Slashdot Mirror


Emails Reveal Battle Over Employee Poaching Between Google and Facebook

colinneagle (2544914) writes "Apple, Google, and a slew of other high-tech firms are currently embroiled in a class-action lawsuit on allegations that they all adhered to tacit anti-poaching agreements. With that case currently ongoing, we've seen a number of interesting executive emails come to light, including emails showing that Steve Jobs threatened Palm's CEO with a full-fledged legal assault if the company kept going after Apple engineers. There is also correspondence between Sergey Brin, Marissa Mayer, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and Google's Jonathan Rosenberg discussing the threat that Google saw in Facebook hiring its engineers. The discussion elevates, with Sandberg pointing out the hypocrisy of Google growing to prominence by hiring engineers from major Silicon Valley firms. Rosenberg then hints at the potential for a 'deeper relationship' that Google would be willing to reach as long as Facebook stops hiring its engineers, going so far as to tell Sandberg to 'fix this problem.'"

132 comments

  1. Amusing? sentence before the redaction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Finally, we (or basically I) have not done a good enough job of high rewards for high performance." - Sergey Brin

    1. Re:Amusing? sentence before the redaction: by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is why it's always ultimately best to work in government. The pay isn't high, but the work environment is ideal.

      Huh? My first job as a college graduate engineer was with the DOD as a civilian. The pay is OK, but not great as you suggest. But I can tell you that the work environment is NOT ideal, even in the best of circumstances. I had great people to work for and with. They where among the best I've had in my 25-30 years so far. But, it is maddeningly frustrating to work for the government, if you care even a small amount about doing the job efficiently the right way. Maybe I'm just too frugal, but I found the wholesale waste that happened due to all the rules and laws to be frustrating to watch. Things such as spending $250K to get a $750K worth of equipment purchased, or throwing away 90% of a certain kind of part because they where so poor in quality that we had to test and select parts that met specs to repair equipment. Then we'd end up having to re-repair things because these junk parts drifted out of tolerance quickly.

      If you have the right mindset, I suppose government work is fine. But if you try to care, or actually do the right thing by your customers in the most efficient way possible, it's an exercise in frustration.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Amusing? sentence before the redaction: by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Same exact thing...but I experienced this working in a community college.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re:Amusing? sentence before the redaction: by synx · · Score: 1

      The best workers do it for love, and are treated with the best resources. The mediocre does do it for money, and are thrown money.

      The problem with this specific quote is... I can't tell if you are being genuine and really mean this, or are cynically saying this to reduce how much you would have to pay employees.

      I hope you can see that, from my point of view, based on this comment, there is no way for me to tell what kind of person you are. Because someone who wants to manipulate their employees would say the exact same thing.

      Finally, I hardly think it's wrong to ask employers to return even a small part of their VAST fortunes to their employees who creates the opportunity for the profit to be made.

  2. Poaching is bad for employees too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If there was a bigger sign that said "we are not interested in training our employees and have a terrible corporate culture" poaching would be it.

    1. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants.

    2. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by SpzToid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Poaching and wanting H1-B rules relaxed means I.T. workers whose knowledge is perishable in the marketplace as technology evolves are getting screwed from the tech billionaires. Been that way for decades, and if that's not enough to make you puke, young Zuckerberg and his buddies even started a PAC to lobby on their behalf.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Innov...

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    3. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those poor indentured servants, making only four times the median salary, instead of five.

    4. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's the Republicans that want to make sure that engineers make as little money as possible.

      Guess which party gets the largest donations from the tech industry.

    5. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Whoa there AC. Your political shorts are showing. Might want to pull up your pants.

      Republicans don't want you poor engineers to make money eh? And here I thought it was the Democrats that where doing that..

      And don't fool yourself. The Republicans where the party of Lincon and supported the end of slavery.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans where the party of Lincon

      Where are they? Why does your kind spout constant nonsense? Also, who the fuck is Lincon, and what in the hell does that person have to do with Republicans?

      supported the end of slavery.

      Bullshit. They are calling for its return.

    7. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by PPH · · Score: 1

      The Democrats wants us making plenty of money. But they want a big cut before we get to take the rest home.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      By the same logic, the H1Bs should be supremely happy, what with landing their dream jobs...or not? Now I'd argue that if the money offered doesn't correspond to what demand and supply would want it to be, it's still bad even if it's only partially bad.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      By the same logic, the H1Bs should be supremely happy, what with landing their dream jobs...or not?

      Many H1Bs do land their dream jobs, and actually get paid the same as their American colleagues, you know. The entire anti-H1B story focuses on cases of abuse, which, I'll give you, are numerous, but do not represent the industry as a whole. I don't know of a single H1B person in Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple that would get less than what a local would with the same skills and experience. It's sweatshops like Tata that really abuse it, but their horror stories are the only thing you ever hear about on the subject.

    10. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by bobbied · · Score: 0

      The Democrats wants us making plenty of money. But they want a big cut before we get to take the rest home.

      I'd only add one thing to that... Even if they don't take everything now, they eventually will. Why do I say that? Because they never say no to spending on social programs and as a wise man once said.. "The poor will always be with you.. "

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      I actually get paid a little more than my domestic counterparts, and had my pick of employment upon graduation.

    12. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by Arker · · Score: 1

      Well if you have some who are treated fairly, and others who are 'horror stories' in your own words then clearly their average pay is below the market value of their labor even if some of them do ok. Which is exactly what we should expect.

      The difference between an H1B worker and his first cousin from the same town who has a green card is that the latter can probably go get a job with your competitor if the notion strikes him, while the H1B guy is more firmly under your control. It's reminiscent of indentured servitude and offensive IMOP. They should be abolished entirely and the people that are here on them already should be given residency and work permits for the duration of their previously scheduled stay. If there is need for more foreign workers expand the availability of work permits to accomodate that. But let them compete on a level playing field with their full human rights instead of making them second-class non-citizens.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    13. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As an H1B worker, I am fully in agreement with you :) yes, I do not like the part of my situation where I am effectively bound to my employer, and yes, it does lead to a disparity in my ability to negotiate my wage. Thankfully they don't abuse it, so I don't need to negotiate - I get a fair market price as it is - but it still irks me. And a green card, which I have applied for, takes years to actually get due to the current multiple-year processing queues (which are growing still).

