Google, Apple and Others Accused of 'No Poaching' Deal 276
lightbox32 writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, several of the US's largest technology companies, which include Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Intuit and Pixar Animation, are in the final stages of negotiations with the Justice Department to avoid a court battle over whether they colluded to hold down wages by agreeing not to poach each other's employees. 'The Justice Department would have to convince a court not just that such accords existed, but that workers had suffered significant harm as a result. The companies may not want to take a chance in court. If the government wins, it could open the floodgates for private claimants, even a class action by employees. A settlement would allow the Justice Department to halt the practice, without the companies having to admit to any legal violations.'"
Re:so what's the free market solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
The companies were already engaging in the free market solution.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping wages artificially low is hardly "just some companies making a deal". It's anti-competitive and disrupts the marketplace. It's also illegal.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, there are antitrust laws that preclude them from collusion, both in the customer marketplace and in the labor market. I don't necessarily agree with such manipulation of markets, but such collusion is as anti-competitive as was Microsoft's attempted collusion with Netscape (divide the browser between Windows and everything else) and Apple ("knife the baby").
So if you were calling for blood when Microsoft was doing it, you should be calling for blood when Google or Apple does it, at least if you're trying to be consistent.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, in that I believe it is the only fundamental system that works. However that doesn't mean it doesn't need some regulation. Reason is that capitalism only works when there is competition. When companies fight people win. This applies not only in terms of product competition, but competition for employees as well. The incentive to keep working conditions good, pay high, and so on is that if you don't, you'll lose good people to other companies.
Well, just like this any other kind of collusion, if they collude to keep pay down, that is anti-competitive and hurts things in the long run.
For that matter, that sort of thing leads back to what originally started unions. Something mining companies were particularly good at was removing any mobility you had. You'd find a mining town and the only stores in town were owned by the mining company. As a miner, you had no choice but to shop there. They charged outrageous prices, which in tandem with low wages meant you had to run credit. You got indebted to the company and couldn't leave.
Now obviously this is far less odious, but it is the same kind of thing just a much lesser degree. They want to artificially depress prices and work to remove mobility from the employees. You get a job at one company, and the others just won't hire you. That then lets them pay less, and care less about quality of work environment.
Remember that the reason to like capitalism isn't for its own sake, but because it gives us a society that is over all the best for people, one where people are better off over all than any other. What that also means is we shouldn't just take a hands off "Anything goes," idea. When something runs counter to that, we need to step in and regulate it. That really is the function of government after all.
It is rarely the case that extremes work well, and capitalism is no exception. It works extremely well, but that doesn't mean you let it run rampant and have an "anything goes" kind of attitude. You regulate and balance it to try and create a system that has the greatest overall benefit.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's illegal under federal law. Doesn't matter what state law says, if the Justice Department can convince a judge that federal law applies (not too hard).
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you believe that, then I have some prime real estate and a bridge to sell to you.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of a teaming agreement is, in part, to keep wages reasonable by discouraging poaching
So, seeing past the substitution of the word "low" with the gentler word "reasonable", it basically is a form of anti-competitive collusion.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, "we" like capitalism because it glorifies being a greedy pig who can afford to overindulge while making fun of all the have-nots created by "our" hoarding. "We" just love it that those anti-materialist, unambitious scumbags have to either get with the program and sell out or become disenfranchised and do without the basics of life! Yep, that there's what "we" call justice, citizen!
***sigh***
The USA I grew up in no longer exists.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well reasoned.
One minor point: No part of this practice is consistent capitalism.
Capitalism requires free markets. If the allegations are true, these companies worked directly to destroy the free market.
The right to sell one's own labor in the market place is the most fundamental and essential market of all.
Destroying markets to gain monopoly advantage is not part of capitalism.
