Last week, we got our first glimpse at the (heavily redacted) evidence behind a Silicon Valley scandal dating back to 2005 — Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, Intuit and other tech firms, it was revealed, had agreements not to poach one another's employees. Technically, the Department of Justice settled an antitrust lawsuit in 2010, but employees who claim they were injured by the arrangement are still fighting for more, with a proposed class-action lawsuit that's having its day in court this month. Today, we obtained an unredacted court document that reveals just how deep the proverbial rabbit hole goes... and how it personally involved Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and other prominent executives. Here's what we learned.
-
Intel CEO Paul Otellini tried to hide and downplay a "global gentleman's agreement" with Google.
"Let me clarify. We have nothing signed. We have a handshake ‘no recruit’ between Eric and myself. I would not like this broadly known," he reportedly wrote.
-
And yet, Intel actually had a written document describing a non-poach agreement with Pixar, where Intel's policy was to not hire any Pixar employee without the Pixar CEO's express approval.
"If a Pixar employee applies to Intel without being recruited by Intel, contact Pat Gelsinger and explain to him a Pixar employee (provide the candidates name) has applied to Intel without being recruited and he will contact the CEO of Pixar for approval to hire," read the Intel document.
-
Steve Jobs personally emailed Eric Schmidt to ask Google to stop poaching an Apple engineer, and Google responded by arranging to immediately and publicly fire the employee who initiated the call.
"Mr. Jobs wrote: "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this." Mr. Schmidt forwarded Mr. Jobs's email to undisclosed recipients, writing: "I believe we have a policy of no recruiting from Apple and this is a direct inbound request. Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening? I will need to send a response back to Apple quickly so please let me know as soon as you can."
Mr. Geshuri told Mr. Schmidt that the employee "who contacted this Apple employee should not have and will be terminated within the hour." Mr. Geshuri further wrote: "Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs. This was an isolated incident and we will be very careful to make sure this does not happen again."
Three days later, Shona Brown, Google's Senior Vice President for Business Operations, replied to Mr. Geshuri, writing: "Appropriate response, thank you. Please make a public example of this termination with the group."
-
Google's director of staffing Arnnon Geshuri revealed the existence of a formal Do Not Call list in an email to Eric Schmidt, such as the ones that the Justice Department claimed in the original 2010 settlement.
"[Intuit chairman of the board Bill Campbell] requested that Intuit be added fully to the Do Not Call list .... please confirm that you are okay to the modification of the policy," wrote Geshuri.
-
Pixar rejected a prospective employee from Apple even when that employee reached out of his / her own accord.
When an Apple employee approached Pixar for a "Mac Tools Programming position," a Pixar employee reportedly responded: "Only problem - we can’t poach from Apple."
-
Pixar and Lucasfilm explicitly agreed not to "get into bidding wars" for employees, as did two senior SVPs at Google. The latter two reportedly agreed to do so by restricting recruiting practices, and sent copies of their idea to Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Bill Campbell, on the boards of Intuit and Apple.
-
Pixar and Lucasfilm not only had an arrangement, but an employee admitted to its regular use.
Pixar general manager Jim Morris said the "gentlemen's agreement" had been "honored pretty well here for the last many years."
-
According to an email from Intuit chairman (and Apple board member) Bill Campbell to Steve Jobs, Google CEO Eric Schmidt took responsibility for the non-poach agreement.
"I am heading out of town . . . and wanted to give you the latest of what I heard from Google after talking to Eric Schmidt.[] Eric told me he got directly involved and firmly stopped all efforts to recruit anyone from Apple," he reportedly wrote.
Today, a lawyer for the plaintiffs briefed Bloomberg about the case, and according to that attorney, even more dirty laundry will be aired from here on out, as a decision in the case yesterday requires the defendants to produce even more documents revealing the extent of the "no-poach" arrangement, and whether it was a matter of individual informal agreements or a larger conspiracy. For now, you can find the full unredacted PDF at our source link.
There are 152 Comments. Add yours.
in English: “what we’re doing is illegal, please hush hush”
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:25 PM EST reply Recommend (28) Flag actions
oh yeah “do no evil”
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:28 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I understand why this could really be a two sided issue in a lot of ways. Yes, it’s definitely anti-competitive when an employee can’t be offered better positions/pay at a different place of work due to this agreement.
But at the same time, when working close with other companies that greatly have to compete with each other for quality employees, I can understand how they could want to prevent losing all there best employees to (lets say) Adobe after doing a project with them, or something like the Nexus Program, where Samsung and Google worked literally together. Now it would be shitty if all the best Google employees in that project that were valued employees with large investments in training behind them got poached out by the company that was supposed to be their partner.
I mean, it’s not uncommon to have to sign agreements when working in partnerships with companies for each party to not hire each other employees, because there is an investment involved there. I have personally had to sign one of those when my company was working on a partnership deal between two companies we had special relations with. In many cases, these employees took years to train and would take a large sum of money to replace.
But honestly, on the flip side, there is a capitalistic perspective on this, where the best employees go to the highest bidder and the employee comes out the winner. But honestly, I don’t really see it as a problem unless they refuse to hire people that approached you (as mentioned). But to agree to not explicitly offer and reach out doesn’t seem so unreasonable from the companies standpoint.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:49 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yes, which is to say that these employees are worth a lot. I think it is defensible for firms to have to pay that value to the employees. The way that salaries reflect value is when the possibility of the employee quitting is real and these “gentleman’s agreements” could potentially limit the chances of leaving for better positions.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:15 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
It’s true, but then you get into real bidding wars. But again, I see it as a problem if they refuse to hire someone who approached them because of this agreement, but not necessarily the other way around, that would require a long debate to work out.
If employees are still free to shop around, then it doesn’t effect salary in a large enough way to justify calling it limiting. It just means the employees have to make the effort of shopping around.
