
Engineers Allege Hiring Collusion in Silicon Valley - vwinsyee
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/technology/engineers-allege-hiring-collusion-in-silicon-valley.html
======
suprgeek
I have personally witnessed the frustrating side of this "no poaching" pact. A
close friend was tired of the "Manager Arrogance" at one of these colluding
companies.

He quietly put out the word,pretty quickly got approached by a hiring manager
at another company - things were going swimmingly.

Then the Hiring manager put in the Req to HR - a V.P. called him personally
and but confirmed this "no poaching" B.S. The wage hike would have been
considerable for my friend (you can guess the two companies - Arrogant vs Top
Payer) & he was pretty upset to learn that the real reason was Jobs being a
Huge Asshole and bullying everybody into such a blatantly illegal pact.

So this is a very real "wage theft" collusion case. Unfortunately most of the
parties involved had the "good" sense to NOT document it officially so the
Smoking Gun might be hard to prove conclusively.

There was even a "no hire" list at one of these companies tacked on the wall
of a HR Manager with the Caption "If you hire from there, we will fire (u)
from here."

~~~
raverbashing
What about quitting first after knowing of this fact?

~~~
jhart3333
You mean everyone quit together? That's called a strike.

~~~
huxley
A strike involves work stoppage, it's a very different tactic than mass
resignation.

In 1999, Major League Umpires Association (MLUA) were not able to legally go
strike so they opted to use mass resignation as their negotiation strategy. It
backfired, cost 22 umpires their careers and led to decertification of the
union.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Major_League_Umpires_Assoc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Major_League_Umpires_Association_mass_resignation)

~~~
jhart3333
I'm sticking with strike. "mass resignation and everyone loses their jobs"
just doesn't have the same ring.

~~~
ScottBurson
Ring or not, they're utterly different. Striking employees expect they will
still have their jobs when the strike is over.

------
birken
FYI, the exact definition of the class here is people who "worked as a
salaried Technical Employee":

(a) for Apple from March 2005 through December 2009;

(b) for Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009;

(c) for Google from March 2005 through December 2009;

(d) for Intel from March 2005 through December 2009;

(e) for Intuit from June 2007 through December 2009;

(f) for Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December 2009; or

(g) for Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009.

Source:
[https://hightechemployeelawsuit.com/faqs/#q0](https://hightechemployeelawsuit.com/faqs/#q0)

If you fall into this group and want to file a claim to be part of the
settlement, you have until March 19th to do so (which you can do via the above
website).

~~~
raverbashing
What happened in December 2009?

~~~
pron
The Justice Department intervened.

------
WildUtah
What can the villains in this drama use as power to force their illegal price
fixing on reluctant companies?

Just what you'd expect.

"Mr. Jobs proposed a no-poaching deal to Edward T. Colligan, Palm’s chief
executive. Mr. Colligan responded that such a deal would be unfair to
employees as well as “likely illegal.” Mr. Jobs then threatened to unleash
Apple’s patent lawyers on Palm."

Yep. It's our badly broken patent system yet again.

~~~
RachelF
Interesting, since most of Palm's ideas on smartphones pre-dated the iPhone.
No wonder we've changed the patent law to first to file, rather than first to
invent.

~~~
dredmorbius
Size of portfolio matters.

This is the reason that tech companies seek to acquire _large_ rather than
_technically sound_ patent portfolios.

Briefly: defense against infringement runs around $1-$10 million per patent
)(it may be higher, my information's somewhat dated). Defeat one patent, and
the company with the larger portfolio presses suit with another, and another.
_Even if the plaintiff successfully defends itself against these suits, it 's
still out $1-$10 million per patent._ Often far better to strike a licensing
deal for $40k (or some value less than $1-$10m).

It's possible to countersue, and this happens, usually with the result that
the companies reach a cross-licensing arrangement.

