Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech Firms

The gentleman's agreement that several Silicon Valley firms are now widely known to have taken part in to minimize employee poaching within their own circles went much further than has been generally reported, according to a report at PandoDaily. The article lists many other companies besides the handful that have been previously named as taking part in the scheme to prevent recruiting, and gives some insight into what kind of (even non-tech) organizations and practices are involved.

Comments

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Stumbles]

That's not capitalism.

Do the crime, do the time

[Herkum01]

So, can look forward to anyone doing jail time? That is the really the only way this will stop. That or directly start suing the individuals who implemented the policies and make them pay. After that I am willing to bet once a few executives lose their hard won millions will be a little gun shy about conspiring to do anything.

Actually the more I think about it, the best way to reign these practices in is directly suing individuals. Once they can no longer hide behind the corporate veil, the less inclined they will be collude together.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[Stumbles]

Jail time? Your chances are better at getting struck by lightning or winning a lottery. Its always the big fish getting called out on these practices but it would not surprise me if the same occurs with the small fry.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[mjwalshe]

or apply the "not a fit and proper person" test to the C level execs ie you are bared for say 10 years or for life from ever being a director of a company.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[geek]

The executives essentially formed their own union. The gentlemen's agreement (which is anything but. A crony capitalists agreement is a better name for it) is simply their by-laws.

To counter this, every tech worker in the entire valley should form their own union and stick it to the fucking executives for a change. I moved from the valley 15 years ago because of shit like this. I'll never return but would love to see these mother fuckers get what is coming to them.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[dk20]

Seriously, how many "rich" actually go to jail?.
.
Poor and steal a chocolate bar - Jail time...
Rich and steal $1MM - you are required to do community service and teach a 1 hour ethics course.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[x0ra]

I am not a religious man, but there is a few valuable quote. In this case, John 8:7:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[tjb]

Well, except if you RTFA, it appears to have applied to executives and sales staff, not engineers. From the google document:

"3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates."

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can look forward to anyone doing jail time?

Yes, those disloyal workers will be jailed for violating their NDAs, which are sacrosanct in the eyes of the law. Or rather they'll go to jail for contempt from failure to pay a default judgement they lose when the corporate lawyers drag it out to bankrupt them. Same difference. If you have a problem with it, vote with a rifle. If that's a step too far just yet, give them time.

Re:Do the crime, do the time

[stenvar]

The gentlemen's agreement (which is anything but. A crony capitalists agreement is a better name for it) is simply their by-laws.

You are mixing up things. "Crony capitalism" is when government hands out favors to private parties. The Obama administration has been heavily engaged in crony capitalism, even more so than the Bush administration.

You also don't understand what this agreement is about. It's not an agreemen not-to-hire, it's merely an agreement not-to-cold-call. If you work for Google and want to get hired by Apple, give Apple a call; they will be happy to talk to you and nothing in this agreements keeps them from doing so.

is it illegal?

[globaljustin]

Is it illegal to make these "agreements"?

I think it's ridiculous, and like another pointed out, shows a flaw in capitalism.

It *should* be illegal. IMHO it's an anti-trust issue. Workers are vendors of their labor, and the owners of the capital are colluding, like a 'trust', to monopolize & unnaturally control the scarcity of that capital.

Re:is it illegal?

[MrBigInThePants]

Your HO is not important.

Anti-trust was setup up to protect the free market for businesses.

The only Labour anti-trust you are going to find is anti-union sentiment.

HO HO HO

Re:is it illegal?

[Stumbles]

Actually I have never heard of a law making it illegal. I suppose it depends how you want to categorize their actions. Is it colluding? At its most basic level; "come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire." its certainly done in secrecy but who is it harming? Obviously the worker since it limits their employability not because of their skills but simply by who employes them, so I think such collisions should be illegal.

Re:is it illegal?

[JimSadler]

It obviously restrains free trade of services by employees and vendors. It probably violates federal law and many state laws but maybe not in every state. Watch out for a class action suit that may be a wolf in sheep's clothing that works to the benefit of the criminals. Individual suits would be better for almost all workers.

Re:is it illegal?

[mikael]

Making employees sign Non-Compete Agreements are illegal in California. But by preventing employees from moving around freely, that could have restricted them from getting pay rises and consequently depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.

Re:is it illegal?

[metlin]

I think there may be two elements to it -- one is the criminal aspect (i.e. it is illegal) and the other is the civil (i.e. it has other consequences that could result in a civil class action lawsuit).

Ultimately, I think that even if it is not illegal per se, the affected employees could still file for a civil suit citing any number of reasons. Now will that happen? Probably not.

Re:is it illegal?

