13 ms·
Seems like a gross overreaction to fire the recruiter in question.
by type_Ben_struct 5y ago
Seems like a gross overreaction to fire the recruiter in question.
- vlovich123 5y agoThere was a secret (illegal) anti-poaching deal. The firing was in line with that. If you didn't then there's no deal.
- type_Ben_struct 5y agoAsking the recruiter not to do this again would be a more reasonable approach
- igetspam 5y agoNot having a coordinated effort to effectively avoid wage inflation due to competition would be a more reasonable approach too. Then again, the law says this wasn't a reasonable course.
- type_Ben_struct 5y agoI’m not disagreeing with you, but my point still stands.
- vehementi 5y agoNo, it crucially doesn't. Any action whatsoever, a warning, anything, against this recruiter on the basis of their ILLEGAL COLLUSION is wrong
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bananabreakfast 5y agoReasonable to who? If they didn't fire that recruiter, they risked off-setting the delicate employee cartel balance they had going. It was a summary execution to show they were serious so they could keep Jobs from unleashing his recruiters all over Google's employees.
- fullshark 5y agoHe needed to convey that he wasn't violating the agreement and that he considered any violation of said agreement to be egregious.
- suyash 5y agoNo sympathy for recruiters, most of them are the worst of the worst in tech.
- paxys 5y agoSomeone had to be thrown under the bus to inflate CEO egos