~~~
zodiac
In a successful defense, does the defending party get their legal fees
reimbursed by the suing party?

~~~
WildUtah
"does the defending party get their legal fees reimbursed by the suing party?"

Almost never.

The law requires "exceptional circumstances" for an award of attorney fees and
the CAFC (the patent appeals court) is inclined to reverse even fees awarded
under those circumstances.

There were two cases argued at the Supreme Court this week to try to define
what constitutes "exceptional" and reduce the authority of the CAFC to weaken
the awards. [0] The court isn't expected to change much.

There is a bill in Congress that has passed the House and is being considered
by the Senate [1] which would change the rule to award fees by default "unless
the court finds that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party or
parties were reasonably justified in law and fact."

So plenty of people even in languid Washington are frustrated with the current
lack of fee shifting. Maybe something will be done. Maybe not. Washington is
not famous for swiftness or wisdom.

[0] [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/shifting-arguments-
highm...](http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/shifting-arguments-
highmark.html)

[1]
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3309eh/pdf/BILLS-113...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3309eh/pdf/BILLS-113hr3309eh.pdf)

------
geebee
I'm really glad to see that this issue is getting more coverage in the
mainstream press. There was an article/editorial a while back (discussed on
HN) from the guardian, but unfortunately, the writer used the incident (the
collusion) to go on a rant about how valley leaders are hypocritical
libertarians. That (reasonably enough) lead to a long debate about whether the
leaders are libertarians even if they are mainly democrats, etc...

This article stuck to the point much better. I do think Mr Levy (quoted in
this article) went a little far in suggesting that the engineers are a very
well heeled class.

"Santa Clara County, in the heart of Silicon Valley, has the highest average
wage in the country,” said Stephen Levy, senior economist at the Center for
Continuing Study of the California Economy. “San Francisco and San Mateo are
not far behind. It would be a mistake to think of these plaintiffs as an
oppressed set of victims."

Agreed, programmers in the bay area aren't dust bowl refugees. However, we
need to recognize that the relatively high salaries don't go far in high cost
regions (where many of these companies are located), and aren't that high
relative to the higher wages typical of these regions.

Application developers in SF earn, on average, a tiny bit less than RNs and a
whisker more than dental hygienists (links at end). I'm 100% ok with good
wages for nurses and dental hygienists, but keep in mind that these tech
companies have been almost frantically lobbying congress to do something about
a severe shortage of highly educated programmers and engineers.

Well, first and foremost, how about you stop colluding to suppress their
wages? That might attract a few more people into the field.

[http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-
jobs/rankings/the-100-b...](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-
jobs/rankings/the-100-best-jobs)

[http://blog.sfgate.com/gettowork/2013/12/17/what-the-most-
co...](http://blog.sfgate.com/gettowork/2013/12/17/what-the-most-common-jobs-
in-san-francisco-pay/#18915101=0)

~~~
smsm42
Is there indeed a shortage of app developers because of the low wages? I was
always thinking of software as a segment where entry barriers are relatively
low - compared to, say, medicine - and pay is exceptionally good. Of course,
everybody wants to be paid better, but it doesn't look like software engineers
are suffering especially badly from low pay.

~~~
geebee
People (including me) often say that barriers to entry are low, but I think
it's a bit more complicated than that. There are no _legal_ barriers to entry.
But barriers to being a "mathematician" are also low. But would you say that
the barriers to doing meaningful mathematical work are low? It's out of reach
of most of the population.

Anyone can hang out a shingle as a software developer, but are the barriers to
getting through the technical grilling typical of a software interview process
really low? Just because there are no legal barriers doesn't mean that it's an
easy thing to learn.

I don't think that software engineers are suffering from bad pay, but is the
pay high enough that it makes sense to be talking about a severe shortage that
the government should start fixing? Based on pay, I'd say we should take the
"software developer" shortage about as seriously as we take the "dental
hygenist" shortage.

~~~
smsm42
I'd say definitely lower than RN. Not to mention all kinds of certifications
that can be expensive and time-consuming too. Great software engineers are
rare, but common ones are nowhere near the level you need to be to make a
significant contribution to math field. And the pay is much better.

~~~
mgstr
Most of the developers I've met from the companies mentioned have masters or
phds as well as substantial work experience on real-world projects. Those that
don't are usually exceptional individuals.

~~~
smsm42
You have very biased view of the industry then, probably because of the
specifics of your social circle. Absolute majority of tech industry doesn't
have PhDs and does work that in no way, form or manner requires PhD.

