3 ms·

This has very little to do with Jobs. It sounds like the employee broke a known rule and Google reacted once they were informed (although I'd argue they acted t

This has very little to do with Jobs. It sounds like the employee broke a known rule and Google reacted once they were informed (although I'd argue they acted too harshly).

lawncheer 13y ago
A known "rule", that was illegal to follow in the first place.
- peteretep 13y ago
  Why was it illegal to /follow/?
  - lawncheer 13y ago
    I am not an expert; and could be way off base, but I would assume, that knowingly following a corporate policy that is against the law, would be illegal, even if you aren't the one who implemented it. I am also making the assumption from what I read that everyone knew what this policy really was, from the way the emails between the two companies framed things. Again, this could be off base as well.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      It's roughly the same as if these companies colluded to drive down the price on components.
davidw 13y ago
Little to do with Jobs? "That evening, Steve Jobs forwarded her email to Eric Schmidt with this note:" The whole thing would not have happened without him, and his illegal scheme to prevent companies from competing.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I see you left out his note. All it said was: "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this." All Google had to do was remind employees they aren't allowed to recruit Apple employees. Google took the drastic action of firing the employee.
corresation 13y ago
A rule that apparently was seldom written down given that it was highly illegal.
Zigurd 13y ago
> a known rule That "rule" is an illegal collusion that's probably worth billions in salary, ISOs, bonuses, etc. That is, the totality of the crime here is that the participants in the collusion literally stole billions of dollars from salaried employees. How obsequious the HR people are in this is a minor factor. This is a Bernie Madoff-sized crime. What Madoff did was a more visible crime, so he was punished like a common criminal. But if you shave a few tens of thousands of dollars per year off a few tens of thousands of engineers' salaries and your motto is "Don't be evil" (or if you do something really big, like diddle the LIBOR rate) people think different, for some reason.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  > This is a Bernie Madoff-sized crime. Really? Equivalent to a $50 billion ponzi scheme in which thousands of people lost their pensions and become destitute? That's the same as denying a few thousand dollars to already very highly compensated engineers? I'm not excusing what they're doing but the Madoff comparison seems off.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Is it a smaller crime if you take smaller amounts from more people? Had these been outright unpaid wages, the answer would be clear. The dollar value here is probably similar.
    - thinkpad20 13y ago
      They're not poaching each other's workers, so let's say that Tom works for Apple and makes $90,000 per year. Google could attempt to recruit Tom and offer him $100,000 per year, but they don't. So Tom loses $10,000 per year. This is probably the worst-case scenario for an individual engineer. Of course, Tom is still earning a very nice salary over that time, and who knows, maybe he actually ends up making more, but let's envision a worst-case scenario in which an engineer loses $100 grand over ten years, because of this policy. In order for the dollar value to be similar to what Madoff stole from people, that scenario, or a higher wage loss, would have had to happen to five hundred thousand engineers. All working at a handful of companies. Does that still sound plausible to you?

This has very little to do with Jobs. It sounds like the employee broke a known rule and Google reacted once they were informed (although I'd argue they acted too harshly).

lawncheer 13y ago

A known "rule", that was illegal to follow in the first place.

peteretep 13y ago
Why was it illegal to /follow/?
- lawncheer 13y ago
  I am not an expert; and could be way off base, but I would assume, that knowingly following a corporate policy that is against the law, would be illegal, even if you aren't the one who implemented it. I am also making the assumption from what I read that everyone knew what this policy really was, from the way the emails between the two companies framed things. Again, this could be off base as well.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    It's roughly the same as if these companies colluded to drive down the price on components.

davidw 13y ago

Little to do with Jobs? "That evening, Steve Jobs forwarded her email to Eric Schmidt with this note:" The whole thing would not have happened without him, and his illegal scheme to prevent companies from competing.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
I see you left out his note. All it said was: "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this." All Google had to do was remind employees they aren't allowed to recruit Apple employees. Google took the drastic action of firing the employee.

corresation 13y ago

A rule that apparently was seldom written down given that it was highly illegal.

Zigurd 13y ago

> a known rule That "rule" is an illegal collusion that's probably worth billions in salary, ISOs, bonuses, etc. That is, the totality of the crime here is that the participants in the collusion literally stole billions of dollars from salaried employees. How obsequious the HR people are in this is a minor factor. This is a Bernie Madoff-sized crime. What Madoff did was a more visible crime, so he was punished like a common criminal. But if you shave a few tens of thousands of dollars per year off a few tens of thousands of engineers' salaries and your motto is "Don't be evil" (or if you do something really big, like diddle the LIBOR rate) people think different, for some reason.

thinkpad20 13y ago
> This is a Bernie Madoff-sized crime. Really? Equivalent to a $50 billion ponzi scheme in which thousands of people lost their pensions and become destitute? That's the same as denying a few thousand dollars to already very highly compensated engineers? I'm not excusing what they're doing but the Madoff comparison seems off.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Is it a smaller crime if you take smaller amounts from more people? Had these been outright unpaid wages, the answer would be clear. The dollar value here is probably similar.
  - thinkpad20 13y ago
    They're not poaching each other's workers, so let's say that Tom works for Apple and makes $90,000 per year. Google could attempt to recruit Tom and offer him $100,000 per year, but they don't. So Tom loses $10,000 per year. This is probably the worst-case scenario for an individual engineer. Of course, Tom is still earning a very nice salary over that time, and who knows, maybe he actually ends up making more, but let's envision a worst-case scenario in which an engineer loses $100 grand over ten years, because of this policy. In order for the dollar value to be similar to what Madoff stole from people, that scenario, or a higher wage loss, would have had to happen to five hundred thousand engineers. All working at a handful of companies. Does that still sound plausible to you?