[Charliemopps]

The test for weather something is good for capitalism or not is "Does it increase or reduce transparency in the marketplace" If it increases it, then it's good. If it decreases it, then it's bad. Clearly these agreements reduced transparency and closed off parts of the market to both the workers and even the firms involved. The firms were then able to use this secret blacklist against their employees to reduce the rate at which they increased their compensation. The worker would apply and quickly learn that most places wouldn't hire them. This is exactly what anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent. Secret agreements between 2 parties that affect public agreements of a 3rd unwitting party are the bane of capitalism. And, in fact, if you were to argue against capitalism, the inevitability of such agreements would be one of your strongest arguments.

Re:is it illegal?

[nut]

It is a restraint of trade. If it was built into a contract it would be unenforceable at the least, probably illegal in many jurisdictions, although some restrictions in employment contracts are enforceable provided they are, "reasonable."

It tells you something that it had to be a gentleman's agreement. I'm sure if they could have legally put it into employment contracts they would have.

Re:is it illegal?

[Bob9113]

Is it illegal to make these "agreements"?

Yes, which is why the DoJ is already well on the track to sentencing, and the companies are begging to broker a deal. And what's more, they've got the dirt on one of the originators of the scheme admitting he knew it was probably illegal and trying to cover his tracks (mens rea).

âoeI would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I donâ(TM)t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric [Schmidt]â

Remember that whenever you hear "Do No Evil" -- that was mostly Sergey, and a little bit Larry. Eric Schmidt hates you and masturbates while thinking of doing evil.

Re: is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

They might have tried to adopt the phrase for image purposes, but it didn't come from either of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

Personally, I trust none of them...and yeah...Eric Schmidt - it's pretty much a given that he'll do the opposite of anything resembling 'good'.

Re:is it illegal?

[chrismcb]

depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.

Not exactly. Either the company will pay the taxes, or they pay the employee more, claim that as a deduction, and the employee pays the taxes.
Yes the tax rate for the employee and the company will be different (which is why I said not exactly) and the company might find other loopholes to hide the money. But that is a separate issue.

Re:is it illegal?

[mjwalshe]

and you have to be PAID for these reasonable restrictions and no just having the job is not payment enough

Re:is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably not very close at all. The average US corporation pays a single digit tax rate, if anything, by the time deductions, depreciation, business expenses, losses booked in previous years and any number of other complex tax sheltering financial arrangements are taken into account. Corporations have the time, wealth, manpower and political wherewithal to maximize their tax savings whereas individuals, even highly paid ones, are more limited in what they can do to avoid paying tax and generally pay at higher rates on what they do pay.

Re:is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The label of capitalism is being over-used here. First, most of the people who started these firms and work for them are the liberal majority, and by definition, anti-capitalists. Second, capitalism encourages anybody who wants to benefit from their own efforts to take a shot at it without interference from government or ruling classes (in this case the liberal-leaning tech companies). Bottom line here is that greed is universal- liberals, conservatives can all be guilty of it. And just like any tool, it is only as noble as the person controlling it. But this is not a case of capitalism suppressing, it is the ruling class of the tech companies & their mentality of do what I say, not what I do. Look at two of the most wealthy men in the history of the world: Gates & Jobs were classic left of center guys who became as predatory in business as Carnegie or Rockefeller ever were.

I'm not saying one is better/worse than the other, but the criminals in this case are the sheep in wolves clothing, not the other way around.

I would agree though, that it should be investigated as a possible anti-trust issue.

Re:is it illegal?

[BradMajors]

* Multiple times I have had companies explicitly tell me they can't hire me because my current employer would retaliate against them.
* A manager offered me a position, but then called me back and told me that HR told him he could not hire me because of a secret inter-company agreement, neither I nor the manager knew anything about, that prohibited him from hiring any of my employer's employees.
* I have personally seen a company to company contract which stated that neither company will hire each other company's employees.

These non-compete agreements between companies are well know and common, these companies have never been prosecuted, and these companies have no fear of prosecution.

Re:is it illegal?

[CharlieG]

Read the article, yes, and the memo was uncovered during an anti-trust investigation for this practice. The memo is a smoking gun

Re:is it illegal?

[tlhIngan]

Making employees sign Non-Compete Agreements are illegal in California. But by preventing employees from moving around freely, that could have restricted them from getting pay rises and consequently depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.

The thing is, anti-poaching agreements do not cover freely applying for jobs at other companies under the agreement.

All an anti-poaching agreement says is that companies in the agreement will not actively solicit employees from companies in the agreement. It doesn't prevent said employees from voluntarily seeking a position at another company in the agreement.

So Apple and Google have an agreement. It just means Google will not approach Apple employees and make them offers. Apple employees though, are completely free to apply for jobs at Google and Google is free to extend an offer to said Apple (I didn't say EX-Apple employee).

I've been subject to that - the other company just said to me that while they can't offer me a job directly, I am free to go to their jobs site and apply by myself, as long as it can be clearly documented that I did so on my own initiative. Which they did by posting the job on their public jobs website.

Re:is it illegal?

[stenvar]

Workers are vendors of their labor, and the owners of the capital are colluding, like a 'trust', to monopolize & unnaturally control the scarcity of that capital.

Your analogy is wrong.

