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.
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
"Hi Mr. X, we'd like to pay you 25% more to come work for us if you're a good fit for the team."
I love my job and the people I work with, but if Google called with that offer, I would listen. I would be stupid to not listen and at least give my boss the opportunity to make a counter-offer.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure
That's what they meant. They threaten to sue Palm using their patent portfolio unless Palm plays ball on the do-not-cold-call game.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.
I assume you were just being a little overzealous this morning (assuming you are in the US), but that is so wrong that I doubt even you really believe it. Whether you want to compare this no-poaching agreement with FoxConn or with the even more evil period of slavery in our country, there are probably numerous example every day of companies being more "evil" than this.
That said, I hope they are penalized harshly for this, and not just in the court of public opinion. Because as someone else already said, I really doubt that almost anyone cares about some 6-digit salary tech employees not getting even higher pay.
For example, Nvidia and ATI could have agreed - in secret - that neither company shall surpass the other's current flagship 3D card by a speed improvement greater than 5%. They could also have agreed that the most speed gain to be put on the 3D card market, in any one year, shall be no greater than 15% higher than the previous year. What about realtime hardware raytracing for games? Both companies may already have prototype 3D hardware capable of this. But they may have agreed amongst themselves - again in secret - that nobody will put a realtime raytracing based 3D card on the market before 2018. ------- Given what little we, the public, know about "secret agreements" between these supposedly "competing" companies, there may very well be a graphics card or CPU prototype in some lab somewhere that runs 2 - 5 times faster than the fastest hardware currently on the market. But, by honoring a "secret agreement" between competitors, nobody would release that hyperfast graphics card or CPU into the market before the year 2020. That would buy these companies "8 years" worth of steady profiteering from releasing incrementally improved hardware (i.e. each time you buy a new CPU or gfx card, you only get a 15 - 25% speed improvement, rather than a 200 - 500% improvement). Does this sound like a Conspiracy Theory? Of course it does. But could it actually be true? Yes, I believe that there is a chance that precisely this kind of "lets all take it slow with hardware speed improvements" agreement between competitors could be real.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Cold calls offering employment opportunity trade the negative of disruption against the positive of the opportunity offered. So long as the cold caller is legitimately offering you something of value, I think they can reasonably make the case that their call is ethical.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
He's probably the only one on staff not celebrating 4-20.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
I'm a pharmacist and I get cold called, at work, at least 4 times every month. I want to shove the phone up their ass and twist it.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them ... and you are pissed about it? I do get annoyed by recruiters who consistently email and call me, but that is just because they never really have a specific job they need you for. But this story is talking about companies specifically targetting valuable employees they want to hire (with a high enough salary bump to make them jump ship).
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Because A has no authority over B's actions. If A doesn't want to provide its employees with phone service, or wants to deny calls from B to office phones that's all fine, that's their equipment. But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Unless all employees are in the class and assumed to increase their salaries 10% during the time frame; the resulting lawsuit/settlement has little to no chance of being more expensive then if all the companies had been competing for talent as it will be extremely difficult to prove financial damages. I am very disappointed in the DOJ settling this one with little more then a "don't do it again" as they may have been the only way to stop this cold going forward.
They're nerd rustling. Hence the (now trademarked) "Yahoo!"
He's probably the only one on staff not celebrating 4-20.
Are you kidding? If the editors got totally baked, it could only improve their efforts.
I, for one, would welcome our totally zoned out Slashdot Overlords^HEditors.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
Employer B picking up their phones is fine.
The issue is Employer B harrassing Employer A by calling Employer A's phone numbers, and attempting to disrupt staff from doing their jobs, by enticing them to personally jump ship and join Employer A.
Employees may have a use of a phone in their office, and might even have a direct extension, but it seems reasonable that if Employer A has issues with the calls, they could contact Employer A and get them to stop calling their business numbers.
What calls Employer B makes to employes' private phone numbers or personal e-mail addresses is another matter, and none of Employer A's business.
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.
My grandpa had to move clear across the country back in the 50s because of "no poaching" deals in the aircraft industry on the east coast. The only way to advance was for someone above you in your company to retire/die/quit/get fired then they'd fill the gap. And no worries for the company about having to provide competitive wages. If they caught someone sniffing around another company, the person was fired and blacklisted. If someone from another company came sniffing around, they'd call the other company and the person would be fired and blacklisted. It's pretty close to creating a slave labor force. Sure, the shackles are padded but it's very demoralizing to know that trying to advance your career could end it.
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones. I have personally received 3 of these to my cell, and none to my work phone. So far as I know, this is the norm.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You can vote out your government.
You can't vote a damn thing out of Apple and Google.
Not a great choice, but by far the best choice we have.
So B is both a competing employer and A's employee? If A is paying B to work, and B is using that time to recruit A's employees instead of doing the contracted work, then A probably has a legal claim against B.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The first time I've seen someone that "gets it". Bravo, sir, Bravo.
