12 ms·

I tend to lean more conservative but I have to say that the government cracking down on this seems like a good thing. I have a hard time seeing how companies c

I tend to lean more conservative but I have to say that the government cracking down on this seems like a good thing. I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. However I don't have a great understanding of all the issues at play here, so I may be wrong. Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?

jeromec 16y ago
I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. If you're an employee who has invested money and many years building up skills and education to become valuable to companies you might have a different view. It's a coincidence this article comes on the heels of AngelGate, where it was Angels seeking to form anti-competitive agreements for their own benefit -- and less benefit for entrepreneurs.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  I parsed your response five times, and I think you've got it backwards. The OP was stating that he thinks this is negative for employees.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    You're right, the OP and I have the same position. I read the comment quickly and focused on the "Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?"
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
smakz 16y ago
Honestly this seems like a cash grab from the federal government more then anything. Knowing friends who worked at these companies, they never felt the anti competitive pressure, and several moved between the companies several times. Most likely, the government found some clauses buried in some contracts that said in a foot note that the companies would agree not to cold call employees in their own respective companies. I don't even think it's unreasonable to have a contract along those lines if engineers are working directly with each other. Although on the flip side, I think it might be valuable to send a message that anti-competitive agreements in general won't be tolerated and it's good to know that there are people watching this sort of thing.
- j_baker 16y ago
  I have yet to see any article actually say that there was any monetary part to the settlement. It basically just said "We promise not to do it again for 5 years".
- parallax7d 16y ago
  I don't see anything wrong with these alleged agreements, per se, but it sets a terrible anti competitive precedent that is all manner of bad for employee marketability. It would be difficult to sus out the truth of what these types of agreements actually do behind the closed doors of these company's HR departments.
  - jbjohns 16y ago
    Do you believe in the free market? If so, you really don't see anything wrong with companies conspiring together to constrict that market for employees?
    - parallax7d 16y ago
      I'm not sure you understood my comment.
rphillips 16y ago
Agreed. This decision is a good thing. I have first hand experience with the anti-poaching policy, since I work for a different company that employs the same practice. When I was searching for a job within town I was told by recruiting firms and other companies that they could not and would not talk to me, because of the agreements they have with my employer. It makes searching for a job extremely difficult as one might suspect. It is effectively a job monopoly, since wages become fixed due to the lack of competition for jobs. For the longer term, I would like to see a federal law enacted against the anti-poaching employment practice.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Why Federal Law? Wouldn't it make sense to try it at the local level and see it's effects before pushing it to the national?
  - rphillips 16y ago
    The local level is a good place to start; however, I believe the problem is more rampant. Google, Apple, and Pixar are mostly California companies. Google and Apple do have offices here in Texas where I work, and their policies were in affect here too. So the problem crosses state boundaries, which would need a Federal fix.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Federal law is needed for something that crosses state boundaries. This kind of collusion between big players is likely to cross state boundaries. Let's put it the other way: why do you think what works on a smaller scale (local companies) will necessarily tell us how it will work on a national scale (large national companies)?
  - hga 16y ago
    This has long been recognized as a problem: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book I, Chapter X, Part II And therefore it's long been a part of US Federal anti-trust law and case law. Modern Republican administrations in particular have tended to focus their attention on these type of price fixing cases.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
The problem with regulation is that most regulation (and taxation as well) tends to create advantages for bigger corporations. Given that, it's important that if you do have any significant degree of regulation you also need a corresponding amount of regulations that check the power of big corporations. This is a perfect example of just why that's necessary.

jeromec 16y ago

I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. If you're an employee who has invested money and many years building up skills and education to become valuable to companies you might have a different view. It's a coincidence this article comes on the heels of AngelGate, where it was Angels seeking to form anti-competitive agreements for their own benefit -- and less benefit for entrepreneurs.

ghshephard 16y ago
I parsed your response five times, and I think you've got it backwards. The OP was stating that he thinks this is negative for employees.
- jeromec 16y ago
  You're right, the OP and I have the same position. I read the comment quickly and focused on the "Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?"
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

smakz 16y ago

Honestly this seems like a cash grab from the federal government more then anything. Knowing friends who worked at these companies, they never felt the anti competitive pressure, and several moved between the companies several times. Most likely, the government found some clauses buried in some contracts that said in a foot note that the companies would agree not to cold call employees in their own respective companies. I don't even think it's unreasonable to have a contract along those lines if engineers are working directly with each other. Although on the flip side, I think it might be valuable to send a message that anti-competitive agreements in general won't be tolerated and it's good to know that there are people watching this sort of thing.

j_baker 16y ago
I have yet to see any article actually say that there was any monetary part to the settlement. It basically just said "We promise not to do it again for 5 years".
parallax7d 16y ago
I don't see anything wrong with these alleged agreements, per se, but it sets a terrible anti competitive precedent that is all manner of bad for employee marketability. It would be difficult to sus out the truth of what these types of agreements actually do behind the closed doors of these company's HR departments.
- jbjohns 16y ago
  Do you believe in the free market? If so, you really don't see anything wrong with companies conspiring together to constrict that market for employees?
  - parallax7d 16y ago
    I'm not sure you understood my comment.

rphillips 16y ago

Agreed. This decision is a good thing. I have first hand experience with the anti-poaching policy, since I work for a different company that employs the same practice. When I was searching for a job within town I was told by recruiting firms and other companies that they could not and would not talk to me, because of the agreements they have with my employer. It makes searching for a job extremely difficult as one might suspect. It is effectively a job monopoly, since wages become fixed due to the lack of competition for jobs. For the longer term, I would like to see a federal law enacted against the anti-poaching employment practice.

dantheman 16y ago
Why Federal Law? Wouldn't it make sense to try it at the local level and see it's effects before pushing it to the national?
- rphillips 16y ago
  The local level is a good place to start; however, I believe the problem is more rampant. Google, Apple, and Pixar are mostly California companies. Google and Apple do have offices here in Texas where I work, and their policies were in affect here too. So the problem crosses state boundaries, which would need a Federal fix.
- scott_s 16y ago
  Federal law is needed for something that crosses state boundaries. This kind of collusion between big players is likely to cross state boundaries. Let's put it the other way: why do you think what works on a smaller scale (local companies) will necessarily tell us how it will work on a national scale (large national companies)?
- hga 16y ago
  This has long been recognized as a problem: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book I, Chapter X, Part II And therefore it's long been a part of US Federal anti-trust law and case law. Modern Republican administrations in particular have tended to focus their attention on these type of price fixing cases.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

The problem with regulation is that most regulation (and taxation as well) tends to create advantages for bigger corporations. Given that, it's important that if you do have any significant degree of regulation you also need a corresponding amount of regulations that check the power of big corporations. This is a perfect example of just why that's necessary.