Slashdot Mirror
Apple Allegedly Sought Non-Poaching Deal With Palm
theodp writes "A Bloomberg report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice, which already is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent. 'Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal,' former Palm CEO Ed Colligan reportedly told Jobs in August 2007." The article notes that Apple was probably reacting to Palm's hiring of Jon Rubenstein, who had been instrumental in developing the iPod and went on to spearhead the Pre for Palm (and has now become Palm's chairman and CEO). "It's the story about the importance of charismatic engineers," said veteran Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo. "People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein. One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."
Apple wasn't looking to screw over their employees. They merely wished to make the Apple employment experience more simple and elegant. With other employers, employees must make complicated and confusing decisions about raises and other job opportunities, resolve conflicts between competing employers, etc. At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Indirectly eliminating your vocational opportunities by working at Apple: that's not a bug in your employment contract, it's a feature.
Jobs: "If a CEO does it, it's not illegal."
These cases come up all the time, they fall under restraint of trade. If Apple want to stop someone working elsewhere by contract shenanigans, they have to pay that employee until the contract dates expires.
One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."
Simple - by forcing him to report to Steve Jobs.
Never, why would Steve Jobs do something like that? Jobs is a cut throat CEO, who for some reason people think is so much better than Bill Gates when the two are practically the same, the difference being that at least Gates gives to charity daily, where as Jobs does not. Don't get me know I think that Apple has amazing technologies, but they are definitely overpriced when they don't need to because Jobs himself thinks he is better than so many.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
This is why you never, ever trust an employer to do right by you. All the incentives are aligned the wrong way, and to rise high in a company, you practically have to be a slick sociopath. The same guy that asks you how your day went by the water cooler would have you chained to a desk 14 hours to day if the law would let him get away with it.
Speaking of getting screwed - why are there specific regulations in the federal labor laws that exempt "certain computer workers" from overtime pay?
It goes against the ideal of the free market. But, in a truly unregulated market, there would be nothing stopping two companies colluding like this to their mutual benefit... or entering into any other kind of strange and possibly anti-competitive arrangement.
see 'non-compete clauses'.
at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.
on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india ;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).
I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew ;)
non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein.
Interesting... I used to work for a guy like that. I and several people I talked to joined the company solely based upon our interview with him. After he got let go following a dispute with upper management, most of those under him left as well. He was somewhat notorious for ignoring the anti compete policies and having a band of loyal followers where ever he went.
The guy cared about the people under him, and would try to help them advance their careers. Their appreciation of that was only natural. Combine that with a strong sense of direction and a willingness to take command and you've got a pretty effective leader. Only problem is getting his direction to line up with the business... so maybe guys like that just belong at the top, or running their own gig.
Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.
A non-compete prevents an employee from working at a competitor.
A non-poach prevents a company from actively trying to hire another company's employees.
The difference is, a non-compete prevents employees from willingly seeking employment elsewhere, which is illegal. A non-poach prevents employers from actively trying to "steal" employees. In a non-poach, employees are free and willing to seek employment at the other company.
In this case, it would keep Palm from actively recruiting people from Apple, and Apple from actively recruiting from Palm. It does not prevent any Apple employee who wants to work at Palm from seeking employment at Palm on their own volition, and vice versa. Hell, Apple employees are free to work at Microsoft, if they wish, because there was no non-paoch agreement (that we know of) between the two companies.
It's the same deal between Apple and Google. Apple agrees not to recruit people from Google, and vice-versa, but individual employees are still free to leave and join the other.
These non-poaching agreements aren't really a big deal - they don't prevent employees from leaving and joining the other company (or any other). It just prevents companies from actively targeting employees at the other company. Examples include say, setting up a little booth off campus (but where employees walk by anyhow) offering jobs to them, having headhunters that will then call employees at their desks, or putting up billboards saying stuff like "Apple employee? Come work for Palm!" in full view of the Apple campus (EA did this to Radical - rented a billboard right outside the Radical offices).
At worst, it's a form of collusion between two companies which might be used to keep salaries low, but there's enough other companies out there that employees can work for.
It's like two car dealerships agreeing not to steal business away from each other - the customer is free to shop between the two (and haggle), but one dealer won't go and say "buy a car from me instead of this guy!" to customers visiting the other guy's lot.
I know someone who moved from the iPhone project to Palm. He was at a high enough level to be screamed at by Steve Jobs in person, and he didn't like that. He waited until the iPhone shipped, then left for a company with sane management.
But then what would they do?
I'm being serious. It might hurt Apple a bit, and it would hurt Palm a bit, and Microsoft a bit, and Oracle a bit, and Google a bit, but if this person declines taking a job with the colluders, then what will they do? Take work with start ups that can't actually afford to pay them the salary they demand trying to compete in already saturated markets? Engage in subsistence farming and day labor until it gets sorted out? Starve? Apple can afford to lose that person as an employee, but how long can that person afford not to be employed?
This is a symptom of the single greatest flaw in Free Market theory, and one that NOBODY has a satisfying answer to: no true capitalist would ever willingly compete if they did not have to. Market collusion allows the minimization of costs, maximization of profit, and elimination of competition with far less risk or cost than any other method. Competition and free exchange alone creating a sustainable economy free of corruption and systemic iniquity is just a libertarian wet dream (much like that one about Ayn Rand lying naked on a pile of gold bars...).
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
This wrap-up article appears to be a Palm piece designed to attach them more firmly to Apple in people's minds. Trying to imply Palm is so great that Apple is trying to stop them and also imply that Palm is just like Apple, in fact they have half of Apple's engineers!
The real kicker is the last part. "These people work for Rubenstein". Yeah, maybe that's true for Mike Bell. Pete Alexander (who used to work for Mike Bell) just quit Apple (was forced out) and will be working at Palm within 3 months.
But there are a lot of people for whom this doesn't apply. I used to work for Rubenstein and I can tell you he's so much not a people person it's ridiculous. He makes 2000-era Al Gore look personable. He would periodically get up and address the team and he would say things that clearly showed he didn't any real connection to us or even know what we were doing. For example, he once rallied us by saying the software/hardware release we just did was the best one we had ever done. The whole crowd groaned because we knew it wasn't, that it was pushed out the door and in fact we had a plans for a near-term emergency .0.1 update and a rapidly following .0.2 update.
Maybe if you work directly for the guy day-to-day you can form an attachment to him, but to anyone lower down in the ranks, it isn't the same.
As to why Steve Jobs "let" Rubenstein leave, I'm sure it was similar reasons as why Tony Fadell left. Because both realized they wouldn't be the next CEO of the company. Steve Jobs only action then of "letting" them leave was to not step aside and let Rubenstein or Fadell be CEO. Rubenstein got out, and lo and behold he's now the CEO of Palm.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95