Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Poaching Lawsuit Against Apple, Google and Others Given the Green Light
An anonymous reader writes "A class action lawsuit against Apple, Google and a number of other high-profile tech companies has been given the green light by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. The lawsuit stems from anti-poaching agreements that Apple a number of tech companies entered into from 2005 through 2009. Parties to the agreement all promised not to recruit employees from one another. The companies involved include Apple, Intel, Google, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Adobe."
...you get to see the tip of the iceberg
Time to add anti-poaching to the California Business and Professions code to make it strictly forbidden. This keeps coming up year-after year. There needs to be a law to protect the free market for talent. California should lead the way, but it would be really nice to see it at the Federal level as well.
Typical class actions: Lawyers will settle for $20 million dollars for the lawyers and $3 for each person who didn't get a job.
Not to worry, as soon as this class action lawsuit is won, every employee will get a $20 coupon at the Microsoft store! What has any union ever done for anyone by comparison?
Don't get ahead of yourself my friend. This is just the start of the suit. Nothing says this suit will be successful, or that the resolution will be helpful to the employees even if it is successful.
>>even non-union employees have rights, too?
Indeed, which is why we're reading an article about how prohibitions against unionizing helped prevent anti-poaching agreements between corporations.
Ah who am I kidding, what I just typed makes about as much sense as what you typed, and is loaded with just as much bias!
Let the free market work its magic. Companies should start using employment contracts for stellar performers so that they don't have to fear them leaving for competitors, and the contract can be renegotiated every 2-3 years, if the stellar employee doesn't like the terms, they can walk when the contract expires.
Anti-poaching is only one means by which corporations weaken workers. Illegal retaliatory firing for union organizing is another. The suit is about maintaining a free market in labor. Union membership is one way that individuals participate in that free market. The decline in union membership is a major cause of the decline in the income of American workers.
As documented in Robert Reich's book Super-Capitalism, the most productive and prosperous time in US history was the age (1950s-1960s) of collaboration between big government, big business, and big labor. With labor out of the picture and government oversight waning, is it any wonder that corporations are feasting on the bones of their powerless workforce?
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Pretty sure that anti-poaching agreements actually lead to people getting paid less, as there isn't as much competition between companies for salaries.
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
We are talking about hard to find, high demand employees here.
The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.
Wait, what?
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
That depends. If you are able to sell a unique skill - yourself - you can do that well. If you are more of a commodity, you'll be nickel and dimed. Often with a salary so low you need public support on top of it, and also forego healthcare. These could really need a union.
That said, where I live I think unions are too strong. But they are a needed balance.
wtf? in the 21st Century? This looks like a clear violation of the US Anti-Trust rules against agreeing not to compete in a market. Or agreeing to boycott suppliers. Even a wink is illegal.
I work for a similar mega-corp and we are continually drilled in the importance of Anti-Trust. Where were their lawyers?
Monopsony is far worse than monopoly because you can always decline to buy. Does anyone have any explanation beyond rank corruption?
And this lawsuit is far less effective at improving working conditions than a union would be. Your point?
I suppose it depends on whether the agreement was not to hire from each other, or not to actively recruit from each other. In my opinion, the former is evil (and should be illegal), the latter is not.
Oh my God! My entire world view is shattered. I have to kill myself!
Have a look on google, I'm sure it will help you
The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.
Wait, what?
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
Yes, it's possible. If you have the money and the time you can even get it to court. Then it's you, and maybe a few others, against the combined experience and cash of the justice a multi billion dollar company can buy.
Similar to do not compete clauses. A company that provided me a desk (which was part of their client's building) and nothing more (including no training) complained when I tried to take my knowledge elsewhere. Apparently while working for them any possible work I was exposed to was their property.
One problem is that poaching encourages a dichotomous working class system. Poaching is good for employees who have experience, since their wage will go up because companies fight over them, but it's bad for potential employees fresh out of school. No employer wants to be the one to front the capital to train them. They would just rather poach someone that will be effective on day 1.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
I suppose it depends on whether the agreement was not to hire from each other, or not to actively recruit from each other. In my opinion, the former is evil (and should be illegal), the latter is not.
It's just a matter of degree. The former is more damaging to employees than the latter, but they are both damaging.
People get paid more? I think you're confused. Anti-poaching agreements results in employees being paid less.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The only persons that win these are the lawyers.
