theodp writes "A Bloomberg report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice, which already is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent. 'Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal,' former Palm CEO Ed Colligan reportedly told Jobs in August 2007." The article notes that Apple was probably reacting to Palm's hiring of Jon Rubenstein, who had been instrumental in developing the iPod and went on to spearhead the Pre for Palm (and has now become Palm's chairman and CEO). "It's the story about the importance of charismatic engineers," said veteran Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo. "People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein. One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple wasn't looking to screw over their employees. They merely wished to make the Apple employment experience more simple and elegant. With other employers, employees must make complicated and confusing decisions about raises and other job opportunities, resolve conflicts between competing employers, etc. At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.
The satire's better because the target is more interesting. It's easy to model Microsoft as this nearly all-powerful obelisk of pure evil, and there's nothing funny, ironic, or edgy about criticizing pure evil. Apple, however, can be modelled as just as evil as Microsoft but with a cheerful, shiny exterior, like an M&M: crunchy and bright-colored on the outside, but filled with darkness. Suddenly there's room for a lot more range of critical approaches, and a lot more targets, especially the people w
Obama's puttin'-geezers-outta-their-misery death panels are even more gun-totin' retarded than Dick Cheney and George Bush's love child with Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez.
See? One sentence mortally offended:
1. Democrats 2. Republicans 3. Gays 4. Latinos 5. African Americans 6. Special Olympics 7. Senior Citizens 8. The NRA 9. the illegitimate
You can play too. See how many special interest groups you can offend with less than 30 words.
"At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface."
At least it was just a potential legal agreement.
I love how it was suggested in William Gibson's novel _Count Zero_. Corporations defended against employee migrations to competitors with imprisonment (you worked in plush headquarters you weren't allowed to leave), military force (railgun), brain bomb implants (leave, die, a la MI3), and my favorite, the suggested (ex-)employee isn't harmed, just some (biological) agent is released that kills everyone arou
Actually, this sort of agreement is common practice, even in Silicon Valley. One example: I left QuickLogic to join Synplicity. Soon after, all my friends were joining Synplicity. QuickLogic was a customer of Synplicity. QuickLogic's CEO had a talk with Synplicity's CEO, and soon after I was told that we don't hire QuickLogic people any more. BTW, both QuickLogic and Synplicity were fantastic companies to work for back then. We'd simply stripped (without meaning too) most of the software talent from QuickLogic, so it's understandable their CEO was pissed. Regardless of the law, most companies can't afford too piss off their customers.
The only thing strange about that situation was it's technically illegal in California. However, such practice is perfectly legal here in NC where I live now. My old boss had an employee in our group that was very good. My boss went to Avanti, and told them never, under any conditions, would he allow that employee to switch to Avanti. You see, in NC, most employees have legally binding non-competition clauses in their employment agreements, which tend to stand up in court, so if you want to change jobs, your boss can threaten sue you directly. This is one of the main reasons high-tech startups suck wind here. Anyway, Avanti saw my old boss's passion about this one guy, so they offered him a job he couldn't refuse right away. D'oh!
This thread is replete with people who think it normal that businesses collude to strenghten their position in the labour market. And yet watch the howls go up if someone suggests that the employees do the same.
I think California's laws against non-competition contracts should be adopted nation wide. It works wonders for the economy when employees can say to their boss, "Screw you, I'm starting my own business, and I'll kick your butt!"
It is normal for businesses to try and collude to tie down their employees, and restrict competition. It's a natural result of the pursuit of money. What we need are laws restricting this in a very effective manner. California has done the best job, SFAIK.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 21, @08:45AM (#29145639)
These cases come up all the time, they fall under restraint of trade. If Apple want to stop someone working elsewhere by contract shenanigans, they have to pay that employee until the contract dates expires.
While it may be true that a company can't legally prevent you from moving over to a competitor of your own free will, there are clauses in employment contracts that seek to prevent an ex-employee from poaching current employees away.
What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent. The evolution of this word as well as 'hunting' and other terms typically associated with big game hunting have become part of our employment lexicon.
I bring this up because the analogy holds to some extent. Top level developers are, in a sense, hunted for their skills. While the bullet isn't what they get, they do get offers ranging from the low 6 figures to the slightly higher than that 6 figures. On the other hand, designers are paid much more than that. Take any marketing company as an example of top designers making money hand over fist. OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the/. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there? Why is it separating the summary from the tags and comments links?
OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the/. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there?
It costs nothing to leave things the heck alone. Knowing when not to tinker with things is apparently much more expensive.
I'm confused, how can one "murder" an animal ? I can see how you can kill it (perhaps by poaching on someone else's property), but how does one "murder" a non-human ? As far as I can tell, the dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
I get that you're against killing animals. I can even understand that, but using emotionally-charged words like 'murder' when they don't apply just weakens the rest of your argument, at least to me.
Murder is a legal term, with a legal definition. This definition, I believe, excludes animals.
But hey, you're free to make up your own definitions instead. I assume if murder applies to pets, then manslaughter must apply as well. When will you be putting out a dictionary?
Common language and legal definitions are not the same. I totally agree that murder means something very specific in the courtroom.
Fortunately, Slashdot is not a courtroom.
I've also heard the term used lately referring to consumption of beverages and food. Good lucking finding that in the law books or an outdated dictionary.
You're talking about the situation where Apple's contract with the employee states that said employee may not work for competitor(s).
This is different. It's either:
Palm state they won't hire anyone who works for Apple (& vice versa).
Or
Palm state they won't actively solicit current employees of Apple (& vice versa).
Since the original article is full of speculative crap and theodp's summary is full of shrill hysterics it's difficult to tell which. IANAL but I'd guess at least the second of those is probably legal.
The problem is that if you DON'T setup these types of agreements, and continue hiring away employees from direct competitors then you open yourself up to nasty patent/trade secret disputes. You've made a business practice of hiring employees with inside knowledge and you just set yourself up for the lawsuits.. that's why they call it "poaching'.
Many business partners have these agreements, so that suppliers aren't competing with their customers for employees on the same projects... after all, why pay another company to do a job when you can just hire their best employees?
From the slashdotter point of view, the headhunting is quite bad for YOUR career. Because these companies headhunt off each other, that means they're not looking for NEW talent (which of course there is such a shortage of!!!) preferring to hire the guy away that did the last cool project that was published, skyrocketing salaries pricing you, the mid-level employee, out of the game. Consider it like salary caps in sports. The stars make multi-million dollar deals.. the other 29 guys that practice just as hard and show up for all the games too get $75k tops... In the same way, for each of these "rockstars" there's an army of guys making barely enough to afford living 2 hours from work (in northern California mind you).. but they make the "rockstars" look good and get the product shipped on time.
This is why the companies focus on out-of-college recruiting almost exclusively (and there aren't enough new graduates willing to work like they have 10 years experience)... so they can pay sub-market wages and dangle the "rockstar" salary, eventually, rather than looking for older, meticulous, team players that get things done on time and under budget... and don't even work OT to do it! But of course they don't work for "rockstar" wages and they don't work for "newbie" wages either.
I don't know which sport you're talking about but in the NFL [proathletesonly.com] the guy with no pro experience makes a minimum of $310,000. The NBA [insidehoops.com] is $457,000.
And Major League Baseball [bizofbaseball.com] is $400,000. Hell, the minimum for someone with any experience in the Minors is $65,000.
"No matter how much resolve you could muster, it was still difficult to quit Apple if Steve wanted you to stay. You'd have to sit down with him for a reality distortion session, which was often effective at getting people to change their minds. One day, a few of us were talking about strategies to overcome Steve's persuasiveness."
Never, why would Steve Jobs do something like that? Jobs is a cut throat CEO, who for some reason people think is so much better than Bill Gates when the two are practically the same, the difference being that at least Gates gives to charity daily, where as Jobs does not. Don't get me know I think that Apple has amazing technologies, but they are definitely overpriced when they don't need to because Jobs himself thinks he is better than so many.
Jobs is, if not an innovator, then at least very clever about which trends to follow and has built a cult of personality. He is an ass, but he's a nerd's kind of ass who admires elegance and wants to get things done.
Bill Gates is a manipulator and has built a cult of anti-personality. Of course, neither one is Jesus. They're both just some corporate masters of your capitalistic destiny. Gates, of course, is the far more successful. He has the kind of power that Jobs fantasizes about; at the top of the Gates foundation, he can alter the futures of whole nations through investment and charity... or the lack thereof.
