Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple and Others Accused of 'No Poaching' Deal
lightbox32 writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, several of the US's largest technology companies, which include Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Intuit and Pixar Animation, are in the final stages of negotiations with the Justice Department to avoid a court battle over whether they colluded to hold down wages by agreeing not to poach each other's employees. 'The Justice Department would have to convince a court not just that such accords existed, but that workers had suffered significant harm as a result. The companies may not want to take a chance in court. If the government wins, it could open the floodgates for private claimants, even a class action by employees. A settlement would allow the Justice Department to halt the practice, without the companies having to admit to any legal violations.'"
They are private companies, and if they want to make some agreements among themselves there is no law to stop them. People just are after them because they have money.
libertarians?
The following companies confirmed they were questioned but have been relieved of the Justice Department investigation:
IBM
Microsoft
Yahoo
Genentech
The agency has decided not to pursue charges against companies that had what it believes were legitimate reasons for agreeing not to poach each other's employees, said people familiar with the matter. Instead, it's focusing on cases in which it believes the non-solicit agreement extended well beyond the scope of any collaboration.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
the techc companies will also agree not to lure away government tech workers with promises of higher salaries in the private sector.
Don't be evil ...
... unless it gets in the way of making a huge profit on the backs of your underpaid employees, assisting with censorship, handing over political dissidents to tyrannical regimes, or releasing a mobile operating system that is open only to the carriers & manufacturers but not the users (who can't install binary apps outside of a java sandbox)!
I think it's very possible that Steve Jobs is at the heart of this. Take in the factor the common knowledge that Steve Jobs has always been a nickel and dimer with Apple having long been one of the lowest paying big name hi-tech firms in the Bay Area. So seeing both Pixar and Disney on this list is not in the least bit surprising. Then you take a look at Google and ask "How did that happen?" Well, considering that Eric Schmidt was an Apple board member not too long ago, the answer once again is Steve Jobs. Intel's and Jobs' relations have also been buddy-buddy and though Adobe and Steve's have been publicly acrimonious, they are still very close.
Not saying that this is indeed a fact, but considering half the companies on that list have Jobs at the helm and the others have direct dealings with him, it's hard not to bring this up.
Frankly, Jobs has looked like a bigger jerk than ever since he got his iLiver. For me at least, his image just keeps sinking lower and lower.
"Fool me once" and all that...
...since one of my Adobe (former) co-workers just left for a gig at Pixar. Someone else left a while back for Google. And there are several ex-Apple folks on my team at Adobe.
YEAH! I worked for one of these companies and now I can sue for ONE BILLION DOLLARS because I was told I couldn't go work for one of those other companies after I was fired!
BENTLEY AND MANSIONS HERE I COME!
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, it's not like employees were prevented from ever working again, there was just a short list of a few companies that were direct competitors they couldn't go work for. How does that not make sense? No one wants their Director-of-100-Million-Dollar-Project walking off one day because the main competitor offered him double to recreate the project.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, I'm pretty sure if some big US government nuclear scientist decided to go work for North Korea because the pay was better he'd be called a spy, but Yahoo tries to prevent Director of Whatever from working at Google then Yahoo's the bad guy?
pot meet kettle
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Why exactly is it called the "Justice Department" ?
Seems like if you are a corporation, you can avoid the whole "justice" bit just by having a few meetings with the "right people" and greasing some palms.
How is this legally different from a typical teaming agreement? The purpose of a teaming agreement is, in part, to keep wages reasonable by discouraging poaching. This is very common and legally enforceable in Virginia. If one our partners offers an employee a sweeter job, their ass is grass once Legal catches wind of it. If another large consulting company comes us to us and offers a large-scale agreement, I don't see a fundamental difference.
Doesn't mean I AGREE with that...
I work at one of the companies in the investigation and I was recruited by another.
On top of that I've hired many people into the company I work for (which again is one of these) and my recruiter told me exactly what's allowed and what's not.
What isn't allowed:
Actively recruiting people from the other companies. That means no cold-calling, no standing outside their parking lot, no poaching at tech conferences.
What is allowed:
Hiring their people. If they submit their resume, it's fair game. If someone else submits their resume, it's fair game.
And on top of that, as I mentioned above, one of the companies even broke the rules to try to recruit me, so I'm sure the company I'm at does it too to the others.