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig. --
A team member who lacks loyalty, or lacks job satisfaction may take the opportunity to switch employers. A more loyal team member, may take this offer and negotiate higher pay with their current employer. Either way, the employee benefits. This is not against the economic interests of the employee. In some circumstances, this may be unfair to the employer. With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship, 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.
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.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them ... and you are pissed about it?
I wouldn't be pissed about it. If someone is paying me to do the other job during the time I am taking the call, that the call is distracting me from, however, and the caller uses my employer's equipment to make that offer (e.g. Company phone number, Company e-mail address), they might have a right to be pissed about it, because:
(A) They are likely doing this to many employees -- wasting many employer hours.
(B) They are a third party abusing the employer's communications equipment.
(C) The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
(D) Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
These conracts couldnt ever really work if people were allowed talk salary...There is nothing for me that is more awkward than when I have to answer that question from a prospective employer about salary, I don't know if I am really too high for the market or if he is BSing me to pay me less...
I just wish people were a little less shy about talking salary...am i worth 70 80 or 110k per year? I honestly don't know, so I just take a guess, its like throwing darts, I cant really put much stock in sites like CBSalaries and Glassdoor because I dont know where they get their data, how do I know it isnt just the companies putting in low ball salaries?
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones.
In that case, the Employee has somehow provided their phone number. Their current employer has no right to say what calls they can take on their personal cell phones, or what calls other people can make to an employee cell phone.
The only person Employer A has to complain to in this case is the employee, if they chose to take the call while they're supposed to be working, against taking personal calls while on the job.
But then perhaps Employer B while throwing in the 33% increase can also throw in the perk of "Some flexibility to take a few personal calls while on the job; as long as the amount of time used/distraction to the job at hand is kept to a minimum"
...of what a truly despicable person Steve Jobs was.
Only in theory. Practically speaking, the political parties in the US have all of the votes locked up (in part due to agreements to not participate in debates with other parties due to the 1996 upset.). And both parties are basically the same.
Indeed. And almost everyone in the industry in question (silicon valley engineering) has pretty complete discretion to take personal calls built into their employment agreements.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Again, it seems clear how you'd make the case that the employees could be restricted, after all, they are being paid to work. But how are you making the case that B can be restricted?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Clearly, sir, you don't know the first thing about conservative principles. However, because you want to inject politics into this, let's do that. Tell me, do you think that conservatives support competition or not? In other words, do most conservative policies, such as school vouchers, less regulation, lower union involvement, a desire for reduced government subsidies, tend to support competition amongst companies or discourage it? That's right, they support competition ... and which is why conservative intellectual stalwarts like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell have pointed out again and again that big business is NOT pro-competition. History has shown that big business can collude amongst themselves and with their partners in Washington to take actions that are detrimental to the consumer: think of sugar subsidies that raise the price of sugar far above the international price to the benefit of large sugar interests. I don't know of any conservatives who support this kind of effort.
Contrary to what you might think, conservatives don't think that everything a company does is magically right because it comes from the private sector - look at the Tea Party angst about the Wall Street bailouts. I think your assumption that conservatives are somehow in knee-jerk support of whatever corporations do is misguided. Think harder.
Depends. Are they calling you at the office (IMHO, a big "NO NO") or at home (am I on the "do not call list for cold call recruiting")?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It's not clear.
I read the body of the message first, and as soon as I saw the huge leap between the first paragraph & the second I knew it was you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If corporations weren't people you couldn't take them to court and sue them when they behaved poorly.
The problem is the political status of corporations. They shouldn't have the ability to make campaign contributions or lobby etc. The aggregate financial power distorts the process.
It's a surrogate for voting which they feel entitled too because they pay taxes.
IMNSHO corporations should not be taxed nor be able to participate in politics. The taxes should fall on the owners of the corporations - which will get rid of a lot of distortions in the tax system including preferential treatment of dividends.
Fix this and many problems go away.
They are almost universally calling employee-owned cell phones. They have no way to know if you are in the office or at home in advance of the call. They might make a reasonable guess, but they could still be wrong.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually, suing is a very good way to ask questions. The difference is that in a lawsuit, you can ask the judge to order the other party to answer. And she might just do that for a reasonable question.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
the real salary fixing is being perpetrated by the gov't (at the behest of ALL the tech companies' lobbying arms) via their H1B visa policies.
These compaies claim they can't find enough qulaified people, but hte truth is they're just not willing to pay a wage that is consistent with the high cost of living areas where they are located.
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
You must be new here.
A giant "anti-trust" lawsuit regarding only a "no cold-call" policy? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
All that means is that when someone is happily working at the job they actually applied for, they wouldn't be teased by some other company offering them more money.
It says NOTHING about if an employee was fired, and once again applied for a job at a competitor, whether they would take him/her or not (which would most likely be a resounding yes).