------
nerfhammer
> It also offers a portrait of Silicon Valley engineers that differs sharply
> from their current caricature as well-paid villains who are driving up the
> price of real estate in San Francisco and making the city unbearable for
> others.

What? "unbearable"? That seems a little out of place. Would most NYTimes
readers have any idea what he's talking about?

From the author's recent articles list:

\--

In little more than a decade, Google has become essential and omnipresent. Now
the question is whether people will start to resent and oppose it.

\--

As entrepreneurs invade regulated industries and evade traditional watchdogs,
the question of who is responsible when something goes wrong looms large.

\--

Airbnb likes to say that it gives more people the money they need to pay their
bills. But new research suggests that as the sharing industry spreads, more
people are going to need that money, because they’ll be unemployed.

\--

Uber and a Child's Death

\--

Hard-hit by recession, many in Europe have questioned whether jobs at Amazon’s
warehouses there are good for the economy or dehumanizing.

\--

seems to exclusively write negative stories about bay area tech

~~~
dhoulb
Wow, did Eric Schmidt run over his dog or something? Guy's got a serious bias!

~~~
chetanahuja
No. It has worked out well for his career.

[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s...](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/david_streitfeld/index.html)

"In 2013, Mr. Streitfeld was part of the team awarded the Pulitzer Prize for
Explanatory Reporting “for its penetrating look into business practices by
Apple and other technology companies that illustrates the darker side of a
changing global economy for workers and consumers."

------
pron
This case is a beautiful demonstration of the dynamics of both "free market"
and regulation. Free market dynamics demand (in this case as in all cases)
that large players must never compete on prices or wages (as your competitors
have the resources to fight back, so competition on price just makes everyone
worse off). On the other hand, regulation was used both to stop an
exploitation by the market (antitrust), as well as a tool wielded by
capitalists to strengthen their stranglehold (patents).

It is perhaps worth reminding that the interplay between regulators and the
market, and their co-evolution, have taken a different historical path than in
Europe. While in Europe big government preceded laissez-faire, or at least,
evolved hand-in-hand, the US was largely unregulated for many years. The
result was that Ayn Randian titans took control of pretty much all power in
the US, advancing the "economy" but at the same time practically enslaving the
population. It was after many years of cries for help by the American people,
and a long struggle led largely by the press, that Teddy Roosevelt was able to
strengthen the government, wrestle back some power, and save the people from
feudalist oppression.

Ironically, many Americans forgot what the US looked like when the government
was powerless, and the market was allowed to roam free. People like Ayn Rand,
who sadly came to the US just as the wheel was turning, didn't see the
suffering that their romantic fantasies had brought about when playing out in
the real world.

Obviously, as patent law demonstrates, regulation can be (and is) abused by
capitalists. As the world changes, power shifts, and players adapt new
strategies in this constant power struggle, both the market and regulation
need to evolve hand-on-hand. The big question is what will play the role the
press once played in exposing the workings of the intricate system of
interests that is the economy?

~~~
crazy1van
" On the other hand, regulation was used both to stop an exploitation by the
market "

I don't see any evidence that regulation stopped the behavior in this case.
Perhaps the law will be used after the fact to sue or jail some people, but it
doesn't seem to be what actually stopped the problem.

As another poster said, the class action date ranges end in 2009 because
Facebook (a private company) wouldn't play ball.

Capitalism is a messy system, but it does tend to self correct in the long
run.

~~~
usefulcat
> Capitalism is a messy system, but it does tend to self correct in the long
> run.

That's quite a generalization; extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.

~~~
crazy1van
You are right. My statement is a huge generalization and I will never be able
to find hard supporting evidence in the true sense.

However, my general sentiment stems from looking at the well being of the
average person across human history. As humans shifted towards a system where
people earned for themselves and kept what they earned, the typical human life
improved at an astounding rate. On a much smaller scale, I've never seen
people work harder than when they had stake in the outcome.

Anecdotes and generalizations, I fully admit. However, I bet many others with
a much wider variety of life experiences than I have reach the same
conclusion.

