7 ms·

Am I correct to assume this movie makes no mention of his systematic illegal wage suppression?

by gorena 11y ago

seiji 11y ago
The axe grinding machine is in another castle.
- pen2l 11y ago
  I don't think 'gorena's point should be rebuffed just like that, Steve Jobs was not the friend of us engineers, after all it was him who said things like: “If you hire a single one of these people, that means war”. Many of us might be getting paid were it not for him and his actions. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2491016/it-personnel/steve-jobs-was--central-figure--in-silicon-valley-hiring-case--judge-says.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2491016/it-personnel/st... I do wish this was touched in the movie somehow. (I'm presuming it wasn't, as that's what it seems like... I haven't seen it yet so can't say for sure) edit: I'm getting down-voted. Indeed, I think I went over the top. Steve Jobs did go on to create exceptional products that have heightened a lot of people's productivity, so he was net good. Sorry for the comment - I'll leave it there anyway though.
  - seiji 11y ago
    Also: the movie is real time across three scenes and those three scenes are just behind the curtain at "pivotal" keynotes. It's not a life story. It's not an epic tale. It's three set pieces each operating in 30 minutes of character time in sync with 30 minutes of screen time per episode.
- gorena 11y ago
  If American laborers (yes, engineers, you are laborers) still remembered how to sharpen axes, maybe that would happen less. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/air-france-workers-storm-meeting-protest-executives-job-losses-paris http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/air-france-work...
  - vvanders 11y ago
    Haha wow, taking the shirt off their back to its literal conclusion.
  - r0naa 11y ago
    What a terrible example to support a very valid point. What those union workers have done was unacceptable, and made me sick to my stomach. Also, I felt greatly ashamed - like many other french citizens - by the french government's weak response to this public humiliation. Nobody deserves to be treated this way, and more importantly Unions should never take the place of the rule of the law. This is not 1793 anymore, France is a modern democracy and allowing Unions to grow unchecked was a histoical mistake. There are a balance to strike between workers' rights and corporations' prerogatives. France is the very situation you want to avoid, one where an actor has such tremendous power that any attack to the status quo is impossible regardless of its benefit for society as a whole.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Nobody deserves to be treated this way, and more importantly Unions should never take the place of the rule of the law. This is not 1793 anymore It's still an era of neo-liberalism and employees return workplaces to medieval work practices (down to child labor and 14 hour workday) whenever they can get away with it.
      - r0naa 11y ago
        And they can get away with it only because their unions have created precedents where they create avoc in the streets of Paris with the complicity (or thanks to the weakness) of the political leaders of the time. This is sickening really. I am always dumb-founded when I read people who would like this kind of dystopia for their countries. Don't you see how fucked up this is for everyone?
        coldtea 11y ago
        >And they can get away with it only because their unions have created precedents where they create havoc in the streets of Paris with the complicity (or thanks to the weakness) of the political leaders of the time. And why NOT (ocassionally) create havoc in the streets of Paris? Because it disrupts business as usual and results in some small scale damages and such? France and Paris, especially, has a long history of championing people's rights with street protests. From the Bastille day, to the Commune all the way up to May 68 and beyond. Tons of things we take for granted would be illegal without such ocassional "havoc". People that think that protests and demonstrations should be "a thing of the past" because now "we live in a full democracy" are just repeating what has been said all the way from the 19th century -- even if blacks had no rights, women had no rights, gays had no rights, there was no social security, immigrants had (and still don't) rights, etc. Democracy is not some magic thing that solves from within the parliament. Especially the mockery of democracry we have (with representatives elected once every 4 or 5 years based on a platform that bundles all issues together - so if you agree with them on X and disagree on Y you can't get to vote individually on those things), with political influence bought by corporations and big players, and without being held accountable for not keeping on their promises (you just get not to vote for them at the end of their term). Democracy needs active citizen participation, and protests and demonstrations are one such method of making people's opinions heard.
Kristine1975 11y ago
Maybe they include anecdotes like this one: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Handicapped.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story... >Anyway, the story is that one day Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassee, who had recently transferred to Cupertino from Paris, had just parked his car and was walking toward the entrance of the main office at Apple when Steve buzzed by him in his silver Mercedes and pulled into the handicapped space near the front of the building. >As Steve walked brusquely past him, Jean-Louis was heard to declare, to no one in particular - "Oh, I never realized that those spaces were for the emotionally handicapped...".
- coldtea 11y ago
  Wasn't that Steve's building in the first place to do anything he wanted with? If he didn't take the last available such space or actually cut off some handicapped Apple employee wanting to park there, then it's more about "playing by the rules" than actually hurting anyone...
  - gorena 11y ago
    No, because handicap laws are for the benefit of society. Rich men shouldn't get to skip out on them because they're rich.
    - realquick81 11y ago
      > No, because handicap laws are for the benefit of society. Only if by "benefit" you mean "detriment". Many a handicapped person are against these "laws" (opinions with guns).
    - larrys 11y ago
      Well the parent comment doesn't say how many handicap spots were open. Giving Jobs the benefit of the doubt, he may have seen a pattern where there were always multiple spots available. And the spot locations don't come down from God either. They are decided (at least in the state where I live and have worked on this subject (a work parking lot)) in an arbitrary fashion in order to meet certain requirements. It's (once again where I am) a loose specification for placement. And you can always exceed the number required. For all we know Apple could have put in more spaces than required and Steve was simply taking advantage of that knowing that nothing would happen. And that he further didn't care about any fine he received assuming the Police even had normal access to that part of the parking lot when they were on patrol. Edit: Further to my point it's easy to assume "arrogant big shot rich guy" just hearing a story like this.
MCRed 11y ago
There's a huge difference between not having internal recruiters call up employees in a company directory to try and poach them, and preventing those same employees from choosing to apply. The former doesn't affect wages, but the latter would. The latter didn't happen.
- morganw 11y ago
  How do you know that employee-initiated applications & interviews weren't stopped by recruiters calling back & forth "OK to hire this guy?". The only reason the "no cold calling" agreement was made public was Ed Colligan spilling the beans & the D.O.J. making a half-assed attempt to investigate. Plenty of the disclosure docs are still sealed.
snowwrestler 11y ago
The practical answer to this is that the movie ends with the iMac introduction in May 1998, and Google was not founded as a company until September 1998, so the movie is not likely to cover the illegal "anti-poaching" deal between Apple and Google. edit: intro'd in May, not August