Anyway, none of this really hurts the employees, if you want to find a new job, no doors are closed to you just put your resume out there.
On another note, not mentioned in this investigation (that I know of), the company I work at has a "freeze-out" on another company. Anyone who left this company to go there is blackballed and is not to be hired back. How long that will last I dunno, but for now they're very serious about it. This actually might hurt employees' career prospects and probably is illegal.
Oh, another another note, it's common in the industry to do salary surveys. Each year, the companies actually collude to share information about how much they are paying their employees in different positions and then they do equivalent rankings. They then report these figures as part of their annual compensation reviews/reports. I have to imagine sharing this information makes it a lot easier to put in place these "no cold calling" agreements.
You want competitive labor markets, you got competitive labor markets. These workers can try competing against workers in China, India, and other nations with a rapidly improving skill base in information technology and a lot of mouths to feed.
These employees should have got while the getting was good, and kept their mouths shut, because these companies had actually decided to keep them employed rather than shipping their jobs outside US borders. With this "gentleman's agreement" out of the way, what else is there to stop this from happening now?
-edfardos
Am I the only person that sees the Apple board connection? Eric Schmidt(Google), Paul Otellini(Intel), Steve Jobs (Pixar/Disney), and Scott Cook(Intuit) all sat on Apple's board. I believe they even all server simultaneously. That's everyone but Adobe, who definitely has their ties with Apple too, even if those ties are strained right now.
Seems like more than a coincidence to me.
Each of these companies sets employee wages (at annual performance review time) by referring to a survey of all the other companies' wages. Their target is, strangely enough, the "average" wage. This is itself a kind of collusion to keep wages down, by pointing the finger at each other. Sorry! Can't pay you more than everyone else gets paid. But on the other hand, it makes economic sense. Everyone gets a fair wage, which for a software engineer is far more than you'd be making assembling cars, and companies don't in general pay more than they have to. The wild card, of course, is options. Pick the right rocket, and all of these little issues about salary won't matter so much.
Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
What I love are the contortions employers go through to complain that they can't find talented people while doing everything they can to make sure they don't accidentally hire talent. Ranges from interpreting experiences and education as not applicable or relevant to flat out just not believing the resume, though they don't put it that way of course. Things like declaring that Windows Server 2003 experience doesn't count for Windows Server 2008. We've all heard the stories about the requirements for more years of experience than is possible. And who knows, maybe they've made a subjective evaluation that they just don't like this dorky geek they're interviewing and are trying to push his buttons, trying to create the excuse they need to show him the door. The way things should work is that a CS degree ought to be enough for a development position, period. And that no one earns such a degree if they can't develop. Post a "help wanted" ad, and take the next appropriately degreed person who walks in the door. I think it nearly was that easy to get professional work in the 1950's. But now?
And then they poach each other? These employers are like the sort of women who think all single men are single because there's something wrong with them, and spend all their time trying to steal married men away from their wives. It's an understandable kind of mental laziness. Why go to all the trouble of thoroughly checking someone out when it's easier to let others do that and then lure away their picks? However, they have to balance that with several worries. Not all picks are good ones. If he could be lured away once, he could be lured away again. Or that a prospect might be a waste of time because he's faithful and satisfied and can't be lured away.
Non-poaching agreements definitely damage the unemployed. It might seem the other way. If an employer can't poach, the only place to look is the market. But in balance, I think that benefit is outweighed by the lower compensation they can pay, and the effects that has on everyone. Without such anti-competitive measures, some of these employers would more often take a chance on someone who is less likely to be tempted away and who can be hired for less.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Rather than down mod this rather silly comment, I'll take it seriously. Fascism is a political system in which corporations collude with an autocratic government in exchange for special treatment. (Some people would say that Berlusconi's Italy is not that far off it.) Here, the Government is refusing to let corporations behave in an anti-competitive manner, whether they waste money on lawyers doing it, or agree to be good and keep the lawyers out. That looks to me like democracy. As for companies behaving like that - it's very common. And not always a bad thing. It usually only works if the workers cannot go elsewhere an earn more. That suggests, given the location of these companies, and the sort of people that they employ, that they would not earn more anywhere else. Actually, holding down wages at the top of a profession is sometimes a good thing; it makes for more economic stability given the fluctuations in the business cycle.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This is probably just an agreement not to pinch staff in order to stymie a competitor. Sure you can recruit staff because you want to do something better, and in general this is good for the public, but you can also do it just to stop the competitor doing something better than you. Like grab key staff in a key department, not because you have any particular use to them but because frankly it's worth you paying them just to not go and work at the other guy. This is a tactic that involves everybody losing, but you losing a little less than everyone else. It protects losers and is underhand bad practice, it's not any good for the consumer.
