4 ms·

When two giants agree not to hire each other's employees in a particular industry (mobile) and a particular location (Silicon Valley), they do serious damage to

by bjt 14y ago

When two giants agree not to hire each other's employees in a particular industry (mobile) and a particular location (Silicon Valley), they do serious damage to those employees' wages and career paths. They've also violated antitrust law. See this example from Google and Apple, for example, which shows communication less outrageous than Jobs' email to Palm. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57367924/google-apple-in-anti-trust-issue/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57367924/google-apple-...

rexreed 14y ago
Exactly - see my comment below on this. Indeed, the more technically advanced / niche / specific the industry, the more disastrous these sorts of handshake no-poach agreements have on the salary and employment prospects of those that work in the industry.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  I don't disagree with your point. I view this as a conflict of interest between managers and labour. In this particular case we are talking less about general poaching and more about the poaching activities of an individual (Rubie) soliciting others out of personal relationships. I can see why many jurisdictions actually enforce anti-soliciting agreements, because this practice is very damaging. On the other hand, broad based poaching collusion hurts labour, who should be protected by Uncle Sam. The point is that, such a conflict is natural, and I'm observing that the HN crowd in these threads seems to be surprisingly supportive of government intervention. Maybe the libertarians are avoiding Apple threads.
  - rexreed 14y ago
    I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. In certain situations, the business environment should be trusted to pursue their self-motivated interests because they are also the interests of consumers and the citizenry. In these cases, the government should not meddle. However, in other situations, the business self-motivated interests are contradictory to those interests of their customers, employees, and their citizen neighbors. In these cases, the government needs to make sure that these businesses don't run amok and totally ruin the environment, the economy, and the market as a whole. Those who take one extreme (no government intervention in either scenario -- what you call Libertarians) are no more virtuous that take the other extreme (the government must be involved in all forms of business activity). I hope we see more pragmatists and less dogma(tists) on HN. From what I can see -- these HN conversations do look balanced on the whole.
    - parasubvert 14y ago
      I agree with your take, overall, thank you. Much more eloquently stated than my OP, but I had not seen the pro-owner view stated so I went a bit strong in my advocacy for that POV. Though I'm not sure I agree that HNers are particularly consistent on when they want government intervention. It seems driven from self-interest (intervene when it helps me, go away when it helps me).
    - cloverich 14y ago
      > However, in other situations, the business self-motivated interests are contradictory to those interests of their customers, employees, and their citizen neighbors. In these cases, the government needs to make sure that these businesses don't run amok and totally ruin the environment, the economy, and the market as a whole. I dont think that's how many on HN view it and also to the point: The bargaining chips Jobs is using to promote these anti-competitive practices only exist because of government intervention. If the government is going to provide companies with an effective monopoly (patents), under the argument that it (allegedly) promotes innovation, then they should be held accountable for balancing those forces when they are abused (in this case, abusing workers). I dont think that's contradictory in a "Pro when it helps me, anti when it hurts me way". Take out the Patents, and the problem (arguably) goes away entirely.
      - parasubvert 14y ago
        Anti trust, unenforceable anti-compete and anti-solicitation agreements also only exist because of government intervention.
  - tensor 14y ago
    Labour doesn't need protecting by Uncle Sam if there are no laws preventing cross soliciting and fair market value for their services. And speaking of government intervention, are patents not a form of that? In particular, a form of government intervention being used here to try to prevent competition for employees? Would the libertarian position not be to abolish both patents and also enforcement of any kind of non-solicit provisions, thus promoting a completely free market for workers and companies?
    - parasubvert 14y ago
      I'm not a libertarian, but I would think that anti-solicitation and non-competes are contractual matters. If you contractually agree to them, that's not coersion. In practice, every jurisdiction is different in terms of enforcing non-competes. It's all about government intervention to prevent collusion among business owners.

by bjt 14y ago

rexreed 14y ago

Exactly - see my comment below on this. Indeed, the more technically advanced / niche / specific the industry, the more disastrous these sorts of handshake no-poach agreements have on the salary and employment prospects of those that work in the industry.

parasubvert 14y ago
I don't disagree with your point. I view this as a conflict of interest between managers and labour. In this particular case we are talking less about general poaching and more about the poaching activities of an individual (Rubie) soliciting others out of personal relationships. I can see why many jurisdictions actually enforce anti-soliciting agreements, because this practice is very damaging. On the other hand, broad based poaching collusion hurts labour, who should be protected by Uncle Sam. The point is that, such a conflict is natural, and I'm observing that the HN crowd in these threads seems to be surprisingly supportive of government intervention. Maybe the libertarians are avoiding Apple threads.
- rexreed 14y ago
  I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. In certain situations, the business environment should be trusted to pursue their self-motivated interests because they are also the interests of consumers and the citizenry. In these cases, the government should not meddle. However, in other situations, the business self-motivated interests are contradictory to those interests of their customers, employees, and their citizen neighbors. In these cases, the government needs to make sure that these businesses don't run amok and totally ruin the environment, the economy, and the market as a whole. Those who take one extreme (no government intervention in either scenario -- what you call Libertarians) are no more virtuous that take the other extreme (the government must be involved in all forms of business activity). I hope we see more pragmatists and less dogma(tists) on HN. From what I can see -- these HN conversations do look balanced on the whole.
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    I agree with your take, overall, thank you. Much more eloquently stated than my OP, but I had not seen the pro-owner view stated so I went a bit strong in my advocacy for that POV. Though I'm not sure I agree that HNers are particularly consistent on when they want government intervention. It seems driven from self-interest (intervene when it helps me, go away when it helps me).
  - cloverich 14y ago
    > However, in other situations, the business self-motivated interests are contradictory to those interests of their customers, employees, and their citizen neighbors. In these cases, the government needs to make sure that these businesses don't run amok and totally ruin the environment, the economy, and the market as a whole. I dont think that's how many on HN view it and also to the point: The bargaining chips Jobs is using to promote these anti-competitive practices only exist because of government intervention. If the government is going to provide companies with an effective monopoly (patents), under the argument that it (allegedly) promotes innovation, then they should be held accountable for balancing those forces when they are abused (in this case, abusing workers). I dont think that's contradictory in a "Pro when it helps me, anti when it hurts me way". Take out the Patents, and the problem (arguably) goes away entirely.
    - parasubvert 14y ago
      Anti trust, unenforceable anti-compete and anti-solicitation agreements also only exist because of government intervention.
- tensor 14y ago
  Labour doesn't need protecting by Uncle Sam if there are no laws preventing cross soliciting and fair market value for their services. And speaking of government intervention, are patents not a form of that? In particular, a form of government intervention being used here to try to prevent competition for employees? Would the libertarian position not be to abolish both patents and also enforcement of any kind of non-solicit provisions, thus promoting a completely free market for workers and companies?
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    I'm not a libertarian, but I would think that anti-solicitation and non-competes are contractual matters. If you contractually agree to them, that's not coersion. In practice, every jurisdiction is different in terms of enforcing non-competes. It's all about government intervention to prevent collusion among business owners.