Am I correct to assume this movie makes no mention of his systematic illegal wage suppression?

by gorena 11y ago

Am I correct to assume this movie makes no mention of his systematic illegal wage suppression?

seiji 11y ago

The axe grinding machine is in another castle.

pen2l 11y ago
I don't think 'gorena's point should be rebuffed just like that, Steve Jobs was not the friend of us engineers, after all it was him who said things like: “If you hire a single one of these people, that means war”. Many of us might be getting paid were it not for him and his actions. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2491016/it-personnel/steve-jobs-was--central-figure--in-silicon-valley-hiring-case--judge-says.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2491016/it-personnel/st... I do wish this was touched in the movie somehow. (I'm presuming it wasn't, as that's what it seems like... I haven't seen it yet so can't say for sure) edit: I'm getting down-voted. Indeed, I think I went over the top. Steve Jobs did go on to create exceptional products that have heightened a lot of people's productivity, so he was net good. Sorry for the comment - I'll leave it there anyway though.
- seiji 11y ago
  Also: the movie is real time across three scenes and those three scenes are just behind the curtain at "pivotal" keynotes. It's not a life story. It's not an epic tale. It's three set pieces each operating in 30 minutes of character time in sync with 30 minutes of screen time per episode.
gorena 11y ago
If American laborers (yes, engineers, you are laborers) still remembered how to sharpen axes, maybe that would happen less. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/air-france-workers-storm-meeting-protest-executives-job-losses-paris http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/air-france-work...
- vvanders 11y ago
  Haha wow, taking the shirt off their back to its literal conclusion.
- r0naa 11y ago
  What a terrible example to support a very valid point. What those union workers have done was unacceptable, and made me sick to my stomach. Also, I felt greatly ashamed - like many other french citizens - by the french government's weak response to this public humiliation. Nobody deserves to be treated this way, and more importantly Unions should never take the place of the rule of the law. This is not 1793 anymore, France is a modern democracy and allowing Unions to grow unchecked was a histoical mistake. There are a balance to strike between workers' rights and corporations' prerogatives. France is the very situation you want to avoid, one where an actor has such tremendous power that any attack to the status quo is impossible regardless of its benefit for society as a whole.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Nobody deserves to be treated this way, and more importantly Unions should never take the place of the rule of the law. This is not 1793 anymore It's still an era of neo-liberalism and employees return workplaces to medieval work practices (down to child labor and 14 hour workday) whenever they can get away with it.
    - r0naa 11y ago
      And they can get away with it only because their unions have created precedents where they create avoc in the streets of Paris with the complicity (or thanks to the weakness) of the political leaders of the time. This is sickening really. I am always dumb-founded when I read people who would like this kind of dystopia for their countries. Don't you see how fucked up this is for everyone?
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >And they can get away with it only because their unions have created precedents where they create havoc in the streets of Paris with the complicity (or thanks to the weakness) of the political leaders of the time. And why NOT (ocassionally) create havoc in the streets of Paris? Because it disrupts business as usual and results in some small scale damages and such? France and Paris, especially, has a long history of championing people's rights with street protests. From the Bastille day, to the Commune all the way up to May 68 and beyond. Tons of things we take for granted would be illegal without such ocassional "havoc". People that think that protests and demonstrations should be "a thing of the past" because now "we live in a full democracy" are just repeating what has been said all the way from the 19th century -- even if blacks had no rights, women had no rights, gays had no rights, there was no social security, immigrants had (and still don't) rights, etc. Democracy is not some magic thing that solves from within the parliament. Especially the mockery of democracry we have (with representatives elected once every 4 or 5 years based on a platform that bundles all issues together - so if you agree with them on X and disagree on Y you can't get to vote individually on those things), with political influence bought by corporations and big players, and without being held accountable for not keeping on their promises (you just get not to vote for them at the end of their term). Democracy needs active citizen participation, and protests and demonstrations are one such method of making people's opinions heard.

