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.'"
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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"
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