The "scarce product" here is the labor, and workers own that product. When the owners of that scarce product are colluding to keep its price high, that's called a "labor union". Labor unions and collusion among workers to artificially inflate the price of labor are legal. In fact, in many states, you can be forced to participate in such collusion and price fixing against your will.

In this case, the buyers of the labor collude to keep prices low. That is certainly not analogous to "anti-trust" issues in the way you argue.

Should it be illegal? I still don't see a problem. People move between these companies all the time and there is binding agreement not to hire. People apply from one company to another. External recruiters recruit across those companies.

All these companies have agreed on is to have their HR departments not actively recruit from each other, which frankly seems more analogous to keeping telemarketers from constantly bothering you.

Re:is it illegal?

[stenvar]

But by preventing employees from moving around freely

Nobody is prevented from "moving around". All these companies do is agree not to actively recruit from each other via cold calls. Believe me, employees move between them all the time.

Re:is it illegal?

[MrBigInThePants]

I am Santa Clause not a Troll dammit!

HO HO HO

Re:is it illegal?

[wytcld]

Your sense of scale is lacking. A corporation with billions of dollars, thousands of employees, and politicians beholden to it offers you a wage to work for it. Your bargaining power is that you might go work elsewhere. If most of the "elsewheres" for your particular skills are similar corporations, and if they have colluded and agreed not to offer you a job just if you already are working at any of them, then once you have that first job, you are no longer free to bargain. You, as a single individual, have been decisively ganged up on.

A labor union, as a response to such power (and labor unions historically very much were formed as response to such power) is also a way of ganging up. Labor unions have never been as rich as the corporations, and have rarely had equivalent political sway. But to negotiate as anything like an equal with a gang - here not just a single large corporation but a gang of large corporations - you need a gang behind you too. This is an excellent reason to unionize tech workers.

Having corporations and government melded into one isn't capitalism, by the way. It's the classic Italian definition of fascism. That some libertarians want to have that mix with government being the relatively weaker partner and corporations stronger does not change the satisfaction of the definition. It's the melding that is fascism, not the relative distribution of power within the meld.

In a true democracy corporations are kept separate to compete with each other, and government is often oppositional to their interests. Workers are allowed to form unions as a counter to corporate power. This creates, paradoxically, stronger corporations, since they are no longer coddled by government and allowed to suppress wages, they have to actually be clever and productive to profit. Fascism isn't just a nasty name; it's an inferior system ultimately, even from the corporate point of view.

Re:is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in general - our wives don't sleep with our neighbours for PAY... well some do but that is actually illegal in most places already.

Re:is it illegal?

[stenvar]

Your sense of scale is lacking.

It has nothing to do with "scale"; the analogy is simply wrong.

A corporation with billions of dollars, thousands of employees, and politicians beholden to it offers you a wage to work for it.

Most corporations are small businesses.

Having corporations and government melded into one isn't capitalism,

Of course it isn't. Unfortunately, that's exactly what our government delivers, foremost the Democrats.

And Democrats deliver cronyism and rent seeking by demonizing business and individuals.

Workers are allowed to form unions as a counter to corporate power. This creates, paradoxically, stronger corporations, since they are no longer coddled by government and allowed to suppress wages, they have to actually be clever and productive to profit.

Unions have gone far beyond merely collective bargaining and have little to do with countering the power of corporations. Instead, they turned into massive special interest groups, foremost public sector unions.

Fascism isn't just a nasty name; it's an inferior system ultimately, even from the corporate point of view.

Fascism was strongly anti-capitalist and anti-free market; that's why fascists blamed all the bankers and entrepreneurs for economic woes, who they happened to identify with Jews. These days, fascists are still anti-capitalist and anti-free market, and they still blame bankers and entrepreneurs, they've just given up on the anti-Semitism because it's become unfashionable.

The economic system of fasicm is what Democrats are advocating: privately owned businesses, heavily regulated by government to supposedly promote the welfare of the common man and to work for the public benefit. It doesn't work. History has shown that.

Re:is it illegal?

[tlhIngan]

* Multiple times I have had companies explicitly tell me they can't hire me because my current employer would retaliate against them.
* A manager offered me a position, but then called me back and told me that HR told him he could not hire me because of a secret inter-company agreement, neither I nor the manager knew anything about, that prohibited him from hiring any of my employer's employees.
* I have personally seen a company to company contract which stated that neither company will hire each other company's employees.

As have I.

And the solution was...? Apply!

Yes, the anti-poaching meant the company couldn't offer me a position, but it does not prevent you from seeking a position.

The difference is the former means while you're under the employ of another company, the company won't recruit you. However, you are perfectly free to apply for an open position (i.e., apply for a job) at said company.

It's a subtle difference, but it revolves around who started the interaction - did you apply for the job, or did the company make you a job offer?

In fact, you'll find many employees who moved between the companies freely.

Re: is it illegal?