~~~
pron
Actually, human society hasn't "shifted towards a system where people earned
for themselves and kept what they earned". Throughout history there have been
motions back and forth towards a amore socialist or a more capitalist system.
In fact, I'm not sure you can say that we have such a system in any of the
Western countries, right now. People don't just work for themselves: they pool
a large chunk of their resources together to build common infrastructure
necessary for business.

There was one time, however, when human society shifted from a communal
hunter-gatherer society to one having private property, and that was the
neolithic revolution. It is pretty much universally agreed that it made most
people worse off. They had to work more (you're right about that; hunters-
gatherers needed to work only 20 hours a week), got more sick, were
malnourished, had to give birth to more children, and lived less (until modern
technology, that is). It's unclear why this most important revolution in human
history happened, but some theories suggest that it was brought about by the
only people who benefitted from it: those who quickly became rich.

------
tn13
This is really pathetic. I can understand companies being ruthless in
maximizing their profits but this sort of move is seriously counter
productive. If the wages are not competitive it also means less incentive for
bright youngsters to get into these professions. If this kind of agreements
become more common, I think that will be like we killing our future.

~~~
sergiosgc
Companies do not, usually, plan decades ahead. They manage the next quarter
and plan the next three years. Youngsters entering or not a professional area
is something that takes 20 years to produce a measurable effect.

Government, is the one that should do the multi decade planning.

~~~
smsm42
Except it never does. All those decade-long budgets and long-term plans are a
sham that survives in the best case until next 2 year election, but more
commonly till the next budget skirmish that happens once a couple of months.
Specific people can have long-term agenda but government as a whole is
incapable of that.

------
pyrrhotech
Engineers are so highly underpaid for the value they contribute to these
companies. What's the average salary, $140k? It should be $300k, half a
million total comp conservatively. Even at that amount, employers would still
be getting a 50-75% margin on you. It's insane how much we are ripped off.
Good eningeers can literally make or save companies 10s of millions a year,
but are never compensated for it.

~~~
wildpeaks
Make your own company if it's that easy to literally make or save 10s of
millions a year, that way you can set the amount of own compensation.

------
cgriswald
Am I the only one that loves the fact that it involves 64K programmers?

~~~
dredmorbius
As with earlier numbers: sounds like it should be enough for anybody, but I
can think of a number of other companies which have been excluded from the
suit which should be included. Cisco comes to mind.

~~~
rapind
I think he's saying he loves that it's 2^6 (K) programmers.

~~~
dman
That sir is not a serious definition of 64k. We all know 64k == 65536 ( 2^16
).

~~~
rapind
touché

------
wavesounds
Can Software Engineers in California that weren't working at one of these
companies get in on this class action? I mean even if you weren't at one of
those companies its easy to see how suppressing wages at the largest companies
would suppress wages for the entire industry.

~~~
doktrin
Doubtful.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to?

~~~
walshemj
for the $$$$

Though this action by major company's would depress wages across the board so
its not a totally worthless suit.

------
discardorama
The sad part is that even though this behavior is illegal, no one will
actually go to jail for this. Companies will pay a token fine (like Pixar and
Lucasfilm did), and it'll be business as usual, but this time no emails and no
documentation.

Unless a few people end up in jail for this, nothing will change.

~~~
denzil_correa
> Unless a few people end up in jail for this, nothing will change.

That's pretty much it. Does the govt come down on corporations for such acts?
One rarely sees corporate honchos being jailed for such incidents. More often
than not, it is a fine and then things move on to find and execute a different
loophole.

~~~
discardorama
> One rarely sees corporate honchos being jailed for such incidents.

... except when the corporate honcho refuses to do the government's bidding;
in that case, his ass thrown into prison. See:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2013/09/30...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resisted-nsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-
feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/)

------
thinkcomp
Case docket and documents here:

[http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=1860459](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=1860459)

------
curiousDog
I'm still surprised Google was in on this considering they are developer
friendly and are a "do-no-evil" company to a considerable extent. It was
probably pressure from Jobs. Developers hurt by this should squeeze them for
every penny possible.

~~~
pron
Google is no more a "do-no-evil" company than most. They might be slightly
above average. Their "employee friendliness", as far as it goes, is blatantly
self-serving, designed to create extreme allegiance to the company and
possibly long working-hours. This is not in itself "bad", it's just that it
isn't altruistic in the slightest, either.