But the reason I say the bidding wars are bad is you end up inflating salaries to a level that isn’t maintainable and effectively reduces the amount of people they can hire, which effects everyone. So, so long as they are paying generously (which they are, Silicon Valley [I think] is still the richest medium income in the US or among the top) and they aren’t rejecting people who apply on their own accord, then I would have issues with this.
Basically, I say they should be charged if:
1. Enforced an agreement that would prevent employees, themselves, shopping around for higher salaries or better positions. (Which would exclude an agreement to not explicitly recruit those employees by a recruitment team)
2. Explicitly made an agreement to keep a specific pay standard among the employment positions.
3. Fire someone for violating the poaching agreement who was not privy to the agreement or was not explicitly made clear that this agreement had been made.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It appears however, that employees weren’t free to shop around. Steve Jobs wouldn’t send an email about an engineer who was getting paid $40,000/year. This was certainly a very valuable employee (who was probably already being paid a lot).
Also, what does it mean to say that bidding wars “inflate salaries to a level that isn’t maintainable”? If at some some point in a bidding war an employee stops being worth it for a particular company then that company stops bidding. The company for which the employee was still “worth it” wins the auction and gets the employee. Since the employee was still worth it for them, they are better off with the employee than without her/him. The activity in question here is companies agreeing not to hold the auction at all.
All that being said, I agree with your statement that this probably did not have a huge effect on actual salaries. These agreements are very unstable and are probably broken when the poachee is wanted bad enough. In fact, we’ve seen many employees move between these companies over the last 7 years. Usually, the employee quits stating he/she “wants to spend more time with family” and somehow after 6 weeks she/he has a change of heart and goes to work for the rival.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Again, if it falls under those 3 categorys, I would want to see legal action, but I don’t like to assume these things before some real court decisions have been made rather than a blog on a tech site.
What I mean by inflating salaries is a very common habit that companies make. They have a bidding war with 1 employee who was worth a certain price, and they managed to keep him, but now all this co-workers want an equal offering (since bidding wars are hard to keep secret) and all of a sudden, employee cost go up across the board. It seems somewhat justified at first, but then it becomes the norm.
What happens then is another war takes place when the new norm has been established and the cycle repeats itself. And eventually since they don’t want a huge disparity in pay grades to keep people happy, they have to accept this as a new norm each time it goes up at a certain degree.
This can end up leading to A) a working force that now cost too much to justify, creating a bubble that needs to be popped (and nobody likes pay decreases) or B) a decrease in the amount of workers they can hire.
This is a common trend on sites like eBay where you see huge price fluxuations due to previous trends in bids.
I honestly don’t think pay should be looked at in such capitalistic terms and should really be left to moral terms. Because if left with a capitalistic sense, then that means that they will also feel just as justified giving you a pay cut when you don’t feel as valuable to them at that moment or when you are no longer a favorable candidate for another position. (A burst to the bubble, which bubbles always need to burst)
I feel that career jobs shouldn’t be so subjected traditional bubble-burst capitalistic structure for something they depend on for reliability to pay a mortgage and feed a family. They should have consistent pay with manageable pay increases (and even decreases when required at a slow rate). That way the only way they are subjected to this kind of structure is if they actively pursue these competing positions personally.
We can argue to the degree that would happen, but it’s really not my focus in this argument. Only a side-effect that can happen.
But it’s not uncommon pays to get over inflated in a company to a point where the company can no longer support it due to a decline in there income. I can point to several companies that I’ve worked with that did just that. The new pay scale could have been justified for a company like RIM when they were at the top, but that would have been a huge issue when they are on the decline and cant support those new salaries.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:38 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
After every post of yours that I read in this thread, I can’t help but think, “Well too bad”. This is how capitalism works, and capitalism is the system we have. These employees aren’t even organizing in an effort to raise or protect their pay. They’ve subjected themselves to the risk of market forces driving themselves downward, and they simply want the reverse to happen as well. What you “feel” doesn’t come into it.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 8:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I disagree that what you are suggesting happens. The only example that I can come up with where one might argue that employee salaries have become unmanageable is in the airline industry but workers in that industry are all unionized so there is actually the possibility of salaries being too high. These workers are not unionized.
Furthermore, I have almost no idea what it means to look at pay in “moral terms” as opposed to “capitalistic terms”. However, the fact that the law prohibits the type of behavior talked about here suggests that at least someone disagreed with you morally since their morals said this type of behavior should be illegal.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 10:11 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No offense man, but your responses are insane. They lack a basic understanding of economic issues, how businesses work, etc.
First of all, it is highly uncommon for a company to pay its employees salaries that are so inflated that the companies go under. Hell, I’m not aware of a single instance of that happening in the history of mankind. Furthermore, we’re talking about multibillion dollar corporations. You honestly think that Apple and Intel are going to start paying their employees salaries that are so out of whack that it’s going to force them to collapse? Get real.
No-poaching contracts like this are illegal because (as Palm’s executive stated in a response to Jobs) it doesn’t take the best interest of the individual to heart. People aren’t owned — you don’t get to decide what they can and can’t do. They have the free will to sign non-compete clauses, but these are drastically different than companies signing no-poaching contracts. In the former, the individual is agreeing to terms; in the latter, the companies are saying the individual has no right to do what he or she wants for their career. That’s stupid.
No-poaching contracts hurt everyone. They also hurt employees who aren’t getting poached or looking to go to another company. If companies don’t hire new employees at larger salaries, then former employees have no incentive to say, ‘well, I deserve this much for X and X reason.’ They have no leverage. But if a company hires someone for a salary above theirs? Well, then now they have leverage.