[tapspace]

Eric Schmidt is in my top 10 worst people alive. When I say this, people treat me like I am a complete nutjob. I don't think the average Joe (even the average technically savvy Joe) really understands the power he wields from drone policy to dragnet surveillance. The man is a true facist at his very heart, and an enemy of every free man and woman.

Re:is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be arguing that these agreements do not adversely affect employee pay, because employees are free to move on their own. You are incorrect.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

No -true- capitalist would engage in that behaviour.

For a moment...

[Kaenneth]

I thought this was about an agreement to not support anyone who goes on grey-market safaris, etc. to protect endangered species...

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, the "no true capitalism" defense. The final and greatest argument Randroids resort to when faced with the reality of their idiotic beliefs.

Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs

[Anonymous Coward]

And so much cheaper than having to pay what employees are actually worth.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs

[tomhath]

From what I read in the emails referenced in TFA, the agreements only extended to managers and executives, not individual contributors like engineers and food workers. Of course there are managers who are H-1B, but I doubt many of them are complaining about their salary.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs

[x0ra]

It does not applies to engineers, only to manager and execs. Please read the fact before spreading FUD.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP said "employees", but you're complaining he's spreading FUD because it only applies to managers and execs. Are you saying they're not employees?

If the companies got away with this for long enough w/ managers, what makes you think they wouldn't apply it to engineers next? This practice should be stopped, regardless of who it applies to.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs

[x0ra]

Of course not, but he is using the term "employee" as in "lower in the food chain". Target employee are not H-1B workers, which he is throwing stone at to be the cause of his "low" income. He obviously has never been working for a temp agency hourly paid $8 minus "fee"...

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

True capitalists would tell their competitor they will not poach, then go ahead and do it anyway. Big win for workers.

Liberals would form a union, go on strike, and put both companies out of business.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Stumbles]

Yep and then try to convince us all it was the fault of capitalism.

Collusion vs no solicit

[tomhath]

The article mixes two things:

Collusion between the companies to not recruit from each other, which is apparently illegal (since the DOJ stepped in).

No solicit agreement with employees. That's part of a contract, I'll hire you but you have to agree that you won't refer my other employees to the headhunter who placed you. That's pretty standard and presumably is legal.

Re: Collusion vs no solicit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in California it isn't, same with non completes. Edwards decision killed non-solicits. You want capitalism then have captialism and make sure you pay your employees well.

http://www.hrthatworksblog.com/2013/01/30/the-difficulty-of-enforcing-non-solicitation-clauses-in-california/

Re:Collusion vs no solicit

[Charliemopps]

The "legal" method that's fairly standard is the other way around. The temp agency places you, and you work for them. The company hiring the temp agency agrees not to hire you for a term... 6 months to 2 years depending, because the temp agency needs to recoup the cost of scouting you. Often there's a clause where the hiring company can buy their way out of it if they really want you bad or they're afraid you could just go to a 3rd party. All of this is pretty standard and legal because everyone knows what they're getting into. But, if unknown to you, every other party has made a secret agreement with the original company not to hire you, you're screwed. There's no-where to go and you're no longer dealing with a free market. You're being forced to abide by a contract that you never signed and don't even know exists.

"They" Blackball all good employees

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked at several places and when I do a great job, I get blackballed.

Then they don't have to worry about me leaving and they don't have to give me pay commensurate with my contributions.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be good if a bunch of people with lots of money got executed, since they are among the most dishonest.

Gentleman's Agrees Are Hard to Prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be pretty obvious, but nothing gets written down. To do anything they would need years of collecting testimony. The companies could just say that was a few CEO's ago and disavow all knowledge.

I wish I were oppressed

[LordNimon]

Apparently, none of the companies I've ever worked for were on that list, because I'm hounded by clueless recruiters every week.

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially like the ones who clearly have no idea what it is I do (because they failed to look in any of the obvious places) and yet have an urgent need for me to call them up right now and accept some crappy contract writing code in a language I detest, "at your best possible rate."

Should I, in a moment of curiosity, respond and then inevitably decline, I always get the push to continue; as they have no idea what the client actually needs and seeing as I have lots of experience, they figure I could probably sell myself and get the work (at my best possible rate, of course.)

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[metlin]

You're probably not high enough on the totem pole -- my take from reading that article was that the collusion targeted poaching of high-value employees whose loss would hurt the company in question.

Individual contributors, by their very nature, are usually not worth the concern (except in rare cases).

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[phantomfive]

Reply to them and say your minimum is $210k per year (or whatever). That will shut down almost all of them.

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[chrismcb]

Recruiters from other tech companies, or recruiters from headhunting agencies?

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet have an urgent need for me to call them up right now and accept some crappy contract writing code in a language I detest, "at your best possible rate."

Tell them that you would be most happy to work on their project at a contract rate of $1,000 per hour with every hour paid in advance. I doubt that they will call you again with their "urgent" request and you never know, somebody might actually pay that if their need is "urgent" enough.