    14. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Republicans where the party of Lincon

      > supported the end of slavery.

      I read a nice article on this. The author claimed the north mainly supported abolition merely as a matter of having more people to fight on their side.

      Even after the war, they did not care about slavery in the south and would not do anything about it, until many years later.

      It was mainly a ploy to have more people on their side.

      This sounds much more believable to me. Same reason they got counted 1/4 for purposes of the electoral college.

      I doubt 'the end of slavery' was a real goal.

      "We need more people on our side, maybe if we act like we are against slavery we can get them on board" sounds much more believable.

      Are we to believe, out of the kindness of their hearts, people just gave up power over other? Doesn't add up.

    15. Re:Poaching is bad for employees too by tragedy · · Score: 1

      supported the end of slavery.

      Bullshit. They are calling for its return.

      I've never understood why people seem to accept the premise that slavery actually ended in the US. Full on hereditary chattel slavery ended, but has anyone every actually read the amendment?

      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

              Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

      In other words people can still be enslaved for life as punishment for a crime. There's nothing in the text that seems to prevent old style slavery of anyone you can convict of something, although their offspring are safe (until their first conviction, which is pretty likely since they would probably become wards of the state) The only real additional constitutional protection is in the 8th amendment in the bit about "cruel and unusual punishment". Given that "compliance blows" in prisons don't seem to run afoul of the 8th, the circle seems to be pretty much complete. There's nothing in the constitution preventing the sale of human beings as defacto property, to be forced to work and beaten if they don't. The health and safety standards would just be a bit higher. This, after all, does actually pretty much go on in some US prisons.

  3. Unions by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So its okay for employees to have unions ... but not for businesses?

    Hypocrisy at its greatest.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Unions by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      which employees in silicon valley are part of a union?

    2. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont see where this is unions. But no. Businesses are not people.

    3. Re:Unions by NapalmV · · Score: 2

      Nice troll. Except the relationship is not symmetrical in any other ways either, e.g. the employees cannot fire the CEO and/or the board at any time for whatever reason (like in globalization! cost cuts! out with the fat cats! let's offshore the board! etc.).

    4. Re:Unions by jmrives · · Score: 0

      So its okay for employees to have unions ... but not for businesses?

      Hypocrisy at its greatest.

      Ignorance at its greatest

    5. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent use of logic there poster, something that is sorely lacking around here. Funny too as one would think that a bunch of computer savvy nerds would be highly logic oriented. Oh well.

      I also don't get why so many people seem to be against people earning lots of money.

      I'd love to be able to earn shit loads of money, wouldn't you?

    6. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So its okay for employees to have unions ... but not for businesses?

      Hypocrisy at its greatest.

      Correct. They companies are run by wealthy Republicans so all they do is constantly try to exploit the workers. They shouldn't be allowed to form a union because they already have all of the power and money. The engineers have no money and no power thus they need protection.

    7. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps not, but then why is it assumed that the relationship is supposed to be symmetrical in the way you describe?

      This is false.

      Are you not a free man, that you should be able to agree with another man to work for a wage - or not? You are free to agree to the wage, and the employer is free to agree to pay it - or not. This *is* symmetrical. So where is the problem?

    8. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might have something to do with the workers never hiring Pinkerton to keep the owners under their thumbs, or forcing the owners to shop from the company store.

      Not exactly ancient history we're talking about. Business has the most powerful union imaginable, it's called Truckloads of Cash.

    9. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Party-of-the-rich-In-Congress-it-s-the-Democrats-5363121.php

      "WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

      But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

      The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

      Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

      House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

      Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

      Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents."

    10. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This situation here is anti-competitive, in the same way as if the oil companies agreed to not sell their product for less than a certain price. You are a free man that should be able to agree, or not, to pay this price.

    11. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a computer operator at a factor and was represented by the Teamsters. I was "laid off" under bizarre circumstances, and the union said nothing could be done about it. I later learned that the union representative landed his niece that job after I was ousted.

    12. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not aruing that this case is or is not 'fair', - I agree with you on this.

      However I do not think it should be thought fair that the employee demands the right to fire the CEO. This is the point I was trying to make.

    13. Re:Unions by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      That may be true, but it's still misleading. $75k per capita is high middle class, and if it's California then it's probably a self-made middle class rather than inherited. Such people usually understand that help from the government is sometimes necessary to make poor peoples' lives at least bearable and to give their children a chance of success.

      We're talking about uber-rich rich, the ones that have hundreds of millions in the bank - THEY are mostly Republican.

    14. Re:Unions by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      So where is the problem?

      In your inability to to distinguish between simplistic reasoning and the real world. You're free to accept the wage or not, just as you're free to become destitute. So many choices in a "free" market. Bonus points if you can tell me who has the greater bargaining power in a situation with 10 buyers and 10,000 sellers.

    15. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're talking about uber-rich rich, the ones that have hundreds of millions in the bank - THEY are mostly Republican."

      You cannot support that with evidence. Put up or shut up.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

      Look at all the fat cats donating 100s of millions to Democrats.

    16. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "just as you're free to become destitute" Really? You are also free to invent a new mousetrap. Life is full of choices, risks and rewards. Deal with it. Simplistic reasonaing or real world? Fuck off. Real world is just that, you want fair? Life isn't fair. You want free? No.

      "Bonus points if you can tell me who has the greater bargaining power in a situation with 10 buyers and 10,000 sellers."

      You fail to make any point here.

    17. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $75k per capita is high middle class

      You're right. Only $300,000.00 per year for a family of four is middle class.

      Seriously, WTF! You Republicans are completely disconnected from reality. $300k per year is not middle class. Seriously, either go fuck yourself or go out into the real world to see how most people live. Your idea of the middle class is ridiculous.

    18. Re:Unions by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Here's a link from your site: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne... It's obviously not possible to say with 100% assurance about the voting patterns of rich, but their Republican leaning is not a secret. Here are some data points: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n...

    19. Re:Unions by Zxern · · Score: 1

      Yes because we as a people have decided it's not in societies best interest to allow another East India trading company.

    20. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.

      From your opensecrets link

      "In President Barack Obama's first year in office, Wall Street sent Democrats $29.9 million, and Republicans $20.7 million."

      Ok. Then; "But starting in 2011, as the chart below shows, the gap widened and Wall Street's financial support for one party began to tip the scales."

      Heh. So like I said, all along the rich Democrats have been supporting Democrats all along. Then along comes Obama and all bets are off. Surprised? Not me.

      You aren't trying to tell me that all rich Democrats are altruistic generous truthful saints are you?

    21. Re:Unions by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      let's offshore the board!

      I am so suggesting that at the next shareholder's meeting...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Unions by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Informative

      We're talking about uber-rich rich, the ones that have hundreds of millions in the bank - THEY are mostly Republican.

      Not true.

      In fact, 8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are long-time Democratic strongholds.

      From the article:

      ...in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

      The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:Unions by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      For some reason I've lost the previous message. These districts represent high self-made middle class - not the uber-rich people. And high middle class is indeed more Democratic-leaning, because they generally understand that government help is necessary to make poor people lives bearable and give poor children a chance.

    24. Re:Unions by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      For some reason I've lost the previous message. These districts represent high self-made middle class - not the uber-rich people. And high middle class is indeed more Democratic-leaning, because they generally understand that government help is necessary to make poor people lives bearable and give poor children a chance.

      Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me - if the "uber-rich" don't live in the 10 richest Congressional districts, where do they live? Canada?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "because they generally understand that government help is necessary to make poor people lives bearable and give poor children a chance"

      Of good fucking grief, are you seriously this fucking dumb? Really? Do you even see how condescending and superior you sound? Only Democrats care about the poor and only Democrats are qualified and capable of taking care of the poor, is that right? Go fuck yourself with a barbed wire wrapped pineapple you socialist shitbird, I can't stand you sanctimonious holier than though shitstains. Stop stealing my fucking money.

      If these Democrats are so damned generous why don't they give money to the poor instead of other Democrats? They don't give a fuck about the poor you stupid fucking asshole. They care about money.

    26. Re:Unions by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Why must they live in the richest Congressional districts? A Congress district is a large place, and even one very rich man won't raise the average (never mind median) income by much.

    27. Re:Unions by CBravo · · Score: 1

      No no ... employer-socialism (it hits a nerve)...

      --
      nosig today
    28. Re:Unions by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Why must they live in the richest Congressional districts?

      Perhaps because "richest districts" in this context means "districts with the highest per-capita income."

      Which has nothing to do with your opinions regarding who the "middle class" votes for, and why.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    29. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be missing that a per capita figure is found by arithmetic average. You greatly increase the average by removing a lot of jobless and very low income individuals from the district, which is what happens in high cost of living areas such as coastal Los Angeles.

      Sure, there are rich people here, owning the very expensive beach-front homes, but there are MANY more living in rented apartments, having a job and no kids (whether single or couples). I don't think the census includes those in the homeless shelter nor in RVs roaming the streets near the beach, so the per capita income is counting all these worker bees and retirees who can afford to stay here as long as their monthly income remains.

    30. Re:Unions by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's about right. Only Democrats in the US care about poor people. Republicans care only about wealthy 'job creators'.

  4. Google and Apple conspired to do evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh the humanity.

    Ultimate fanboi war!

  5. Don't be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still trying to square Google up with its tagline - "Don't be evil" when time and time again they choose the dark side. Then I realized...

    Anakin Skywalker: From my point of view, it is the Jedi who are evil.

    From their perspective, what we call evil is good.

    1. Re:Don't be good by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Getting virtually all their revenue from advertising should have been the first, last, and only clue needed.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  6. Collective Bargaining Agreements by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Except the relationship is not symmetrical in any other ways either, e.g. the employees cannot fire the CEO and/or the board at any time for whatever reason

    With a collective bargaining agreement in place the CEO often cannot fire a union employee at will either. In fact with a sufficiently restrictive CBA in place union employees can be nearly impossible to fire even for actions that arguably should get them fired, like showing up for work stoned.

    1. Re:Collective Bargaining Agreements by NapalmV · · Score: 1

      It's still asymmetric. It can't be the other way, so let's not bring symmetry into the discussion as the guiding principle.
      OTOH as other posters have already noticed, there are no unions in IT. So unions and symmetry are completely out of place in this discussion.

  7. This is NOT slavery by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants.

    Seriously folks. Let's not for a moment pretend that this is remotely similar to actual slavery. We're talking about two companies to collude to suppress wages for employees that by all objective standards are paid pretty well and have pretty good lives. Are you seriously going to claim that that is in any way comparable to being the property of another human being?

    Yes this collusion is wrong. No it isn't even close to slavery. Claiming that the two are anything similar is unbelievably clueless.

    1. Re:This is NOT slavery by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      Uhm, I didn't say it is like slavery, I said it is like the set of things that includes slavery and indentured servitude. How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer? How is wage suppression via collusion that involves locking employees to one employer NOT like indentured servitude?

      Your attack on my statement is idiotic, you don't even address my point. You take the far edge of my point, and claim it is the far point. Duh. I stand by what I said, and I declare your attack to be faulty in form, content, and intent.

    2. Re:This is NOT slavery by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants.

      Seriously folks. Let's not for a moment pretend that this is remotely similar to actual slavery. We're talking about two companies to collude to suppress wages for employees that by all objective standards are paid pretty well and have pretty good lives. Are you seriously going to claim that that is in any way comparable to being the property of another human being?

      Yes this collusion is wrong. No it isn't even close to slavery. Claiming that the two are anything similar is unbelievably clueless.

      Is it that far off really? Many engineers come out of school with 100k+ in debt. They go to work for one of these companies and can never leave because of secret agreements from the execs. Their wages are kept artificially low in a high cost of living area. Between rent/mortgage and other costs of living, they simply can't afford to drop the job and go elsewhere without having another job in the wings.

      This isn't much different from indentured servitude. Only with indentured servants there is typically a contract up front, after X number of years you're free to move on. In Silicon Valley its all backroom deals, under the table and out of sight from the public. Your "owners" own you without you explicitly knowing it, there is no end date and there is serious direct career consequences if you try to change it.

      They may not be subjected to beatings but they are certainly subject to economic ruin if they try to change or improve their station. I've seen it happen. I've seen good engineers leave engineering altogether because they became untouchable simply because of who they once worked for.

    3. Re:This is NOT slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how well paid these defrauded engineers are considered by you & those like you. Claiming that is relevant in any way is clueless. It is still theft on a grand scale, exactly like Enron & Bernie Madoff. These execs, have defrauded/stolen billions from people & they should be punished as such. That's the bottom line.

    4. Re:This is NOT slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is not locking employees to one employer based upon an agreement with ALL of your employer's competitors. There are thousands of other companies that you could go work for besides Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. If you weren't happy with your situation at Apple, then leave, nothing is stopping you from walking out the door and putting in an application at a dozen other places the same day. I agree that the collusion is/was terribly unethical and (hopefully) illegal, but seriously man, get out of the bubble, the world is not Silicon Valley.

    5. Re:This is NOT slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like indentured servitude, because there are THOUSANDS of other employers they could go work for that aren't colluding with Google or Facebook, and they are free to leave and go work for those thousands at any time. Not even remotely like indentured servitude. Not even close.

    6. Re:This is NOT slavery by sjbe · · Score: 2

      I didn't say it is like slavery,

      You most certainly did. You said "For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants." It is nothing like a substitute for slavery and claiming so makes you look really clueless.

      How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer?

      Because Google and Facebook and Apple are not the extent of the IT universe no matter what they might want you to believe.

      How is wage suppression via collusion that involves locking employees to one employer NOT like indentured servitude?

      Are you really that stupid? You can't figure out the difference? Do you even know what indentured servitude is? Nobody was locked to Google. It's at will employment even if the employer is a douche. Indentured servitude is slavery. It means you are property. It means you don't own your own body. Nobody at Google is anything remotely resembling property.

      Your attack on my statement is idiotic

      Your statement was idiotic and absurdly hyperbolic nonsense.

    7. Re:This is NOT slavery by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer?

      You mean, aside the fact that you're not working for free to pay off a previous debt?

      Think of it this way - if you don't want have your income "limited" at six figures because your employer has a "gentleman's agreement" with some of their local competitors, you're always welcome to walk out that door and go apply at McDonald's.

      I'd avoid bitching about how your former 6-figure job was "slavery" to your new minimum wage co-workers, in that case.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:This is NOT slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be WW3 if it were the government colluding to suppress earnings of investment bankers or shareholders, who by ANY measure do INCREDIBLY well. However when THEY are colluding...oh it's not slavery, they're just protecting their investments...

      I'm not sure it isn't a form of slavery to be honest. They are colluding to remove employment options, earnings and general freedom from their employees. I'd call it slavery, just as I do with H1Bs who are not free to become citizens, who are not free to shop their wages and get what they deserve for being so valuable we fly them halfway across the world.

      Maybe we can call it 2nd Degree Slavery? Can we put them in a ass-pounding prison for a decade or so?

    9. Re:This is NOT slavery by CBravo · · Score: 1

      It is like employer-socialism ;-).

      --
      nosig today
    10. Re:This is NOT slavery by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They may not be subjected to beatings but they are certainly subject to economic ruin if they try to change or improve their station. I've seen it happen. I've seen good engineers leave engineering altogether because they became untouchable simply because of who they once worked for.

      Can you elaborate on this please?

    11. Re:This is NOT slavery by geek · · Score: 2

      They may not be subjected to beatings but they are certainly subject to economic ruin if they try to change or improve their station. I've seen it happen. I've seen good engineers leave engineering altogether because they became untouchable simply because of who they once worked for.

      Can you elaborate on this please?

      My father worked for Cisco. Amazingly, every place he applied for while still there, would refuse to interview him, when only 5 years before he was one of the most sought after engineers in his field. Eventually he left Cisco and opened his own small business outside of Engineering because he simply couldn't even get interviewed anywhere. He nearly went broke trying.

      I have two friends, one who worked for Google and another for Apple. Both left Engineering and went into the Accounting sector because they were untouchable by anyone.The only jobs they would get interviewed for were paying half what they used to make at small shops with virtually no health benefits.

      In fact almost everyone I know that worked as an Engineer/software dev has now left the industry. In no small part because of this, coupled with a bit of age discrimination.

    12. Re:This is NOT slavery by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Is it that far off really?

      Yes, there's a huge difference. In one scenario, if you try to leave your owner you are a fugitive of the law. In this scenario, you can always get another job. Just because a few big name companies prevented poaching doesn't mean you couldn't find work at the countless number of startups or established companies. The comparison is ridiculous and insulting to the people who experienced the atrocities of slavery.

    13. Re:This is NOT slavery by geek · · Score: 1

      Is it that far off really?

      Yes, there's a huge difference. In one scenario, if you try to leave your owner you are a fugitive of the law. In this scenario, you can always get another job..

      Ever seen a non-compete clause in a contract? They are standard operating procedure now and companies will actively threaten you with them. So my point stands.

      I don't think you have a very good grasp on what slavery is. You seem to have the Hollywood definition in your head when the reality is very different. Most slaves were indentured servants and still are. This is a temporary situation, usually remedied in time when the agreement is done. Historically in the middle east slaves were set free every 7 year cycle along with debt. Even in the US most slaves weren't working fields, most worked in households as maids and nannies. Many of which were paid for their work and had the opportunity to buy their freedom in time.

      Now we're slaves to corporations who actively seek to ruin our careers and future prospects should we want to change "owners".

    14. Re:This is NOT slavery by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer?

      Wait, isn't "poaching" only DIRECTLY going after people and offering them a job or at least interview?

      Are people claiming that if a potential employee found a job listing themselves, they couldn't successfully get the job through the normal interview process?

    15. Re:This is NOT slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet down. You're the one resorting to hyperbole. It is indeed like indentured servitude to have employers colluding to suppress wages and limit options.

      Wait, have you bought into the 1% propaganda that states what they do is industrialist and therefore always right? News flash kid, you're not in that bracket and never will be. There's no need to bleat like a sheep to defend the robber barons.

    16. Re:This is NOT slavery by swillden · · Score: 1

      I have two friends, one who worked for Google and another for Apple. Both left Engineering and went into the Accounting sector because they were untouchable by anyone.The only jobs they would get interviewed for were paying half what they used to make at small shops with virtually no health benefits.

      I don't buy it. I work for Google and not only am I headhunted to an almost ridiculous degree by firms large and small, I know plenty of other Google engineers who've left the company to work for others, including a couple who didn't arrange a new job before they left, choosing instead to just take a few months off. I also know a number of Apple engineers and none of them have any trouble finding other jobs, either.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:This is NOT slavery by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Ever seen a non-compete clause in a contract? They are standard operating procedure now and companies will actively threaten you with them. So my point stands.

      No, your point doesn't stand. They can't lock you out of the entire computer industry. At best they are against direct competition. They aren't even valid in California. You also have the freedom not to sign one. And even if you did sign one, you can still quit.

      You seem to have the Hollywood definition in your head when the reality is very different. Most slaves were indentured servants and still are.

      Even if I accepted that, it still isn't the case here. But even that is a stretch because the "Hollywood" version of slavery did exist. The agricultural industry of the Southern United States was based on it, and the issue resulted in a civil war.

      The slavery angle is a stupid analogy by privileged and highly paid tech workers.

    18. Re:This is NOT slavery by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The thing that doesn't make sense here is: why would other companies not want to touch these employees? What time period was this anyway? Yeah, if this all happened during the time when this illegal collusion was going on, I can see how someone at Google wouldn't be able to get interviewed at Apple or vice versa, but there's far more companies out there than that, especially smaller and esp. medium-size companies that pay just fine.

      Also, I used to work for Intel, one of the companies who colluded, and I had no trouble at all being recruited while I was still working there, or getting a job elsewhere after I was laid off during their downsizing.

    19. Re:This is NOT slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a golden cage is still a cage

    20. Re:This is NOT slavery by geek · · Score: 1

      Even if I accepted that, it still isn't the case here. But even that is a stretch because the "Hollywood" version of slavery did exist. The agricultural industry of the Southern United States was based on it, and the issue resulted in a civil war.

      The slavery angle is a stupid analogy by privileged and highly paid tech workers.

      Now I know you're delusional. The civil war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln ran for re-election and realized he needed fresh blood to win the war. The slavery issue was after the war started, which was about states rights.

      The agricultural industry was not based on it. Most people couldn't afford slaves and I don't mean buying them. I mean keeping them. Room and board as well as health care is expensive and unhealthy slaves are not productive. The majority weren't physically abused unlike what Hollywood claims. They were however emotionally abused and their families torn apart. A beaten slave can't work. It made no sense to do so unless they believed their was no other option. Besides that, as I said before, the vast majority of slaves did not work fields. You're free to do your own history homework on the subject. Your view of history is very juvenile and uninformed.

      Nevermind the fact there are more slaves in the US today than there were when it was legal when you account for Mexican and Asian illegals. You could do with an education on what slavery actually is.

  8. This is why I became a leftist by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was little, my daddy told me "never attribute to malice what might as well be ignorance." And I believed this. So I was a libertarian and was suspicious of regulations on business. Let companies compete in the free market! Leave them be, government busybodies!

    But then I grew up.

    It is not the purpose of government to serve the people. It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor. These corporations give massive amounts of money to both political parties, and they get what they pay for. Fat government contracts. Protection from competitors, foreign and domestic. You think they give a shit about unemployment? Hell no. They LOVE unemployment. Keeps the workers in line knowing there's 5 other people who would love to take their job if they get uppity. Student loan debt forgiveness? Hells no. Debt keeps the slaves tied to their wheels. And if our barristas have Ph.Ds, all the better. Damn tech workers think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle? Haha, bring in the H1-Bs! Secret backroom deals to cap salaries! The nerve thinking Americans should earn middle class wages...in America. Working at the most profitable companies in history. We need that money to maximize shareholder value! The Dow's through the roof with massive unemployment? Perfect!

    That is not ignorance. That is malice.

    So, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard. I am a socialist.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only universal medicine socialists have for social evils - State ownership of the means of production - is not only perfectly compatible with all the disasters of the capitalist world: with exploitation, imperialism, pollution, misery, economic waste, national hatred and national oppression, but it adds to them a series of disasters of its own: inefficiency, lack of economic incentives and above all the unrestricted rule of the omnipresent bureaucracy, a concentration of power never before known in human history".

      -- Leszek Kolakowski

    2. Re:This is why I became a leftist by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 2

      It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor

      Actually, many of this corporations didn't exist ten years ago and none of this guys weren't shit-load-millionairs. So there, the govermente sucks at preserving the status quo.

    3. Re:This is why I became a leftist by geek · · Score: 0

      So a bunch of leftist execs screw people over and then you decide to jump over and become a leftist? Every single one of these execs is a major Democrat donor, whether its Marrissa Mayer or Eric Schmidt giving max contributions to Dem candidates, going so far as to actually host the parties at their homes or Steve Jobs being best buds with Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In fact every single one of these companies is directly hostile to Republican and Libertarian campaigns and causes.

      Your leftists are the problem here with their crony capitalism and constant meddling in the free market. Republicans aren't innocent here but you're so bass akwards on this it's comical. You really think leftism is the solution to this? Sad.

    4. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor

      Actually, many of this corporations didn't exist ten years ago and none of this guys weren't shit-load-millionairs. So there, the govermente sucks at preserving the status quo.

      What about the major shareholders and board members of "this corporations [sic]"? Were they "shit-load-millionairs [sic]"? Yeah, most of them probably were. And you do remember that for example Facebook was started by rich boys who went to Harvard, right? It's not exactly a rags-to-riches story, just a riches-to-more-riches. And lets not even start on the average wages for tech-sector employees . . . but then again, since the third spelling mistake you made was "govermente" for government I'm starting to suspect I've just been sucked in by a troll.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    5. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A few years ago I read a financial magazine on an airplane (quick googling tells that it was WSJ, I can't find a direct link but this blog post describes it: http://blog.rongarret.info/201... ) about how companies should watch their stock options closely and do not allow 'unnecessary' employees like chefs to get them. Because if a company grows big then these peons might actually become members of the Rich! And little people totally do not deserve it.

      I wanted to break a window and throw this magazine out.

    6. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats just a lottery that runs for two reasons

              o it keeps skilled people working with the hope they will cash out big

              o it provides a narrative for them to build bubbles around

      if that means that a couple of normal people make it to the big leagues, thats ok

    7. Re:This is why I became a leftist by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That does not really follow. You do not need an evil mastermind pulling strings to have a system that benefits the rich. You are saying that you actually believe that there is some league of evil rich people out there, that are not just looking out for their own best interests but actively undermining the poor so that they have cheap oppressed labour? And they are not just mistakenly undetermined poor out of ignorance, but purposely infantry to do so, all the while laughing maniacally as they order their chauffeurs to run over homeless people.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chefs are replaceable commodities while experienced software developers are not. They could have gotten another chef whose food would have been equally as good.

