Gays but not his own employees that were harmed by the illegal agreement, the very people that helped make Apple successful.

    bla bla bla


    does this exaggerated stuff somehow relate to racial discrimination??

Sign In or Register to comment.