Your “points” are not logical in any way.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Under what I just said, employees are free to do whatever they want, including look for jobs wherever they want without harm. No poaching just means that you cant instruct your employees to actively look for these employees at your neighbor companies business. So they do have leverage. If it were the case where they restricted hiring to people that came at free will, then yes, I object to that and I see that as lawsuit worthy.
As far as examples, I can name 2 that I work with very closely that are quickly going downhill from over-inflated pay. A company called Chyron that I work with has ~125 employees, 38 of which are vice-presidents and 50% of which are making well over 6 figures. Because of that, companies like the one I work for can offer better products at cheaper prices because we don’t have the same huge overhead.
In fact, this is exactly what overhead is. Whenever you hear people talk about how much overhead they had, it’s referring to how much they pay back to employees and investors. This may seem a lot less in large corporations like Google, but it’s just as real as an issue.
And again, if this is highly uncommon and you’ve never heard of it, then why are all the companies that have unions complaining about it? Why does our tax conversation constantly talk about that when it comes to government workers?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wait, so because the employer made a bad business decision in offering salaries that they could not maintain, then it is the employees fault?!
If you can’t afford those costs, then why are you taking them on?
Remember, the employer is taking the risk here — doing something they don’t have to do. If it’s becoming costly to one employer then chances are, it’s costly for others as well. Those are the market forces behind the labor market.
It is the employer’s job to offer a salary based on what the employer thinks the employee is worth.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
look at the nba lockout if you want to see an example of employer stupidity…or if you want to see something closer to reality, look at LIU’s lookout at the beginning of this school year.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So what you’re saying is you have no interest in discussion the actual matter, you’d rather just deal in hypotheticals that are in no way relevant to the discussion?
As to why are all companies that have unions complaining about salary prices: BECAUSE THEY WANT CHEAP LABOR. It’s really not hard to understand. Now that your argument is basically turning into a ‘unions are evil’ bent, I’m beginning to realize responding to someone as ignorant as you was worthless.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 7:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
While I think both “no poach” and “no hire” contracts between competitors are despicable and illegal, my understanding is that in California non-compete clause are basically unenforcible. I wonder if the lack of non-competes either culturally or legally drove this practice. My opinion is that non-competes are ethically suspect but that might be because in my industry, almost the only way to get a major raise is to get an offer from a competitor that your boss can match or beat. It is a pain in the ass but it help keep the wages competitive.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, you cant have it both, at will employment where you can be fired at any moment, eg because they can hire a cheaper replacement, AND prevented to shop around when you feel under appreciated.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:21 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree. I believe a “No Call List” is common courtesy between competing firms where they don’t try to directly contact and poach employees. Employee initiated job applications, however, should have been allowed. Some bidding wars would have been unavoidable, but it would have been much less of a legal issue.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:48 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a much bigger issue than a lot of people lead on to believe. I’ve had this happen to me in the past; I became untouchable for almost an entire city because I made the mistake of not paying close enough attention to the non-compete clause.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that companies like Apple (I own a lot of their products) is that they have absolutely no qualms with going abroad to cut costs. While they are socking away billions in the bank, those methods have a systematic effect on their environment.
By not paying employees here, they are reducing cash-flow and consequently significantly reducing taxable income (directly and a lot more indirectly). The less money going into government coffers, the more education suffers. Traditionally, a single company wouldn’t have that a noticeable of an impact but as corporations become larger and larger, their footprint becomes that much more significant. If you have every large mega-corp doing the same thing, well.. you kinda see the picture.
This is why government should NEVER be run like a company. Companies care about profit and the bottom line. They do not have the foresight to think beyond their narrow vision of income.
As long as corporations are capable of performing these sorts of tactics, they really won’t feel the consequences of their endeavors. Their stockholders will continue to see rise upticks in their investment and everyone is pleasantly plump with joy and greed.
Rant over.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
FFS please give us the edit button. Hell, I’ll add the shit for you. Just give me access to your source control. (no, I’m not kidding)
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:02 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
So you’re saying that governments today are run like companies? If so, they are the worst run companies in the history of man.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, but you’ll often hear conservatives preach that the government should be run like a business.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
not reaching out to another companies team is one thing, but refusing to hire or even fire an employee who reached out to you is abhorrent; this “@ssh0les agreement” is just a way to keep salaries down and keep employees locked in to you whether they like it or not
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There is an incredibly effective way to keep top employees that doesn’t require illegal collusion to distort the labor market. It’s called “create a better working environment, with better pay, benefits, hours and other perks.” Apple, Google, Intel, Pixar and all the other companies in this scandal all have eye-popping profit margins and tremendous sales, and can certainly afford to invest in their key employees to make it so they don’t want to leave.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just remember that employees are a large investment in engineering space. Often the whole process is very expensive and no company wants to spend that much money in investing the best employees so the guy next door can walk in after you’ve recruited, trained, and proven this employee and offer him a 10% raise.
There are two sides to this arguments, and both of them have valid concerns.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s assuming the only draw is money though – isn’t it? Surely if you can’t keep employees without resorting to essentially blocking their career progression, that isn’t a company you want to work for?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, but there is a different from blocking them from seeking better pay on there own accord and making an agreement to not explicitly “poach” one another. If both methods were enforced, yes, that is blocking their career progression, but if only the “poaching” was applied, it only blocks their career progression if the employee never makes an effort to seek other positions.
My problem is the one explained above. I can spend X amount of dollars finding, training and proving these people, but why bother when someone can spend the same X amount of dollars to 1UP my bid (not just money either) after I already find, trained and proved these people.
Again, I’m torn because I see both sides of this argument. And as an engineer I can easily relate to the situation.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes – I can understand companies not wanting to lose, what is essentially, an “investment”, but being properly headhunted (not arbitrary recruitment headhunting, but “hey, that Joe Bloggs is making some good stuff in this arena, we need him”) is amazing career validation – to have so little faith in your own employees loyalty and your own company’s benefits as to purposefully block them from even being aware of such moves is just sad.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, but they aren’t blocking you from them necessarily, they are protecting their investment into you from “poachers” who ride off other peoples efforts.