This only really applies to the high-fliers or significant numbers of a department/branch/project/whatever (particularly those on collaborations). The objective is not some kind of conspiracy to hold down wages, and any hope of achieving that would be pretty laughable. I've no sympathy for employees complaining that stopping the above underhand tactics loses them financial opportunities as it is just as unethical to take advantage of it.
Agreements would only extend headhunting/approaching employees, if they apply for jobs under their own volition they're completely fair game.
And here I thought the way they were keeping wages "reasonable" was by offshoring a job any time the pay approached unreasonable.
...since one of my Adobe (former) co-workers just left for a gig at Pixar. Someone else left a while back for Google. And there are several ex-Apple folks on my team at Adobe.
Posting anon, but I work at Intel and get hounded by Google to work for them. Anecdote I know, but this surprised me.
10 Intervene.
20 Close deal.
30 REM Companies poach.
40 One company gets the upper hand, say Google or Apple.
50 Company grows into a monster.
60 Smaller companies cry monopoly.
70 Intervene.
80 Change regulations some more.
90 GOTO 10, pithily
I happened to work in a place where both HP and Microsoft employees in close proximity, and I was informed by many employees that there were agreements that the other would not hire the workers of one, until they had been away from their respective company for at least 6 months...
I knew guys on the HP side that wanted to work for Microsoft, but they couldn't afford a 6 month vacation in order to get a job elsewhere...
As always, it looks like the actually affected employees who had their job mobility significantly reduced, and hence their bargaining power, GET NOTHING out of this. How is this a victory, except on some government lawyer's resume?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As a disclaimer, I don't work for any of these companies. I did RTFA and I did see why the companies would have these types of agreements. For example, if Google and Apple are working on something like integrating Google maps into iOS, my guess is you have a lot of Google and Apple people working together. Of course you have a lot of really great people on either side. Without non-poaching agreements, I am guessing that these types of efforts would not be possible. I wouldn't want to put my best people on a project if I know there is a chance they will be snatched away from me.
A second thought, what is the scope of these agreements? Is it a general agreement or is it on a project by project basis? A blanket agreement seems impractical. Also, are these strictly a one-to-one agreement? Is there anything that prevents their best employees from jumping ship to those not involved in the agreement? What are the timelines for these agreements? Until the project ends?
Maybe it is just me, but I think it is too early to jump to any conclusions one way or another without getting more facts. I know that both sides like to jump to their own conclusions based on their preconceptions. Pro-labor people will automatically side against the corporations as it is a dirty word. Anti-government types will come up with any excuse to explain the behavior of the corporations no matter how bad.
I can't see how it can be called department of Justice - if looks like they offering the companies a choice between pay a lot of cash or play the court lottery. If they did something illegal and they've been caught then they should go to trial, period. No way out - much less if this prevents other parties from seeking their rights at court later.
...since one of my Adobe (former) co-workers just left for a gig at Pixar. Someone else left a while back for Google. And there are several ex-Apple folks on my team at Adobe.
With anecdotes like his, who needs evidence?
You want evidence of collusion? Consider this:
IBM, Apple, Google, Microsoft, HP....not one of these companies has ever approached me for employment. Coincidence? It's obvious a back-room deal was struck to not put all the others at such a disadvantage if one ever decided to hire me.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
Shouldn't the companies be free to collude to avoid paying higher wages? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Government should be small so that it won't interfere with the rights of these legal corporate "persons."
If the employees don't like it they can leave. It's a free market!!!
When the companies get big enough, they will take over the day to day power in our lives. Then we won't even need a government!
The tea party dream!
> Destroying markets to gain monopoly advantage is not part of capitalism.
But it's something that will inevitably happen without some other form of collusion (i.e. government) stopping it, because it's so very strongly in their economic interest that they will not ignore the possibility.
