7 ms·

Jobs was told anti-poaching idea likely illegal

84 points by FluidDjango 15y ago

Macsenour 15y ago
This completely fits with what we know about Jobs, he felt laws didn't apply to him. I hesitate to say this is an "Apple" policy when it was Jobs calling another CEO and proposing a gentleman's agreement.
- smokinn 15y ago
  Why do you hesitate to say it was an Apple policy? The whole HR staff at both companies were involved. The fact that it was personally negotiated by two people at the top has no bearing on the fact that the companies were abiding by it. These types of whole-company-on-board policies change departments permanently as well. If HR were willing to poach they would have ended up with "specialists" whose entire jobs were to basically "infiltrate" (either literally or externally at social functions) other companies, figure out who to poach and get them. None of those exist at those companies because of this policy.
  - molmalo 15y ago
    I think that qualifies as industrial espionage. There are laws that forbid that behavior. And it is punishable with jail time. I don't know how many CEO's are willing to bet their necks doing that.
  - Macsenour 15y ago
    I hesitate because there is a difference in my mind between a stated policy and something that is discouraged from the top due to a phone conversation or one time email.
twelvechairs 15y ago
Its disgusting to see that in this day and age that large companies can be actively engaged in such collusive anti-competitive practices. I dont care who they are or whether or not they knew that what they were doing was illegal - the architects of this 'gentlemans agreement' should have time in jail for this.
- spindritf 15y ago
  Jail time for agreeing not to cold-call employees of another company? ~~There is no evidence for anything more, and I don't know if there is any evidence that they actually followed through~~ (the history of cartels show that those agreements were rarely adhered to strictly, it seems even more unlikely considering how those companies are hurting for talent). Edit: OK, kryptiskt has a point.
  - kryptiskt 15y ago
    > Jail time for agreeing not to cold-call employees of another company? There are evidence of worse than that: "The evidence states that the defendants agreed not to poach employees from each other or give them offers if they voluntarily applied, and to notify the current employers of any employees trying to switch been. They also agreed not to enter into bidding wars and to limit the potential for employees to negotiate for higher salaries." http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/damning-evidence-emerges-in-google-apple-no-poach-antitrust-lawsuit/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/damning-evidence-emerges-in...
    - encoderer 15y ago
      That enrages me. For good engineers in the valley, we're easily talking the 110-160k range. So they're definitely not part of the poor, unrepresented masses. Still, that these mega-billionaires sat in their executive suites and pulled strings to harm and limit careers, it sickens me.
debt 15y ago
Apple creates such innovative products yet seems to subscribe to such regressive social policies. I have trouble gauging whether their products should be considered progress when things like this anti-poaching policy come to light.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  They're a large corporation with shareholders to satisfy. With so much economic incentive to cheat it's not very surprising that they do. Disappointing, but not surprising.
va_coder 15y ago
What is theft? Apple is suing multiple companies in the name of IP theft. Well I think these anti-poaching agreements are a form of theft. Employees did not receive fair market salaries. It's not black and white, but you can't say Apple is 100% correct in going after IP theft and yet they are 100% innocent in pursuing these non-poaching agreements.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >Employees did not receive fair market salaries. Wait - what ? When consumer groups decide to boycott a product does that mean they are denying the producer a fair market price ?
  - ryanmolden 15y ago
    Consumer boycotts are rarely about price, if the price of a good is too high people simply don't buy it, which is a clear signal to the seller. A boycott is not denying anyone any right as there is no 'right' that people are compelled to buy the product you are offering. Contrast this with what this case alleges, that Apple, Google, etc.. entered into an active agreement that not only would they not actively recruit (I am fine with that agreement) but more so they would not even hire if someone came to them completely 'out of the blue' but happened to work for one of these other companies currently. Further, they would actually alert the employer, likely so the employer could take some action against their property...I mean employee. The stupidity of ideas like this is they are counterproductive. If your employees are 'shopping around' or seriously entertaining recruitment offers it likely means they are unhappy in your employ. In this case it is best for everyone for them to go elsewhere. You know how you retain good employees? By giving them challenging work, minimizing stupid bureaucratic taxes, avoiding silly office politics, paying them fairly and treating them with basic dignity and respect. What a concept.