Nor does it imply anything in the situation where an employee was working at their job, but (knowing they themselves are hot shit) applied to another company flouting their skills, and trying to negotiate a higher pay.
Honestly, the fact that it "fixed salaries" only means that tech companies were such dicks about poaching in the first place, with absolutely no regard to the culture of the workplace that they not only suck an employee out of due to greed (think about those left behind), as well as the company's own culture (hiring a competitor who is there out of greed). They probably realized it was bad practice for a lot of reasons other than just the indirect effect of money.
Finally, I can easily imagine a company with a lot of spare cash (Apple) using this method to hire ever good engineer out of every other company just for shits, having them not develop anything, and crush the competition in that manner.
Then call Google and let them know you're interested. The agreement doesn't say they won't hire people away, it says they won't initiate the contact (i.e. "cold call").
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
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.
Seriously? These huge corporation conspire to stomp their employees, and that's cool?
How is this not anti-competition? How is this not oligopoly abuse?
It is possible to vote in publicly traded corporations, but because one has to pay $ per vote, it can be costly to have any impact.
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.
You sound like a principled person who has well thought out reasons for taking positions. I can respect that, even though I think most of those beliefs are dead wrong as far as running a fair and just society go. For example, the only competition anti-union policies encourage is workers with each other in a race to the bottom. It reduces bargaining power of workers in an already clearly imperfect market.
Conservatives tend to paint all regulation with the same brush too, when there are clearly multiple types. Again, not about competition at all in the real world. Regulation tends to be about many things, like harassing and controlling people with drinking age rules, drug prohibition, and other things used to intimidate and imprison people but which don't really affect corporations all that much other than to provide new markets that wouldn't (and shouldn't) exist-- looking at you, private prison industry. These things are pretty much never the targets of people who rail against intrusive regulation, even though harassment by unaccountable police is about as intrusive as you can get.
Then there's the kind that actually protects or informs people, like ingredient labeling rules, our pitifully weak meat inspections, laws attempting to make polluters accountable for the costs they dump on society, etc. Corporations tend to really hate these, which is why they're always what gets targeted in alleged regulatory reform.
Finally, there's the bought and paid for regulation that's intended to legitimize practices or decrease competition. I call these "briar patch" rules, as in "please dont throw me in", because they're great at screaming about them but they secretly want them. These tend to be licensing laws, things like cable and phone franchise rules, and other things that make costs so high that only an existing well financed corporation can do whatever is required, and entrepeneurs need not apply.
Oh, and the outrage over the bank bailouts was largely because it was painted (partially incorrectly) as Obama's doing. The Tea Party is for the most part a corporate funded AstroTurf movement created largely to oppose anything Obama does regardless of and without analysis of merit ("keep your government hands off my Medicare"). It didn't start that way, but it was co-opted by a well funded PR campaign.
My point is that you may be a principled conservative, but you really need to wake up and figure out that in a practical sense, principles of any kind really have little place in modern conservative policies.
"This summer, coming to a theater near you, from the creators of 'Toy Story 3' and 'Turbotax'...."
This is pretty cosa nostra as tactics go. Of course, if the agreement is limited to just cold calling, then it's a non-issue. But if it goes as far as do-not-hire, then that's quite an injury.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The question is whether the agreement is to not cold call or to simply not hire each others' employees.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I don't know of any conservatives who support this kind of effort.
Okay, great. Now, what are conservatives willing to do about it? We liberals are pretty clear about our preferred solutions (strengthening unions, anti-trust enforcement, etc.) Do you have any actual ideas from your side of the aisle? Note that "less regulation and lower union involvement" don't count, because it's pretty clear that that approach does not work in restraining oligopolist behavior.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I think this really depends on the company and industry. While cutthroat management is certainly effective and no doubt accounts for the majority of successful businesses, it's not the only way. Especially in higher-ranking scientific, consulting, or product development work, the value that an individual person brings to the job becomes quite important. This can even happen in IT at sufficiently senior positions in smaller organizations.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
You vote once in 4 years. You make a decision on how to spend money every day. Do you want all your decisions about everything in life to be incorporated in a vote you cast once in 4 years? Do you want to vote for President based on how many models of cars are available or based on their position on abortion rights? or based on their view of whether you should eat healthy or not? Spending money IS voting. You direct other human beings to take some actions every single time you spend money. So how bout voting for business decisions (what kinds of sandwiches should be sold on the corner store) with money and voting for common protection (from criminals, from invaders, etc.) with political votes? Last I checked there is quite a fierce competition among technology solution providers. And it is legal to change your name. If a company won't hire you under the name X because X works for their competition, you can legally change it to Y and get hired. You wouldn't be violating neither the law nor any contracts (remember do-no-hire are agreements between companies and you are not a party to those agreements).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Don't worry. The job recruiting industry is about to collapse. There is more than 40 recruiters for each job created. And yet many jobs still go unfilled. In fact recruiters keep more people out of jobs than get people employed. There is usually some sort of payola going on between recruiters and HR personal. So I am actually finding more and more calls directly from hiring managers who then find that they have to fight with HR to get the paper work done. Obviously HR hates it (no fees for recruiters -- no kickbacks to HR). Within 2-3 years any recruiter who hasn't been in business for 15+ years or who doesn't know how to conduct a full technical interview will be out of a job.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
But that's not an ad-hominem, that clearly applies here. Feel free to go back and prove otherwise ;)
Yes but in a way it is the fear (and cost) of losing that valuable employee that keeps a company inline. The contract, the research and so on and so on. Replacing any employee is expensive but that doesn't mean, for example, they won't underpay them as much as possible if they can. Companies know that it's also expensive for an employee to switch jobs and they will happily take advantage of that.