You are ripping on me because I don't don't give as much as Jobs? I'm not a CEO who makes millions of dollars, so you are right. And I ripped on Jobs and Gates, both were cut throat CEOs who screwed a lot of people over. I was bringing to notice that Jobs hasn't gotten as bad as a rep as Gates has gotten. Jobs is viewed as cool and hip even though he has screwed over so many and has appeared to taken part in some illegal activities along the way. And I am not a PC person or a Mac person, though I do own one
He gets millions from his stock options with Apple and the man is worth around 4.4 billion. Apple also pays for the use of his private jet which is around 800,000 dollars a year. His salary is $1 yes, but he gets the money from other sources.
>Nor is his name on a list of gifts of $1 million or more compiled by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.
Did you bother to read the entire article? Two paragraphs later:
Of course, Jobs and his wife may be giving enormous sums of money to charity anonymously. If they are funneling cash to various causes in private, their names wouldn't show up on any lists, regardless of the size of their gifts.
For a person as private as Jobs, who shuns any publicity about his family life, this seems credible.
I know in the age of facebook, spyware, and blogging about your menstraul cycle, privacy has fallen out of fashion, but some people still appreciate it.
...proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees...
How could that not be illegal? It goes against everything our allegedly free market stands for. Top talent should command top dollar. Like athletes, developers have a finite number of peak production years. They should be able to work for the highest bidder.
Agreed. It's clearly illegal. The Sherman Antitrust act specifically prohibits
"[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce."
The test of this, derrived in a 1918 court case in Chicago, is along the lines of:
"Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition."
All material from wikipedia article on US antitrust laws found here: wikipedia.org [wikipedia.org]
It goes against the ideal of the free market.
But, in a truly unregulated market, there would be nothing stopping two companies colluding like this to their mutual benefit... or entering into any other kind of strange and possibly anti-competitive arrangement.
I'm being serious. It might hurt Apple a bit, and it would hurt Palm a bit, and Microsoft a bit, and Oracle a bit, and Google a bit, but if this person declines taking a job with the colluders, then what will they do? Take work with start ups that can't actually afford to pay them the salary they demand trying to compete in already saturated markets? Engage in subsistence farming and day labor until it gets sorted out? Starve? Apple can afford to lose that person as an employee, but how long can that person afford not to be employed?
This is a symptom of the single greatest flaw in Free Market theory, and one that NOBODY has a satisfying answer to: no true capitalist would ever willingly compete if they did not have to. Market collusion allows the minimization of costs, maximization of profit, and elimination of competition with far less risk or cost than any other method. Competition and free exchange alone creating a sustainable economy free of corruption and systemic iniquity is just a libertarian wet dream (much like that one about Ayn Rand lying naked on a pile of gold bars...).
at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.
on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).
I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew;)
non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.
at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.
on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).
I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew;)
non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.
Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.
A non-compete prevents an employee from working at a competitor. A non-poach prevents a company from actively trying to hire another company's employees.
The difference is, a non-compete prevents employees from willingly seeking employment elsewhere, which is illegal. A non-poach prevents employers from actively trying to "steal" employees. In a non-poach, employees are free and willing to seek employment at the other company.
In this case, it would keep Palm from actively recruiting people from Apple, and Apple from actively recruiting from Palm. It does not prevent any Apple employee who wants to work at Palm from seeking employment at Palm on their own volition, and vice versa. Hell, Apple employees are free to work at Microsoft, if they wish, because there was no non-paoch agreement (that we know of) between the two companies.
It's the same deal between Apple and Google. Apple agrees not to recruit people from Google, and vice-versa, but individual employees are still free to leave and join the other.
These non-poaching agreements aren't really a big deal - they don't prevent employees from leaving and joining the other company (or any other). It just prevents companies from actively targeting employees at the other company. Examples include say, setting up a little booth off campus (but where employees walk by anyhow) offering jobs to them, having headhunters that will then call employees at their desks, or putting up billboards saying stuff like "Apple employee? Come work for Palm!" in full view of the Apple campus (EA did this to Radical - rented a billboard right outside the Radical offices).
At worst, it's a form of collusion between two companies which might be used to keep salaries low, but there's enough other companies out there that employees can work for.
It's like two car dealerships agreeing not to steal business away from each other - the customer is free to shop between the two (and haggle), but one dealer won't go and say "buy a car from me instead of this guy!" to customers visiting the other guy's lot.
This is why you never, ever trust an employer to do right by you. All the incentives are aligned the wrong way, and to rise high in a company, you practically have to be a slick sociopath. The same guy that asks you how your day went by the water cooler would have you chained to a desk 14 hours to day if the law would let him get away with it.
People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein.
