Steve Jobs Threatened Palm To Stop Poaching Employees

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Steve Jobs Threatened Palm To Stop Poaching Employees

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @01:49AM from the asymmetry-of-financial-resources dept.

An anonymous reader writes with more news about the no-poach agreements that seemed to plague tech companies. From the article: "Steve Jobs threatened patent litigation if Palm wouldn't agree to stop hiring Apple employees, says former Palm CEO Edward Colligan in a statement dated August 7th, 2012. The allegation is backed up by a trove of recently-released evidence that shows just how deeply Silicon Valley's no-hire agreements pervaded in the mid-2000s. Apple, Google, Intel, and others are the focus of a civil lawsuit into the 'gentleman's agreements,' in which affected employees are fighting for class action status and damages from resulting lost wages, potentially reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars."

51 of 270 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I never liked him but... by jareth-0205 · 2013-01-23 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's still surprising when we get a bit more data on exactly *how much* of a dick he was. I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
1. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Jobs is the reason I have never owned nor ever will own an Apple product. Evil man.
  Nor Oracle products, or use Facebook.
  Yeah, kind of lame, but if everyone would say, enough is enough, things might change. Not holding out much hope for that...
2. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are you going to extend that to all the other companies that participated in this? For example Google? Because if you read that link, Eric Schmidt not only complies, but even is on record as wanting to do things verbally so there are no paper trails.
  This is a BUNCH of people being fucking colluding dick bags. Singling one out lets the others off the hook.
3. Re:I never liked him but... by crazyjj · 2013-01-23 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
  A lot of it did. His asshole rep was pretty well-known long before he died. It just couldn't penetrate through the mass of fanboy and media adoration.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
4. Re:I never liked him but... by cod3r_ · 2013-01-23 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  After they reinvented the mac and then the iphone/ipod/ipad etc.. Everyone just fellin love with him. Prior to that he was well known dick head. My ex boss told me a story once about some coder that worked for apple and he was in the elevator one day when Jobs walked in. Jobs just looked at him and said "what do you do here?". The coder guy told him more or less and Jobs just said "that doesn't sound very important, your fired" There were a couple other people in the elevator too and it wasn't in jest. He made sure the security saw the guy out. just felt like firing a guy that day.
5. Re:I never liked him but... by Virtucon · 2013-01-23 02:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You didn't need to wait until after his death. There are plenty of people out there who knew this, ex-employees and partners all have spoken up.. Frankly, he fit the mold of every modern industrialist when it came to competition. It amazes me now how much people want to white wash him as some visionary and cult hero, he was just a ruthless entrepreneur who would walk over anybody to get what he wanted. Now it would be really great if the planet could get off his dried up nutsack.
  Here's some of his less famous exploits.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
6. Re:I never liked him but... by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-01-23 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a general corporate douchebaggery problem.. not a problem with an individual corporate douchebag.
  Though what is being said about Jobs isn't probably off the mark, either...
7. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You can read more here, http://www.folklore.org
8. Re:I never liked him but... by fredprado · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They are certainly all to blame. That does not prevent us from saying someone specific is an asshole because of that, and does not make it less true either. I am tired of seeing people here thinking that being one among others makes you less guilty than if you were doing it alone.
9. Re:I never liked him but... by SirGarlon · 2013-01-23 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Some things never change.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
10. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  There's a matter of practicality here: some company's products are easier to avoid than others.
  With Apple, it's easy: they're extremely vertically integrated, but you can sidestep them altogether by just using PCs, Android/Windows phones, etc. It's not hard at all to avoid using Apple products, and avoid giving them any profits.
  Same goes for Facebook: just don't use it. You don't really need social networking.
  Oracle's even easier: don't use their databases. You can still use Java if you want (if you don't use OpenJDK instead), but that won't give them any profit since you don't pay for it (and it doesn't contain advertising).
  Google's obviously much harder: their search engine is basically the gold standard, and they also have a big hand in Android phones, and using their products gives them advertising revenue (even if you don't click on any ads or buy anything from them). You could switch to Bing and Windows phones, but MS is evil too, arguably more so, so that's not much help. There are some other search engines, though, like DuckDuckGo. But if you need a smartphone, Android is probably the best way to go, because Google gets far, far less profit from your Android phone than Apple gets from you buying an iPhone. Also, if you buy an Android phone, a lot of the profit is going to other companies entirely (like Samsung or HTC), so it's getting spread around more than if you buy an iPhone, where most of the profit goes to Apple.
  With Intel, it's similar: first, you could switch to AMD CPUs, or maybe build an ARM Linux box. But even if you use Intel, with an Intel PC much of the profit is going to the system builder (Acer, Lenovo, HP, Dell, your corner computer shop that custom-built the system for you, etc.), unlike with Apple where they take most of the profit for themselves due to their vertical integration.
11. Re:I never liked him but... by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Define poaching.
  Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock. Why should calling an Apple employee be any different than calling any any person?
  Apple does not own these folks, and has no right to say who they can speak when not on the clock. Steve Jobs was such an asshole he stole from Woz. You know the guy that without Apple would never have even existed.
12. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So you're willing to go without technology altogether? Then what are you doing here? You're a hypocrite.
  I'm willing to boycott products where it's easy for me to not use them. But (since my career is in the tech field) I'm not going to go live under a bridge just because all the big Silicon Valley companies were complicit in this.
13. Re:I never liked him but... by erroneus · 2013-01-23 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I recall a year ago our HR department announcing how "we have been reaching out to other companies to assure that your wages are extremely competitive." I also noted that there were no significant raises issued after this announcement. So if somethings was adjusted or changed to assure competitiveness, what was it? Agreements such as these? A reminder that other companies should lower their salary rates?
  There is a bunch of this stuff going on which I always thought was illegal. But if it's not, it needs to be.
14. Re:I never liked him but... by Colonel+Korn · 2013-01-23 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  You can read more here, http://www.folklore.org/
  Folklore.org paints an extremely rosy picture of Jobs compare to what the people in the photo on the top of the page say in person.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
15. Re:I never liked him but... by dingen · 2013-01-23 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  Steve Jobs did fire a guy based on a single conversation in an elevator. But the guy he fired was in management, certainly not a developer. It was the time when Jobs was asked back as iCEO in '96 or '97. He realized Apple was full of suits, doing lots of talking but added very little to the company. A lot of people were fired at that time, but mostly at the top. Almost the entire board was replaced, new senior VPs were appointed, the way the company was structured changed a lot. All of that was needed because Jobs wanted Apple to take a new course and adopt a new strategy and he figured that couldn't be done as long as the old folks were in charge. He was a dick to a lot of people, but at that time mostly to the people who had screwed up the company, not the people who were just doing what they were hired to do.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
16. Re:I never liked him but... by tompaulco · 2013-01-23 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  It's one thing to quit the Apple job because the employee applied to Palm for a job and got a better salary. It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees. So Jobs' stance was somewhat reasonable.
  His being upset about it is quite reasonable. However, doing anything about it would be illegal, and the way that he did something about it is extremely illegal.
  Anybody from anywhere can call up an employee of any firm and offer them more money. If the current employer doesn't like it, they can always mitigate that possibility by paying more money and improving the work environment such that employees would not want to leave.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
17. Re:I never liked him but... by spire3661 · 2013-01-23 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How about a Ford car? Henry Ford was outright evil. Ever play a record or use a light bulb? Edison was evil as well.
  