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the parent, but in my case it's almost always the later and not the former. In my experience, not one in ten unsolicited recruiting contacts comes from the company that's actually paying to have the work done. Instead, it's almost always some consulting body shop that the company has outsourced to do the work for bottom dollar. I find that like spam, replying to these people only gets you more junk offers. Watch out for these guys and don't fall for their tricks.

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[evilviper]

Reply to them and say your minimum is $210k per year (or whatever).

Yeah, I'll get right on that... I'm still a little busy replying to every spam e-mail I get, telling them I'm not interested and asking them to remove me from their mailing list. Once I get that finished up, and don't get any more spam, I'll switch over to recruiters.

Have you seriously not talked to a recruiter in the past 5 years? There's a horde of (I'm guessing: Pakistani?) 3rd world "recruiters" that call up the phone numbers of EVERY SINGLE RESUME they find with a single matching keyword on it. Hiring companies are smart enough that they don't even tell these morons what salary they are even willing to pay. Hell, these guys don't even check where you are located, with a few maybe making sure you're somewhere in the state, but nothing more.

They're not even hired by any firms, they're just hoping you'll hear about the job from them, before you've submitted your own resume, so they'll get the $1,000 finders fee that meant to reward GOOD leads. When you've got 3rd world recruiters that don't earn that much in a month, it's worth a bunch of non-stop fishing expeditions, submitting completely random resumes to every company, for every job, in the hopes of just one of millions matching-up... Tell them you want $X, and they'll tell you they have no clue, and they'll keep trying to sign you up, anyhow. Ask them a question, and they'll tell you they have no clue, and keep trying to sign you up, anyhow. It's so bad I've entirely removed my phone number from my resume, it's been such a massive nuisance.

The only counter-measure I've seen is companies requiring recruiters to state that they've met the candidate in person, before they can submit the resume. That's quite a mess when the recruiter may be 200 miles away from you, and again, they don't know anything about the job, the company, or the salary, so I'm not willing to go through the hassle. I've even removed my resume from certain job sites, because the irrelevant noise e-mails from recruiters became incessant.

If things keep going this way, I suppose I'll be permanently unemployed in just a few years, and unable to find jobs, even if there's an opening across the street from me.

Re:I wish I were oppressed

[phantomfive]

Don't stick your phone number on your resume. That's a mistake.

If things keep going this way, I suppose I'll be permanently unemployed in just a few years, and unable to find jobs, even if there's an opening across the street from me.

Yeah, unfortunately; skill #1 of finding a job is actually finding a job to apply for.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

How is that not capitalism ? Capitalism is free market, all the player are free to interact as they please, might it be by competing or by cooperating. By your same logic, the whole open-source community should be forbidden by law to cooperate.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

What make you think it's not the case ? After the poaching is done, it's always easy to say that "the underling was not away of the agreement", fire the underling, and go back to good old business.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Capitalism is whatever rehtorically useful construct I define it to be. For example, today, capitalism is a system for distracting me from my overloaded inbox to post on Slashdot. Capitalism is the oppressive system that prevents me from sleeping in on the weekends.

What's your Capitalism today?

Like MS and Borland

[ToasterTester]

I remember when I worked for Borland we used to joke that we were Microsoft's training site they poached so many people. From what I understand in one of the MS/Borland lawsuits Borland got no-poaching added as part of the settlement.

I'm calling bullshit.

[jcr]

If anyone actually was trying to collude to hold tech wages down, they failed. We're some of the highest-paid workers in the country.

I got cold-called by Google recruiters when I worked at Apple, and I know people who've gone from Apple to Pixar, Apple to Yahoo, Microsoft to Apple, etc, etc.

-jcr

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[phantomfive]

We're some of the highest-paid workers in the country.

Imagine how much we could be paid if they hadn't colluded.

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[tjb]

Yup, same here (well, not Apple but a different company that was mentioned and have totally gotten cold-called by Google). Based on the documents in TFA, it appears that the agreements were mostly about cold-calling and didn't apply to engineering staff. This seems mostly to be about executive staff and salesforce.

Now, excuse me while I play the world's tiniest violin for those executives at major tech companies that had their salaries suppressed.

Re: I'm calling bullshit.

[tjb]

From TFA:

"“For each of these ‘Restricted Hiring’ companies, Google has agreed to the following protocol.

1. Not to pursue manager level and above candidates for Product, Sales, or G&A roles — even if they have applied to Google;

2. However, there are no restrictions to our recruiting from these companies at individual contributor levels for PSG

3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates."

Point 1 will probably get them in trouble, but point 3 makes it pretty clear that this did not apply to engineers.

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[Your.Master]

Look at this clause from the article:

3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates.

That's interesting because it suggests it's non-tech-wages being held down. It would still be blatantly illegal I think, but it undermines much of the rhetoric about this issue. Doesn't completely destroy it -- some agreements might have that for engineering candidates.

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You may think you are the highest paid workers . you also live in one of the highest expense area so that $200K / year salary is roughly equivalent to the $70K in Kansas where a 3000 square foot house costs $125K with a $800/month mortgage.
What do you pay to live in a 800 square foot apartment ?