    9. Re:This is why I became a leftist by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Me too.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    10. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck my cock John Birch motherfucker. Lick the shaft clean, like a Penn State coach.

    11. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are saying that you actually believe that there is some league of evil rich people out there, that are not just looking out for their own best interests but actively undermining the poor so that they have cheap oppressed labour?

      I don't think they're in league here, but what about actively undermining the poor so that they have cheap oppressed labour is not just rich people looking out for their own self interest? Of course this is happening intentionally. Do you actually think corporations are not actively thinking of ways to keep wages lower?

    12. Re:This is why I became a leftist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "good quote, don't treat it like fact" - wise man.

    13. Re:This is why I became a leftist by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You are a fool. You believe in some libertarian wet dream fantasy world, where in some mythic "free market" wealthy individuals and corporations will play fair and engage in honest competition. That does not happen. What happens is monopoly, collusion, oligarchy. You think in this libertarian dog-eat-dog fantasy that you would be some free captain of industry, but you would not. You would be another slave working 60 hours a week in miserable conditions. The 40 hour week, workplace safety standards, all of this is the product of leftists bleeding and suffering to fight back against the robber barons you so admire. Class warfare is alive and well, the wealthy class is winning (as it always has) and you're on the wrong side.

      I was a libertarian until I grew the fuck up.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  9. Spank 'em hard by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 2

    As an engineer that could have been affected by these shenanigans, I hope that each of these companies gets spanked and spanked hard. A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Spank 'em hard by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      As an engineer that could have been affected by these shenanigans, I hope that each of these companies gets spanked and spanked hard. A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.

      Ha, hahahaha, you still believe those people are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That's so quaint.

    2. Re:Spank 'em hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha. Gas is cheap and homes burn nicely even behind gated communities. Burn baby burn.

    3. Re:Spank 'em hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.

      If there's no union, who's going to deal out the stinging consequences? The government? I mean, for crying out loud, if you work at google or facebook, chances are you aren't hurting for money. If you're mad about missing out on a little more, I mean maybe you have a point, but maybe you're being a little bit nuts.

      Eventually, I'd be willing to be that the majority of programming will be done by people in india, china, russia, and places that have a lower "standard of living". Sure, they might not be able to do it now, but they're just as smart as people here and are more desperate for work than we are so they'll work harder than we do.

      The funny part is, if you have a 401k and it has some investments in google or some of these other companies, it's happy that they're colluding to "screw you over" because that means more profits for the companies, which means more growth, with means a "buy" rating from some analyst, and, eventually, a higher stock price.

  10. Adam Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Adam Smith wrote eloquently about this vary topic in 1776! He wrote "Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this [natural] rate". Smith means the natural rate as determined by market supply and demand. Apparently this is precisely what occurred. Those who feel compelled to pen remarks would be well advised to read Adam Smith instead.

  11. The final soultion. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shaka, when the walls fell! Gorbachev and Regan, at Geneva. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!

    Google, when the being wasn't evil. Zuckerberg, his fucks dumb. Eric Schmidt, with nothing to hide. Dathon and Picard at El Adrel.

    Custer, his last stand. Murphey, his law unbroken. Snowden, his PRISM wide open.

    1. Re:The final soultion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up, comment of the year. Could have done without the nazi reference, but nobodies perfect.

    2. Re:The final soultion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's disturbingly accurate. Be gone with you!

    3. Re:The final soultion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or as they sometimes say... pobodies nerfect!

    4. Re:The final soultion. by Rogue974 · · Score: 1

      I just don't know what to say about this comment. The awesomeness of it is unbelievable. You just blew my mind!

    5. Re:The final soultion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you've won Slashdot.

    6. Re:The final soultion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, Grammar Nazi bait in a Nazi reference, Godwinning the title before the post even begins.

      9/10 - Almost perfection. Missing a car reference.

  12. There is a major difference by kasperd · · Score: 2

    There is a major difference between agreeing not to hire from each other, and just not actively going after each other's employees. I have worked at Google in the past, and while I was working there I was actively being approach by facebook recruiters. I was not the only person being approach like that. I heard from multiple colleagues that they too were being contacted by facebook recruiters. I am aware of multiple of my former colleagues who actually did get jobs at facebook.

    To me facebook felt too aggressive in their pursuit of Google engineers. There was a real practice among facebook recruiters to search through linkedin and any other source, where they could identify Google engineers and contact them. I saw enough evidence pointing towards those people being contacted simply because they were currently working for Google. Personally I had zero interest in switching from Google to facebook, I don't think I even bother answering, when I was approached by facebook.

    If Google and facebook had reached an agreement under which facebook would be a little less aggressive in their pursuit of Google engineers, I would not have feared this would have a negative impact on my salary. And it would have felt a bit more reasonable to me. The recruiters could still look for talented employees, and if by chance they end up finding Google employees, they could still approach them just like they would have, if they had not been Google employees. As long as they weren't directly picking candidates based on them working for Google, I would call it an improvement.

    Some people have argued those companies shouldn't even actively be contacting candidates. Instead they should wait for interested candidates to submit a resume on their own. Even that would not even get close to not hiring each other's employees.

    Employees could still move from Google to facebook, they just had to take initiative to submit a resume. I would only consider there to be a real problem, if facebook would reject resumes submitted by candidates, just because they happened to work for Google. I have seen no evidence of such a practice existing.

    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    1. Re:There is a major difference by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey Kasper,

      It's Mike H, remember me? We used to work together in SRE ;) How is the startup going? I have also recently moved on from the big G.

      Now. When this thing first started to bubble up, I didn't feel very concerned either. OK, so I got fewer emails from recruiters than otherwise would. No big deal, not like there was exactly a shortage of those.

      However, I just want to point out one thing:

      I would only consider there to be a real problem, if facebook would reject resumes submitted by candidates, just because they happened to work for Google. I have seen no evidence of such a practice existing.

      Did you read the article? It seems that the only reason such a situation did not occur is because Sandberg told Google to pound sand. During the time in question, these emails clearly show that a very senior Google executive was directly asking Facebook not to hire Google employees, even if they employees in question wanted to go work there and what's more, good corporate relations were being pegged to that demand.

