Slashdot Mirror


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.

14 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Do the crime, do the time by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Do the crime, do the time by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. is it illegal? by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:is it illegal? by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:is it illegal? by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:is it illegal? by BradMajors · · Score: 3, Interesting

      * 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.

  3. Re:Capitalism at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  4. Collusion vs no solicit by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: Collusion vs no solicit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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/

    2. Re:Collusion vs no solicit by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  5. I wish I were oppressed by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  6. Re:Capitalism at its finest by x0ra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Capitalism at its finest by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  8. List of Companies by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)