4 ms·

THAT IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE. NO IT ISN'T. Most companies in most industries can hold onto key staff without breaking the law because there are legal mechanisms t

THAT IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE. NO IT ISN'T. Most companies in most industries can hold onto key staff without breaking the law because there are legal mechanisms to keep these staff. This is about trying to keep an entire category of employees (the ones not currently seeking new opportunities) in the dark about market wages and conditions in an effort to hold down general employee wages. Keeping your eye on the market takes time and effort; time and effort that I personally would rather spend with my family. So if somebody is willing to actively search the market for employers paying less than market rates and offer those people a job it is a good thing. But just like real estate agents would get real pissed off if rival agents hang around their showings and try to poach their clients, the same is true of companies. And while they might get pissed this is basic competition and is good for the market. It helps make sure real estate agents do not price/service gouge their clients. After all if the rival cannot offer a better deal then no harm done. Actually, although you say that marriage is completely different, actually the same mechanisms that lead to jealousy and guarding from 3rd parties are in effect You are trying to suggest that because something applies to marriage that it should somehow be ethical in an employer-employee relationship. The leap simply put does not make sense. Or at the very least it's not clear that they benefit enough to make a law banning agreements to scale back poaching key people. It is clear that it distorts the market and holds down wages for employees. There are many legal mechanisms to keep key staff. The fact that these companies resorted to illegal means suggests that they were in fact trying to stop the poaching of normal employees and not just "key staff". Again this behavior is bad for the market.

EGreg 13y ago
Once again I am not saying what these companies did was legal. Google for example had an internal email instructing people to TURN AWAY APPLICANTS from Apple. That's completely different than agreeing not to target them for solicitation. This is about trying to keep an entire category of employees (the ones not currently seeking new opportunities) in the dark about market wages and conditions in an effort to hold down general employee wages. No it's not. It's easy to find the market salaries today, on glassdoor and other means. You have a very unrealistic opinion of workers if you think that they are "in thee dark" about publicly available information that's easily obtainable until a recruiter finally calls them and informs them that they can get a slightly bigger salary (in fact taking 20% for themselves). The way I see it is - you can instruct your HR to work only with recruiters, you can instruct the recruiters to not advertise on porn sites because you don't want the reputation cost, and you can ask recruiters not to cold call a rival's employees because you don't want to bear the reprisal cost. This isn't a cartel. A cartel is when you REFUSE TO OFFER a better deal than your competitors thanks to internal agreements. Here you offer whatever you want! You simply are judicious where you advertise it. That is not a cartel sorry. There is no price fixing. You know if we're going to take this to its logical conclusion, it should be illegal for companies to collude with recruiters and all applicants should be able to bypass a recruiter and apply directly to the company, asking for a 20% greater salary. But somehow many companies I know don't accept such applications. Please tell me why they can collude and not compete with recruiters. Isn't that a REAL cartel since their HR dept will NOT OFFER you a job unless you are referred through a middleman. The HR dept refuses to compete with the recruiter even if you did the work for them and applied! And even if you don't agree this a cartel, it certainly imposes a 20% tax on the salaries of applicants. It is clear that it distorts the market and holds down wages for employees. No, regula market operation doesn't distort a market, outside regulation distorts markets. Government regulation distorts markets. It is also not clear that more successful poaching will drive up wages for employees. It is clear it drives up COSTS of hiring and training employees since poached employees make you start over, delay and cancel projects etc. This may very well lead companies to hire contractors instead or pass on the costs to their OTHER employees - the majority who werent poached successfully - in other ways. So no it's not clear what companies will do, this isn't basic supply and demand.

EGreg 13y ago

Once again I am not saying what these companies did was legal. Google for example had an internal email instructing people to TURN AWAY APPLICANTS from Apple. That's completely different than agreeing not to target them for solicitation. This is about trying to keep an entire category of employees (the ones not currently seeking new opportunities) in the dark about market wages and conditions in an effort to hold down general employee wages. No it's not. It's easy to find the market salaries today, on glassdoor and other means. You have a very unrealistic opinion of workers if you think that they are "in thee dark" about publicly available information that's easily obtainable until a recruiter finally calls them and informs them that they can get a slightly bigger salary (in fact taking 20% for themselves). The way I see it is - you can instruct your HR to work only with recruiters, you can instruct the recruiters to not advertise on porn sites because you don't want the reputation cost, and you can ask recruiters not to cold call a rival's employees because you don't want to bear the reprisal cost. This isn't a cartel. A cartel is when you REFUSE TO OFFER a better deal than your competitors thanks to internal agreements. Here you offer whatever you want! You simply are judicious where you advertise it. That is not a cartel sorry. There is no price fixing. You know if we're going to take this to its logical conclusion, it should be illegal for companies to collude with recruiters and all applicants should be able to bypass a recruiter and apply directly to the company, asking for a 20% greater salary. But somehow many companies I know don't accept such applications. Please tell me why they can collude and not compete with recruiters. Isn't that a REAL cartel since their HR dept will NOT OFFER you a job unless you are referred through a middleman. The HR dept refuses to compete with the recruiter even if you did the work for them and applied! And even if you don't agree this a cartel, it certainly imposes a 20% tax on the salaries of applicants. It is clear that it distorts the market and holds down wages for employees. No, regula market operation doesn't distort a market, outside regulation distorts markets. Government regulation distorts markets. It is also not clear that more successful poaching will drive up wages for employees. It is clear it drives up COSTS of hiring and training employees since poached employees make you start over, delay and cancel projects etc. This may very well lead companies to hire contractors instead or pass on the costs to their OTHER employees - the majority who werent poached successfully - in other ways. So no it's not clear what companies will do, this isn't basic supply and demand.