Slashdot Mirror
US Justice Dept. Investigates IT Hiring Practices
Zecheus writes "The Wall Street Journal (no paywall on this story) reports that the Justice Department is 'stepping up' an investigation of hiring practices of US technology firms, such as Google, Intel, IBM, and Apple. From the article: 'The inquiry is focused on whether companies, particularly in the technology sector, have agreed not to recruit each other's employees in ways that violate antitrust law. Specifically, the probe is looking into whether the companies' hiring practices are costing skilled computer engineers and other workers opportunities to change jobs for higher pay or better benefits.'"
As a 49 yo grandmother, C programmer and techie, I'd say sexism is a major problem in IT hiring. Its offensive.
A "gentlemen's agreement" between companies not to pilfer employees isn't a bad thing ... unless you're not one of those companies.
Or unless you're employed by one of those companies. Artificially limiting an Engineer's ability to get another job which could offer better compensation or more interesting technical challenges is wrong.
It isn't bad for the company's, but it sure sucks for the employees. That is the point of the investigation. Several years ago when I was working for a major telecom billing system vendor in Saint Louis I was trying to find work elsewhere. Every head hunter in the city told me the same thing: they wouldn't talk to me while I still worked for that vendor. It seems that vendor was a major client of all of the head hunters as they were doing a lot of hiring at the time, and told the head hunters they would not deal with them again if they ever found out that they had helped one of their employees (like me) find a job somewhere else. So it made it that much more difficult to find other work. I did eventually, but this is very much like the situation in the article. In fact I think this is likely way more prevalent and is what the government should be looking at. But it is also very difficult to combat, so they will likely only go after the low hanging fruit; as in cases like Google, MS, IBM, etc.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I think no one should have the right to tell you were you work, but, you shouldn't be allowed leave and take you current employers clients with you over to another firm. if you allow that kind of bullshit, employee's would hold employers to ransom.
things like having agreement not to hire engineers and coders so you don't have to compete for the talent pool is bullshit, i hope they get dragged over the coals.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I've always wondered why Microsoft hasn't hired a lot of Google's engineers away from Google. In the last 10 years, Microsoft has had huge amounts of cash in the bank. It would have been easy to simply offer each of the 100 top Google engineers literally double their salary each, just to come work for MS. Even if they didn't do anything specific (or did their own thing), as long as they didn't work for Google it would be a net gain. That would have been such an easy way to gut a competitor, much easier than trying to build a better search engine, or to buy Yahoo!.
Not every company could do that, but the top tech companies are swimming in cash, and targeted poaching is an option. But it doesn't seem to be used anywhere near its full (business) potential.
I work for a really big (20+ Billion dollars in revenues) company's IT department.
Of late, they have become enamored with one of the big Indian outsourcing companies. I'm sure their folks are wonderful - indeed, of the ones I've worked with, it's about the same breakdown of wonderful/OK/awful as everyone else.
Based on job listings recently found on one of the internet job sites, they appear to have asked the outsourcer to find someone to work in my area as a technical manager of sorts. The job listing is full of internal lingo and acronyms - nobody from outside the company would know what it's talking about; indeed, some of the acronyms are commonly thought of as something else. (For example, suppose IBM stood for, internally, the "Internet Bandwidth Management" system but it says in the job listing "must be familiar with IBM computer technologies.")
I'm usually one to attribute stuff to stupidity before malice or deviousness.
But is the crap job listing a devious attempt to prove that nobody with US work rights already is suitable, thereby making it OK to bring in someone on a visa - and totally ignoring the fact that the visa guy won't be suitable either?
Or is it just stupidity? After all, HR folks mess up technical job listings all the time.
I don't know, but I do know that the H1B bull shit needs to be cleaned up. Given the employment turmoil of the last year, why would you possibly, honestly, need to bring someone in from overseas?
They key difference is that while for one particular company to hire only people from certain schools may be stupid and discriminatory, it's not a conspiracy between multiple companies -- the latter being pretty much the definition of a trust, and what anti-trust laws are designed to prevent. The former harms only one company, and the employees of that company; the latter harms everyone in the industry.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'm guessing this this really only applies to the high-level, superstar tech talent, right? Especially with firms like Microsoft and IBM, what could they possibly be losing when IBM hires someone who's been working on the grammar checker for the Norwegian version of Word? Or the lower-level code monkey keeping an obscure feature of WebSphere MQ up to date?
These kinds of agreements would work in environments where talent tends to stay put. Unfortunately, the invisible hand seems to think that job stability is a stupid, backward 20th Century concept. After all, who doesn't like looking for a new job every 2 to 6 years?? In an environment like this, even the big guys are going to have trouble holding onto employees.
I think a much better investigation would deal with the well-publicized claims of IBM laying off senior US techs, replacing them with Indians or Brazillians, and forcing the laid off person to train the n00b to get their severance package. I'd also like to see the H-1B program users under some scrutiny for things like not paying prevailing wages, or employers intentionally not pursuing the hiring of US workers so they can get their work cheaper.
All of these things would be less of an issue with some kind of professional standards body in the IT realm. Unfortunately, too many people I know think this is evil and doesn't allow the full brilliance of their talent to shine. I don't think that's valid...lawyers sure like the Bar Association and doctors like the AMA. These organizations give them the power to influence laws and maintain educational standards...exactly what we need.