I've been through four rounds of layoffs at two companies, one thing I've learned is that no one is safe. If it's between digging a bit into the massive liquid assets and firing 20% of the workforce, companies will pick the second almost every single time. It'd be stupid for the company to do anything else and I don't fault them for it.
In IT it's actually even weirder than that since almost no one is promoted. Companies often hire people from outside instead of promoting from within and so you are expected to find a new job if you want a promotion. Which makes perfect sense in a way, you need new blood since otherwise it's too likely that you'll fall behind the industry. Cross-pollination of ideas and all that.
I don't actually see any of this as that cutthroat, if my employer is truly out to maximize every penny at my expense I won't work for them because that's pure masochism. You can't forget that your boss and their boss and so on are still people. That said you also can't forget that they are businessman whose goal is to make the company money. If you turn yourself into a carpet then don't be surprised if they walk all over you.
Small problem, nobody in their right mind would take a job that made them personally subject to criminal prosecution for the actions of others.
As far as owners of small corporations, they are eligible for the corporate liability shield just as much as any other owner of a corporation. You can't sue them any more than you can sue CALPERS.
You seem to be woefully ignorant of corporate law, the reasons behind it, and it's history. Perhaps you should do some reading.
I got my current call off a cold call.
Well to be fair I did have a resume with the agency for years. Most agencies will call you every few years to see if you're thinking of changing jobs. I used to find it annoying but I figured that I do get a benefit from it.
"Yeah Tommy, before Zee Germans get here
The other difference is that you have only ONE government, so it damn well better get things right. Atleast I can opt out of supporting google and apple if I choose. Not so much with the government. Of course the flip side of all this is that the megacorps and elite, with the purchased support of our lovely elected officials are working hard to make it impossible for the little guys to 'vote with our dollars'. You have the freedom to choose option A, or option B citizen.
It was an agreement not to cold call. The distinction, however, is one of how unethical the agreement was, not whether it was ethical or not. Either way they're conspiring against their employees to keep wages down.
Because the employees are not slaves? They are free to pursue other opportunities as they wish, and other companies are free to compete for that employee's skills?
Someone paying you to work doesn't mean shit, and it definitely does not mean that they own you, despite what a lot of the "pro-business" right wing would lead you to believe.
Because "paying them to work" is completely worthless in this situation. You know as well as I do that everyone who's paid to work is not doing work all the time. Hell, how many people comment on Slashdot when they're "supposed to be working"?
In such a negotiation, you never want to give your salary requirement first.
Possible answers are
"This is not the same position as my last job, so I don't think my last salary is really relevent"
"Let us discuss requirements and expectations first before discussing salary"
"I am very interested in the position, and I am sure you will pay in line with the market -- a fair and reasonable amount"
"I am sure you know what this position is worth to your company and that's important for me to know. I am sure that you will pay a fair and reasonable amount"
If you do answer, you may well low-ball YOURSELF. Leaving 10, 20, 30 thousand on the table is a bad idea. The company will simply say "Yes".
If you go too high, you may price yourself out of the job.
The company knows (100%) how much they WILL pay for the position. If they really want YOU in specific, they may think that you can get that salary elsewhere. And feel they have to offer you more.
Remember, it is NOT what you think you are worth to the company. You want the company to open with a figure.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them
It's not always significantly more. And if it's anything like cold calls for software people, then many times it can be quite irrelevant to what you're interested in.
A team member who lacks loyalty
Considering most companies have no loyalty to their employees, I don't care that employees don't show loyalty to their employers. In fact, I prefer it.
The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
Sucks to be them. That's the nature of competition.
Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
If that's happening, then clearly the employer was not treating their employees good enough. I cannot blame a worker for deciding to go to another company who is willing to treat them better.
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.
This is quite possibly the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM YET. You have basically said that employers should not have to compete for employees, and that any employee who feels they are not a fit, or that they want to move on should have to do so at a sacrifice to both their earning power and their skillset, making them less attractive to other potential employers.
