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

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.

Comments

./ Editors Fail Again

[TFlan91]

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.

Re:./ Editors Fail Again

[tlhIngan]

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).

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

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Bigger penalties this time

[Tablizer]

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/...