6 ms·

DoJ: Apple, Google Now Free to Steal Each Other's Staff; This Is Better How?

25 points by jrwoodruff 16y ago

robertg 16y ago
"But, who benefits in this case?" uh.... everyone. Trying to sue someone so you can force your employees to stay is lose/lose.
- zephyrfalcon 16y ago
  None of the companies involved in this ruling forced their employees to stay. They didn't stop them from getting a job at a competitor either. All the original agreement said was that the companies involved would not actively try to lure employees away from each other.
nerfhammer 16y ago
"steal" each other's staff. Fascinating how some people conceptualize this.
- ergo98 16y ago
  It's the slavery, owned-property model. It really is grotesque.
btmorex 16y ago
This guys analysis is pretty bad. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think the deal was at all about maintaining good partner relations. I think it was more about trying to hold wages down in the valley. I realize that it was only a handful of companies, but those are the companies that literally everyone else looks to (for wage levels) and competes with for employees. It's quite possible that that agreement had very real effects on average salaries.
- shin_lao 16y ago
  I don't see how a company could have prevented an employee from leaving voluntary. The article states that the company agreed not to use the most aggressive recruitment techniques (cold calling) on each other, which sounds like a gentlemen agreement more than collusion. Google states that they recruited from Adobe, Intel, Apple, etc., that's pretty easy to verify.
  - reader5000 16y ago
    He said the practice would repress wages. Absolutely nothing about leaving voluntarily. It seems pretty reasonable that an agreement banning the most aggressive forms of recruitment would have some negative effect on employee compensation.
  - ohyes 16y ago
    They agreed not to actively compete for each other's employees. In my simplistic (possibly wrong) view; If you look at employment as a market place, and individual employees as different commodities, it keeps the market price of employees (specifically the extremely talented ones) artificially low. In the extreme it would be similar to price fixing. This is good for Larry and Sergei and Steve, but not good for the rest of us. They shouldn't be making any agreements about hiring practices. (Gentlemen's or not).
    - matwood 16y ago
      I think your view is spot on. This was large companies engaging in collusion to artificially hold down wages in the labor market. The article mentions that employees should know their worth, but doesn't mention how? The only way to know is to either actively seek a new job and get offers or be approached through cold calling. This ruling clearly helps the employee.
- borism 16y ago
  Spot on! Here's much better analysis: excerpt: It's not just that their actions are shameful. It's not just that these actions violate everything Silicon Valley represents. These agreements reveal a profound insecurity about their ability to compete on free and fair terms with one another. http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16167551 http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16167551
yardie 16y ago
steal? I wasn't aware that you could own someone in the modern world. Poach, entice, lure, certainly, but steal?
kj12345 16y ago
I think it's right to be strict on this given that the labor market is so asymmetrical even without anti-poaching collusion. Employers get detailed resumes, credit reports, references, and often salary history before hiring. Employees are expected to believe the company's marketing about being a great place to work, get no references, and the salaries of others at the company are kept secret. Hopefully sites like http://www.glassdoor.com http://www.glassdoor.com can help to even out this imbalance.
- mmt 16y ago
  Hopefully sites like http://www.glassdoor.com http://www.glassdoor.com can help to even out this imbalance. Agreed. I'm a huge fan of glassdoor and would encourage everyone (including managers/founders) to participate. They seem to encourage balance and only criticism that is constructive.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Imagine these compianies controlled who offered you cars, or siding, or which schools your kids got invited to. Its not a decision they have the right to make for their employees - its paternal and selfish. I know, its just cold calls, and smaller companies make these agreements (or just don't do it out of respect). But these are not small companies. They must behave differently.
- zephyrfalcon 16y ago
  "Imagine these compianies controlled who offered you cars, or siding, or which schools your kids got invited to. Its not a decision they have the right to make for their employees" And so they don't. All these companies decided was that THEY don't aggressively try to recruit employees from certain other companies. They are not "controlling" anything. Their employees are free to apply wherever they want, including other companies that were part of the informal agreement, and those companies are free to hire them if they want. I agree that recruiting employees from other companies isn't "stealing", and the argument that this agreement could artificially lower wages isn't unreasonable either. However, some people seem to be jumping to conclusions here. The agreement does NOT mean that someone cannot move from e.g. Google to Apple (etc), nor that Google would sue Apple if they did, nor that any of these companies "control" where their employees are going.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    That's why I said "Imagine". My point being that this is a small step, but in the wrong direction.
natemartin 16y ago
How often do people recruit through cold-calls anymore? I was at one of the companies mentioned, and was contacted by a recruiter from another one of the companies menteioned, but they contacted me through linked-in, not through a cold-call. Did the agreement really matter anymore with all the alternative ways of communicating? (I ended up leaving where I was, but didn't go to the place that was recruiting me.)
warmfuzzykitten 16y ago
Life may be complicated, but the antitrust laws are very simple. Competitors may not collude. Ever. Even if some random blogger whines about it.

