4 ms·
I'm curious what the collective stance at HN is on this, because it sounds like there is a big difference between possible policies: A. Companies agree not to
by t0mas88 5y ago
I'm curious what the collective stance at HN is on this, because it sounds like there is a big difference between possible policies:
A. Companies agree not to persuade each other's employees to leave their role (but when they apply on their own, free to hire them)
B. Companies agree not to hire each other's employees
C. Companies agree to set a certain cap or target salary together for similar roles
I think A is not uncommon? And it is as far as I know even in my own contract that I cannot for example compel former colleagues to follow me to a new company for the first 12 months after leaving. These emails could be explained as only agreeing on A?
But the allegation I think is that some in "big tech" also did B and C or similar things? Or is just A already illegal?
- resoluteteeth 5y agoI believe A is already illegal. Also, an agreement not to recruit former co-workers for a period after you leave the company is different than two specific companies agreeing not to poach each other's employees.
- belter 5y agoCompanies to Employees: When is to hire employees the market dictates. If you are not happy you can work somewhere else, we have other candidates and if you move somewhere else we pay you according to the local cost of living. Its the free capitalist market after all and you are enjoying the benefits. Companies to Companies: Lets agree not to compete on salary....