If you don't want your employees to leave, treat them better. That's all you have to do. Yes, that can cost money, and yes, it means that you won't have absolute control over them. But idiots like you would rather solve the problem by fucking over workers, because the actual way to do so means that you lose some profits.
And yet, he believes they should be perfectly free to do this shit.
Tell that to the several incumbents who were voted out of office in 2010.
That's not a good choice. That doesn't do shit.
Clearly, sir, you don't know the first thing about conservative principles.
Clearly, sir, you don't actually listen to what the conservative politicians say.
ell me, do you think that conservatives support competition or not?
No, they don't. Their actions have shown this.
In other words, do most conservative policies, such as school vouchers, less regulation, lower union involvement, a desire for reduced government subsidies, tend to support competition amongst companies or discourage it?
Half of the things you mentioned have absolutely fuck-all to do with "competition". They do, however, have a lot to do with allowing companies to exert their power over people. Tell me, how the fuck does "lower union involvement" promote competition? Do you feel that it's completely acceptable for the entire fucking company to band together against individual employees during bargaining, and not to allow the employees to do the same, in order to try and even out the balance of power somewhat?
Thank you. Very well said.
Normally I'd agree with you -- but it would be like 10 dudes getting golden enemas and it would do nothing for the vast majority of hard working, non-pedigree, working stiffs.
Johnny Ive would have been traded like a Babe Ruth baseball card about 5 times.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Yes, it is a problem. Your solution requires resources that very well might not be available.
I honestly cannot fathom how fucking retarded people like you must be to say that companies can do whatever the fuck they want without any kind of consequences. You are sick.
And no, there is nothing with "fake currency" doing anything like this. The exact same fucking problem would exist if people were paid in gold coins. Stop bringing your retarded red herrings into discussions.
Also, this is completely and utterly the company's fault. The government has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Stop trying to shift blame away from the entities who deserve it. These companies are run by big boys; they can take responsibilities for their own fucking actions.
Other articles on this subject have revealed that it was not to hire each others employees at all.
Just because they're not completely low doesn't mean they haven't been artificially lowered. It's quite possible that, without this agreement, the salaries would be even higher.
Quit apologizing for behavior which very clearly has no purpose other than to fuck over employees.
And who were they voted out in favour of? How many of them lost their seats to a third party or to independents.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Something like you describe wouldn't be a company any more. A structure like you describe would be either a limited partnership or a trust.
Andrew Carnegie's US Steel was a limited partnership. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil was a trust.
Good luck with that.
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.
People keep posting this but its drek! The truth is for the few shares common stock most of us could afford to buy we would purchase more influence over Apple or Google, then we could get in national election.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
In desperate need for mod points.... ... can I mod this up to 11?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
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.
Are you for real, man? To be honest, your whole post had me scratching my head but when I got to this part I have to wonder if you're just trolling.
You shouldn't have loyalty to the company. You should have loyalty to your coworkers and bosses if they deserve it (read: if you think they'll ever be able to send a job your way). If you have no loyalty whatsoever then no one will ever send a job your way and a lot of good jobs are filled that way.
you are not intelligent enough to understand even a third of what is being discussed, stay out.
You can't handle the truth.
I single out Google because they're the one player with a motto of 'Don't be evil'. I expect it from all the rest.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That's not Ad Hominem. Seriously.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I figure he meant 'cold call' in the standard annoying salesman sense, not the better job offer sense being discussed here.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Don't bother. It's like the bandwagon on ./ hears the words "monopoly" and suddenly the 99% of the too-helpless-to-get-a-job-unless-someone-calls-and-offers-it-to-them crowd rise up.
It's not like people aren't capable of finding their own jobs.
That's not a good choice. That doesn't do shit.
That would depend on how many people made the same choice. Just like voting.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
If someone says anything to the contrary, they are a consultant and thus in the minority of people who have that choice. A long-term relationship provides the necessary security of being able to plan in the long-term and to mitigate risks that exist outside of long-term employment. Short-term workers are ones that are desperate and negotiating from a position where the company has only contempt for the worker.
Corporate monogamy isn't dead, just that the minority of consultants wants to kill it for the rest of us who don't have their luxury of choice. The bulk of people that work, do well in the arrangement where there is a long-term relationship where there is some defined, if tenuous, loyalty. The only thing that these consultants and short-termers do is enable companies to destroy loyalty. If you were to remove the ability for a company to use the short-term arrangement of distrust, loyalty would return.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Not everyone has come from a country where businesses treat workers like one-night-stands.
Why do you hate job security? It promotes skill development more than anything else.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
That's only due to the social contract being broken in the 1970's of voluntarily recognizing each other as peers and not as enemies. When other workers in less-free countries could be used to counteract the effects of US labor, the cost of being a jerk towards dropped like a stone. In addition, this was reinforced in 1981 through the PATCO strikebreaking, in 1983 through GE's switch to an anti-worker executive, in the 90's through NAFTA, and finally in 2003 with the offshoring of the professions of last refuge.