------
shiven
This is bound to happen in any industry where supply of talent exceeds demand
AND the powers-that-be can get away with collusion (either by virtue of being
'private' or simply being powerful and thus not give a shit).

So what if one talented employee decided to quit one crappy company 'A' AND is
unable to find work at the non-poach pact company 'B'? The place he quit will
always find another willing sucker 'coz the supply is ever present (with, at
most, a minor reduction in quality).

~~~
gizmo686
When supply exceeds demand, you do not need collusion, because there are
unemployed workers who you can just hire at your target rate. If that is not
enough money to entice them to work for you, then it would still not be enough
even if you colluded.

What collusion allows is for the employers to maintain these low prices, even
when demand exceed supply.

------
dba7dba
The drive to maximize profit by those in the executive suite has caused them
to do some seemingly clever (according to those in power) things but are in
fact stupid in the long term.

A few years ago I overheard a new senior programmer argue with the cfo why
developers should get 2 big monitors instead of a small 19". The cfo initially
refused to go along. Of course some of it was due to his desire to keep cost
down, as every good cfo should. But then he joked every dollar saved would
mean more for his christmas bonus. we were a small/friendly company so I guess
that's why he felt it was ok to joke about it. But I do believe his ultimate
reason was to keep cost down at any 'cost' so that his bonus check would be
bigger, as his performance is evaluated on how he manages the cash flow.

What the cfo didn't see was the productivity gain that could be gained by the
programmers having bigger monitors. And these programmers were making near
6-figure salary. Their combined man hour cost was greater than his. But a cfo
was making a decision to fatten his bonus check. Obviously this was not a good
choice for the firm to make but it had been going on for awhile until the new
senior programmer spoke up.

And I think this kind of logic in executive suite is probably common
everywhere.

Lastly, I think it's about time these big tech companies add profit sharing ON
top of the base salary as part of the compensation package. Why should an
executive make SO much more than master and phds who are adding real value to
the company?

------
smprk
Wouldn't a better idea than putting up a 'no poaching' kind of exit barrier be
to give 'bonus every X period of time' kind of incentive, for employees you
value and would like to retain?

I wonder if in the world of technology it makes sense to retain a demotivated
employee?

~~~
vinceguidry
> I wonder if in the world of technology it makes sense to retain a
> demotivated employee?

It absolutely does. The nature of tech work practically demands that every
employee develop intimate knowledge of the very specific domain his work
touches. It takes so long for new hires to become productive that in most
cases the bottom line begs you to hold on to anyone who already has that
intimate knowledge.

On the other hand, keeping a tech employee motivated often looks like a fool's
game to management. If he's good at what he does, he doesn't see the world the
same way as they do. If you're a growth-oriented engineer, it makes sense for
you to bounce around different companies so as to maintain a sense of movement
and there's not much your employer can do to "maintain your sense of movement"
because it's a completely alien concept to them and often presents as
"unnecessary shit that will cost time and money and be risky". Your career
goals will often clash hard against your company's needs.

End result? This situation where top talent sinks collude to reduce their
engineers' inherent negotiating advantage. This practice would be widespread,
if only technology weren't such a wide field that any engineer with any desire
at all for something better can very quickly find something. It only happened
at the top level because that's the only circle in which there is no more
upward mobility except among the same cloistered few.

------
zcarter
Some relevant points for engineers addressed here:
[http://blog.mightyspring.com/post/74827679281/battling-
outsi...](http://blog.mightyspring.com/post/74827679281/battling-outside-
forces-in-employment)