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[jcr]

This seems mostly to be about executive staff and salesforce.

I know people who've gone between these companies at all kinds of levels. Engineers, first-level management through SVP level, everybody.

-jcr

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[BrianPRabbit]

Is Your sig on the level?

Re:I'm calling bullshit.

[phantomfive]

Yes. If you look at salary surveys, don't believe them, because they usually don't include things like bonuses or stock grants. Also, location makes a difference.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

it would include people who would make these law, so it will never happen. Let's face it, a sheep will always complain about the wolves, but it will always remain a sheep...

SV gets what SV deserves

[Anonymous Coward]

I often wonder what supposed geniuses want to live there. SF is a dirty shit hole that costs 4-5 times more to live there. NYC in a tiny apartment is great for your twenties and I can totally understand that. Senior positions for 100-150k in SF? Yeah right. You can get that in most parts of the US. I am not suggesting to move to Iowa or Nebraska. There are plenty of tech cities out there if you want to keep your options. Maybe some of those lazy VCs will get a clue and hop on more planes. They should be chasing investment not forcing a concentration of tech people bad at economics.

Re:SV gets what SV deserves

[AutodidactLabrat]

Excuse me? Did you read the Article? Hmm?
Forcing concentration of tech people is GOOD economics.
It's how you keep the peons working for pennies while you get home every night and richer every hour

Re:SV gets what SV deserves

[x0ra]

Please, do you even know what you are talking about ? Tech worker are parsec away from "peons working for pennies", though, I admit $100k is a penny to $10M+ CEO salaries. Though, by the same standard, I bet you every temp unskilled worker in the US would *love* to work for a penny...

Re:SV gets what SV deserves

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong.
The majority of those "Parsec away" peons work for less than 1/3 what an equally educated Wall Street Statistics Manipulator makes.
Meanwhile, the average CEO is making more than 250x what the peons is making.
And, where are MOST of those STEM workers now?
In Bangalore and Hyderbad and Chengdu, working for $18K U.S.D. if they can get it.
I agree, most of the people working TEMP make a good living...until the new software version comes out and then "sorry, not current"

Re:SV gets what SV deserves

[x0ra]

Just calling traders "Wall Street Statistics Manipulator" discredit your whole comment...

Proud to be an American

[Anonymous Coward]

The game is, was and always will be rigged! If you work for a living, your doing something wrong! That's why I'm joining the ruling class, suckers!

Re:Proud to be an American

[AutodidactLabrat]

Sure you are. Just as soon as you gather enough brownie points to be let into the game.
or find a few hundred thousand suckers to pay for your first 3 failures (think Bush)

Re:Proud to be an American

[x0ra]

To some extend, it might be argued that Bush was democratically elected, twice. Who's the sucker now ?

Re:Proud to be an American

[AutodidactLabrat]

Tell that to the MAJORITY who voted Gore
Oh, and the MAJORITY voted Gore in Florida, too. See NORC results for proof

Re:Proud to be an American

[Szechuan Vanilla]

No, Bush II was elected only once (2004). The first time was a judicial coronation un-ironically pushed into the Federal courts by the "state's rights" party, who trampled Florida's state's rights (and black letter law) about recounts (specifically, there were provisions of Florida law which the Feds stepped in and stopped).

Speaking as a resident of Florida (at the time), it is incredibly funny to me that the GOP shill who did the RNC's dirty work in FL (Sec. of State Katherine Harris, who was also Bush's FL campaign manager) thought this was going to "make her bones" with the national party, but what actually happened was they used her to get the job done and then dumped her as fast as they could (even encouraging other GOPers to run against her). The political lesson? When they put you up as the front person to do something illegal, be ready to be abandoned or scapegoated.

A perfect example of why Unions are required

[AutodidactLabrat]

Like any glutinous, power hungry 1%'er, there are always be Capitalists ready to engage in monopoly behavior.
The defenders of the thieves are Judas Goats or Chauvinists, singing the Praises of the Emperors until they starve to death themselves, hoping for a greater reward for loyalty.
Here's a hint chumps.
Loyalty in Capitalism goes ONLY up, never down.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required

[x0ra]

The problem, with unions, is that once you gave them the moon, they'll start asking for the solar system, or a their leader will start asking for a backshish keeping the mob under control. All in all, once a sheep, always a sheep.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required

[AutodidactLabrat]

Fine. What's wrong with that? Perfect Capitalism.
They demand, you fight back, a compromise is reached
you have something against dickering?