There is a difference.
Legal: "We won't have our recruiters stake out the Starbucks in Redmond."
Grey area, probably what the Feds are looking into: "We'll draw up a short list of industry experts and constantly headhunt them, but once we find out they work for Microsoft we'll stop actively pursuing them. If they contact us, fine."
Illegal: "If we find out you are a Microsoft employee we will not hire you until you quit."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you can be replaced by an Indian code monkey, you don't deserve to have an IT job.
Anyone can be replaced by an Indian code monkey, it just takes management more interested in the upcoming quarterly than in quality.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Most of the people I know at Google don't work there for the money, and unless it was a job in something like MSR there's no way in hell you could turn their heads.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
I think they should investigate the sending of IT jobs off-shore...It should be considered unethical if a company lays off an IT person, then ship their job to China, for example. Nothing against China, or any other country, but when you ship all of that expertise elsewhere, you handicap innovation in your country. That's stupid.
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I know plenty of people who've moved between Google and Apple. There's certainly no reluctance on the part of either company to hire staff away from the other.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Jon Rubenstein, was hired away from Apple
Incorrect. Rubenstein retired from Apple. Palm convinced him to come out of retirement.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I've always wondered why Microsoft hasn't hired a lot of Google's engineers away from Google.
Because 1) they'd have to move from the center of the industry to a city that might as well be a company town, at least as far as development work is concerned. 2) They'd have to leave an organization with a healthy, young, and vibrant corporate culture and go to one that's rotting from the head, and 3) they'd have to forgo GOOG options for MSFT options, and 4) Google is a much better resume entry than Microsoft.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It would also be helpful if they put some time into investigating permalancing, unpaid internships, and the unethical practice of performing credit checks on applicants.
Luckily, 16 states are looking into banning credit checks, and unpaid internships are being looked at as well.
meep
which is a ploy to avoid hiring American workers in favor of H1B & green card temp workers? It's only "old news" if you have already been replaced by an H-1B.
I read one ad for Qt4 programmers which required 5 years experience, but tool had only been released in the prior year!
The most infamous quote by immigration lawyer Larry Lebowitz during the Cohen & Grigsby seminar on employment visas, May 15th, 2007 in Pittsburgh. Lebowitz coached immigration attorneys and employers how to avoid hiring US workers in order to hire foreign workers on green cards:
"Our goal is clearly NOT TO FIND a qualified and interested US worker."
http://www.programmersguild.org/rir/
Or, HERE
How U.S. Employers Can Avoid The H1B Cap
Under the present scenario, U.S. employers can only file H1B petitions for new bachelor-level or master-level H1B workers on one day each year, or on April 1 of each year.
However, there are some other options available to U.S. employers.
Alternatives To The H1B Visa
o Hire U.S. workers.
o Hire foreign nationals who already have an H1B visa under the H1B "portability" rules.
o Hire recently graduated students on the USCIS' extended "optional practical training" (OPT) program for certain foreign graduates of U.S. universities.
o Hire H1B1 workers from Chile or Singapore.
o Hire E-3 workers from Australia.
o Hire TN workers from Canada or Mexico.
o Hire E-2 foreign nationals who own and operate their own companies within the United States.
o For multinational companies, transfer employees from overseas to the United States under the L-1 visa category.
o Utilize the U.S. State Department's J-1 visa program to hire foreign "trainees" and "interns".
o Utilize the H2B "temporary worker" nonimmigrant visa category.
A TN visa process is an "objective" process in which the USCIS officer determines whether an applicant's credentials meet those listed in NAFTA.
There is no requirement that a sponsoring employer pay at least the prevailing wage (or actual wage, if higher) for the position being sponsored for the geographic location where the foreign national will work.
A year ago it was reported that H-1B workers OUTNUMBERED unemployed techies!
H1B and other quotas are set in the Free Trade Agreements with the various countries. Despite the fact that these job ad s
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Yes, when I saw this, I thought there are many more and worse problems than that in IT hiring.
There's the H1B stuff. Then there is stuff that I suspect is not confined to IT, though maybe it is more common there. For instance, putting out "resume bait" on job websites, practiced by the shadier sorts of head hunting firms. Jobs that don't actually exist. Another of this variety is the one they have no intention of filling, as they've made it impossible for anyone to qualify, or are demanding so much or offering so little pay that only a desperate sucker would bite. This is so they can cry that they can't find talented people, and hypocritically demand more H1Bs or other government intervention. Or there's the cooked job posting. There really is a job, but they've already chosen their hire, perhaps a friend or a relative, and are merely going through the motions to give it the appearance of complying with EEOC requirements. These have the mile long list of requirements, some very obscure and questionable, that just happen to exactly fit the resume of the person they're hiring. Then there's the real job that is already filled. Another common practice is pushing people to perform the work of more than one job, or of categorizing a job as a lower pay, less skilled position than the work they actually want done. And of course discrimination based on age, race, sex, marital status.
The noise level has been bad for years now. It would help everyone if all these sorts of deceit were tamped down, if HR was served notice that, no, such corrupt dealings are not acceptable, no matter how common and "standard" they may be. Well, this investigation is a start.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Also, there is a bill in committee, HR 3149 that would ban the practice of credit checks for hiring. Contact your congressperson and tell them you want them to sponsor this and vote for it!
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso