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.'"
The companies were already engaging in the free market solution.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Keeping wages artificially low is hardly "just some companies making a deal". It's anti-competitive and disrupts the marketplace. It's also illegal.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, there are antitrust laws that preclude them from collusion, both in the customer marketplace and in the labor market. I don't necessarily agree with such manipulation of markets, but such collusion is as anti-competitive as was Microsoft's attempted collusion with Netscape (divide the browser between Windows and everything else) and Apple ("knife the baby").
So if you were calling for blood when Microsoft was doing it, you should be calling for blood when Google or Apple does it, at least if you're trying to be consistent.
My blog
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.
Uh, yes there laws to stop them. This is why the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is investigating them. Because what they're accused of is illegal.
How the fuck were you modded insightful? Is Rush Limbaugh a /. mod?
You know what? You're absolutely right. Industry should have the absolute word on what they do for their hiring practices.
They are private companies. If they want to do these things, they should be able.
If they want to not hire old people... Tough, it's private industry, man!
Or black people. Now, I'm not a racist. Many of my friends are black. But if a private company wants to refuse employment to black people, who am I to tell them "no, you can't make private business decisions about your private business"! God, we live in such a nanny-state these days.
And those disableds, you know, the funny-looking, wheelchair ones. If the boss doesn't want those guys cramping their style, I say, give them the boot.
And if people want to unionize? Tough shit! The boss owns the company, not the unions, not the gub'ment, so they should keep their gritty hands off.
I am really afraid that the openness of private industry is inhibited by preventing hiring decisions. Think of the economic damage caused by letting all these undesirables get hired! Can you imagine? Some of them might actually make a living!
</hyperbole> Damn, the Reagan era and all of the bullshit that followed has really contaminated people. Employees being able to "play the field" and better negotiate their salary is a good thing. For crying out loud, even you free market idiots in the audience should like it, because it allows employee wages to be set by the free market. But some people will go so far to defend the actions of corporate oligarchs that they are willingly blind to such realities...
...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.
Well, there are antitrust laws that preclude them from collusion, both in the customer marketplace and in the labor market. I don't necessarily agree with such manipulation of markets, but such collusion is as anti-competitive as was Microsoft's attempted collusion with Netscape (divide the browser between Windows and everything else) and Apple ("knife the baby").
Most anti-trust laws like the Sherman Anti-trust act apply to trusts like monopolies and cartels. And they apply to products and services to consumers, not labor unless the product or service was labor (i.e. a temp agency). Before any anti-trust laws can apply, there must be a trust established. I don't think that anyone can argue Apple nor Google has any control of labor. The situation might be different if it was two temp agencies that controlled the temp supply in a region. It may be illegal for other reasons but not for anti-trust.
So if you were calling for blood when Microsoft was doing it, you should be calling for blood when Google or Apple does it, at least if you're trying to be consistent.
*Sigh* Microsoft did not get in trouble for having a monopoly. There are many cases where having a monopoly is perfectly legal. Microsoft got in trouble for using monopoly power to harm competitors and partners. In this case, Apple and Google may have agreed not to actively pursue other employees; however, I did not see that they prevented people from leaving voluntarily. If anything this helps competitors; Apple won't look at Google employees? Nothing stops Microsoft/Yahoo/Oracle/etc from doing so.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yep. I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, in that I believe it is the only fundamental system that works. However that doesn't mean it doesn't need some regulation. Reason is that capitalism only works when there is competition. When companies fight people win. This applies not only in terms of product competition, but competition for employees as well. The incentive to keep working conditions good, pay high, and so on is that if you don't, you'll lose good people to other companies.
Well, just like this any other kind of collusion, if they collude to keep pay down, that is anti-competitive and hurts things in the long run.
For that matter, that sort of thing leads back to what originally started unions. Something mining companies were particularly good at was removing any mobility you had. You'd find a mining town and the only stores in town were owned by the mining company. As a miner, you had no choice but to shop there. They charged outrageous prices, which in tandem with low wages meant you had to run credit. You got indebted to the company and couldn't leave.
Now obviously this is far less odious, but it is the same kind of thing just a much lesser degree. They want to artificially depress prices and work to remove mobility from the employees. You get a job at one company, and the others just won't hire you. That then lets them pay less, and care less about quality of work environment.
Remember that the reason to like capitalism isn't for its own sake, but because it gives us a society that is over all the best for people, one where people are better off over all than any other. What that also means is we shouldn't just take a hands off "Anything goes," idea. When something runs counter to that, we need to step in and regulate it. That really is the function of government after all.
It is rarely the case that extremes work well, and capitalism is no exception. It works extremely well, but that doesn't mean you let it run rampant and have an "anything goes" kind of attitude. You regulate and balance it to try and create a system that has the greatest overall benefit.
FWIW they claim keeping wages low wasn't the intent of the agreement :
"The companies have argued to the government that there's nothing anticompetitive about the no-poaching agreements. They say they must be able to offer each other assurances that they won't lure away each others' star employees if they are to collaborate on key innovations that ultimately benefit the consumer."
They have a point. You could spin it as beneficial to employees because it protects the employer from being hurt by competitors hiring away key people (that's economic warfare instead of competing) and it keeps the salaries of "superstars" from inflating to artificial highs (bubbles help no-one.) But it's clearly a grey area.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
It's illegal under federal law. Doesn't matter what state law says, if the Justice Department can convince a judge that federal law applies (not too hard).
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.
If you believe that, then I have some prime real estate and a bridge to sell to you.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The purpose of a teaming agreement is, in part, to keep wages reasonable by discouraging poaching
So, seeing past the substitution of the word "low" with the gentler word "reasonable", it basically is a form of anti-competitive collusion.
-edfardos
No, "we" like capitalism because it glorifies being a greedy pig who can afford to overindulge while making fun of all the have-nots created by "our" hoarding. "We" just love it that those anti-materialist, unambitious scumbags have to either get with the program and sell out or become disenfranchised and do without the basics of life! Yep, that there's what "we" call justice, citizen!
***sigh***
The USA I grew up in no longer exists.
Caveat Utilitor
Well reasoned.
One minor point: No part of this practice is consistent capitalism.
Capitalism requires free markets. If the allegations are true, these companies worked directly to destroy the free market.
The right to sell one's own labor in the market place is the most fundamental and essential market of all.
Destroying markets to gain monopoly advantage is not part of capitalism.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
"OK, we agreed that I do no further murders. But what about rapes?"
"Rapes? Did you ever rape someone?"
"No, because I murdered them. Since I cannot murder them in the future, I want to rape them instead."
"Well, what do you have to offer?"
"Well, I offer to never rob a bank."
"You haven't yet robbed a bank, have you?"
"But I could start to, and then it would cost you money to catch me."
"OK, makes sense. So, you never rob a bank, and we allow for one rape per year. You have to register each rape with us, though, with full details. And of course, should you ever rob a bank, your rape license will be void, and we will prosecute you for all rapes you already did."
"Well, the conditions seem reasonable. But only one rape a year? I thought more of something like one per month."
"That's not acceptable, sorry. The absolutely most we can offer you is three rapes per year. But that's our last offer."
"I'd say we have a deal."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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"
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...
But they do reduce it considerably. If you try to kill someone and fail, it doesn't mean you did nothing wrong.
Funny how I never see capitalists whining that people aren't giving them free shit.
Makes me wonder who's the real "greedy pig"?
Maybe not
If you know for a fact they have a really dreadful allergy, you will.
More to the point, however futile the gesture, if you actually believe it will kill them, you are guilty of attempted murder.
So its okay for the NFL, NBA, and MLB to have salary caps, and they pretty much are monopolies, but its not okay for a tiny percentage of the market to agree not start a wage war with each other ...
It is perhaps worth noting here that the major sports leagues have various dispensations in the standard anti-trust laws, and are, thus, bad examples.
In the good ole days employees only had to worry about being grilled or fried...
Well sure, when you use the threat of using overseas slavery.... that will go over well with the American people.
Every corporation could pull out of America if they want...
Is that what they want?
America will be fine without them. We'll rebuild ourselves without them, and take care of our people, and lock those corporations out of our country all together.
Is that what you want? :)
Being a hard ass can go both ways... and believe me... Nothing is more fun and exciting than our country (America) angry, and determined to say Fuck you as a united front.
Wow, I wonder if that's because the population has grown massively and poor people breed faster than middle class or rich people?
Furthermore, this is false. Across the board you make more (in inflation sdjusted dollars) than you did in 1967 in every quartile. So your standard of living has not gone down.
Complaining about income inequality is like complaining about attractiveness or intelligence inequality - it's pointless tilting at windmills.
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
Seriously, can I interest you in a bridge?
It's highly disruptive to be laid off the day after you close on a house -- happened to a friend of mine. It's highly disruptive to be laid off with a baby on the way -- happened to me. Workers get no protection from "highly disruptive" -- it's on our heads to have savings and backup plans, just in case. If a project is that valuable to a company, then they will find a way to compensate their employees (e.g., completion bonuses, and yes, I have even been paid one of these) so that they will be harder to peel away from the project.
And if their pay is "piddly" compared to their value (the "damage done to timelines" -- that is their value, right?) then they are underpaid.
What I really don't understand is why people are in such support of capitalism run-wild, that a mining town that buys and sells everything from coal to soap to workers themselves is such a good thing. If corporations are people, by law, why do we want to give them more rights.
When it gets to the point that a company is taking advantage of the workforce - the the point that Microsoft won't pay you double your salary, though you are qualified and they have it, because your actual employer made a deal with them not to. People will come here and say that is a good thing, and that the rights of the company supersede the rights of the worker.
How is that American? How is that anything close to human rights?
Get your Unix fortune now!
Aside from all those companies who have been bailed out and keep asking for more money and all the telecom companies who were given huge tax breaks in the 90's for fiber-to-the-curb that never happened and don't want to repay the government, yes, you usually don't see capitalists whining about people not giving them free shit.