Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung, LG Sued Over US Employee Recruiting Policies (reuters.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the what-agreement? dept.

A former sales manager for LG has sued Samsung and LG in a California court, alleging that both the companies have poached each other's U.S. employees despite having signed an agreement to not do so. Reuters reports: The plaintiff, A. Frost, says in the lawsuit that a recruiter contacted Frost via LinkedIn in 2013, seeking to fill a position with Samsung. According to the lawsuit, the recruiter then informed Frost the same day: "I made a mistake! I'm not supposed to poach LG for Samsung!!! Sorry! The two companies have an agreement that they won't steal each other's employees." It is "implausible" that such a deal in the United States could have been reached without the consent of each company's corporate parent in South Korea, says the lawsuit, which does not state a specific damages amount.

35 comments

  1. BLOWED UP REAL GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the end.
    For them.

    1. Re:BLOWED UP REAL GOOD! by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hardly. There may be some minimal fines, and some consent decrees, and they will continue on with a few token hires and better management of the process.

      Look at Wells Fargo - Such breathtaking violations of consumer finance laws and regulations, literal theft, an organizational culture that both permitted and failed to detect such behavior, and NO ONE will go to jail. The theft charges that were not brought should compel that, and the fines are an order of magnitude less than deserved.

      This is chump change comparatively.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  2. ./ Editors Fail Again by TFlan91 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The editors make this sound like what was wrong was that they were poaching each other's employees despite agreeing not to.

    Wrong.

    What is wrong, as clearly outlined in the article, if the editor took 10 seconds to RTFA, is that such a deal, agreeing not to poach one anothers employees, is against anti-trust laws.

    1. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, terrible fucking summary, Makes it sound like some asshole is suing them for not honoring their non-poaching agreements. The actual article makes it clear that they are actually being sued for HAVING those non-poaching agreements in the first place.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was baffled at how they were being sued for violating a poaching agreements. It was the exact opposite.

    3. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found your problem--you think you're at Dotslash.

    4. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      manishs.

    5. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it proves we still use a human. An algorithm couldn't have done any worse. ...as clearly outlined...in the FIRST sentence. sigh

    6. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      FIY: non-competes, and antipoaching agreements are illegal in South Korea

    7. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by tlhIngan · · Score: 1, Informative

      What is wrong, as clearly outlined in the article, if the editor took 10 seconds to RTFA, is that such a deal, agreeing not to poach one anothers employees, is against anti-trust laws.

      It's alleged that it's against anti-trust.

      Anti-poaching agreements are NOT anti-hiring agreements. If Apple and Google have an anti-poaching agreement, employees are actually freely able to move between Apple and Google. It's always been the case. All an anti-poaching agreement states is one will not cold-call the other.

      Of course, as we all know, there are plenty of loopholes - if Apple really wanted a Google employee, even with an anti-poach agreement in effect, they will try to recruit the person. It's not hard - the line between poaching and freely exploring other opportunities is really who initiates contact. if Apple (or a representative of Apple) contacts said Google employee, then that's poaching. But if somehow, through some manner that employee learns that Apple has an opportunity they may be interested in, and that employee applies for it, that's not poaching.

      Hell, those things are usually done off the record - a friend of said person working for Apple may phone, meet in person or other generally non-paper-trail leaving mechanism.

      Granted, being poached sounds cool, but most people applying for jobs don't get poached - they just apply for opportunities they hear about - either through job boards, or being pushed by someone to apply for a particular position.

      And yes, I worked for a company with an anti-poaching agreement with another. I was practically given a job with the other company - the manager even told me I would get it if I applied (on the phone only, and only calling me at home). And yes, I got the offer.

      If you're good, anti-poaching agreements really don't apply. Of course, if you're the kind of person to burns bridges and hates coworkers or even socializing at work,then yes, it's a lot harder (you often hear of this through your network, and networking is the only way to bypass anti-poaching easily).

    8. Re:./ Editors Fail Again by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      Ha, didn't even see that mistake!

      If that domain wasn't on sale for 10k USD, I would be tempted to mirror ./ but with actual edited summaries.

  3. it is no /.'s fault - Re:./ Editors Fail Again by w3bd4wg · · Score: 1

    the only resumes they are getting are from companies they are not allowed to call...

  4. such a deal is not ok under CA labor laws as well by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    such a deal is not ok under CA labor laws as well other places.

  5. What I thought by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    When I read the synopsis, I figured the lawsuit was filed AFTER the bonehead recruiter let slip to the potential candidate that there was an agreement in place. To which I'm sure the candidate thought, "wtf?". And thus the lawsuit was born.

