4 ms·

It's a slippery slope for sure. And given your skepticism of even the US steel case, I can imagine where you stand on that slope. Which is fair. But to complet

by abalone 13y ago

It's a slippery slope for sure. And given your skepticism of even the US steel case, I can imagine where you stand on that slope. Which is fair. But to complete my devil's advocate argument, "poached" offers could in fact be unsustainable in the long run. It may be worth it to Chrome to add a $100K signing bonus to a Safari engineer. But they're not going to be paying them an extra $100K above market year over year. If there actually were a poaching war kicked off, you can imagine that the value of inflicting targeted damage on competing teams, and protecting teams from such damage, could balloon to a very large amount. Theoretically all the way up to expected profit, if there were no other mechanisms to prevent it. This could have a chilling effect especially on startups entering competition with deep-pocketed big companies. They could just poach the best talent with offers the startups couldn't match. That's exactly like a big chain engaging in loss-leader tactics to destroy local competition. You could maybe also draw a parallel with what's going on with patents right now. It's a huge tax on development, especially to startups. Now that I think about it, this could very well backfire on all of us. Anti-poaching agreements among companies aren't the only way to prevent this sort of thing. If they get sued over that (which is targeted at the practice of poaching), what companies may start doing is figuring out more restrictive covenants in employment contracts. Exclusivity clauses, etc. I'm a little scared to think what they may come up with and standardize if their attention is focused on it.

yuhong 13y ago
Fortunately, I think Steve Jobs is dead by now.
arg01 13y ago
I'd love to see those contracts. They either have to put in a nice big juicy monetary penalty(If it's not your new employer will cover it) that each year at your pay review you can point to and say you obviously think me leaving is worth this much why am I paid 2-20% of it, or they chuck in a non-compete which are often unenforceable (unless they continue to pay you) or doesn't really matter to the hiring company as they can stick you with an unrelated project as they're not looking to capitalize on your skill as much as screw the other company. Really the only way I see it working is with deffered forms of payment which means more equity or performance bonuses. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.
- abalone 13y ago
  See right there, that "imagination" is what I'm talking about: companies figuring out a way to shift compensation into long-term rewards that disincentivize employees from considering unanticipated competitive offers. The problem is you seem to think it's only additive and therefore great for employees. Hey, more bonuses, more equity. But if everyone adopts it as a standard operating procedure, it could lead to a lowering of base salaries. So then we get paid like salespeople: little salary, mostly performance based. Do you want that? Bottom line, it could be opening a can of worms. My personal philosophy is that it's rarely good to be righteous and inflexible. It often backfires or escalates a situation.
icambron 13y ago
> This could have a chilling effect especially on startups entering competition with deep-pocketed big companies. They could just poach the best talent with offers the startups couldn't match. That's exactly like a big chain engaging in loss-leader tactics to destroy local competition. I agree that would be seriously problematic and run afoul of at least the intent of the rules, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that it actually happens that way. And in the meantime, anti-poaching agreements clearly do undercut salaries; that's why they were--at considerable risk to the companies--implemented in the first place. On your last paragraph, I have two thoughts: a) at least that would be above-the-board and could be evaluated by potential employees, and b) while employment law varies considerably state by state, it's generally not the case that the employer can enforce arbitrarily restrictive clauses. I know in Massachusetts, enforcing a non-compete requires meeting some reasonability requirements [1] and AIFAK California is even more pro-employee on those things. Just because you sign it does not make it so. [1] http://ask.superlawyers.com/massachusetts/non-compete-agreements/is-my-non-compete-agreement-enforceable-under-massachusetts-law/3fae8c20-ab4b-4fac-bffe-a60ecfd28581.html http://ask.superlawyers.com/massachusetts/non-compete-agreem...

by abalone 13y ago

yuhong 13y ago

Fortunately, I think Steve Jobs is dead by now.

arg01 13y ago

I'd love to see those contracts. They either have to put in a nice big juicy monetary penalty(If it's not your new employer will cover it) that each year at your pay review you can point to and say you obviously think me leaving is worth this much why am I paid 2-20% of it, or they chuck in a non-compete which are often unenforceable (unless they continue to pay you) or doesn't really matter to the hiring company as they can stick you with an unrelated project as they're not looking to capitalize on your skill as much as screw the other company. Really the only way I see it working is with deffered forms of payment which means more equity or performance bonuses. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.

abalone 13y ago
See right there, that "imagination" is what I'm talking about: companies figuring out a way to shift compensation into long-term rewards that disincentivize employees from considering unanticipated competitive offers. The problem is you seem to think it's only additive and therefore great for employees. Hey, more bonuses, more equity. But if everyone adopts it as a standard operating procedure, it could lead to a lowering of base salaries. So then we get paid like salespeople: little salary, mostly performance based. Do you want that? Bottom line, it could be opening a can of worms. My personal philosophy is that it's rarely good to be righteous and inflexible. It often backfires or escalates a situation.

icambron 13y ago

> This could have a chilling effect especially on startups entering competition with deep-pocketed big companies. They could just poach the best talent with offers the startups couldn't match. That's exactly like a big chain engaging in loss-leader tactics to destroy local competition. I agree that would be seriously problematic and run afoul of at least the intent of the rules, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that it actually happens that way. And in the meantime, anti-poaching agreements clearly do undercut salaries; that's why they were--at considerable risk to the companies--implemented in the first place. On your last paragraph, I have two thoughts: a) at least that would be above-the-board and could be evaluated by potential employees, and b) while employment law varies considerably state by state, it's generally not the case that the employer can enforce arbitrarily restrictive clauses. I know in Massachusetts, enforcing a non-compete requires meeting some reasonability requirements [1] and AIFAK California is even more pro-employee on those things. Just because you sign it does not make it so. [1] http://ask.superlawyers.com/massachusetts/non-compete-agreements/is-my-non-compete-agreement-enforceable-under-massachusetts-law/3fae8c20-ab4b-4fac-bffe-a60ecfd28581.html http://ask.superlawyers.com/massachusetts/non-compete-agreem...