25 points by jrwoodruff 16y ago

"But, who benefits in this case?" uh.... everyone. Trying to sue someone so you can force your employees to stay is lose/lose.

zephyrfalcon 16y ago
None of the companies involved in this ruling forced their employees to stay. They didn't stop them from getting a job at a competitor either. All the original agreement said was that the companies involved would not actively try to lure employees away from each other.

nerfhammer 16y ago

"steal" each other's staff. Fascinating how some people conceptualize this.

ergo98 16y ago
It's the slavery, owned-property model. It really is grotesque.

btmorex 16y ago

This guys analysis is pretty bad. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think the deal was at all about maintaining good partner relations. I think it was more about trying to hold wages down in the valley. I realize that it was only a handful of companies, but those are the companies that literally everyone else looks to (for wage levels) and competes with for employees. It's quite possible that that agreement had very real effects on average salaries.

shin_lao 16y ago
I don't see how a company could have prevented an employee from leaving voluntary. The article states that the company agreed not to use the most aggressive recruitment techniques (cold calling) on each other, which sounds like a gentlemen agreement more than collusion. Google states that they recruited from Adobe, Intel, Apple, etc., that's pretty easy to verify.
- reader5000 16y ago
  He said the practice would repress wages. Absolutely nothing about leaving voluntarily. It seems pretty reasonable that an agreement banning the most aggressive forms of recruitment would have some negative effect on employee compensation.
- ohyes 16y ago
  They agreed not to actively compete for each other's employees. In my simplistic (possibly wrong) view; If you look at employment as a market place, and individual employees as different commodities, it keeps the market price of employees (specifically the extremely talented ones) artificially low. In the extreme it would be similar to price fixing. This is good for Larry and Sergei and Steve, but not good for the rest of us. They shouldn't be making any agreements about hiring practices. (Gentlemen's or not).
  - matwood 16y ago
    I think your view is spot on. This was large companies engaging in collusion to artificially hold down wages in the labor market. The article mentions that employees should know their worth, but doesn't mention how? The only way to know is to either actively seek a new job and get offers or be approached through cold calling. This ruling clearly helps the employee.
borism 16y ago
Spot on! Here's much better analysis: excerpt: It's not just that their actions are shameful. It's not just that these actions violate everything Silicon Valley represents. These agreements reveal a profound insecurity about their ability to compete on free and fair terms with one another. http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16167551 http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16167551

yardie 16y ago

steal? I wasn't aware that you could own someone in the modern world. Poach, entice, lure, certainly, but steal?

kj12345 16y ago

I think it's right to be strict on this given that the labor market is so asymmetrical even without anti-poaching collusion. Employers get detailed resumes, credit reports, references, and often salary history before hiring. Employees are expected to believe the company's marketing about being a great place to work, get no references, and the salaries of others at the company are kept secret. Hopefully sites like http://www.glassdoor.com http://www.glassdoor.com can help to even out this imbalance.

mmt 16y ago
Hopefully sites like http://www.glassdoor.com http://www.glassdoor.com can help to even out this imbalance. Agreed. I'm a huge fan of glassdoor and would encourage everyone (including managers/founders) to participate. They seem to encourage balance and only criticism that is constructive.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

Imagine these compianies controlled who offered you cars, or siding, or which schools your kids got invited to. Its not a decision they have the right to make for their employees - its paternal and selfish. I know, its just cold calls, and smaller companies make these agreements (or just don't do it out of respect). But these are not small companies. They must behave differently.

zephyrfalcon 16y ago
"Imagine these compianies controlled who offered you cars, or siding, or which schools your kids got invited to. Its not a decision they have the right to make for their employees" And so they don't. All these companies decided was that THEY don't aggressively try to recruit employees from certain other companies. They are not "controlling" anything. Their employees are free to apply wherever they want, including other companies that were part of the informal agreement, and those companies are free to hire them if they want. I agree that recruiting employees from other companies isn't "stealing", and the argument that this agreement could artificially lower wages isn't unreasonable either. However, some people seem to be jumping to conclusions here. The agreement does NOT mean that someone cannot move from e.g. Google to Apple (etc), nor that Google would sue Apple if they did, nor that any of these companies "control" where their employees are going.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  That's why I said "Imagine". My point being that this is a small step, but in the wrong direction.

natemartin 16y ago

How often do people recruit through cold-calls anymore? I was at one of the companies mentioned, and was contacted by a recruiter from another one of the companies menteioned, but they contacted me through linked-in, not through a cold-call. Did the agreement really matter anymore with all the alternative ways of communicating? (I ended up leaving where I was, but didn't go to the place that was recruiting me.)

warmfuzzykitten 16y ago

Life may be complicated, but the antitrust laws are very simple. Competitors may not collude. Ever. Even if some random blogger whines about it.