Is it so hard to find good people? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I love are the contortions employers go through to complain that they can't find talented people while doing everything they can to make sure they don't accidentally hire talent. Ranges from interpreting experiences and education as not applicable or relevant to flat out just not believing the resume, though they don't put it that way of course. Things like declaring that Windows Server 2003 experience doesn't count for Windows Server 2008. We've all heard the stories about the requirements for more years of experience than is possible. And who knows, maybe they've made a subjective evaluation that they just don't like this dorky geek they're interviewing and are trying to push his buttons, trying to create the excuse they need to show him the door. The way things should work is that a CS degree ought to be enough for a development position, period. And that no one earns such a degree if they can't develop. Post a "help wanted" ad, and take the next appropriately degreed person who walks in the door. I think it nearly was that easy to get professional work in the 1950's. But now?
And then they poach each other? These employers are like the sort of women who think all single men are single because there's something wrong with them, and spend all their time trying to steal married men away from their wives. It's an understandable kind of mental laziness. Why go to all the trouble of thoroughly checking someone out when it's easier to let others do that and then lure away their picks? However, they have to balance that with several worries. Not all picks are good ones. If he could be lured away once, he could be lured away again. Or that a prospect might be a waste of time because he's faithful and satisfied and can't be lured away.
Non-poaching agreements definitely damage the unemployed. It might seem the other way. If an employer can't poach, the only place to look is the market. But in balance, I think that benefit is outweighed by the lower compensation they can pay, and the effects that has on everyone. Without such anti-competitive measures, some of these employers would more often take a chance on someone who is less likely to be tempted away and who can be hired for less.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
But they do reduce it considerably. If you try to kill someone and fail, it doesn't mean you did nothing wrong.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how I never see capitalists whining that people aren't giving them free shit.
Makes me wonder who's the real "greedy pig"?
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the good ole days employees only had to worry about being grilled or fried...
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's highly disruptive to be laid off the day after you close on a house -- happened to a friend of mine. It's highly disruptive to be laid off with a baby on the way -- happened to me. Workers get no protection from "highly disruptive" -- it's on our heads to have savings and backup plans, just in case. If a project is that valuable to a company, then they will find a way to compensate their employees (e.g., completion bonuses, and yes, I have even been paid one of these) so that they will be harder to peel away from the project.
And if their pay is "piddly" compared to their value (the "damage done to timelines" -- that is their value, right?) then they are underpaid.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I really don't understand is why people are in such support of capitalism run-wild, that a mining town that buys and sells everything from coal to soap to workers themselves is such a good thing. If corporations are people, by law, why do we want to give them more rights.
When it gets to the point that a company is taking advantage of the workforce - the the point that Microsoft won't pay you double your salary, though you are qualified and they have it, because your actual employer made a deal with them not to. People will come here and say that is a good thing, and that the rights of the company supersede the rights of the worker.
How is that American? How is that anything close to human rights?
Re:The devil in the details (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the best argument against any of these types of labor practices. It's not about wage or commodore64 there not being able to find a job - it's that his kids will certainly not want to pursue his career and eventually schools will start dropping the programs from their options. It is like a reverse brain-drain. We may get the good Indian workers, for a while, but then we will be stuck when they are bigger than us (and we've fed them info and life experience) and we have nothing to come back with.
It's not about the jobs, it is about our position as a nation and sadly multi-national corporations are simply going to do what works best for them. It doesn't matter if they started here, their stock can be listed on foreign exchanges and other countries have banks.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from all those companies who have been bailed out and keep asking for more money and all the telecom companies who were given huge tax breaks in the 90's for fiber-to-the-curb that never happened and don't want to repay the government, yes, you usually don't see capitalists whining about people not giving them free shit.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you taking the piss?! Have you been living under a rock for.. well forever?!
A recent example would be the MPAA and RIAA and their clients.
Capitalists whine for new legislation (or less in some cases - fewer than you would think) that allows them to rip-off the consumers more, and bitch like hell when they don't get it - to the point of bribes and threats.