      I must admit, I never knew much about Rosenberg and don't have many memories of him (can't even recall what he looks like). But regardless, this paints Google in a very negative light indeed. Rosenberg was willing to threaten other companies in order to make them stop not just pursuing but actually hiring "his" people. Facebook refused, but who knows what other companies didn't? Was that really the only time he took that approach? Was this a Rosenberg-specific moment of madness/idiocy or does it run deeper? I await further discovery with great interest. Even if this was a brief failure on the behalf of just one executive, that's still completely unacceptable and Rosenberg needs to be fired, now. Employees are not assets whose freedom of employment can be traded for corporate deals and to treat them that way is completely unacceptable.

    2. Re:There is a major difference by synx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I encourage anyone with skin in the game to read the court documents, they are easy to read and really lay out the case for how anti-recruitment agreements (whereby Google agreed not to directly recruit from Apple and vice versa) directly affect overall pay scale. It is laid out clearly, concretely, and isn't just a wishful case. There are a few solid narratives which I think will put google under severe pressure at trial (eg: giving EVERY employee a 10% raise because of Facebook's aggressive recruiting).

      First off, it's a FACT that Google's (and other companies) agreements are illegal. That isn't even what this case is about - the DOJ came to a settlement and Google is no longer allowed to make such agreements. This case is about wage impact and class impact. Now that the class action was certified by a judge, there is good chance that in a trial a connection between the illegal activities the companies in question were conducting and class-impact and wages were affected.

      Since you used to work at Google, presumably you're a smart person, I hope you can see how your own personal feelings about how recruiters from other companies should or should not behave have little bearing on the actual illegal activities that Google was undertaking.

      Now, as a Google employee, you certainly know about the pay bands, right? That your pay is not at the sole discretion of your hiring manager or your manager, but set in a company wide policy that employees of job title X get paid between $A - $B with GSU/RSU/option grants in a specific range as well. There are pay bands for every single title in the company (except maybe executives). Google (and Intel, and many companies) make it a high priority to keep internal equity between employees at given titles (eg: SRE II), so if too many employees were being recruited away and retained they would have to adjust pay, either by giving promotions or adjusting pay bands.

      As we know, Google had to elect to do the latter. In response to Facebook recruiting, Google gave across the board 10% raises, and specific raises to SRE titles as well. This is all laid out in court discovery, and is a fact, even Google's lawyers dont deny that.

      The class filing has a lot of discovery, a strong narrative, and statistical modeling to demonstrate there was "class wide impact" (aka YOU were affected by your coworkers inability to discover their true worth via getting unsolicited job offers).

      Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is ... why is this justified? Where's the legal basis for such a strict restriction? Also how does it affect overall market dynamics? Maybe if there was an country-wide law for this, but what purpose would it serve? In a market based economy wages are set by companies bidding for employees. Since a lot of people in this field have jobs nearly all the time, the only way to find out they are unpaid is to be offered a job with a higher pay. There are only 2 ways for this to happen, one is for the employee to seek, the other is for companies to reach out. Why restrict companies?

      I think a lot of your arguments are around the notion of definitions of "aggressive", polite or decorum. Legally speaking there isnt any distinction here, and I am not sure the common good is benefited by restricting the function of the market of jobs and employees.

    3. Re:There is a major difference by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      If you're being annoyed by Facebook recruiters, it's fairly easy to tell them to GTFO. It's something between you and Facebook, not between Google and Facebook, so there's no reason why Google should intercede on your behalf and negotiate a blanket restriction - especially when that other guy who's in the office next door to you might actually appreciate those offers.

      Amazon seems to be similarly active at trying to recruit people from MS. I don't find it any difficult to tell them that I'm not interested in the career opportunities that they have to offer when they email me every couple of months or so.

    4. Re:There is a major difference by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? It seems that the only reason such a situation did not occur is because Sandberg told Google to pound sand. During the time in question, these emails clearly show that a very senior Google executive was directly asking Facebook not to hire Google employees, even if they employees in question wanted to go work there and what's more, good corporate relations were being pegged to that demand.

      The article didn't come across as entirely clear to me. That particular point I missed on the first reading. I see that Rosenberg did go too far. The position facebook took did mean that in this particular case there was probably no harm done by Rosenberg's move. That doesn't make it acceptable though.

      I wouldn't mind seeing facebook taking a small step towards Rosenberg's position. But Rosenberg was going even further off in the other direction. I'd certainly rather see facebook being a bit too aggressive in their search for candidates than I'd see facebook enter the agreement Rosenberg was suggesting.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    5. Re:There is a major difference by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is ... why is this justified?

      I don't know if it is justified. But enough people have taken that position, that we need to at least acknowledge, that there is a group of people with that opinion.

      It is not hard to understand why some people have that opinion. Nobody want to see their own inbox filled up with offers from loads of companies they'd never want to work for. But of course a few unwanted offers per year is better than a situation where you couldn't apply for those jobs even if you want to.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    6. Re:There is a major difference by Zenth · · Score: 1

      Erm why would no one want to see an inbox filled with offers from companies they don't want to work for? I may not want to work for them, but lots of offers means being in demand. It means never worrying about being laid off and being able to push for raises. That's a win for an employee.

    7. Re:There is a major difference by Arker · · Score: 1

      "I don't know if it is justified. But enough people have taken that position, that we need to at least acknowledge, that there is a group of people with that opinion."

      The top managers at a lot of these companies think this way, because they would rather not have to compete to retain employees, but there is no coherent reason anyone else would take this view other than simple brown-nosing the boss.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:There is a major difference by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      There was a real practice among facebook recruiters to search through linkedin and any other source, where they could identify Google engineers and contact them. I saw enough evidence pointing towards those people being contacted simply because they were currently working for Google. Personally I had zero interest in switching from Google to facebook, I don't think I even bother answering, when I was approached by facebook..

      For what other purpose would you put your employer in your linkedin profile?

    9. Re:There is a major difference by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      I agree with your premise, I think. These agreements are about companies agreeing not to send recruiters INTO THE OFFICES of other companies... that's just crappy business. In fact, at the peak of these booms, companies get into departmental "retaliation" where one person leaves then gets back at their former boss by hiring away co-workers and causing projects to be delayed. That's what was going on at the time and these companies wanted it stopped.