Interesting... I used to work for a guy like that. I and several people I talked to joined the company solely based upon our interview with him. After he got let go following a dispute with upper management, most of those under him left as well. He was somewhat notorious for ignoring the anti compete policies and having a band of loyal followers where ever he went.
The guy cared about the people under him, and would try to help them advance their careers. Their appreciation of that was only natural. Combine that with a strong sense of direction and a willingness to take command and you've got a pretty effective leader. Only problem is getting his direction to line up with the business... so maybe guys like that just belong at the top, or running their own gig.
I know someone who moved from the iPhone project to Palm. He was at a high enough level to be screamed at by Steve Jobs in person, and he didn't like that. He waited until the iPhone shipped, then left for a company with sane management.
If I had worked for any of these companies and found out that I was now a pwned slave to them with no ability to move to another strong company worth working for I'd want the Feds to clean their clocks out -- and give me my share of the damages!
How many PHBs here were rubbing their hands together with glee at review time knowing that the employee they were about to dump on had no option to move to any other comparable company no matter what they were told?
that if this were microsoft, people would be yelling and screaming, and calling ballmer an evil bastard.
But noooo.... since this is apple- half the freaking people will defend them even if they're being evil.
Look- it does not matter how shiny or great your new mac is- the corporation that made it is just as underhanded and evil as its main competitor, just less successful at being evil.
This wrap-up article appears to be a Palm piece designed to attach them more firmly to Apple in people's minds. Trying to imply Palm is so great that Apple is trying to stop them and also imply that Palm is just like Apple, in fact they have half of Apple's engineers!
The real kicker is the last part. "These people work for Rubenstein". Yeah, maybe that's true for Mike Bell. Pete Alexander (who used to work for Mike Bell) just quit Apple (was forced out) and will be working at Palm within 3 months.
But there are a lot of people for whom this doesn't apply. I used to work for Rubenstein and I can tell you he's so much not a people person it's ridiculous. He makes 2000-era Al Gore look personable. He would periodically get up and address the team and he would say things that clearly showed he didn't any real connection to us or even know what we were doing. For example, he once rallied us by saying the software/hardware release we just did was the best one we had ever done. The whole crowd groaned because we knew it wasn't, that it was pushed out the door and in fact we had a plans for a near-term emergency.0.1 update and a rapidly following.0.2 update.
Maybe if you work directly for the guy day-to-day you can form an attachment to him, but to anyone lower down in the ranks, it isn't the same.
As to why Steve Jobs "let" Rubenstein leave, I'm sure it was similar reasons as why Tony Fadell left. Because both realized they wouldn't be the next CEO of the company. Steve Jobs only action then of "letting" them leave was to not step aside and let Rubenstein or Fadell be CEO. Rubenstein got out, and lo and behold he's now the CEO of Palm.
At Apple, employees just work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At Apple, employees just work (Score:5, Funny)
ah yes, the infamous iWork program. I've heard good and bad things about this program.
Last I read, iWork is not compatible with iLife, unless you're running the iWork is iLife RC2.
I have not updated to that level of iLife, thankfully.
Parent
Re:At Apple, employees just work (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At Apple, employees just work (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or is it more fun bashing Apple than Microsoft?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At Apple, employees just work (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, come on, it's fun bashin' everybody.
Watch this:
Obama's puttin'-geezers-outta-their-misery death panels are even more gun-totin' retarded than Dick Cheney and George Bush's love child with Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez.
See? One sentence mortally offended:
1. Democrats
2. Republicans
3. Gays
4. Latinos
5. African Americans
6. Special Olympics
7. Senior Citizens
8. The NRA
9. the illegitimate
You can play too. See how many special interest groups you can offend with less than 30 words.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface."
At least it was just a potential legal agreement.
I love how it was suggested in William Gibson's novel _Count Zero_. Corporations defended against employee migrations to competitors with imprisonment (you worked in plush headquarters you weren't allowed to leave), military force (railgun), brain bomb implants (leave, die, a la MI3), and my favorite, the suggested (ex-)employee isn't harmed, just some (biological) agent is released that kills everyone arou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is only our current standing in technology that prevents some of these being employed :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoosh!
Peace, Love and Anti-Competitive Behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently the reply was - (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apparently the reply was - (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess that it would be more likely "If Steve Jobs does it, it's not illegal"
Parent
Re:Apparently the reply was - (Score:5, Funny)
Don't think "illegal". Think "legally different".