Think of it in a similar way to patents. Companies spend a lot of money in research and development to come up with a new great way of doing something. In order to prevent all the other companies from stealing your idea and making success out of your research time/money, you create a patent to protect that research.
Basically, the problem is by allowing other companies to validated your skills by recruiting you, you reduce the investment they are willing to make to recruit, train, and prove you in the first place. It’s very hard to justify these types of costs without protection.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The same argument is made for patent research. Often it’s claimed that research dollar aren’t cheap and it’s hard to justify research into new technologies without a protection on the technologies you found’s investment. The only difference is there is real people involved here, which is why their personal choices shouldn’t be influenced by these sorts of agreements.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My problem isn’t with the concept of it – just the way it appears to be being implemented. If a graduate Google hire knows when they apply that they can’t be “poached” by Apple, then fine – they know that they’re being hired under a certain set of rules and go in with their eyes open.
But for me, the investment is in the person, and to artificially prevent headhunting from companies the employee may or may not be interested in jumping ship to is wrong.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Transparency is always a strong recommendation, but I’m sure they knew this was a gray area to start with. The courts may not agree in the same was that me or you might. Also, what about existing employees?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is simply amazing that you are saying that patents and people are equivalent in cases like these. Patents are owned. Employees are not. There is no comparison.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 8:49 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s what non-compete clauses are for (as well as other contracts). There really aren’t two sides to this argument. One side is highly illegal, and for good reason.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Non-compete clauses are illegal in California, and for good reason.
If an employer doesn’t want an employee leaving “at will,” then the employer should eliminate the “at will employment” policy and implement a contractual policy that provides long-term employment security to the employee in exchange for better loyalty. But they don’t. They want things both ways — all the security of a long-term employment contract, but with the ability to drop an employee at will at a moment’s notice.
They’re learning that markets don’t function like that.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Companies often treat engineers in the same fashion as doctors; they expect them to learn outside of their 9 – 6 obligations. Yes, good companies will often supplement training courses but that is a fraction of our learning process.
Also, to your point there’s a great adage that goes something like this:
CEO: We need to invest more in training our employees
CFO: That will be expensive. What if we spend all of this money and they leave?
CEO: What if we don’t and they stay?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:16 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t buy this argument. In a downturn, those “hard-to-get” engineers become the first casualties of layoffs.
At HP Palm, for instance, numerous HP engineers received retention bonuses only to get laid off a few months later when HP canned hardware development for smartphones and tablets.
Many employers want things both ways — at-will, laissez-faire employment policies that allow termination at a moment’s notice, but with zero labor mobility for employees. If they aren’t willing to guarantee work conditions, compensation and employment security — but instead demand at-will employment — then they should be 100% willing to accept all the consequences of “at will,” including the possibility that at any moment, an employee may find another job.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t see the problem for the HP Palm employees. Every single one of them got their retention paid in full (if they had one), and that came on top of their severance package. It was a pretty good deal for them PROVIDED they indeed were so hot that they could find a new job within 6 months.
You’re mixing problems there.
No poaching policies hurt employees in general, and smaller businesses in particular, the ones that can pay the higher rates. Neither Apple, Google, Intel Pixar, Lucas Film or even HP Palm fall in that category…
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Reminder to Windshield and other resident fanboys/anti-fanboys:
Your two favorites companies engaged in this practice. Stop picking on a single one. I find hilarious that you are completely dismissing 90% of the content of the article just to pick out on one single company.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is what large corporations do all the time.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whoa would be that?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Still, it’s not technically illegal what they did.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
yes it is, that’s why they’re all in court atm getting sued by former software engineers, they artificially limited their wages
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:34 PM EST reply Recommend (26) Flag actions
I can understand an agreement to not try and steal employees, but if they act on their own and won’t be hired.. then that’s not good.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:26 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Doesn’t mean it’s illegal, I have signed partnership forms before that have said that I can’t hire from their company under this agreement. This isn’t exactly an uncommon practice.
Just because there is a lawsuit doesn’t make it illegal. The court ultimately decides that. And actually, they could deem this illegal only in situations like this, where very large companies all have an agreement and file it as anti-trust, whereas a smaller company can do the same exact thing and see issues.
Anti-trust law is the double standard of the legal system. Basically puts huge companies to a different standard (one much more situation and case-by-case) than a standard company.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Becoming a partner (i.e., taking an ownership stake) in company A (or a director) and agreeing not to poach company A’s employees if you leave is not at all the same as a situation where independent companies engage in anti-competitive behavior designed to, among other things, drive down wages.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t see any problem with the companies agreeing not to steal employees from each other now if they go as far as saying they won’t hire employees from any other company then that’s wrong.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It wasn’t limited to that. The unwritten agreement also involved putting a cap on the wages of employees, which meant no competition between the employees, which meant they could pay them whatever they wanted without fear of them moving elsewhere.
They also apparently told each other to fire people who left one company and applied to another.
All of that is plain ridiculous, and if you can’t see a problem with that…..I don’t know what to tell you.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:42 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
Well ultimately that’s the same thing as poaching. When all of a sudden you hear Apple (which is 3 miles away from Google) is hiring for 20k more a year, you are directly competing with them in that respect. But a cap on salaries can be used in a very evil way, but in this case, it wasn’t. Google, Apple, Pixar and Adobe employees all have generous employees and make 6 figures in higher positions and 70k as a medium income.
Basically, the argument can be made for both sides. This is a very gray area where its honestly the companies honest best interest vs the employees honest best interest. Definitely a real debate to be had.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Imagine you hate your boss and your only alternative in the industry is a company not in the top 10 even though you currently are in a salary tier that clearly indicates that you are top 10 material.