Market regulates itself through sometimes initially non-obvious mechanisms. If wages are kept artificially low by a cartel, there's great chance for a better paying new player to kick the table by paying more and sucking some of the other companies employees.
The wages being paid are within those established by the market. There are circumstances that have lead to the reduction of IT salaries, but most of it is unrelated to cartels formed by the industry biggest players. I find it hard to believe that a system administrator or programmer will not have a choice but to go to work for these companies.
And about the visas, outsourcing and foreign workers, aren't they supposed to participate and compete?. Don't they have the right to do the same work you do for less?. It's a matter of efficiency. The foreigner is providing more value for less. And that means the company will be able to improve it's ability to compete.
Now companies agreeing to pay less is no worse than employees forming unions to press for higher salaries. If companies shouldn't be able to do this, certainly unions shouldn't exist. It's unfair leverage.
But governments have been intervening in the natural development of markets to give unfair advantages and privileges forever. First they created the patents and copyright monsters, which are the true culprits of all distortions in the current IT industry, giving the large players too much power.
Well, if you wish the government to go in a regulation spree to compensate for the negative effects of previous regulations, be aware that further regulation and bureaucracy will surely be required to compensate the negative effects of the current one. More government spending, and more economic stagnation.
That's pretty much standard industry practise when companies are working on projects together, as if you can't trust each other in that situation the project is gonna be fucked from the start. however you will find that while they won't poach you, if you go and apply for a position at the company they will usually accept you just fine (been in that position myself)
One person is ambitious, starts a software company, hires many people, makes software that saves or improves the quality of life for countless people, and then pays to subsidize the basics of life for the unambitious person who prefers not to work for himself or anybody else. Yah, that's great!
So is it supposed to be an all-encompassing agreement between all those companies, or is it a series of separate deals? Because I do know some people in MS who have moved there from Google, and it definitely wasn't 6 months between jobs for them... more like a week.
The way things should work is that a CS degree ought to be enough for a development position, period
Right, because there is nothing at all different between such categories of development as:
Operating Systems
Artificial Intelligence
Enterprise level web applications
Standards-compliant but still usable UIs.
Flash games.
Satellites.
I am sure a single generic degree equally qualifies someone to work on all of these, and the uncountable other varieties of software development.
And that no one earns such a degree if they can't develop.
You do realize that the people who hand out the degrees are paid, by the recipients, to do so, right? This gives them a direct incentive to do two directly-contradictory things: 1)advertise to employers that the degree is hard to get, 2) advertise to the students that the degree is easy to get. Your idealistic solution would require a software-engineering equivalent of the bar exam. Given how quickly technology moves, such an exam would be out of date by the time the first draft was ready for review. Good luck with THAT.
These employers are like the sort of women who think all single men are single because there's something wrong with them, and spend all their time trying to steal married men away from their wives.
Um, this is actually sound logic, once you realize just how easy women really are. They all want to get married. If you are on their level in looks, have basic social skills, have some extra cash to spend on them, and are good at talking about commitment, you're in. So, any man who remains single despite the simplicity of getting married does have something wrong with him. Of course, he will refuse to recognize this fact.
(note, that last bit should not be taken any more seriously than the original poster's issue-revealing analogy).
More evidence: I've worked at two of those, and it was SIXTEEN YEARS between the time I left the first before I got the job offer at the second. Clearly they're requiring a gap between working at one and working at the other.
I worked for Google, Yahoo, Paypal, Bank of America and Wells Fargo up until 2004, and I can say at least before 2004 there was no such agreement, as long as your non-competitive clause had run out, which is usually 1-2 years, or non-existant.
Since Corporations have become bigger and smarter, Govt cannot monitor their day-to-day illegal & immoral activities.
It is better to breakup these corporations into smaller entities to promote competition and solve unemployment crisis.
Otherwise America will be inhabited with people living only on passive income
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Most likely among small groups of friendly companies. I am sure MS would be most happy to poach Google's search team.
I'm sure it would, but I don't know any with that back story. One guy I do know about, however, is this one.
It was real as of a few years ago. There was a "no poaching" policy between at least Google and Apple. This was expressed from the top of the organization to those in a position to hire. If someone left another company and interviewed that was different than contacting someone at the other company, which they were told not to do.