      I think that companies were just agreeing to stop accepting recruiters soliciting from other big companies. In my book that's fair. I've been at offices where the same overzealous recruiter calls every damn extension because they got the company phone list... it's really disruptive and only sews distrust between the remaining employees. If companies want to use another channel like referrals or taking non-solicited applications I'm all for that.

      the other thing of course is that California doesn't respect even limited non-compete agreements. While the buddies in Seattle DO PUNISH their former employees for "cheating" on them. If California would enforce limited non-competes (as well as say yearly contract terms... like apartment leases) then a lot of these issues would never have been issues in the first place.

  13. interesting by mimi4204 · · Score: 1

    There's always going to be a struggle on hiring and retaining the best employees. They have a hard time of making sure intellectual property stays put as it is...but should this spill over to limit talented people's opportunities? Who will the law sway in favor of? This reminds me of a similar post from Ben Horowitz's blog (portraying the situation on a smaller scale) - Is it Okay to Hire People from your Friend's Company? http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it...

  14. Awww. Isn't this cute? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Google and Facebook with their little pissing matches?

    Come to work in the government contracting world. Where the players decide who will win which contracts and which employees each will need. And if you don't play ball, you might have a career as a barista at Starbucks. But they'll make any other companies life hell if they try and hire key people away.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. but it's all the republicans and democrats fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lololololololo llololololololol

  16. There Is No Spoon by mx+b · · Score: 2

    Really, the issue is that people like to attach labels to things so they can strawman you. There really isn't such a thing as a left and a right in American mainstream politics; it is one big Corporate Party where we get the "left" and "right" labels based on which corporate industry you pander to the most. They fight with each other so much only because the industries they represent happen to often be at odds. It's not because either really subscribes to a real philosophy.

    In past elections, when the country has a "vote the bums out" attitude, we see massive switch over from one party to the other. After Bush, there was a flood of congresspeople to the Democrat side for the election so they could be "Not Bush/Republican". After the antics of Obama's first term, we saw a flood of people switching parties to Republican to be "Not Obama/Democrat". Really, the party title means little now because most of these bozos are the SAME PEOPLE, they switch their party affiliation as the wind blows to try to stay in office.

    I say all of this because being leftist/socialist is not necessarily shown as a bad thing just because there are some douches in power that align with the "left". That is a logical fallacy in itself, and we must all try to rise above that and not let the labels define us -- which is exactly what the "left" and "right" want us to do. Let's have a real conversation on the problems of the country, and possible fixes.

    Vote Green Party, Justice Party, or Libertarian Party, in 2014!

  17. It's like choosing a winner between by terrywirth5 · · Score: 1

    a war between Germany and Japan in 1939--nothing good will come from it. Both of them need to focus on their customers as opposed to the profitability of their plutocratic shareholders.

  18. Too bad for you... by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    that the grownups here know that the parties switched a few decades back. Better get some more talking point from your master.

  19. Deeper meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a. Sergey: supply and demand, it's call competition. deal with it.
    b. Facebook: "we have the right to refuse service"-- I guess you have that right.
    c. Any tech employee: your hiring or salary is NOT based on performance, nor skill, it's based on Human Resource games. You are afterall non-union and working on a voluntary basis (employment at will according to law). HR and management decide who climbs the ladder, who makes what bonus and who get credit. You only have a 10% influence in those metrics no matter what you do.

    In the end for the tech worker: this is messed up.

  20. Staffing Agencies == Business Unions by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Apparently you've not heard of the world of contract labor. Staffing agencies, and all other equivalent forms of contingent labor are the employer's version of the union.

    This is due to:
    * Employer pays dues to agency for a set pool of workers
    * Agency organizes workers
    * Businesses gain labor-union style of protections from workers

    If anything, this is a case where Right to Work should be applied, so that workers are not bound by conditions of employment to go with some form of contingent/temporary/etc. employment.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  21. Just more Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just more Jews fighting to fuck you goyim out of the right to compete for a high wage in a fair job market.

  22. Hi guy's I'm sorry ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you guys ask for too much money. Look at me, all I want is $1 per year for my vast genius intellectual input. You guys are too greedy, do you see me taking more than a dollar from the poor company? NO you don't.

    Remember well all love our company, and it does not evil, it's our child, and I have spent several years hiring the correct people to nurture it into the cuddly soft ball of fluff it is now.

    So stop being greedy and running to other companies, unless it is packaging bags in wallmart, in which case say hi to my servants when they are in or and my users.

    Thanks for understanding,

    Sergey, creator of email, searching and youtube.

  23. I am going to school you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Here are some excerpts from the Declaration of Causes of Secession. Its all about slavery.
    The real question is, can you accept new factual data and change you view? That is something only a thinking person can accomplish, so I have my doubts.

    Georgia:
    " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

    Mississippi: Note the sue of the term 'products'
    "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin"

    South Carolina:
    "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

    texas

    She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
    http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-w...

    Those aren't even the most disturbing parts of the declarations of secession
    Consider yourself schooled.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. This is Funny by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    Given the quality of life that Facebook and Google create, this battle over available talent is funny indeed. Both companies should be flushed down the toilet for degrading their customers and the quality of computer science applications, that they give computing a big black eye. I laugh at both of them and wish that they and all the engineers they employ would just go away. And I know something about this having followed python as an important application language at Google and experienced the failings of Facebook's UI and I live within a couple of miles of both companies. I am embarrassed for smart people everywhere when I consider the crap of these designs and the poor ethics of social media and Big Data applications generally, they give Capitalism a bad name too. So, screw them all!

    This comes in the wake of the announcement that the FBI is investigating milisecond equities traders for violations of SEC laws and for speculation that has ruined the U.S. Economy. The same abuse of Big Data could apply to these companies, but under different law. This is not a new problem for Silicon Valley for the whole high availability computing movement begun by companies like Sun Microsystems and taken up by Oracle has trappings of the same sort of abuses of information and the use of Big Data against citizens. If the NSA data collection is the most obvious example of the abuse of information, remember it is the tip of the iceberg and the hardware was supplied by IBM. Oracle, and HP, remember that. Remember that social media is but a result of the Big Data application and its abuses, so good riddance to all those engineers who do that crap!