This is highly illegal and anti-union.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:35 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
This is not anti-union because not a single one of these workers were unionized.
I agree with the rest of your point. The people being poached were not run-of-the-mill computer programmer types, they were obviously very valuable to their companies. Furthermore, you can bet that the Apple engineer that caused Steve Jobs to send the email received a pretty big Christmas bonus that year.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:22 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I admit my comment was brief. My “anti-union” statement was geared towards the fact that IT workers usually don’t think they need a union because they don’t see the point, being able to just switch jobs. Agreements like this are a reason to form a union in the first place.
So technically you are right, of course, I was just thinking about the reasons why this could happen in the first place, namely no union in the first place the workers could’ve complained to when they found out they were rejected by a competing company due to the “gentleman’s agreement”.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes, but membership in a union (at least in the U.S.) would have prevented the type of salary differentiation that firm negotiation over employee wages inevitably implies. I’m not sure that I agree that these workers would have been better off if they were members of a union.
Another way to put it is that its hard to form a union that will improve your individual welfare when there are about three people in the world who have accumulated the specific human capital that you have. The three of you could try to form a collective bargaining unit, but the fixed costs involved in doing so (hiring lawyers, submitting applications to the NLRB, etc.) would likely outweigh the potential salary benefits.
Cheers!
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I guess you should take a look at “The Selfish Gene”.
(ok ok you could also read Ayn Rand but just for the sake of the argument let’s pretend that working together always yields better results and the warm and fuzzy feeling you get is worth something to you because you aren’t dead inside like Ayn Rand)
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 4:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have previously looked into “The Selfish Gene.” As far as I can tell it was not a compelling book outside of the pop science arena when it was written (I wasn’t alive then, so I can’t be certain on this). I am certain however, that it is not a compelling book now. Its predictions, where testable ( they are largely untestable in any scientific sense) are not supported by the data that has been collected.
Furthermore, Ayn Rand’s work, broadly speaking, corroborates what I am saying. Perhaps you should read it. I don’t agree with much of her philosophy, but her observation of some aspects of life were at times astute.
Finally, please don’t assume that I’m not dead inside. I was trying to refrain from ad hominem arguments, but if you are going to accuse me of having feelings then it is going to get messy in here.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So… you are dead inside then? (took that from your double negative).
The ad hominem was towards Rand, not you.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, you read that double negative correctly. The ad hominem I was referring to was you having the gaul to insinuate that somehow I was not dead inside! :)
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Its weird, but I really don’t give a damn about any of this, even tho I’m sure we all love a good scandal.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So you’ve never had to work for a living, or known someone who has? That’s nice.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:51 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I do worked as a software engineer, but this doesn’t seem out of the norm. I myself have had to sign similar agreements with partner companies. Honestly, it’s reasonable from the companies standpoint. I know that my company would be out several months or maybe even a year to replace me because we are small enough to have entire projects dedicated to single people who are the only ones trained to do those specific tasks. Where people like me were specific trained in applications that I had to go overseas to learn and took a very long period and several projects to truly master.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But it’s the managers and not the employees involved in this. How many rank-and-file Googlers or Applers know they can’t apply for jobs at Intuit or Pixar?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:29 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Let’s be clear here. This is not necessarily proven to be the case. Only one claim in this article claims that someone was rejected to sought a position on their own accord. And if that is found to be true, then I will fully support a lawsuit under that condition. Unless that was a specific condition when applying for the job (which unfortunately if very common in any trade that offers training), the employee should be protected from that.
Just keep in mind that TheVerge explicitly stated this is
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I concede, yes, one example doesn’t make it a fully rounded argument – but on the flip-side, how many HR staff are aware of these policies about not recruiting from the other companies? With the size of these companies, surely not everyone on the recruitment side will be aware of such agreements?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Check my comment above (currently 5th comment down) I laid out 3 specific things I would find as justifying legal action.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You didn’t read the article very closely. “heavily redacted” was in reference to a previous story from last week. This story is about “an unredacted court document that reveals just how deep the proverbial rabbit hole goes”.
And as long as we’re talking about things that are “proven to be the case”, I have noticed that you are continually referring to the enormous cost of training these employees, without having any indication that anything has been spent on training them at all. You are also ignoring the cost that these employees have incurred to train themselves, before the company was in the picture.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 8:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I talk about the training cost because these employees aren’t ready to work the second they get in. In fact, it’s a huge cost to train new employees almost anywhere. First you have to find good ones, then you have to pay for the interview process (which is extensive for these companies, Google actually has engineers quiz you, fly you out there and give you a tour, and have hands on face-to-face time with you). But once there in, just like a server at a new restaurant or a cashier at a new store, these people aren’t productive to the company for an extended period of time that it takes to understand how the companies interworks work. In companies like this, employees could average at 6 months of a non-productive state, where they are costing the company more money than they are producing in work. Not to mention that the goal isn’t to make them productive, but to make them as productive as the person they are replacing.
All in all, I’m sure the total cost of hiring new employees has a pretty steep average per employee. Likely 1/2 – 1 years full salary to complete the process.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That still pretty much amounts to guessing and conjecture on your part. I’d like to see something “proven”.
And again, I don’t really care how high an employer’s hiring cost is. Whatever it is now, it’s worth it to these companies, or they wouldn’t pay it. “but our costs are so hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh” is not a valid argument for fixing the labor market for your employees.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There’s a simple way to mitigate the risk of a good employee leaving your business. Transform from an “at will” work environment to an employment contract that provides greater security to both employee and employer. Google — and any other Silicon Valley heavyweight — could do this easily.
They don’t, because they like the “at-will” model that allows them to fire at a moment’s notice.