Kristine1975 11y ago

Maybe they include anecdotes like this one: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Handicapped.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story... >Anyway, the story is that one day Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassee, who had recently transferred to Cupertino from Paris, had just parked his car and was walking toward the entrance of the main office at Apple when Steve buzzed by him in his silver Mercedes and pulled into the handicapped space near the front of the building. >As Steve walked brusquely past him, Jean-Louis was heard to declare, to no one in particular - "Oh, I never realized that those spaces were for the emotionally handicapped...".

coldtea 11y ago
Wasn't that Steve's building in the first place to do anything he wanted with? If he didn't take the last available such space or actually cut off some handicapped Apple employee wanting to park there, then it's more about "playing by the rules" than actually hurting anyone...
- gorena 11y ago
  No, because handicap laws are for the benefit of society. Rich men shouldn't get to skip out on them because they're rich.
  - realquick81 11y ago
    > No, because handicap laws are for the benefit of society. Only if by "benefit" you mean "detriment". Many a handicapped person are against these "laws" (opinions with guns).
  - larrys 11y ago
    Well the parent comment doesn't say how many handicap spots were open. Giving Jobs the benefit of the doubt, he may have seen a pattern where there were always multiple spots available. And the spot locations don't come down from God either. They are decided (at least in the state where I live and have worked on this subject (a work parking lot)) in an arbitrary fashion in order to meet certain requirements. It's (once again where I am) a loose specification for placement. And you can always exceed the number required. For all we know Apple could have put in more spaces than required and Steve was simply taking advantage of that knowing that nothing would happen. And that he further didn't care about any fine he received assuming the Police even had normal access to that part of the parking lot when they were on patrol. Edit: Further to my point it's easy to assume "arrogant big shot rich guy" just hearing a story like this.

MCRed 11y ago

There's a huge difference between not having internal recruiters call up employees in a company directory to try and poach them, and preventing those same employees from choosing to apply. The former doesn't affect wages, but the latter would. The latter didn't happen.

morganw 11y ago
How do you know that employee-initiated applications & interviews weren't stopped by recruiters calling back & forth "OK to hire this guy?". The only reason the "no cold calling" agreement was made public was Ed Colligan spilling the beans & the D.O.J. making a half-assed attempt to investigate. Plenty of the disclosure docs are still sealed.

snowwrestler 11y ago

The practical answer to this is that the movie ends with the iMac introduction in May 1998, and Google was not founded as a company until September 1998, so the movie is not likely to cover the illegal "anti-poaching" deal between Apple and Google. edit: intro'd in May, not August