  --
  Good-bye
18. Re:I never liked him but... by Johann+Lau · 2013-01-23 04:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nice guys do finish last.
  That depends on where you are going. If you're not going anywhere anyway, the above is true. In the race to fall into the abyss, being an asshole gives you quite the edge. Good riddance!
19. Re:I never liked him but... by rsborg · 2013-01-23 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  You can read more here, http://www.folklore.org/
  Folklore.org paints an extremely rosy picture of Jobs compare to what the people in the photo on the top of the page say in person.
  When replying to a reference, it's good to provide your own for rebuttal. Where's your cite?
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
20. Re:I never liked him but... by lxs · 2013-01-23 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  Poaching is something that happens when one is discussing territory
  Or eggs. Personally I prefer my employees fried with a slice of whole wheat bread on the side.
21. Re:I never liked him but... by jvkjvk · 2013-01-23 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees.
  And this is what is wrong with your outlook as well as the outlook of most corporations.
  You seem to feel that these companies own their employees, keeping them on their "employee farms" and only their King can kill them.
  Kind of like cattle.
  Now, please let me know what is wrong with receiving an offer of employment at another firm for a better salary?
  Regards.
22. Re:I never liked him but... by harperska · 2013-01-23 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  Follow the money. Apple has no financial incentive to collect personally identifiable information on you, as the iPhone they'd sell you is identical in every way to the iPhone they would sell to anybody else, and they would make the same money either way. So it makes no sense for Apple to invest resources on gathering personal information as they have nothing to gain. On the other hand, Google's revenue comes solely from advertising, and what makes an ad of theirs valuable to advertisers is the ability to target that ad to the interests and lifestyle of the person looking at it. And the only way to do that is to build a database of personal information with which to match relevant ads.
23. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  Strange. In your first paragraph you seem to understand some of RMS's insanity. Then in the second you suggest that you think he might be right.
  To further the analogy, whilst it's good to encourage genuinely wild and untamed animals back to the wild, it would be crazy to turn out domestic animals to the wild, where they wouldn't be able to hunt and/or avoid predators.
  How does that equate to GNU/Linux? Perhaps that it's OK to encourage people that know how to program (hunt), and about security (defense from predators) to use GNU/Linux. But it's madness to fight to get ordinary users to use it. They are happier and better off with Windows or OSX, so stop being dicks about it.
24. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:34 · Score: 3
  