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required

[x0ra]

What is wrong which that ? You are currently asking the government to step in because you failed to gather enough momentum to unionize.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required

[AutodidactLabrat]

The government has a job to do
Their job is to neutralize the advantage the 1% have in owning more than the whole bottom 80% put together, so people can vote WITHOUT FEAR of reprisal.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required

[x0ra]

The government leaders are AMONG the 1% you are trying to fight, just like unions are just a mean for their leader to get their share... The only thing you are doing by asking for more regulations is to preserve the system in place. The more regulation there is, the easier it gets to keep people under control.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a free market not a free-for-all market. Get your terminology right before you start with your rhetoric. We have laws like anti-monopoly, property rights, insider trading and such that ensure competitiveness and free market principals. That's Captialism. These Corporate scum deserve to have the book thrown at them because they are undermining those principals for their own advantage.

Tempest in a teapot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. Engineers voluntary entered into employment agreements, and now they're crying? If they'd "won the lottery" (Apple, Google, etc.) with stock options, I doubt they'd complain. Plus from what I understand, this was mostly above the engineering level. By definition, if engineer "X" had a better opportunity, he/she would have taken it.

Sounds like a bunch of 20-something hipsters whining that they could have bought more craft brews if only big bad Apple/Google hadn't screwed them over. What an injustice.

Re:Tempest in a teapot?

[x0ra]

this is nothing more than the good old resentment of the weaklings...

Re:Tempest in a teapot?

[oscrivellodds]

Yeah, they voluntarily entered into agreements with companies that conspired to ensure that no one could make more by going to any other company. No, you can't hold out for more. You have a life to live and bills to pay. You have to take what is available, even if it is crap because you gotta eat.

Re:Tempest in a teapot?

[x0ra]

Given the level of the salaries in question, you can do more than just "eat".

Where to report

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you report this type of illegal deal ? I know there is on ein place in telecoms between vendors and carriers and has been for a long time.

Re:Where to report

[oscrivellodds]

Don't worry, the airwaves will soon be flooded with commercials from lawyers you can call to get in on the action.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

The system you describe is closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism. In capitalism, whatever is beneficial to me is good.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

And you've just gone full retarded, thanks for playing

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

I don't see how, but that often the case when people go emotional... Maybe you can do better and have a logical reasoning on all this ? Btw, yes, I do appreciate Ayn Rand more than appreciate Marx or Kant.

Re: Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

And idiots will try to pigeonhole and categorize everything into discrete political camps

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Austerity Empowers]

That's not capitalism.

We don't actually do capitalism here in America, it's just not profitable.

America is to capitalism what China is to communism.

List of Companies

[bill_mcgonigle]

which the TFS failed to include, as contacted by the publisher:

AMD
AOL
Adecco
Adobe
Apple
Best Buy
CDI Business Solutions
Cingular/AT&T
Clear Channel
Comcast
Dell
Dreamworks
eBay/PayPal
Foxconn
Genentech
Google
IBM
Illumita Inc.
Intel
Intuit
Jcrew
Kelly
Kforce
Lucasfilm
Mac Zone
Microsoft
Nike
Novell
Nvidia
Oglivy
OpenTV
Oracle
PC Connection
PC Mall
Pixar
Sun Microsystems
Virgin Media
WPP

It would be interesting to see the connectedness of the Boards of Directors graph for the set.

Re: Capitalism at its finest

[AutodidactLabrat]

Which 'camps' are not present?
Capitalists certainly.
Criminals as well.
Monopolists too...but then I repeat myself

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[AutodidactLabrat]

Capitalism is a monopoly market, like this 'gentlemen's agreement' forced on workers.
The WORKERS are made unfree by this cooperation.
Try again!

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[AutodidactLabrat]

It is not a free market. All of Capitalism is monopolism.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[AutodidactLabrat]

Why? Because she prefered to enrich the most corrupt with monopolistic power?
Sure, she loved the rich. She also was in love with mass murderers.
Do you approve of the Bohpal massacre by neglect?

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[luis_a_espinal]

The system you describe is closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism. In capitalism, whatever is beneficial to me is good.

By that logic, I I were to engage in loan-sharking and racketeering, those are good because they benefit me (so long as I can get away with it, of course). In fact, if I had the power to change the law so that I can get away with it, then that would be good as well.

See, there is good, and there is right. Knowing or ignoring the difference indicates more the type of person you are than the economic system that is in place.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

thanks to discredit yourself with more emotional arguments.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

My logical reasoning on this is IF - you think that anti-trust laws are mercantilism THEN - you have gone full retarded because you do not understand the correct terminology as I initially pointed out. BTW, are you assuming that just because someone points out that you have gone full retarded that that somehow implies that that person thinks you're a communist ? I think you are an idiot not a communist.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same person but your smug attitude demonstrates your hypocrisy

Class warfare

[manu0601]

What a good example of class warfare! Those company fight each other every day, with dozens of patent lawsuits, but when it comes to limit worker wealth, they manage to work together.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[x0ra]

I'm not an hypocrite, and I will tell you why.

I am a dirty lazy bastard who steal, lie, and cheat. I am responsible for the depletion of earth's natural resource, exploitation of third world countries and the misery of a lot of human being, but you know what ? Not only it feels good, but I sure don't want to lose any of this, and above all, I am no different than 850 millions people in the EU and US.