Parent
Re:Apparently the reply was - (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Apparently the reply was - (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this sort of agreement is common practice, even in Silicon Valley. One example: I left QuickLogic to join Synplicity. Soon after, all my friends were joining Synplicity. QuickLogic was a customer of Synplicity. QuickLogic's CEO had a talk with Synplicity's CEO, and soon after I was told that we don't hire QuickLogic people any more. BTW, both QuickLogic and Synplicity were fantastic companies to work for back then. We'd simply stripped (without meaning too) most of the software talent from QuickLogic, so it's understandable their CEO was pissed. Regardless of the law, most companies can't afford too piss off their customers.
The only thing strange about that situation was it's technically illegal in California. However, such practice is perfectly legal here in NC where I live now. My old boss had an employee in our group that was very good. My boss went to Avanti, and told them never, under any conditions, would he allow that employee to switch to Avanti. You see, in NC, most employees have legally binding non-competition clauses in their employment agreements, which tend to stand up in court, so if you want to change jobs, your boss can threaten sue you directly. This is one of the main reasons high-tech startups suck wind here. Anyway, Avanti saw my old boss's passion about this one guy, so they offered him a job he couldn't refuse right away. D'oh!
Parent
Re:Apparently the reply was - (Score:5, Insightful)
This thread is replete with people who think it normal that businesses collude to strenghten their position in the labour market. And yet watch the howls go up if someone suggests that the employees do the same.
Mart
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think California's laws against non-competition contracts should be adopted nation wide. It works wonders for the economy when employees can say to their boss, "Screw you, I'm starting my own business, and I'll kick your butt!"
It is normal for businesses to try and collude to tie down their employees, and restrict competition. It's a natural result of the pursuit of money. What we need are laws restricting this in a very effective manner. California has done the best job, SFAIK.
It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:3, Interesting)
These cases come up all the time, they fall under restraint of trade. If Apple want to stop someone working elsewhere by contract shenanigans, they have to pay that employee until the contract dates expires.
Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:5, Informative)
While it may be true that a company can't legally prevent you from moving over to a competitor of your own free will, there are clauses in employment contracts that seek to prevent an ex-employee from poaching current employees away.
What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent. The evolution of this word as well as 'hunting' and other terms typically associated with big game hunting have become part of our employment lexicon.
I bring this up because the analogy holds to some extent. Top level developers are, in a sense, hunted for their skills. While the bullet isn't what they get, they do get offers ranging from the low 6 figures to the slightly higher than that 6 figures. On the other hand, designers are paid much more than that. Take any marketing company as an example of top designers making money hand over fist. OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the /. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there? Why is it separating the summary from the tags and comments links?
Parent
Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs nothing to leave things the heck alone. Knowing when not to tinker with things is apparently much more expensive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get that you're against killing animals. I can even understand that, but using emotionally-charged words like 'murder' when they don't apply just weakens the rest of your argument, at least to me.
Simon.
Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:4, Insightful)
Murder is a legal term, with a legal definition. This definition, I believe, excludes animals.
But hey, you're free to make up your own definitions instead. I assume if murder applies to pets, then manslaughter must apply as well. When will you be putting out a dictionary?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Common language and legal definitions are not the same. I totally agree that murder means something very specific in the courtroom.
Fortunately, Slashdot is not a courtroom.
I've also heard the term used lately referring to consumption of beverages and food. Good lucking finding that in the law books or an outdated dictionary.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder [wiktionary.org]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murder [urbandictionary.com]
4. murder
What annoying, whiney, and probably unemployed vegetarians call eating meat or wearing fur.
Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:5, Interesting)
You're talking about the situation where Apple's contract with the employee states that said employee may not work for competitor(s).
This is different. It's either:
Palm state they won't hire anyone who works for Apple (& vice versa).
Or
Palm state they won't actively solicit current employees of Apple (& vice versa).
Since the original article is full of speculative crap and theodp's summary is full of shrill hysterics it's difficult to tell which. IANAL but I'd guess at least the second of those is probably legal.
Parent
Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that if you DON'T setup these types of agreements, and continue hiring away employees from direct competitors then you open yourself up to nasty patent/trade secret disputes. You've made a business practice of hiring employees with inside knowledge and you just set yourself up for the lawsuits.. that's why they call it "poaching'.
Many business partners have these agreements, so that suppliers aren't competing with their customers for employees on the same projects... after all, why pay another company to do a job when you can just hire their best employees?