They want the best of both worlds — all the convenience and low cost of “at will” employment, with changes that can be imposed on an employee in compensation, work time, etc. at a moment’s notice… but want employees to not benefit themselves from an at-will environment where they can access another opportunity immediately.
That’s one good reason why this illegal behavior should be stopped.
once there in, just like a server at a new restaurant or a cashier at a new store, these people aren’t productive to the company for an extended period of time that it takes to understand how the companies interworks work
A popular myth, but one not bolstered by fact. In my experience, the biggest problem facing new employees isn’t an “inability to do the job,” it’s the culture of the organization, which often elevates hierarchy or politics over the mission of the business. This culture problem is blamed on new employees rather than on the leadership of the business who have allowed politics and hierarchy to overcome the business mission.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This isn’t out of the norm doesn’t mean it’s a good thing: lots of bad/mean things are “in the norm”…
Here in France (no idea about other countries) we have a special section in work contracts (so: between employee and company) that says something like: “in the event of this contract’s breach, you agree not to work for a competitor, nor for a company involved in . We will pay you during this time.”.
By doing so in a higher level, companies ensure they don’t give back some good resource/power to the competition: this is clearly anti-competitive. And the real looser in this case (the ex-employee) doesn’t even know about it, and can’t do anything about it.
So, maybe it’s considered in the norm, but it shouldn’t if you ask me…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I meant “nor for a company involved in (insert your company’s technical field here)”.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Perhaps its “inside knowledge” of a company that also plays a factor?
If you are an employee of Apple then move to Google you may have been privy to the next 18 months of product development.
I know if I went to work for a bank I wasn’t allowed to work for another bank for 3 years.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But you signed a contract. These employees had no idea these companies had this “handshake” policy. This is so clearly, unequivocally wrong that I can’t even think of a justification for it. Competition for labor is part of capitalism. If wages don’t increase, workers can’t afford goods and everything suffers. Most of these companies are posting multi-billion dollar profits per QUARTER, with the fruits of their employee’s labor landing in the hands of BILLIONS of people, and you’re telling me it’s fair to say they can’t afford to compete for labor? A million dollars off the top of any of these companies profits
These are the best and brightest making the software that all of us depend on to do our jobs. These guys should be making close to what executives do, given their relative importance and impact.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:57 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
**A million dollars off the top of any of these companies profits… would be more than enough to keep wages competitive, and these people know their employees are worth it because they’re making these agreements.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t know if this reply was targeted at me, but I agree with you (thus, the “it shouldn’t be considered the norm” => it’s wrong :))
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So they increase the price of their services with the rising costs of development. If they can’t, then they should cut costs. If they can’t do both, that company deserves to die. PERIOD!
You may be grateful to your company for training you and investing into you, but beyond asking to reimburse for the costs of training they have no logical right to keep you from leaving. You’re not a slave if you received training.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Are you an idiot?
Apparently we do have a new class of commenter on the Verge. One who leaps to irrational conclusions on the thinnest of statements. When you have a minute, please explain how you got your panties in such an unsightly twist over the fact that I don’t care about this scandal?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 11:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know a lot of people think this is trivial and hardly anti-trust-worthy, but this definitely needs to end. It makes it difficult for employees to look for work elsewhere without risking their jobs and even puts employees in danger of losing their job if they attempt contact with a competing company’s employees.
That is beyond ridiculous and Google should definitely be punished for it. These “agreements” are not allowed to be signed, on paper, or even publicly known within the company or outside it. In all likelihood, the recruiter had no idea about this ‘handshake’ agreement with Apple and was publicly fired for doing their job.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:34 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
someone needs to get an interview with that guy
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:38 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Why single out Google? Apple, Intel, Intuit and the rest of them are just as complicit. If Steve Jobs directly approached Eric Schmidt, Apple is equally as guilty as Google and should be equally punished for this practice. So should Intel, Intuit, and Pixar. I dont think the settlement goes far enough.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:44 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This whole article and source revolve around the responses of Google between a Google-Apple exchange about “the deal”.
He’s not singling out Google, it’s just what the article is about, read the article / source.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:47 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
I singled out Google because I felt that was the most extreme case presented here. As I said in the first paragraph, where no single company was mentioned, it needs to be ended regardless of industry, company, or individual initiating it.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Also, I know you were trying to insinuate that I have an anti-Google bias, but the couldn’t be further from the truth. I love Google and use their products and services almost exclusively nowadays. That said, I don’t care one bit who it is doing this; it needs to stop and it needs to stop now. It’s despicable and anti-competitive and horrible for consumers and employees alike.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:51 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Hi,
My apologies if my post insinuated you had an anti-Google bias. It was more a general statement that all of these companies are culpable and the law should come down hard on them. The Google firing is one extreme example, but who knows what actions the other companies have taken.
I am in agreement with you, wasnt trying to single you out. Cheers!
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:21 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Likewise, I’m a big fan of most of these companies (Apple, Google, Intel, Pixar, ILM), and use lots of their products. But as you said, that’s irrelevant. This is probably illegal and most certainly immoral and cannot be tolerated by any company.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:54 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
It’s pretty bad for people who like to work in xcode and objective C. Most of that cabal with the exception of google is heavy into THAT stuff.
But seriously, what programmer only knows ONE language? What it really does, is create a massive Illuminati that poaches only from those not networked.
Programmers can’t work in the Cool Kids Club. Kindah makes sense now that Microsoft keeps making such garbage software despite having the best position for recruitment…Programmers will take a pay cut if they can work with other cool programmers.
Seriously, would you want to work with Ballmer? That guy is LOUD.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:54 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What in the world are you rambling on about?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:03 AM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
i’m talking about why apple people have such low salaries relative to other companies who aren’t half as successful as Apple.