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      >A boycott is not denying anyone any right as there is no 'right' that people are compelled to buy the product you are offering. As opposed to labor where you have a right to compel any company to hire you ?
gergles 15y ago
I wonder how the Google fanboys will reconcile this with "Don't Be Evil". Colluding to keep salaries low and to prevent career mobility for your employees is pretty fucking evil in my book.
- pyre 15y ago
  > I wonder how the Google fanboys will reconcile > this with "Don't Be Evil" Nope. This isn't likely to start a flame war/pointless Internet argument at all...
SquareWheel 15y ago
I'm not sure I understand why these anti-poaching agreements are or should be illegal. I understand the argument to be that, with no where else to go, they can lower the salaries of highly-skilled employees. But isn't there always somewhere else to go? If Apple employees can't go to Adobe, there's always Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and a sea of startups. Apologies for my ignorance on the matter, but I'm just not seeing what the big deal is.
- thurn 15y ago
  Unless you can't get a job at those companies, or don't want to work at them, or they also get involved in the collusion. Then you're actively being hurt.
- 3pt14159 15y ago
  I agree. If natural persons can form collectives, guilds, and unions why can't corporate persons do the same? This is, of course, assuming that there is no special grant or license issued by the government to engage in that form of work.
  - thomaslangston 15y ago
    I don't believe corporate persons should have the same rights as natural persons and I'm not alone in that belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
    - hncommenter13 15y ago
      1. This has nothing to do with the decision in Citizens United. This is about anti-trust regulation, which regulates collusive behavior, not speech. Any speech incidental to such a conspiracy (whether to rob a bank or fix wages in a labor market) is not protected anyway, whether it's an individual or a corporation speaking. 2. Please don't misrepresent the decision in Citizens United to make it stand for something which it does not. The holding in Citizens United was not that corporations == natural persons or that corporations have the same rights as natural persons. The holding was that that natural persons don't lose their rights to free speech (paid for with their own funds) because they join together into legal associations. Similar to how natural persons don't lose their 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure or their 5th amendment protections against the government seizing their property when they form such associations.
mgkimsal 15y ago
"They also agreed not to enter into bidding wars and to limit the potential for employees to negotiate for higher salaries." But... but... but... If companies can't be allowed to limit salary negotiations, how else can they claim there's a shortage of skilled talent in the US, necessitating importing cheaper labor?
jeffdavis 15y ago
I'd be interested to know what "anti-poaching" actually means. It could mean several things, which I'm listing from most reasonable to least reasonable: * Don't try to sabotage the other company's projects by explicitly recruiting key people at crucial times for the project; but it's fine to hire for your own company's productivity. * Don't use the competing company as just a pool of candidates (e.g. stand outside their door asking people to apply to your company); but if you happen to find them through other means (e.g. they come to you, you find them at a conference, etc.), then hire them. * Don't ever hire directly from the other company. * Don't hire someone from a competitor even if they already left. * Don't hire someone that ever worked for a competitor. So, how far do the actual agreements go? Did I miss a potential level of "anti-poaching"?
- Macsenour 15y ago
  I agree with the first 3, as part of the "policy", not sure about the last 2. I don't think the last 2 could be considered poaching.
wycats 15y ago
This headline is a good example of the problem with the passive voice. My first assumption when reading the headline was that an Apple lawyer told him that. A better headline would be something like: "Palm CEO Told Jobs Anti-Poaching Pact 'Likely Illegal'" In general, using the passive voice in a news context anonymizes the subjects of a particular story. In this case, the headline writer probably did so in order to make Jobs the only subject of the headline, but it hides very important information about the story. You're probably thinking that the first sentence provides the information, but studies show that a large percentage of news readers read only the headline (I suspect that is especially true about news aggregators), and that there is a precipitous decline in readership in every sentence thereafter. As a result, newswriters usually pay a lot of attention to making sure that headlines and article ledes have as much pertinent information as possible. As it should be.
- baddox 15y ago
  How does this have anything to do with the passive voice? They could easily have written "Jobs told by Palm CEO that deal was likely legal."
- molmalo 15y ago
  I think the reason behind this title it to attract more eyes to the story. Jobs sells. Palm CEO ? Who care what palm' CEO says? Yahoo News is a notorious example of using the titles to make people read the full story. And I think it's pretty common elsewhere.