I worked for HP in Silicon valley in the early 90s

[oscrivellodds]

They used to actually tell employees in big meetings of engineers where they announced the annual pay raises. First they'd give a powerpoint presentation on their benefits packages, etc., and explain that their HR people had met with HR people from other big engineering employers in Silicon Valley and elsewhere to agree upon job titles and descriptions and pay scales. Finally they'd announce the annual raise and everyone would cheer except me, who didn't like being told "don't bother looking for a better deal, we've seen to it that you won't get one".

I ultimately left HP and went to Fujitsu, a company that wasn't part of the "cartel" and got a pay raise of 50% and kept all my hard earned vacation time to boot. I haven't seen any mention of HP in any of the articles about this yet.

"Gentlemen's Agreement"

[BradMajors]

Please stop calling this a "Gentleman's agreement. Those engaged in this practice are not "gentlemen".

Paradox.........

[Anonymous Coward]

By your same logic, the whole open-source community should be forbidden by law to cooperate.

This is considered communism................. People sharing, everyone is equal [all though, 50% in the open-source community are arrogant to the point they could a dictator in some country]

Capitalism --- "Free Market"............Is the opposite, bottleneck everyone, have corporations-AKA lobbyist, special interest groups, money dictates everything, who gets to be fu**d over, and who get to ride the crazy train to the next economic collapse. Hey how about those customers we f**d over with debts, but hey f**k'em were still rich, bitch. HAHAHA.......Who want to do some coke off of Jennifer Lopez's ass!!!

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[stenvar]

How is that not capitalism ? Capitalism is free market, all the player are free to interact as they please, might it be by competing or by cooperating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are free of intervention by a government, price-setting monopolies, or other authority

There are few things that companies can't do in a free market. But when companies collude to form a "price setting monopoly" (and that's what these agreements are in effect), it ceases to be a free market. Free market types like myself don't like that to happen.

By your same logic, the whole open-source community should be forbidden by law to cooperate.

Not all open source activity is free market activity. And not all non-free-market activity is illegal. But if open source developers were to collude to create a price setting monopoly, it should probably be illegal. However, the very nature of open source makes that nearly impossible.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[strikethree]

Capitalism is free market, all the player are free to interact as they please, might it be by competing or by cooperating.

No. Once they start cooperating, it is no longer Capitalism. Capitalism is defined by competition. Freedom of interaction is something you are adding... incorrectly I might add.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also an idiot cause you do not know the difference between mercantilism and capitalism.

Some of the fall out from trickle downs failure

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not even trickling fast enough for these giant companies they had to cheat.
Just think how little trickled to you my guess is none noteven one cent.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[TemperedAlchemist]

No see that's just the thing, it is capitalism.

Anti-trust laws are actually anti-capitalist.

If you don't want your employees to get poached...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why not simply treat them better? Oh, sorry, what a stupid question.

If we had to pay programmers like ....

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had to pay key programmers like key football players, OH MY.

If those pesky football players didn't have that dang union!

It does not restrain ANYONE

[SuperKendall]

It obviously restrains free trade of services by employees and vendors.

Why? It's not saying any employee cannot switch companies. Just that one company agrees not to ASK an employee to switch.

Again, anyone is free to seek work elsewhere with whoever they like.

Any shock why these are Obama boosters?

[gelfling]

A frozen top down controlled job market where the employee has zero input or freedom but most likely a great deal of security as they are locked in place. At least until HR decides they should eat dogfood somewhere else.

stenvar is a GOP troll

[globaljustin]

This is a ridiculous tangent.

By stenvar's logic a restaurant customer is the "owner" of the product of their hunger and they are selling the access to it...it's backwards.

This is about twisting logic to support a fallacious conclusion.

curse all GOP trolls!

Re:stenvar is a GOP troll

[Anonymous Coward]

By stenvar's logic a restaurant customer is the "owner" of the product of their hunger and they are selling the access to it...it's backwards.

Buyer and seller are identified by who pays money. Restaurant offers food, patron pays, hence restaurant is seller, patron is buyer. When it comes to labor, the employee offers his labor and the employer pays, hence the employee is the seller and the employer is the buyer. In economics, labor is a good pretty much like any other good. It's standard economics, completely independent of any politics.

curse all GOP trolls!

I wish the GOP would represent my views, but they don't. Politically, I'm an independent: socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Politically and economically, you, on the other hand, are just a moron, however. You're so f*cking stupid, you don't even know the meaning of "troll".

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more like collusion. Breaches one of our rules, even if it's 'only' the 'Headline' one.

Re:Capitalism at its finest

[Meski]

It was irony I thinks. Spoof on 'no true scotsman'

FFS, when are technical workers going to unionize?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to be like the teachers or auto workers unions, but there are certain standards that:
- All workers ought to meet
- That employers need to follow, or get their asses kicked

Hhhhhh

[Vincie]

Yes yes; let us not envy one another's slaves. We have plenty to go around.