Programmers will take a pay cut if they enjoy their work environment. For instance, line up the key executives from Apple, microsoft, google and Facebook. Apple and Facebook execs are a helluva lot more comfortable and laid back.
Joe Belfiore looks like he’s one step away from stabbing you.
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 2:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What are you going on about?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:07 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I’d certainly take a position working alongside Ballmer, should have a hefty paycheck.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
In economics we call that a “compensating wage differential”. Look it up.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you punish Google, you need to punish all the other firms: Apple, Pixar, Intuit, etc. for the same practices because we all know this is not an isolated case.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What is wrong with you people? Is it not obvious that all these companies are most likely guilty, all are being investigated, and most likely all of them are going to be penalized? Just because a lot of the evidence seems to center around or come out of Google, it does not mean anyone is singling out Google. They are all guilty.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let’s spread that the indignation.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:25 AM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
Wow. Where is karma here. Palm does the right thing and they go out of business. I have new found respect for them.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:09 AM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Love the response from Palm, kudos to Ed Colligan for recognizing how idiotic this was.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:59 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Didn’t Apple explicitly demand that Google make a public example of the person fired?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, Googles own CEO did. Apple did contact him and make him aware if the situation.
From the workers rights perspective there are no good guys here.
From corporate rights perspective there are no bad buys here.
Like everything else, it’s no black and white.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apparently you can’t read, can you?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I misread the article. But you can’t not be an arse, can you?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 8:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HR guys know who to interview and who to keep away from. No poach agreements are absolutely legal, btw. Though immoral, their actions towards the HR guy are unfortunately nothing illegal. He breached the employment rules.
No hire and salary setting are absolutely in the anti-trust category, though.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
not true, not every hr professional knows all that information. even people with their sphr certification always know. thats the danger in handshake agreements and/or loosely worded non-competes
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
All HR employees have access to no-hire lists. Those no-hire lists have both companies and individuals.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 9:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
PS: It’s clear that it was an internal employee, not an external recruiter.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 9:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That was actually one of the least objectionable things in the article. It’s perfectly OK to say “we won’t actively recruit people from your company.” It’s totally heinous to say “We won’t hire anybody from your company even if THEY initiate contact.” It’s a fine point, but extremely important.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 8:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Cowardly, and despicable of all companies involved. Serious financial compensation should be granted to those employees affected, and legislation should be passed bringing harsh consequences for future crap like this. Makes me sick to my stomach. Treating employees like slaves.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:58 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Your comparison of this to slavery is more objectionable to me than this issue.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:01 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
We’ve already got one person in this thread comparing employees to patents (which are, you know, owned). It’s not a small leap from there, and if even the apologists for these practices are doing this…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
LOL… Yeah, half the comparisons are misguided at best, dumb in the worst case.
Still, this is old school drama and I almost kind of like it. Am I evil for that?
;-)
(I’m just a sucker for a good story)
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That post really takes the cake
In all honesty, I don’t see where Drome went wrong with the comparison. Putting a limit on your pay while leaving you powerless to change that is awful as shit, and just like that person said before. Less money people make > less taxes paid > less money public schools get, while some fucktard rich ass bastards (%1) keep getting even more rich.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well…. they do treat employees like resources they own. Technically it’s much more like serfdom, but a serf is not that far off from a slave.
That is what higher level and the most valued employees get as a reward. Problem there, is that they don’t get compensated like the CEO’s.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
NO, the comparison to slavery is right on. I’m a silicon valley engineer, and this practice from Google is outright despicable. If you’re not in the silicon valley, then kindly STFU.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How much do you earn in your position as a “slave”?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 6:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
All companies here should be punished severely for this crap. Seriously…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:11 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Oh man that is some shady shit. The whole point us to make as much money as you can in your chosen profession, with companies colluding together you’re stuck. Might as well be a slave. I mean it’s decent pay, but that’s not the point you should be able to make what a company will pay you. If that is limited by each of them “agreeing” to not hire you from the other, and even fire you if you ask. That makes you a slave to that particular industry
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:27 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’d love to see non-compete clauses explicitly outlawed.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:35 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I agree
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That wouldn’t help all that much in this case, seeing that, as mentioned repeatedly in the article, there was nothing put on paper. No clauses there, just a “gentlemen’s agreement”.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s collusion to set pricing and artificially distort supply of a key commodity — skilled labor.
People go to jail when companies do this with computer chips or oil… why not employees, which are the core commodity of technology?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is all pretty shady, it’s one thing to not go after another companies employees it is another to refuse to hire because of some agreement. In this listing Schmidt seems to have a hand in all these little pies to do this.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google, Intel, Intuit and Adobe are all on Fortune’s list of the Top 100 Best Companies to work for, currently. Google being number one. How this information didn’t affect that is quite beyond my comprehension. The company I work for made the list as well, but are the only ones in our peer group to make the list. I’d hate to find out that this kind of thing was happening within my company.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:16 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Meh, that list is sort of crap I think. I work for a company very very high on the list….and I will say that people there are in general much unhappier than pretty much anywhere I’ve worked before. I think the list is more indicative of how the employees of the company feel obligated to respond to the surveys that decide this, rather than it truly being a great place to work.
It’s actually fairly easy to do. You make a portion of a nice fat annual bonus related to things like accolades the company has received, and employee happiness as measured by surveys……and all the sudden you have a bunch of employees who will say they’re happy and that it’s a great place to work, just to make sure the nice bonuses keep on rolling in.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It does not affect the average developer that still will find work at those companies rewarding, interesting, challenging and so on…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The worst company I ever worked for consistently topped the “best places to work in the city” list for a major city in the USA, every year. Meanwhile, employees there couldn’t get out fast enough, and the company had a bad habit of threatening employees who left to work elsewhere with litigation.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Very interesting and from the inside!