84 points by FluidDjango 15y ago

This completely fits with what we know about Jobs, he felt laws didn't apply to him. I hesitate to say this is an "Apple" policy when it was Jobs calling another CEO and proposing a gentleman's agreement.

smokinn 15y ago
Why do you hesitate to say it was an Apple policy? The whole HR staff at both companies were involved. The fact that it was personally negotiated by two people at the top has no bearing on the fact that the companies were abiding by it. These types of whole-company-on-board policies change departments permanently as well. If HR were willing to poach they would have ended up with "specialists" whose entire jobs were to basically "infiltrate" (either literally or externally at social functions) other companies, figure out who to poach and get them. None of those exist at those companies because of this policy.
- molmalo 15y ago
  I think that qualifies as industrial espionage. There are laws that forbid that behavior. And it is punishable with jail time. I don't know how many CEO's are willing to bet their necks doing that.
- Macsenour 15y ago
  I hesitate because there is a difference in my mind between a stated policy and something that is discouraged from the top due to a phone conversation or one time email.

twelvechairs 15y ago

Its disgusting to see that in this day and age that large companies can be actively engaged in such collusive anti-competitive practices. I dont care who they are or whether or not they knew that what they were doing was illegal - the architects of this 'gentlemans agreement' should have time in jail for this.

spindritf 15y ago
Jail time for agreeing not to cold-call employees of another company? ~~There is no evidence for anything more, and I don't know if there is any evidence that they actually followed through~~ (the history of cartels show that those agreements were rarely adhered to strictly, it seems even more unlikely considering how those companies are hurting for talent). Edit: OK, kryptiskt has a point.
- kryptiskt 15y ago
  > Jail time for agreeing not to cold-call employees of another company? There are evidence of worse than that: "The evidence states that the defendants agreed not to poach employees from each other or give them offers if they voluntarily applied, and to notify the current employers of any employees trying to switch been. They also agreed not to enter into bidding wars and to limit the potential for employees to negotiate for higher salaries." http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/damning-evidence-emerges-in-google-apple-no-poach-antitrust-lawsuit/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/damning-evidence-emerges-in...
  - encoderer 15y ago
    That enrages me. For good engineers in the valley, we're easily talking the 110-160k range. So they're definitely not part of the poor, unrepresented masses. Still, that these mega-billionaires sat in their executive suites and pulled strings to harm and limit careers, it sickens me.

debt 15y ago

Apple creates such innovative products yet seems to subscribe to such regressive social policies. I have trouble gauging whether their products should be considered progress when things like this anti-poaching policy come to light.

kstenerud 15y ago
They're a large corporation with shareholders to satisfy. With so much economic incentive to cheat it's not very surprising that they do. Disappointing, but not surprising.

va_coder 15y ago

What is theft? Apple is suing multiple companies in the name of IP theft. Well I think these anti-poaching agreements are a form of theft. Employees did not receive fair market salaries. It's not black and white, but you can't say Apple is 100% correct in going after IP theft and yet they are 100% innocent in pursuing these non-poaching agreements.

moonchrome 15y ago
>Employees did not receive fair market salaries. Wait - what ? When consumer groups decide to boycott a product does that mean they are denying the producer a fair market price ?
- ryanmolden 15y ago
  Consumer boycotts are rarely about price, if the price of a good is too high people simply don't buy it, which is a clear signal to the seller. A boycott is not denying anyone any right as there is no 'right' that people are compelled to buy the product you are offering. Contrast this with what this case alleges, that Apple, Google, etc.. entered into an active agreement that not only would they not actively recruit (I am fine with that agreement) but more so they would not even hire if someone came to them completely 'out of the blue' but happened to work for one of these other companies currently. Further, they would actually alert the employer, likely so the employer could take some action against their property...I mean employee. The stupidity of ideas like this is they are counterproductive. If your employees are 'shopping around' or seriously entertaining recruitment offers it likely means they are unhappy in your employ. In this case it is best for everyone for them to go elsewhere. You know how you retain good employees? By giving them challenging work, minimizing stupid bureaucratic taxes, avoiding silly office politics, paying them fairly and treating them with basic dignity and respect. What a concept.
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    >A boycott is not denying anyone any right as there is no 'right' that people are compelled to buy the product you are offering. As opposed to labor where you have a right to compel any company to hire you ?

gergles 15y ago

I wonder how the Google fanboys will reconcile this with "Don't Be Evil". Colluding to keep salaries low and to prevent career mobility for your employees is pretty fucking evil in my book.

pyre 15y ago
> I wonder how the Google fanboys will reconcile > this with "Don't Be Evil" Nope. This isn't likely to start a flame war/pointless Internet argument at all...