From the slashdotter point of view, the headhunting is quite bad for YOUR career. Because these companies headhunt off each other, that means they're not looking for NEW talent (which of course there is such a shortage of!!!) preferring to hire the guy away that did the last cool project that was published, skyrocketing salaries pricing you, the mid-level employee, out of the game. Consider it like salary caps in sports. The stars make multi-million dollar deals.. the other 29 guys that practice just as hard and show up for all the games too get $75k tops ... In the same way, for each of these "rockstars" there's an army of guys making barely enough to afford living 2 hours from work (in northern California mind you).. but they make the "rockstars" look good and get the product shipped on time.
This is why the companies focus on out-of-college recruiting almost exclusively (and there aren't enough new graduates willing to work like they have 10 years experience)... so they can pay sub-market wages and dangle the "rockstar" salary, eventually, rather than looking for older, meticulous, team players that get things done on time and under budget... and don't even work OT to do it! But of course they don't work for "rockstar" wages and they don't work for "newbie" wages either.
Parent
Not in the US for sports. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stating the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."
Simple - by forcing him to report to Steve Jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Jobs probably just told him "You don't matter as much as you think you do, anyway." [folklore.org]
Re:Stating the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't seem so easy.
"No matter how much resolve you could muster, it was still difficult to quit Apple if Steve wanted you to stay. You'd have to sit down with him for a reality distortion session, which was often effective at getting people to change their minds. One day, a few of us were talking about strategies to overcome Steve's persuasiveness."
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Are_You_Gonna_Do_It.txt [folklore.org]
Parent
Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs is, if not an innovator, then at least very clever about which trends to follow and has built a cult of personality. He is an ass, but he's a nerd's kind of ass who admires elegance and wants to get things done.
Bill Gates is a manipulator and has built a cult of anti-personality. Of course, neither one is Jesus. They're both just some corporate masters of your capitalistic destiny. Gates, of course, is the far more successful. He has the kind of power that Jobs fantasizes about; at the top of the Gates foundation, he can alter the futures of whole nations through investment and charity... or the lack thereof.
Parent
Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:4, Funny)
Totally true. The turtleneck is there to conceal an armoured gorget.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
>Nor is his name on a list of gifts of $1 million or more compiled by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.
Did you bother to read the entire article? Two paragraphs later:
I know in the age of facebook, spyware, and blogging about your menstraul cycle, privacy has fallen out of fashion, but some people still appreciate it.
Parent
How could that not be illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
How could that not be illegal? It goes against everything our allegedly free market stands for. Top talent should command top dollar. Like athletes, developers have a finite number of peak production years. They should be able to work for the highest bidder.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce."
The test of this, derrived in a 1918 court case in Chicago, is along the lines of:
"Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition."
All material from wikipedia article on US antitrust laws found here: wikipedia.org [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How could that not be illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
But then what would they do?
I'm being serious. It might hurt Apple a bit, and it would hurt Palm a bit, and Microsoft a bit, and Oracle a bit, and Google a bit, but if this person declines taking a job with the colluders, then what will they do? Take work with start ups that can't actually afford to pay them the salary they demand trying to compete in already saturated markets? Engage in subsistence farming and day labor until it gets sorted out? Starve? Apple can afford to lose that person as an employee, but how long can that person afford not to be employed?
This is a symptom of the single greatest flaw in Free Market theory, and one that NOBODY has a satisfying answer to: no true capitalist would ever willingly compete if they did not have to. Market collusion allows the minimization of costs, maximization of profit, and elimination of competition with far less risk or cost than any other method. Competition and free exchange alone creating a sustainable economy free of corruption and systemic iniquity is just a libertarian wet dream (much like that one about Ayn Rand lying naked on a pile of gold bars...).
Parent
Re:How could that not be illegal (Score:4, Informative)
see 'non-compete clauses'.
at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.
on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india ;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).
I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew ;)
non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.
Parent
Non-Poaching != Non-Compete (Score:5, Informative)
Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.
A non-compete prevents an employee from working at a competitor.
A non-poach prevents a company from actively trying to hire another company's employees.
The difference is, a non-compete prevents employees from willingly seeking employment elsewhere, which is illegal. A non-poach prevents employers from actively trying to "steal" employees. In a non-poach, employees are free and willing to seek employment at the other company.