    Didn't this happen to Apple and Google some time back too?

  6. Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something doesn't pass the smell test.

    I'm expected to believe that Samsung and LG made a secret agreement not to poach each other's employees.

    And then the hiring managers were free to blab this to the outside headhunters, informing them of this non-poaching agreement?

    I certainly have no reason to doubt that there was a secret agreement, especially given the track record mentioned in the TFA. But, as Mr. Spock would say: this is not logical.

    1. Re:Wait...what? by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then the hiring managers were free to blab this to the outside headhunters, informing them of this non-poaching agreement?

      Pretty tough to honor an agreement like that if you don't let the people doing the hiring know about it.

      And once such information makes it to HR - Well, when did your company last send a copy of your tax information to a Nigerian prince who asked nicely?

    2. Re:Wait...what? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And once such information makes it to HR - Well, when did your company last send a copy of your tax information to a Nigerian prince who asked nicely?

      Does that happen very often?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Wait...what? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Our accounting system has an auto-forward rule set up that just sends your ADP login info to every email address in the whois db that is in Nigeria.

    4. Re:Wait...what? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's convenient.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Wait...what? by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      that made me giggle irl

      i'd mod this "funny", but i commented previously :(

    6. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty tough to honor an agreement like that if you don't let the people doing the hiring know about it.

      No, it's pretty easy. It just every resume that gets sent in, that lists the other company on the employment history, gets round-filed.

    7. Re:Wait...what? by pla · · Score: 1

      every resume that gets sent in, that lists the other company on the employment history, gets round-filed.

      And who, exactly does that "filing"? Does a company the size of Samsung have all 50,000 resumes they get per day sent directly to their VP of Secret Anti-Trust Agreement Compliance?

  7. Bigger penalties this time by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    It appears the penalty for Apple/Google/Et-al's anti-poaching deal a few years ago was not strong enough to send a message to other companies thinking of the same.

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Bigger penalties this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual purpose of anti-poaching laws is to ensure that the government gets its cut of the savings while simultaneously making the masses (incorrectly) believe that the government is protecting their interests.

      And they succeed on both counts.

    2. Re:Bigger penalties this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual purpose of anti-poaching laws is to ensure that the government gets its cut of the savings [...]

      no, you are confused. Anti-poaching laws make the cost of employees higher because they have more options of employers offering jobs to choose from.
      Everyone makes more money if there are no illegal barriers like poaching agreements.

  8. No surprises there by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    It's Samsung that we are talking about.

    1. Re: No surprises there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a few years ago it was Apple and Google. What's your point?

  9. Waffle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You waffle too much.

    The correct response is:

    FREE MARKET BITCHES!?!

  10. Re: anti-trust laws by emaname · · Score: 1

    Do you mean there actually are anti-trust laws that are being enforced?

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  11. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not new new corporate behavior. In the 1960s, the major oil Companies (the "seven sisters") had non-poaching agreements managing to keep tight lids on tech salaries despite vastly lopsided supply/demand at the time. A lot of STEM types, myself included, left the business. The unions had them by the short hairs however and an oilfield roughneck was making more than a tier 1 university STEM grad with 5 years experience.

  12. Suspiciously low employee cross-over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it easy to figure out which large companies have non-poaching agreements by the artificially low employee crossovers between the companies?

  13. Wouldn't that be an illegal agreement? by mr_java66 · · Score: 0

    INAL, but,

    I would think it would be illegal for companies to decide to not hire eachother's active employees.

    1. Re:Wouldn't that be an illegal agreement? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      You would be wrong in a general sense. In California it is almost completely illegal. In other states, ymmv. It depends on whether they can give adequate pretext, I think a lot boils down to case law in various locales, IANAL. Texas isn't quite the wild unregulated west I thought it was, but it's also pretty much legal here.

      There's also shades of illegality. A thing can be illegal in that it nullifies contracts, but end up being widely done in practice because the penalties are moot.

      If there's ever been proof that the government has sold out the middle class, it's usually found in employment laws. People get too expensive, something is done to make them cheap.

  14. Re:such a deal is not ok under CA labor laws as we by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    as well other places.

    Precious few other places.

  15. Corporate espionage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to posting a job opening in a public venue or publication, and letting all interested people apply? How would Samsung or LG even know who is employed at the other company, what level of performance they offer, and how to reach them? This whole poaching phenomenon would seem to also require hacking or espionage into the inner workings of the competition's personnel. If anyone can shed light on what I'm missing here, please do.