Know who (with)holds information

Avoid information asymmetry

~~~
Nate75Sanders
It's standard to mention that you work for the company you're promoting.

------
rdl
Arguably this helped startups, since an ex Apple guy who couldn't go to Google
could found a startup (and then maybe sell to Google later). Still lame
though.

------
tomzinter
Serious question - will this do much? Seems like in the case of a win, the
companies will give token amounts (9MM from Pixar for example) and the
claimants (given there are 64000) will get a tiny little check.

Am I missing something? Is this worth pursuing for a prospective claimant?

------
nnq
OK, so you can stop the "no poaching" and you'll have:

\--> smaller than they should be engineer wages --> higher engineer wages -->
even higher engineer wages -->

... \--> absurdly high unsustainable engineer wages -->

... \--> more outsourcing --> even more outsourcing -->

... \--> massive outsourcing -->

... ... ... \--> smaller than they should be engineer wages

...I think the "evil masters" of this "no poaching" pact managed to prevent an
engineers' job marked fluctuation. And you think about it, such a fluctuation
would only have benefited the foreign outsourcing providers and encouraged the
displacement of parts of tech industry outside US ...which imho would've have
been a great thing for Europe's tech sector and maybe even for worldwide IT
innovation as a whole, since lots of new pseudo-innovations start to sound
more and more like "american-inbread ideas".

~~~
ceras
Engineers wouldn't price themselves so high that they would be outsourced:
that only happens to people who don't have any room left to let their wages
fall, either because they already earn too little to sustain themselves or
there is a legal price floor (e.g., minimum wage). An engineer making $200k
isn't going to starve from taking a 50% pay cut, and they'd certainly rather
take that than no job at all.

------
wnevets
but I was told Steve Jobs was a great man

------
puppetmaster3
don't tell me a about shortage if the market is manipulated

------
tosseraccount
Gee. Maybe there is a labor shortage.

------
MarkPNeyer
how can i join this lawsuit?

~~~
shitlord
see:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7323443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7323443)

------
mrtree
ONLY 6 COMMENTS?

People should be virtually rioting for this.

~~~
doktrin
Huh?

This isn't breaking news. It's just the latest development in an old and
ongoing story.

------
hanswesterbeek
Yeah those poor high-tech workers have a really rough life indeed, it's time
someone did something about it!

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Laws and fairness are for everybody.

~~~
hanswesterbeek
There's no disputing that. I'm just voicing the sentiment of main street
hoping that we techies take it to heart.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah definitely its a 1st-world problem. But in context, there's more money
and value being squandered in Silicon Valley due to this crime, than if it
occurred in many other areas.

~~~
walshemj
Collusion amongst employers against employees happens in the third world often
with far worse consequences look at south america

------
drakaal
This is the 99% lead charge that annoys me the most. (especially since many of
the people leading it aren't 99%'ers they just think they are)

The assumption is that the only places to work are the big companies. Anti-
Poaching agreements are rarely about the Money and more about the "I won't
steal your trade secrets if you don't steal mine" types of "we can't patent
this stuff" stand offs.

It is also protection against having a company put another company out of
business by "poaching".

You look at some of the teams at companies and you can see where a group of 10
guys went from company to company. When they all left most the time that
company failed. You can't withstand a blow of having 40% of your team walk,
and take everything they were working on to a larger competing company.

"Salary Fixing" doesn't work. Someone always offers 15% more to get better
talent and when that eats in to the talent pool everyone else has to ante up
as well.

Silicon Valley just feels entitled. Yeah it costs more to live there, but the
expendable income of SV engineers is vast compared to engineers anywhere else
in the US, and the world.

~~~
Zigurd
If you are in a non C-level salaried position, and you don't have a few
million in liquid assets, it is exceedingly unlikely you are a 1%er.

~~~
walshemj
exactly a BART train driver earns about the same as a developer and will have
overtime and a much much better pension.

Same in the UK a tube driver earns far more than the average developer does in
London and has a Final Salary pension plus overtime.

~~~
drakaal
A BART "train driver" is responsible for the lives of hundreds at a time.
Attended school, and takes ongoing continuing education classes to maintain
their license. They compete for a few hundred jobs in the US and if they don't
get or keep that job there is no competition locally to transfer to.

That "SV Engineers feel entitled" thing I said. You just demonstrated it.

~~~
walshemj
I am not saying that BART or LU Drivers are overpaid - but that the average SV
programmer or London developer is not overpaid when compared to them - techies
are not very good at organizing collectively.

Name me one SV tech company that has a final salary pension open to new
joiners.

And sorry 95% of the safety is in the TPS system and I would probably bet that
the EE's that design and look after that system for London Underground are not
paid £60k plus overtime

