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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
...of what a truly despicable person Steve Jobs was.
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."
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
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
You must be new here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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."