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, this is what goes on in the valley.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are those sorts of deals legal?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:51 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Agreeing to not only not hire each other’s employees, but also terminate anyone applying to another company or anyone recruiting people from another company that’s on their “buddy list” you can damn well BET you is illegal.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:08 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
This is some crazy insider shit here.
These quotes could be in exaggerated movies and we wouldn’t know the difference.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 2:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Pirates of Silicon Valley 2?
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:05 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This is unfortunate, but predictable. The world isn’t perfect by any means. The large corporations will always do what they can to stay afloat, even if it means taking measures like these. The sad thing is that the whole ordeal is detrimental.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The sad part is almost all of these companies are very, very profitable, in some cases obscenely profitable. Apple and Google both have over $50B in cash and marketable securities, they hardly need to be pulling bush league stunts like this to fatten their profits.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:04 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Disgusting behaviour of all companies and especially CEOs involved! Particularly the fallout at Google where somebody lost his or her job only to be made an example of – disgusting!
These “gentlemen” should all be held personally responsible, especially in a class action lawsuit. Now that would be a party if this gang had to pay damages from their own pockets! Unfortunately, that wont happen…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
comon, topolsky. reach out to mr jobs and lets get a statement on this story
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:52 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I honestly don’t know if you’re trying to be funny or just a complete idiot, who’s been hiding in a hole for a fair while.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:52 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They like, double senior? Not like those crappy Junior SVPs…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Goddamn corporations. The solution is stronger government regulation, not the conservative crap that’s been foisted on us for the last 30 years. It’s this kind of criminal activity we get when we follow Paul Miller’s philosophy.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It was this that got me:
“Appropriate response, thank you. Please make a public example of this termination with the group.”
I imagined Shona Blofeld pressing a button in a meeting and one of the employees frazzling in a bright burst of light, the others don’t bat an eyelid.
“Mistakes will not be tolerated.” She says as she strokes her pussy.
(sorry, couldn’t help it)
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:33 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
wtf?? i dont about the US but what those companies are doing is SO ILLEGAL its not even funny.
Wow.. How do they get away with it? How can you even justify it?
Is this not “restraint of trade”? What if one guy at apple hates his boss but wants to get out, he cant go to google because of some “gentlemans agreement”?
So your stuck at a company and all the companies you could work for are out of bounds?
The only way I’ve ever seen this stuff work is in sports where your not allowed to talk (its called “tapping up”) a player under contract to another club without permission. And even then that law got ammended so that in the final year of a contract the player can do what he likes. And then again, sports people are not employees in the way that normal people are. They are contractors and clubs basically buy out the contracts from each other (that is what a transfer really is). So its not even near the same as a normal engineer employee working for facebook or Apple.
These guys need to start obeying the law out here.. Bad PR is a bitch..
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Very Illegal. I get what they’re doing, but they should try offering incentives to the employees who are being courted, not black balling them. I’ve lost a little respect for these companies.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 8:22 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
wait wait waaaah…? If changing jobs but staying in the same field is important to you…You should have picked a company that’s a bit more kind to departing employees … This is a common in most industries that have a very limited talented work force, you have to maintain the edge somehow. I see no issue here.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 8:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That it’s common doesn’t make it legal. I would hope that these companies would “maintain the edge” by offering greater value to their employees, rather than conspiring to depress their payroll costs.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
SJ had no problem hiring a datacenter guru from MS, or IBM talent. The same cannot be said about other companies poaching his talented workforce. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Still there is no lack of supporters trying to spin this into an OK thing.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 9:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Jobs raided Palm pretty heavily to get the original iPhone development team. The email he wrote to Colligan, demanding an agreement, was after Palm recruited away several top Apple marketing and engineering people… well after Apple had hired away 2% of Palm to work on the iPhone.
It’s hypocritical nonsense at its finest, IMO. Any company that wants to hire (or keep) a top employee should be prepared to do what’s necessary to keep that employee — work arrangements, compensation, flex time, health care, whatever. These agreements are designed to prevent an employee from finding his true worth in the marketplace and instead pay him an artificially low salary/compensation.
The worst part of this is that every company named in the suit, alleged to have participated, is itself massively profitable and fully capable of paying better wages and benefits to their existing talent. They just don’t want to.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know I should probably be up in arms about this, but I’m not. Business is more like war than anything else, and if to win you have to ally yourself with other companies than that is what you do. It would suck for the guys looking to move up in the industry. This deal looks like it moves across the big hitters in todays tech world, but once again, I can’t get myself to think this is so horrible.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 10:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And now you understand what a big deal MLB has with it’s antitrust agreement with Congress!
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
ohhhh shiatttttt
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 3:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is it just me or does the article start talking about Geshuri before saying who he is?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 11:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To all those near the top of the comment totem-poll, writing effing novels about why this “makes sense” and is “okay”, please STFU!
It is NOT COOL to cock-block someones career because of some stupid BS between CEOs. Man, F all them hoes-a$$ CEOs.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 11:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wasn’t the Steve Balmer Chair-Hurling Incident, where he was screaming about wanting to “fucking kill Google” over something along these lines? I know it was a few years ago, but if memory serves, that whole drama began over Google hiring a Microsoft employee. Or, I suppose in current terms, “poaching” from Microsoft.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 2:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To clarify, do these “gentlemen’s agreements” prevent current employees at a company from going out on their own and seeking employment opportunities at other companies, completely? Or are these informal “agreements” more to prevent HR recruiters from going out and gunning for employees, unprompted?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 2:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
you are free to seek out employment from these companies. There is nothing there that prevents you from doing So.
however, you just wont get hired.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 10:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Does anyone else find it comical that, had Apple done this years ago, there would be no NeXT? Meaning Steve Jobs never would have returned to Apple, we wouldn’t have the iPod, the iPhone, etc., ?
NeXT’s original employees were all poached from Apple.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 7:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.