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.
Only true if there isn't a large surplus of labor. When replacement costs are maintained to be low by employers, departure won't matter to them. This is done through jurisdictional arbitrage, where workers are played against each other.
Short-termers actually work against other workers, as they enable business to give less respect towards their workers save for a infinitesimally small portion that succeed anytime. They make it harder for workers that do very well when the long-term arrangements are covered with reciprocating loyalty. A solution to this would be to enact a Right To Direct Work, where short-term work cannot be a condition of work.
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.
I've been well-treated at prior employers who thought to give a damn about the people that work for them. Yes, this was with IT and with a large employer.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I want to mod you up, but it wouldn't be clear why I think your words deserve more notice, so I'm replying instead.
Conservatives often have (what I consider) valid criticisms of liberals' proposed solutions to various problems.
The problem is, instead of offering alternative solutions, they deny the problems.
We need to get a dialogue going on both sides of the aisle which both acknowledges the existence of the problems, and the inadequacy of the proposed solutions currently on the table, and begins brainstorming new ideas, instead of this monotonous repetition of "There is a problem and THIS is the solution!" vs "That solution sucks, therefore there is no problem." Somebody needs to say "There is a problem; now, what is the solution?"
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Actually, I find that no matter who I vote for, the government always gets in.
Liberty.
I worked for HP in the bay area about 15 years ago. Every year at annual raise time they herded us engineers into a room and made a presentation about how their HR people had sat down with the HR people from Intel, Apple, Cisco, and every other engineering employer in the bay area to define job titles and benefits, including salaries. They told us this as if it was a good thing. Then they'd announce the amount of that year's raise and everyone would cheer and I was flabbergasted. What they had just told us was that they were conspiring to fix salaries and benefits so don't bother looking for a job elsewhere- you're not going to get any better deals.
The next time you can't understand why you don't get more than 10 days vacation even though you've got 15 years experience at your previous job, thank this sort of collusion. This is why I have not made any attempt to push my son towards an engineering "career". Engineering isn't a career any more. It's a job and you are about as valuable to the company as the guy who sweeps the floors at night.
IBM's 'achieve prosperity through cost cutting, particularly in HR has been in effect for nearly 2 decades.
>As far as owners of small corporations, they are eligible for the corporate liability shield just as much as any other owner of a corporation. You can't sue them any more than you can sue CALPERS.
The GP clearly said small BUSINESS not small CORPORATIONS. Crucial difference there. The vast majority of small business are NOT corporations. They are private companies.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
A favorite line of conservatives - which is easy to refute: the more money you have therefore, the more voting power you have.
That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what we need. It's exactly the people with the LEAST resources that need societies MOST attention - and the idea of "market voting" makes them even MORE voiceless than they already were.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Are they calling you at the office (IMHO, a big "NO NO")
This is the worst!!! I have had one recruiter leave multiple voicemails on my boss' phone, thinking it was mine. Argh!! This drives me absolutely nuts. Just this week I had a guy call 3 different people in my office asking for me. I just tell them now "Please feel free to spam me all day on my cell phone, but do not, under any circumstances, call my f**ing boss!!!".
end rant
A favorite line of conservatives
I think you think that label is a slur.
which is easy to refute: the more money you have therefore, the more voting power you have.
A fool and his money don't stay together very long. Power to make yourself useful... because that is what it means to make more money. When people pay you the money, they direct you to act. If more money flows your way, then more people have directed you to do something they need done.
That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what we need.
Not sure who this "we" is. But I personally would rather have those who try to make themselves useful have every opportunity to do so.
It's exactly the people with the LEAST resources that need societies MOST attention
In some case it does benefit society to act in that way. But adapting that as a rule of thumb is plainly self-destructive. It states that resources must go toward those who make themselves least useful to others.
MORE voiceless than they already were
They are only voiceless in as much as no one wants to "hear" them. The moment they do something that others want done, they gain a voice.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
What conservatives are calling for the abolishment of anti-trust laws?
Do you really believe Silicon Valley employees would be better served by organizing with professional labor corporations?
I can understand the 'no cold calls' policy, taking it literally to mean "Don't have recruiters cold call our engineers and offer them more money". I disconnected my office phone a few years ago, and have kept it that way. Two or three calls a day from headhunters is a huge distraction, especially if they're pushy and indiscreet. Co-workers have adopted the same strategy, so we effectively have no phones here. So I'm all for a literal no cold-call policy. They're a waste of worker's time.
Did anyone actually read the article? There's nothing in there saying that Apple and Google can not hire away from each other. The unspoken rule is that they would not "cold-call". There's no problem with a Google employee going to look for work at Apple or vice-versa. The two companies just agreed to not actively poach from each other by cold calling employees.
