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.
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.
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Collusion of any kind should never be allowed, as it distorts freedom and hurts consumers (and workers).
One of the reasons I quit IEEE is because I got tired of reading articles from them about how the government needs to allow more H1B1 visas to hire foreign engineers/programmers. Clearly IEEE was colluding with corporations and representing their interests. Why would I want to face competition from Temp Engineers willing to work at $15/hour? If companies face a shortage, let them hire some unemployed or fresh-out-of-college Americans rather than import workers. So I stepped sending money to IEEE.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall