A company by itself is already "collectively bargaining" with each individual employee, and they have far more power because of it. Add in additional large companies, and now the employee has absolutely no power whatsoever, and is forced to accept whatever the company will offer.
Unions can force all new hires to become union members
There is apparantly no such thing as loyalty or respect on either side.
Nope. Employers killed that a long time ago.
Employees seem to be willing to change jobs at the drop of a hat.
Employers are willing to drop employees at the drop of a hat, too.
I do tend to fall on the side of Google, et al and I think they are on the side of the consumer, that is you and me.
Obviously you're not a worker, then. Because the harm for all workers, if these agreements are ruled to be ok, far outweighs any marginal benefits for consumers
I fail to see how that has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. There are small tech companies that they could work for, but the absence of the big guys in competition still has a negative effect on the worker's potential.
I agree that companies should compete, but they should not steal employees from a competitor.
Why not? That's exactly what competition is. How can you and I compete for the same employee if there isn't the threat that the employee will leave you for me? Further, if you don't have that threat, what incentive is there for you to actually keep that employee happy?
lets say you are a small startup software company. You employ 10 people, and you are on the verge of becoming the next great search engine. Google comes in and pulls your top 5 people from under you, effectively killing your company. Now don't you wish there was an anti-poaching law?
Sorry, but no. The negative effects of this on workers far, far, far outweighs any benefits to be had.
WRONG. A story about this in Bloomberg said that even if the employee came over on their own, answering a job ad, they were still not allowed to extend an offer. Meaning if you worked at Google, there was absolutely no way you could get a job at Apple.
In any case, antitrust is a waste of resources since cartels are inherently unstable barring state intervention.
Absolute bullshit. Sure, this cartel might possibly fall apart. It might not, either. And if it does, there's no telling how long it will be in place before it does. And by the time it does fall apart, the damage could already be done.
Saying that this should be allowed to continue until it falls apart is telling everyone who is harmed by this "FUCK YOU"
It is legal for companies to put agreements not to work for a competitor in a contract.
When I stop working for that company, the contract no longer applies. And many of these companies are based in, or operate in California, where non-competes are not valid if you're no longer working at the company.
The only time a non-compete should be valid at all is when the company is paying you. They stop paying, and the non-compete should stop having any effect.
Being a janitor doesn't take a high degree of training or skill. While I agree that they should be recognized with sufficient measures of dignity and salary, comparing their salary to that of an engineers is absolutely stupid.
Such agreements aren't limited to engineers. There have also been stories of coffee shops doing the same shit. So if you're a barista making close to minimum wage in a smaller city, if such shit is in place, your ability to negotiate for conditions at your job just plummeted. Now, since you have far fewer alternative places to work, your bargaining power is far lower, meaning you either have to bend over and take it from your employer, or you get to starve on the street.
I see nothing inherently immoral or unethical about this; it just makes good business sense.
I'm sorry, that makes you a complete and utter pile of shit. I don't give a shit what "business sense" it makes, they are colluding to artificially limit the market for that employee's skills.
The people who write comments on here obviously have never owned a business in the real world.
And go fuck yourself. Why should anyone have to "own a business in the real world" in order to see that this is not right, and is another example of Big Business attempting to use their size and power to exert more control on the rest of us?
Absolute not-hire. Even if the employee came to the company on their own, they couldn't extend an offer.
Further, both situations are completely shitty, as both represent a cartel attempting to exert their power to control the price of a resource for the rest of the market. There is absolutely no reason why any of this shit should be allowed to stand.
No, no. It's ok to do that to the lower classes, because this keeps costs down, which lets the upper classes get more. This increase in wealth will eventually trickle down to the lower classes in the form of more shitty, underpaid jobs. Because, you know, companies just hire people out of the goodness of their hearts when they have more money. It has nothing to do with the level of demand at all.
Why does everything have to be about the consumer? What about the worker? Poaching employees can be good for the worker because it represents a larger market for their skills. Without it, their potential market is artificially closed down.
Slashdot Mirror
I still say poaching employees is an overall detriment to the economy.
Nowhere near the amount of harm done by allowing employers to shrink the potential job market like this.
A company by itself is already "collectively bargaining" with each individual employee, and they have far more power because of it. Add in additional large companies, and now the employee has absolutely no power whatsoever, and is forced to accept whatever the company will offer.
Unions can force all new hires to become union members
No, they can't.
It's not. But thanks for playing.
There is apparantly no such thing as loyalty or respect on either side.
Nope. Employers killed that a long time ago.
Employees seem to be willing to change jobs at the drop of a hat.
Employers are willing to drop employees at the drop of a hat, too.
I do tend to fall on the side of Google, et al and I think they are on the side of the consumer, that is you and me.
Obviously you're not a worker, then. Because the harm for all workers, if these agreements are ruled to be ok, far outweighs any marginal benefits for consumers
I fail to see how that has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. There are small tech companies that they could work for, but the absence of the big guys in competition still has a negative effect on the worker's potential.
I agree that companies should compete, but they should not steal employees from a competitor.
Why not? That's exactly what competition is. How can you and I compete for the same employee if there isn't the threat that the employee will leave you for me? Further, if you don't have that threat, what incentive is there for you to actually keep that employee happy?
lets say you are a small startup software company. You employ 10 people, and you are on the verge of becoming the next great search engine. Google comes in and pulls your top 5 people from under you, effectively killing your company. Now don't you wish there was an anti-poaching law?
Sorry, but no. The negative effects of this on workers far, far, far outweighs any benefits to be had.
WRONG. A story about this in Bloomberg said that even if the employee came over on their own, answering a job ad, they were still not allowed to extend an offer. Meaning if you worked at Google, there was absolutely no way you could get a job at Apple.
In any case, antitrust is a waste of resources since cartels are inherently unstable barring state intervention.
Absolute bullshit. Sure, this cartel might possibly fall apart. It might not, either. And if it does, there's no telling how long it will be in place before it does. And by the time it does fall apart, the damage could already be done.
Saying that this should be allowed to continue until it falls apart is telling everyone who is harmed by this "FUCK YOU"
It is legal for companies to put agreements not to work for a competitor in a contract.
When I stop working for that company, the contract no longer applies. And many of these companies are based in, or operate in California, where non-competes are not valid if you're no longer working at the company.
The only time a non-compete should be valid at all is when the company is paying you. They stop paying, and the non-compete should stop having any effect.
Being a janitor doesn't take a high degree of training or skill. While I agree that they should be recognized with sufficient measures of dignity and salary, comparing their salary to that of an engineers is absolutely stupid.
Such agreements aren't limited to engineers. There have also been stories of coffee shops doing the same shit. So if you're a barista making close to minimum wage in a smaller city, if such shit is in place, your ability to negotiate for conditions at your job just plummeted. Now, since you have far fewer alternative places to work, your bargaining power is far lower, meaning you either have to bend over and take it from your employer, or you get to starve on the street.
I see nothing inherently immoral or unethical about this; it just makes good business sense.
I'm sorry, that makes you a complete and utter pile of shit. I don't give a shit what "business sense" it makes, they are colluding to artificially limit the market for that employee's skills.
The people who write comments on here obviously have never owned a business in the real world.
And go fuck yourself. Why should anyone have to "own a business in the real world" in order to see that this is not right, and is another example of Big Business attempting to use their size and power to exert more control on the rest of us?
I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that me and the others in my department are the "heart-blood" of my corporation
What do you think if you and your co-workers just decided to not do anything all day?
I don't give a shit if there are or not. An agreement like this should not be allowed, period.
Absolute not-hire. Even if the employee came to the company on their own, they couldn't extend an offer.
Further, both situations are completely shitty, as both represent a cartel attempting to exert their power to control the price of a resource for the rest of the market. There is absolutely no reason why any of this shit should be allowed to stand.
No, no. It's ok to do that to the lower classes, because this keeps costs down, which lets the upper classes get more. This increase in wealth will eventually trickle down to the lower classes in the form of more shitty, underpaid jobs. Because, you know, companies just hire people out of the goodness of their hearts when they have more money. It has nothing to do with the level of demand at all.
What, you think being a programmer somehow cures someone of greed?
No, not in the least. But why is it somehow bad for a programmer to be greedy, yet encouraged and celebrated for the company to be greedy?
Why does everything have to be about the consumer? What about the worker? Poaching employees can be good for the worker because it represents a larger market for their skills. Without it, their potential market is artificially closed down.
Nice anecdotes. Those aren't data, though.
You know what, asshole? If what you're saying is soooooo obvious, you should have some actual data to back it up.
Way to be an asshole. I'm asking for data. Nobody is giving it to me, but they're sure willing to chastise me for questioning their groupthink.
And people sell games for other reasons than to get the next one.
I'm not denying there's some amount of people who do this. I'm asking what % does it. I don't think it's that many.
Further, people sell games for other reasons all the time.
Ok, that's one anecdote. I'm asking for actual data.
No, I'm not. I'm asking what percentage of consumers buy games with the intent to trade them in later toward the purchase of another new game.
If it's so obvious, then provide some data, then. I'm asking for what percentage of people will do this. I don't think it's that high.