All that means is that if you are unhappy with your job or compensation, all you have to do is get off your ass and ask around. All this meant was, if you work for company A and you are unhappy, then you shouldn't be whining that company B hasn't called to fix your situation. Instead, you should take control of your own life and go interview at company B.
There was nothing "evil" about this at all.
They were voted out in favor of more extreme Tea Party people. Many of those who were voted out were incumbent Republicans.
Just because the group you wanted to get in didn't get in doesn't change facts.
Horseshit. Because I don't fall for your bullshit of "Everything that ever goes wrong, ever, is the government's fault!"
You're obviously not intelligent to explain yourself. And further, you're not intelligent enough to realize when you've brought up something completely unrelated.
From the company's perspective, they would hardly get anything done if their key staff members were switching sides all the time.
If your key staff members are always taking the bait then you are doing something wrong. Either your "best" employees are mercenaries, which means that more loyal types with options are not willing to come work for you or you are facing widespread discontent in a team that it expected it would be different. Maybe the irritation hasn't risen to the level that they are willing to face the ugliness of the job market but it will. You might even be better off if they left earlier.
It is what it is, profanity doesn't change the simple fact that you are not intelligent enough to understand what is being said.
You can't handle the truth.
>I think you think that label is a slur.
Yep, the very concept is a self-chosen insult. Conservative by definition is committing the call-to-tradition fallacy - it is quite literally what the word means: a philosophy of conserving the status quo. The entire concept is an insult to critical thinking. I know liberals and progressives have some concerning faults in their philosophy (I am something else entirely myself - something I won't bother to name as somebody with your obvious bias wouldn't even be able to understand how it is possible - simply by being utterly ignorant of the history and meaning of words like 'libertarian') - but at least they don't construct the very basis of that philosophy on excluding the very possibility that anybody smart has been born recently.
>A fool and his money don't stay together very long
Lie.
>Power to make yourself useful... because that is what it means to make more money
Self-aggrandizing denial of privilege and it's role in society - frequently cited by free market fundamentalist easily proven to be factually false. The vast majority of poor people are poor due to circumstances they have never had any choice or control over, and which those who are rich actively and by violent coercion maintain to ensure that poverty. To those who are wealthy, the poor is a resource, and it's in their own interest to keep the supply higher than the demand.
> When people pay you the money, they direct you to act. If more money flows your way, then more people have directed you to do something they need done.
Simplistic theory, devoid of any consideration of practical reality on an individual level. In fact sufficiently oversimplified as to be outright deceptive.
>Not sure who this "we" is
Clearly stated in context to refer to society as a whole and the kind of priorities which history has proven to create the most progressive societies that actually ADVANCE and UPLIFT themselves to better qualities of life for all members over time.
>But I personally would rather have those who try to make themselves useful have every opportunity to do so.
Fallacy built on a deceptive argument, already disproven - even if it was true the conclusion remains morally indefensible. Numerous systems of partial suffrage was tried over many centuries - all were abandoned in favor of universal suffrage because they were all found to be fundamentally at odds with liberty and progress. Without equality there can be no liberty.
>In some case it does benefit society to act in that way
Yes it's a generalization, the rare exceptions are not worthy of consideration on the kind of abstract level we are talking. They are indeed very, very rare but they do exist (for example if a welfare system is badly structured then it could become a reward for not-working as opposed to a system to help the destitute improve their conditions and BECOME productive workers). But those are practical considerations of implementation, irelevent to the theoretical consideration of what societies priorities ought to be.
Even then you CANNOT consider both the needs of society AND call yourself a conservative as a fundamental conservative value is that only the needs of the individual should have any merit - indeed that any consideration of the needs of society is an intrusion on the right of the individual not to participate.
History however shows that by uplifting it's destitute a society uplifts itself as a whole, it gains a larger and more productive work-force that also make technological and scientific breakthroughs and becomes a more enlightened society.
>But adapting that as a rule of thumb is plainly self-destructive. It states that resources must go toward those who make themselves least useful to others.
Humans formed societies in the first place to benefit from cooperation. That is the only legitimate reason for societies to exist and it's only morally defensible priority. It is then obvious that the greatest gains of progress in this reg
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
There is nothing humane about demanding that humanity destroy itself. And that's precisely what you are doing.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
By the way, you might have found yourself in some circle-jerk in which it is fashionable to reinforce each others' idea that self-destruction is the only moral choice. But I assure you that most sane people don't agree with you. I know people who spew the garbage that you spew in real life. They are either complete lunatics or totally corrupt. I am not sure which of the two you are since I don't know if you are paid to spew this nonsense. Please, do give me a laugh by accusing of ad hominems... since you know... you went ad hominem almost from the beginning. If you find this particular post insulting, it is so by design. Regardless of whether you are a crook or an idiot, I don't respect you. And I certainly wouldn't take any insult from you as anything but a badge of honor.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Oh, and 3rdly... just because I am having fun, I have been where you are when I was a kid. It was not the only way in which I was an idiot.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
There is nothing self-destructive about thinking that a species that has advanced as fast as we have should continue to do so.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I am neither a crook nor an idiot. I'm a professional software engineer with a master's degree in philosophy. I also happen to live in a third world country.