  Define poaching.
  It's where recruiters actively go to employees of a company, because employees of that company are likely to have the desired skills.
  
  Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock.
  Sure they do. That speaking may or may not be for the purpose of poaching though.
  Poaching is not illegal. And indeed anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions. But it's debatable where the morality is.
  Steve Jobs was such an asshole he stole from Woz. You know the guy that without Apple would never have even existed.
  Ah right. So this is just you venting your hatred of SJ again. Google and Intel are equally culpable, but you actually use their products, so they don't feature in your rant. You're a hypocrite.
25. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  for fixed term employment with high penalties for early exit or no-compete clauses.
  Those too are illegal in certain jurisdictions. Including I think California.
Weapons... by Deus.1.01 · 2013-01-23 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't this basically what patents have amounted to now?
Ammo to gain leverage....and still loose and flexible to be used on practically everything.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
iProtection by GeekWithAKnife · 2013-01-23 01:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Help us protect you from being consensually hired, or else.

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Eye-bleedingly high fine by N1AK · 2013-01-23 01:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the companies found to have colluded. They manipulated the labour market to artificially keep wages down and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.

Factor in that the cost to employees could potentially be equivalent to years of lost wages and the ability to utilise this money and it really wouldn't be unreasonable to see a figure of a few $100,000 per employee theoretically covered by the no hire agreement. Give them that figure then take double as much as a fine to penalise the behaviour and you could be talking considerably more than a billion dollars and that imo is exactly what they deserve.
1. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by shentino · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't call it collusion if Apple used the threat of a patent lawsuit to coerce Palm.
  I call that duress.
2. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by eth1 · 2013-01-23 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think even employees that didn't look for new jobs should be part of the class. After all, if the companies knew they'd have a hard time leaving, it would allow them to keep they wages of ALL employees lower.
Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by crazyjj · 2013-01-23 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Companies demand "right to work" laws to protect them from unions, under the pretense that this also gives the worker the right to leave anytime and go work wherever they choose. Exposing crap like this just shows how much a farce that really is. "Right to work" only benefits companies, NEVER employees.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by MightyYar · 2013-01-23 02:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Corporations are such a huge interference in the free market, I'm not sure the answer is to create something just as powerful that can counterbalance it. I think we might want to restrict what a corporation is a bit more. I'm not sure that limited liability makes sense for the people making the day-to-day decisions. Limited liability should probably only apply to passive investors.
  Remember that corporations are a simple trick of law, and we can do with them as we please.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think California is a "right to work" state.
  But the issue of Poaching or Employees going to a competitor is a problem. Because the company invests in these employees and then they go out to their competitor, to give them value. It is like paying your competitors bills.
  I think the real issue is the complete inadequacies in most companies Human Resource Departments. They need to be active in making sure each worker is getting their market value rate, as well insuring they have opportunity to grow and advance in the organization. Otherwise we have what we have now. Get a job work there for a few years to boost your resume and skills, realize you job is leading you nowhere, then you go to an other company for higher pay and a better position and repeat. Leaving the company that you left having to hire a replacement for you, and probably having to pay the rate your new job got combined with having to train them with the skills needed to work in the organization.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-01-23 02:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think the real issue is the complete inadequacies in most companies Human Resource Departments. They need to be active in making sure each worker is getting their market value rate,
  When Microsoft wanted to destroy Borland, they offered key engineers way above market rate to leave. They didn't want them to do anything special at Microsoft, they just wanted to bleed Borland. It worked.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
4. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by dkleinsc · 2013-01-23 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But the issue of Poaching or Employees going to a competitor is a problem.
  It is only a problem if you haven't made it so that your employees really *want* to work for you. You can do that a lot of ways: high salary, really really nice offices, free lunches for everyone, a 40- or even 36-hour work week, really cool code, etc.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
5. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So now employees are slaves?
  A company does not invest in employees, it pays them for their time. They are not things to own. If the company wants to avoid any "investment", they can only hire employees trained in exactly what they want. If none can be found the company can feel free to close up shop.