... is "the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers". Switch sellers to employers and prices to wages, and you've got what this agreement is, and it should be just as illegal.
Because those brand new graduates will be getting paid the same as the superstar who was poached.
Oh wait....
Maybe I'm not understanding this agreement, but to me it sounds like they just agreed not to actively recruit from each other. I've never seen anything indicating that, for example, an Apple employee couldn't apply for a position at Google (and vice versa).
End of line..
From Ed response to Steve Jobs:
"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal. [...] Palm doesn't target other companies -- we look for the best people we can find. l'd hope the same could be said about Apple's practices. However, during the last year or so, as Apple geared up to compete with Palm in the phone space, Apple hired at least 2 percent of Palm's workforce. To put it in perspective, had Palm done the same, we'd have hired 300 folks from Apple. Instead, to my knowledge, we've hired just three."
When I worked for Borland we used to joke that we were Microsoft's training site, because so many employees were either recruited away or just plain left for MS.
Even the non-compete's don't work because MS have so many types of projects they can put you on something different till your non-compete expires.
For fresh graduates, it's not about the salary, it's about even getting your foot in the door.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
The fact that this phenomenon has been given the term "poaching" by these corporations shows exactly what they think of you, the tech worker.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's the exact opposite of what "free market" means. Since Wealth of Nations at least.
That's not the reason for decline in income. The reason for decline in income is lack of jobs because of all of the cheaper off-shore labor and increased the supply of workers in the US. Wage laws, regulations, and an environment generally unfriendly towards manufacturing ultimately drove any industry that doesn't HAVE to operate in the US OUT of the US to places that were happy to have the jobs at all.
If you had all of those jobs back and a thriving manufacturing industry again, the supply of workers would be much thinner, unemployment would be virtual non-existent unless by choice and because of that the wages / compensation would increase in order to attract and retain people. All we've done in the US is drive away a lot of jobs. There's plenty of places in the US where income levels are just fine and those are the areas where there is demand.
You create demand, the income levels will take care of themselves.
The Boeing thing has been especially interesting. As they've started things up in SC, Union workers have come down from Seattle trying to get people to organize to try to convince people that they aren't making enough. The general response they're getting is that most people are just happy to have a job...which is a point that a lot of people tend to forget when they start talking about wanting "more" vs wanting "anything".
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
If this doesn't end up like a typical class action suite Apple and the other big players could end up paying out Billions in damages, probably making it the most expensive lawsuit ever and making an ever so small dent in the mountains of cash they've managed to pile up.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
That blows the "Dont be Evil" thing right out of the water.
In this particular poaching agreement you're looking at compression of 5-10% at most. So it's fairly modest. I suspect salaries were not the key reason for the agreement. This is more about disruption of timelines because of overheads like ramp up, training and recruiting. There's also a bit of ego about loosing a resource to a direct competitor. You get things like Balmer breaking stuff when he finds out it's Google poaching talent.
All that being said, the core reason these companies went with anti-poaching agreements was because non-compete agreements have very narrow and limited scope in California.
It's also worth noting that the DOJ hammered all of these companies years ago. It was settled and the practice stopped. In fact the only reason the class action suit could go forward was because of the discovery from the DOJ. For the most part employees would never have the means to get access to the smoking gun in civil court.
"... that Apple a number of tech companies ..."
should be:
"... that Apple and a number of tech companies ..."
The law of unintended consequences would indicate that this could be exploited if corporations collude to use such a law to keep downward pressure on employee compensation. If none of your employer's competitors will hire you because of anti-poaching laws, then your employer has no motivation to treat you well because they know you have no place else to go unless you completely change careers, and that would have it's own downward pressure on compensation.
If the unions were still strong, they could've blocked the offshoring of workers by calling a company-wide strike in the US. That would've been effective while most of the talent and production was local. Corp-Exec bonuses are hard to justify when your sales are the shits because the corp wasn't producing anything for an extended period.
Now that all the jobs are disseminated to 3rd/4th world areas without any worker protection, the power is gone and won't be coming back.
The 50s and 60s need to be erased from memory concerning policy decisions, because the prosperity at that time is heavily biased by the fact that Europe and Japan were destroyed, and the United States was the only shop in town.
I've seen these situations before. You'll have job market employers who wants application engineers with current experience of device driver internals for particular hardware or vendors. Then they'll have a non-poaching agreement with those vendors, then complain there is a shortage of qualified candidates.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
These aren't laws. They're private agreements between companies to limit poaching of employees. The only government interference here would be to make such agreements illegal, punishing companies that tried to limit the competition between them for the best employees.