I know I went ad hominem but I never used that as evidence for the truth of my arguments, I just mocked the simplistic stupidity of yours - which is not a fallacy, that was just me having some fun at your expense. My actual arguments were reasoned and provable.
Granted I didn't exactly give you a huge amount of factual evidence or indeed a very strong argument, but that's because you are clearly so deep in your cognitive dissonance that you are incapable of considering any alternative evidence.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I haven't been a kid in a very long time. Nor can you accuse me of being (that other favorite conservative ad hominem attack) "stuck in academia and never having had to live in the real world" (by which they dismiss all suggestions by academics and professors that their arguments are false out of hand without having to consider their merit) - I work in the private sector, I make a very large salary - in fact at age 32 I'm out-earning my brother who is a chartered accountant.
Now here's the shocker - I've been where YOU are when *I* was a kid. It wasn't the only way in it which I was a selfish little bastard convinced of his own greatness and blind to the fact that without the benefits of privilege I was born into I probably wouldn't have had the opportunities I did and thus almost certainly wouldn't have had the success I did.
Make no mistake- I worked very, very hard to get where I am, just like every conservative. But unlike them - I am no longer arrogant enough to think I got here JUST because I worked hard. In fact I can see all around me people who work much, much harder than I ever will and earn far less. Indeed it seems that actual earnings tend to be inversely proportional to actual productiveness because capitalism directs money to investors -not to producers - that's what capitalism MEANS.
In so doing it reduces our capacity for entrepeneurship, stifles innovation and technological advancement (which happened DESPITE it, but at a slower rate than it could have), and becomes grossly inefficient by having numerous talents wasted without the opportunity to develop.
When somebody is born with a genius level IQ and dies without ever having had a chance to go to school - that is a harm to everybody in society.
What people like me believe in, is a system where that shouldn't happen. And there is a very simple, selfish personal-survival reason for that. Every wasted talent, every person who dies poor makes ME less well-off and reduces my PERSONAL quality of life as well.
Conservatives are so blinkered by their immediate financial state that they don't realize the harm which other people's poverty do to their own (and everybody else's) long-term prosperity.
Now I am almost certain you have no idea what philosophy I embrace. I told you right from the start, I'm not a liberal. So how about you go read about participism and socialist libertarianism.
If you want a serious debate, then you need to first know the position your opponent actually embraces. You may find me a much tougher opponent than most liberals- I've had six years at university being trained to defend my ideas with critical thinking.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You are proposing to destroy the mechanism through which we advance. And you purport to do it in the name of advancement. Not all change is advancement. The one you propose is destructive.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Idiot it is, then. Your arguments are such in name only. They are mostly screams of petulant child only this time they are well-formed and eloquently stated. My PhD trumps your masters (since you went there I feel I'll bring my bragging rights to the table). I don't expand on my argument not because I couldn't, but because given how eloquent you were, I knew you were and adult. And any adult who by his adult age still doesn't get that the arguments which you stated steam from basic lack of understanding the concepts you try to manipulate is an adult who is not intelligent enough to grasp the stupidity of your own arguments. In a word, you are an over-educated idiot. Granted, I am being intellectually lazy. But only because putting any more effort would be throwing pearls before swine.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Pray tell what do you suggest is the mechanism through which we advance ? Because I think there are several, the most important one is science.
More-over you didn't define "advance".
So by another definition of advance I could point out that most human progress can be attributed to one simple mechanism: minds evolve much faster than bodies. I am proposing to enhance that process, not dismantle it, but allowing more minds to evolve more efficiently.
Only an idiot thinks that suffering and inequality is the mechanism of advancement. On the contrary it's the greatest impediment to advancement and it's a great testimony to the persistence of human mental evolution that these things did not entirely stem the inexorable advance of our species.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Only in theory. Practically speaking, the political parties in the US have all of the votes locked up (in part due to agreements to not participate in debates with other parties due to the 1996 upset.). And both parties are basically the same.
Party labels are just words. Anyone can call themselves a Democrat or a Republican, no matter what their actual political positions are. If you're waiting until the general election, it's too late. The way to get your views taken seriously is to participate in the primaries. Ron Paul has gotten more publicity this year than ever before by running in the Republican presidential primary. If he had skipped out and run as the Libertarian candidate instead, it's likely he would have gotten nowhere near the amount of public attention he actually did.
Horseshit. This has absolutely nothing to do with government. You simply cannot articulate any reason why you would bring up government other than you're an anti-government nut.