  I sell my time, if you want to make my time more valuable to you by training me during this time I am selling you that is your choice. Once the time you have bought has come to an end I owe you nothing. If this was not the case then I would have a pension, and raises that kept me at market salary. Instead we now have to switch jobs to get the market rate as raises never increase at that rate.
6. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by MightyYar · 2013-01-23 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  My whole post was about unions.
  I disagree that the right direction to go in is MORE regulation and MORE interference in the free market. I think that we need to strip away some of the protections afforded to corporations and re-think their role in our society. Having another corporation-like entity gain even more power seems like a step in the wrong direction. History has shown how strong the feedback cycle is between corporations and government, and similarly unions and government. Now they have free speech protection, not as individuals, but as entities in of themselves.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
7. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 03:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "So now employees are slaves?"
  No. I didn't say that.
  I just pointed out that employee turn over is bad for the company. If they really want to reduce the turn over they need to make working there better.
  A company does invest in their employees. When you start a job, there is a period of time where you learn the ropes, figure out the details of your job. They don't just drop you and go. Their is investment, granted now there is less investment then before.
  However we are in a catch 22 problem. Companies cannot invest too much in their employees because there is just to much turn over. There is too much turn over because they don't feel that they are invested in the company.
  It isn't about what you owe the company, it is about the company trying to keep you there. However if you have any sense of work ethic, and the company does give you some training, you should attempt to be sure your services are valuable to the company, not that you owe them anything, but you are selling your services and you should try to give them a good product for their money.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
8. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I have no reason to give them a better product than any other buyer in the market. If they would give me a reason I would.
  It is not a catch 22 at all. If they want people to stay they must pay market rates. It really is that simple. What they want is to train someone into an expensive employee and not pay that person what he is now worth. While that would be ideal from their point of view, it would also be ideal if a unicorn came into the office and did all the work for free, both options are equally likely.
9. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  That is exception to the general practice. However I doubt that Borland, was offering a better work environment than Microsoft anyways.
  Do the Same Job, Get the same benefits and opportunity, But for more money. However if Borland made the employees feel like they will grow as the company does, many will turn down Microsofts short term Money for a chance for more in the future with Borland.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
10. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  Hence you are often the first to get laid off.
  Your employer is your customer. If you just offer the same services as everyone else, why should they bother to keep you. If you somehow offer services better then others then they will be more willing to keep you.
  Your comments just make you sound like a lazy slacker who hates the MAN.
  You are a resource to the company. If you do the bare minimum they will replace you with a better resource. Sure if you worked hard to be excelent you could still get canned but it is less likely.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Interviews with Former Employees by eldavojohn · 2013-01-23 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Former Apple Employee 1: Look, we went to Palm of our own free accord.
Former Apple Employee 2: That's right, it came down to who treated us better is all.
Former Apple Employee 3: I mean, you get to hear the cute stories about how Steve Jobs dropped the first prototype of the iPod -- after being told it was as compact as possible -- into a fish tank and when he saw bubbles he said it could be made smaller. But what you didn't hear was later that day when he brought the engineer onto a stage and asked him if he was as smart as possible. When the engineer said "yes" Steve pushed him into a tank with sharks in front of everyone and said, "If he's so smart, how come he just let me push him into a tank of sharks?" Oh those screams will haunt me forever.
Former Apple Employee 2: Yeah! And when I went to work at Palm I got blankets and clothing and food.
Former Apple Employee 1: Steve would make us sleep in completely bare rooms on Swedish ergonomic beds and we would have to rub turmeric all over our bodies each day and then we could only wear Apple printed paper clothing and forage for berries in the yard.
Former Apple Employee 2: After I went to work at Palm they let me get my citizenship!
Former Apple Employee 3: That's right, Steve had captured Dmitri here in Russia and wouldn't let him be exposed to daylight ... he would scream "NO YOU FOOL IT RUINS THE MEAT!" if he saw someone showing Dmitri a picture of the sun.
Former Apple Employee 1: We were just happier at Palm is all. There were so many problems at Apple like the Apple tattoos that later became just cast iron branding. I remember Jobs doing mine personally himself with his hand in his pants while screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?" as he pushed the hot brand from the fire again and again into my lower back.
Former Apple Employee 2: And the Apple brand shock collars so we couldn't leave campus ...
Former Apple Employee 3: And the time Jeb got beyond the walled garden only to find there was perimeter after perimeter of different obstacles like spheres that just floated up out of the ground and engulfed you.
Former Apple Employee 1: Yeah, when he came back, he just didn't have any legs. "A permanent fixture now with fewer buttons" is how Jobs reintroduced him to the work force.
Former Apple Employee 2: You see, Palm was just nicer. We're happier now and feel once again like human beings.