In this case, it would keep Palm from actively recruiting people from Apple, and Apple from actively recruiting from Palm. It does not prevent any Apple employee who wants to work at Palm from seeking employment at Palm on their own volition, and vice versa. Hell, Apple employees are free to work at Microsoft, if they wish, because there was no non-paoch agreement (that we know of) between the two companies.
It's the same deal between Apple and Google. Apple agrees not to recruit people from Google, and vice-versa, but individual employees are still free to leave and join the other.
These non-poaching agreements aren't really a big deal - they don't prevent employees from leaving and joining the other company (or any other). It just prevents companies from actively targeting employees at the other company. Examples include say, setting up a little booth off campus (but where employees walk by anyhow) offering jobs to them, having headhunters that will then call employees at their desks, or putting up billboards saying stuff like "Apple employee? Come work for Palm!" in full view of the Apple campus (EA did this to Radical - rented a billboard right outside the Radical offices).
At worst, it's a form of collusion between two companies which might be used to keep salaries low, but there's enough other companies out there that employees can work for.
It's like two car dealerships agreeing not to steal business away from each other - the customer is free to shop between the two (and haggle), but one dealer won't go and say "buy a car from me instead of this guy!" to customers visiting the other guy's lot.
Parent
Re:Non-Poaching != Non-Compete (Score:5, Funny)
You make a very bold statement.
Parent
Fuck you, employers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why you never, ever trust an employer to do right by you. All the incentives are aligned the wrong way, and to rise high in a company, you practically have to be a slick sociopath. The same guy that asks you how your day went by the water cooler would have you chained to a desk 14 hours to day if the law would let him get away with it.
Speaking of getting screwed - why are there specific regulations in the federal labor laws that exempt "certain computer workers" from overtime pay [flsa.com]?
Working For The Man (Score:4, Informative)
People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein.
Interesting... I used to work for a guy like that. I and several people I talked to joined the company solely based upon our interview with him. After he got let go following a dispute with upper management, most of those under him left as well. He was somewhat notorious for ignoring the anti compete policies and having a band of loyal followers where ever he went.
The guy cared about the people under him, and would try to help them advance their careers. Their appreciation of that was only natural. Combine that with a strong sense of direction and a willingness to take command and you've got a pretty effective leader. Only problem is getting his direction to line up with the business... so maybe guys like that just belong at the top, or running their own gig.
Some of them just can't stand Jobs. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know someone who moved from the iPhone project to Palm. He was at a high enough level to be screamed at by Steve Jobs in person, and he didn't like that. He waited until the iPhone shipped, then left for a company with sane management.
If I Had Worked For Any Of These Companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many PHBs here were rubbing their hands together with glee at review time knowing that the employee they were about to dump on had no option to move to any other comparable company no matter what they were told?
I find it annoying (Score:3, Interesting)
But noooo.... since this is apple- half the freaking people will defend them even if they're being evil.
Look- it does not matter how shiny or great your new mac is- the corporation that made it is just as underhanded and evil as its main competitor, just less successful at being evil.
a ridiculously hagiographic article (Score:5, Insightful)
This wrap-up article appears to be a Palm piece designed to attach them more firmly to Apple in people's minds. Trying to imply Palm is so great that Apple is trying to stop them and also imply that Palm is just like Apple, in fact they have half of Apple's engineers!
The real kicker is the last part. "These people work for Rubenstein". Yeah, maybe that's true for Mike Bell. Pete Alexander (who used to work for Mike Bell) just quit Apple (was forced out) and will be working at Palm within 3 months.
But there are a lot of people for whom this doesn't apply. I used to work for Rubenstein and I can tell you he's so much not a people person it's ridiculous. He makes 2000-era Al Gore look personable. He would periodically get up and address the team and he would say things that clearly showed he didn't any real connection to us or even know what we were doing. For example, he once rallied us by saying the software/hardware release we just did was the best one we had ever done. The whole crowd groaned because we knew it wasn't, that it was pushed out the door and in fact we had a plans for a near-term emergency .0.1 update and a rapidly following .0.2 update.
Maybe if you work directly for the guy day-to-day you can form an attachment to him, but to anyone lower down in the ranks, it isn't the same.
As to why Steve Jobs "let" Rubenstein leave, I'm sure it was similar reasons as why Tony Fadell left. Because both realized they wouldn't be the next CEO of the company. Steve Jobs only action then of "letting" them leave was to not step aside and let Rubenstein or Fadell be CEO. Rubenstein got out, and lo and behold he's now the CEO of Palm.