SquareWheel 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand why these anti-poaching agreements are or should be illegal. I understand the argument to be that, with no where else to go, they can lower the salaries of highly-skilled employees. But isn't there always somewhere else to go? If Apple employees can't go to Adobe, there's always Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and a sea of startups. Apologies for my ignorance on the matter, but I'm just not seeing what the big deal is.

thurn 15y ago
Unless you can't get a job at those companies, or don't want to work at them, or they also get involved in the collusion. Then you're actively being hurt.
3pt14159 15y ago
I agree. If natural persons can form collectives, guilds, and unions why can't corporate persons do the same? This is, of course, assuming that there is no special grant or license issued by the government to engage in that form of work.
- thomaslangston 15y ago
  I don't believe corporate persons should have the same rights as natural persons and I'm not alone in that belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
  - hncommenter13 15y ago
    1. This has nothing to do with the decision in Citizens United. This is about anti-trust regulation, which regulates collusive behavior, not speech. Any speech incidental to such a conspiracy (whether to rob a bank or fix wages in a labor market) is not protected anyway, whether it's an individual or a corporation speaking. 2. Please don't misrepresent the decision in Citizens United to make it stand for something which it does not. The holding in Citizens United was not that corporations == natural persons or that corporations have the same rights as natural persons. The holding was that that natural persons don't lose their rights to free speech (paid for with their own funds) because they join together into legal associations. Similar to how natural persons don't lose their 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure or their 5th amendment protections against the government seizing their property when they form such associations.

mgkimsal 15y ago

"They also agreed not to enter into bidding wars and to limit the potential for employees to negotiate for higher salaries." But... but... but... If companies can't be allowed to limit salary negotiations, how else can they claim there's a shortage of skilled talent in the US, necessitating importing cheaper labor?

jeffdavis 15y ago

I'd be interested to know what "anti-poaching" actually means. It could mean several things, which I'm listing from most reasonable to least reasonable: * Don't try to sabotage the other company's projects by explicitly recruiting key people at crucial times for the project; but it's fine to hire for your own company's productivity. * Don't use the competing company as just a pool of candidates (e.g. stand outside their door asking people to apply to your company); but if you happen to find them through other means (e.g. they come to you, you find them at a conference, etc.), then hire them. * Don't ever hire directly from the other company. * Don't hire someone from a competitor even if they already left. * Don't hire someone that ever worked for a competitor. So, how far do the actual agreements go? Did I miss a potential level of "anti-poaching"?

Macsenour 15y ago
I agree with the first 3, as part of the "policy", not sure about the last 2. I don't think the last 2 could be considered poaching.

wycats 15y ago

This headline is a good example of the problem with the passive voice. My first assumption when reading the headline was that an Apple lawyer told him that. A better headline would be something like: "Palm CEO Told Jobs Anti-Poaching Pact 'Likely Illegal'" In general, using the passive voice in a news context anonymizes the subjects of a particular story. In this case, the headline writer probably did so in order to make Jobs the only subject of the headline, but it hides very important information about the story. You're probably thinking that the first sentence provides the information, but studies show that a large percentage of news readers read only the headline (I suspect that is especially true about news aggregators), and that there is a precipitous decline in readership in every sentence thereafter. As a result, newswriters usually pay a lot of attention to making sure that headlines and article ledes have as much pertinent information as possible. As it should be.

baddox 15y ago
How does this have anything to do with the passive voice? They could easily have written "Jobs told by Palm CEO that deal was likely legal."
molmalo 15y ago
I think the reason behind this title it to attract more eyes to the story. Jobs sells. Palm CEO ? Who care what palm' CEO says? Yahoo News is a notorious example of using the titles to make people read the full story. And I think it's pretty common elsewhere.