Does this mean that the boards of these organizations will get prosecuted for membership of a criminal organization? Will all profits (including the ones made abroad) be ceased? After all, this is large scale fixing of prices (for labor) by large, evidently criminal organizations. If the Mafia bosses go to jail for stuff like this and all their money taken, why not these companies?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The reason for decline in income is lack of jobs because of all of the cheaper off-shore labor and increased the supply of workers in the US.
Maybe, but before all that offshoring we couldn't buy a blender the cost of 2 cheeseburgers like we can now. Really, what's more important, the economy and all that nonsense, or being able to get dirt cheap stuff made out of plastic!
While we're at it, let's make it illegal to murder someone in_the_morning. Oh wait, California already did that I bet.
Half of the companies involved have already paid up. With the most recent ruling, the judge is saying the others will probably be held liable too. As the Palm CEO said, this is already illegal and has been for along time. We don't need more laws, a few million pages is enough.
Oddly, it's the opposite going the other way in some states. Employees are REQUIRED to collude and stick by that union collusion even if they don't want to.
> The suit is about maintaining a free market in labor.
> Union membership is one way that individuals participate in that free market.
Lol. Did you just say that collusion, enforced by the government, is "free market"? Unions, organized, enforceable collusion, are exactly the opposite of free market.
A free market means I can hire your teenage son at $20 / hour to change lightbulbs, if you want to do that job at that price. Unions mean I better contract that job out, because I'm only allowed to hire electricians at $65 + $40 in benefits for anything related to anything electrical.
The illegal behavior these companies for busted for, the collusion, is PRECISELY what unions do. Anti-competive collusion is the PURPOSE of a union.
I would be okay with that.
There's no such thing as "the 4th world". It's something you just made up. For the record: 1st world: USA and its allies. 2nd world: USSR and its satellites. Doesn't exist anymore, it's an obsolete term. 3rd world: everyone else.
Unions were the reason jobs left offshore in the first place. Unions only care about the interests of union bosses - to pretend that they represent workers is laughable.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
[...] but it's bad for potential employees fresh out of school. No employer wants to be the one to front the capital to train them. They would just rather poach someone that will be effective on day 1.
People just out of school should be capable of being effective, day 1, or they went to the wrong school, or they simply didn't avail themselves of the opportunities at the school they went to, and did the minimum effort trajectory from enrollment to degree, and therefore their degree is pretty much worthless anyway.
If you have a 4 year CS degree, and an employer STILL has to train you in how to solve problems using a computer writing code in the C language, then the problem is with you. The school you went to isn't at fault if it provided you with adequate
to learn, although you could possibly fault them for having given you a diploma after you have failed to do so. I would argue that's more a function of accreditation standards than it is of the school, since pass/fail is mostly dictated by how accreditation is awarded to institutions, and is a function of them retaining it.
While that might work initially, other businesses see that and make decisions to never get involved because of it. There is no situation short of bad working conditions where unions have any actual benefit long term. In the short term, people might be able to extract higher wages but in the long term they'll both kill the business and drive others away.
There is a reason that almost all new manufacturing in the US is located in the south east and it's not because all of those businesses thought union heavy environments were a great place to take their businesses.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
Tempting, I just worked for a different customer for a year and am now back working for the original one. The former contracting company can't do anything about it. Though I know some are less fortunate to have more available work where they live.
You miss the point. You can make your case for how competent you are during your interview, but that still won't hold a candle to having X years experience at company Y. Again, I'm talking about getting your foot in the door, not about your performance once you're in.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
You're confused too.
Surely the part where I said "Companies get to get the people they want" would infer I fail to see the purpose of an anti poaching agreement.
Perhaps I should have worded my response differently. I fail to see the problem an anti poaching agreement fixes.
Companies will always hire grads. Big companies even more so, they all have grad programmes. They're cheap and some of them turn out to be good.
For companies that engage in such agreements, these agreements help to limit the ability of companies to compete with one another on products (due to lower overlapping expertise), as well as lowering the expected wages for employees. The net effect is to reduce competition, which tends to increase profit margins.
And when they grant powers which create huge overhead, we force the judge to devote his or her life to the solution. This way, there will be responsibility with the authority to fix problems before they move on.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.