--
My work here is dung.
Re:Reeling in shock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

And this is different from any other major, publicly held company how exactly?
Better PR
Interesting considering Cali laws... by bobbied · 2013-01-23 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is an interesting story considering that in Cali, employee non-compete contracts are not enforceable.
In effect, the result of such "no poaching" agreements was to have the same affect as the non-compete contract with the employee. Employees would be restrained from changing jobs and going to a competitor. Give them class status. This seems like a problem for the Cali courts to figure out.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. Re:Interesting considering Cali laws... by Virtucon · 2013-01-23 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  Ahh yes, but this isn't an employee agreement, it's between companies and by that you'll be a toxic asset if somebody tries to hire you and are coerced by threats of legal action if they do. It happens all the time and yes, in right to work states it's especially prevalent. There needs to be changes in the law that prohibit this kind of activity. I speak from experience on this. A few years ago, I was at one firm and had been for five years. When an opportunity came up I was prohibited from interviewing at another company because of one of these agreements. Now I could have quit, which I did 8 months later anyway, and then interviewed but you see that's the point of all of this, control.
  If you're going to have right to work, you need to make it both ways.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:Unions by mk1004 · 2013-01-23 04:18 · Score: 2

There is nothing wrong, from a libertarian or free market point of view, for a group of employees to form a syndicate for the purpose of managing employers.
FTFY

--
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Re:Steve Jobs bucking the trend again by frank_adrian314159 · 2013-01-23 04:37 · Score: 2

A few more years of this and I fear a singularity might rip open.
Yes! It's all part of The Great Leader's plans! After gathering hoards of supernatural followers in the afterlife, the foolish Slashdot audience will reshape The Great Leader's image into one of unspeakable evil. Then, as it was written on the first case of the Macintosh, "The evil days will arrive," as the fabric of reality itself is torn asunder, and "He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken" himself, leading his band of demons (outfitted in very stylish jeans and black turtlenecks) from the gates of hell into the world, will achieve world domination and his million year reign of machines that look like they make cappuccino, instead of computing. Be afraid! Be very afraid!!!

--
That is all.
It's not "poaching", it's "hiring". by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 05:27 · Score: 2

"poaching" is illegal hunting and theft.
Employees aren't owned property. Surely businesses in the US greatly enjoy their "at-will" hire privileges, as opposed to EU where there are general government-required employment contracts.
At-will hire and fire also means employees right to take a new job, also at-will.
Re:Unions by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

| There is no shareholder value in companies fighting over employees. This only artificially raises labor costs and is a threat to profit.
Why is this "artificial", as opposed to completely expected market phenomenon? Sounds like a very natural free market response.
| It is much better to agree between companies that the lowest possible compensation will be offered to a agreed upon pool of labor.
That number is zero.
| Now, obviously whiny labor who wants a great deal of money for no work is not going to like this
Whiny plantation owners who wanted a great deal of cotton for no wages didn't like the 13th amendment either.
Oh, this must be a troll. Sorry I didn't get it before, fundamentalist libertarians are indistinguishable from any parody thereof.
Who? by mdm42 · 2013-01-23 17:41 · Score: 2

OK, so Apple threatened Palm... so why is there a Google logo on the front page???
/. eds have completely jumped the shark.

--
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling