Slashdot Mirror


Apple and Google Face Salary-Fixing Lawsuit

beaverdownunder writes "Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel have been accused of maintaining an agreement not to poach each other's staff, thus restricting increases in salary and restricting career development. California District Judge Lucy Koh has found that the plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated antitrust injury. Sparked by a request from the late Steve Jobs, from 2005 to 2007 the defendants had a 'no cold-call' policy of staff recruitment amongst themselves. Jobs is also alleged to have threatened Palm with litigation for not entering into a 'no cold-call' agreement with Apple." Besides the companies named above, Intuit, Pixar, and Lucasfilm are also involved.

11 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. a nice whopper of an evil by Google by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil.

      Do a little checking into Sony before you deem this the pinnacle of evil.

      I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.

      Oh please. Both of these companies have done much worse. Most customers aren't going to care all that much if some high-priced high-tech employees didn't get to leverage one company against another for a job.

      What they did was wrong - all of them (there were others besides Apple & Google), and this will be another ethics wakeup call to corporate America ... until the next scheme crosses one of their minds.

    2. Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously? This is the most evil thing Apple or Google has done? Let me guess, you're looking for a job in Silicon Valley...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few nits to pick.

      Google didn't claim to not be evil. They approve an internal motto of "don't be evil" which is far from the same thing. The motto got leaked and they've been paying for it ever since, because nearly any action could be seen as evil by someone.

    4. Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since incorporation means that you obligate yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else, it is not much of a stretch to say it also effectively obligates you to evil. More often than not, the road to more profit is the road which ignores ethics and law. This might be less true if we had anything resembling effective justice for companies which are caught breaking the law and social standards.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    5. Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil.

      Ok, seriously, I'm not defending what they did but "evil"? Really? Come on! Can we please get some sense of perspective. What they did was wrong. What they did was possibly morally unethical. But evil? No. Evil is reserved for a special breed of person/organization/action. What they did was not evil. All you're doing by branding them "evil" is utterly watering down the meaning of the word and completely weakening your stance.

      Seriously.

    6. Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're reading it as: Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. This reading implies that it's the pinnacle of the state of being "clearly evil".

      He's reading it as: Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. This reading implies that it is difficult to be more obviously "evil". Reading it this way leaves headroom for there to be more evil, but suggests that this is far enough beyond the line distinguishing evil from not evil that it doesn't make much of a difference in spotting it.

      See the difference? It's a question of which is modifying which, and both readings are correct. Bad choice of words, perhaps, but having a big long argument and flamewar over two perfectly valid readings of the same sentence seems rather pointless and pedantic. Isn't the English language wonderful?

  2. Admitting No Wrongdoing by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The seven companies were also investigated in this connection by the U.S. Department of Justice, and they settled in 2010 while admitting no wrongdoing, but agreed not to ban cold calling and not to enter into any agreements that prevent competition for employees.

    Is anyone else sick of seeing this type of solution? Bank robbers aren't allowed to go free if they don't admit wrong doing but promise not to rob anymore banks in the future. There is no disincentive if the companies (and the people making these agreements) aren't punished for their behaviour.

  3. IT employers again conspire against employees by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's been going on for a long time.

    There was Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Just recently there was a bill before congress to eliminate overtime for IT employees. Nobody else, just IT employees.

    The entire H-1B visa workers scam was manufactured to bash tech employees.

    The reason that techies are so easy to stomp, is that techies are not organized. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and so on, are organized, and they can protect themselves (to some extent) against conspiring employers. Techies will never learn.

  4. Re:Cold calls? by Rakishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you clinically delusional or just stupid?

    With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,

    No there isn't, employers will lay you off in a heartbeat if it's in their interest. They'll provide no raises and pay new hires 20% more. They'll do everything they can to pay you as little as possible.

    The possibility of you leaving is what keep them inline, if they know you won't leave then they'll fuck you up the ass till you need wear an adult diaper. It's called capitalism and supply and demand. Look it up sometime.

    I've been treated rather well by my employers and that's because they knew I could leave and find a new job within a week for probably more pay. I also know many people who don't have that luxury and they did not get the same treatment as me.

    and the employee will not part for something as low as a 30% change in pay, and nor will the employer necessarily fire the employee just because they found someone willing and able to do the same job for 30% less.

    30% is considered low for you? What are you smoking. In most places that's around 10 years worth of experience at least and there's no way in hell you'll get a raise like that from your employer. That's an extra 30k per year in decent IT jobs.

    However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.

    Yeah, great idea. Hire people for pennies on the dollar during a recession and then lock them in even when the economy recovers. *rolls eyes*

    Some companies love people like you, so easy to underpay you and make you their bitch.

  5. However, I understand the logic... by excelsior_gr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the company's perspective, they would hardly get anything done if their key staff members were switching sides all the time. From my point of view the "no cold-call" agreement makes sense. I would even go further saying that this should be a general law. If I own a small business, I would hate some big company throwing its money around at my employees, tempting them all the time. If they want to leave my company, in search for greener pa$tures, it should be THEIR initiative, not because someone planted the idea in their mind out of thin air. And I don't see how this freezes salaries and/or hinders employee development. If someone in my staff is unhappy with his job, THEY can call my competitors and ask for a job offer. They can then come to me with that offer and ask me to top it or otherwise make changes so that they stay. But having the other firms sniffing around all the time is just annoying.