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.'"
The devil in the details (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM
Microsoft
Yahoo
Genentech
The agency has decided not to pursue charges against companies that had what it believes were legitimate reasons for agreeing not to poach each other's employees, said people familiar with the matter. Instead, it's focusing on cases in which it believes the non-solicit agreement extended well beyond the scope of any collaboration.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:1, Interesting)
I've personally been in a circumstance (which I found out about afterwards) where I had my employer threaten a vendor of ours about hiring me. The conversations, which would have doubled my pay, stopped dead and I had no idea why at the time. I only found out after my former VP left that it had taken place.
This stuff happens A LOT, especially in vendor relationships. The problem in our industry is that all the major companies buy stuff from each other. In my specific case, I was pretty upset that my former employer had blocked such a major career step forward when I found out.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what? You're absolutely right. Industry should have the absolute word on what they do for their hiring practices.
They are private companies. If they want to do these things, they should be able.
If they want to not hire old people... Tough, it's private industry, man!
Or black people. Now, I'm not a racist. Many of my friends are black. But if a private company wants to refuse employment to black people, who am I to tell them "no, you can't make private business decisions about your private business"! God, we live in such a nanny-state these days.
And those disableds, you know, the funny-looking, wheelchair ones. If the boss doesn't want those guys cramping their style, I say, give them the boot.
And if people want to unionize? Tough shit! The boss owns the company, not the unions, not the gub'ment, so they should keep their gritty hands off.
I am really afraid that the openness of private industry is inhibited by preventing hiring decisions. Think of the economic damage caused by letting all these undesirables get hired! Can you imagine? Some of them might actually make a living!
</hyperbole> Damn, the Reagan era and all of the bullshit that followed has really contaminated people. Employees being able to "play the field" and better negotiate their salary is a good thing. For crying out loud, even you free market idiots in the audience should like it, because it allows employee wages to be set by the free market. But some people will go so far to defend the actions of corporate oligarchs that they are willingly blind to such realities...
If there's such a deal, it ain't workin' very well (Score:3, Interesting)
...since one of my Adobe (former) co-workers just left for a gig at Pixar. Someone else left a while back for Google. And there are several ex-Apple folks on my team at Adobe.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
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").
Most anti-trust laws like the Sherman Anti-trust act apply to trusts like monopolies and cartels. And they apply to products and services to consumers, not labor unless the product or service was labor (i.e. a temp agency). Before any anti-trust laws can apply, there must be a trust established. I don't think that anyone can argue Apple nor Google has any control of labor. The situation might be different if it was two temp agencies that controlled the temp supply in a region. It may be illegal for other reasons but not for anti-trust.
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.
*Sigh* Microsoft did not get in trouble for having a monopoly. There are many cases where having a monopoly is perfectly legal. Microsoft got in trouble for using monopoly power to harm competitors and partners. In this case, Apple and Google may have agreed not to actively pursue other employees; however, I did not see that they prevented people from leaving voluntarily. If anything this helps competitors; Apple won't look at Google employees? Nothing stops Microsoft/Yahoo/Oracle/etc from doing so.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
FWIW they claim keeping wages low wasn't the intent of the agreement :
"The companies have argued to the government that there's nothing anticompetitive about the no-poaching agreements. They say they must be able to offer each other assurances that they won't lure away each others' star employees if they are to collaborate on key innovations that ultimately benefit the consumer."
They have a point. You could spin it as beneficial to employees because it protects the employer from being hurt by competitors hiring away key people (that's economic warfare instead of competing) and it keeps the salaries of "superstars" from inflating to artificial highs (bubbles help no-one.) But it's clearly a grey area.
Re:The devil in the details (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Collusion of any kind should never be allowed, as it distorts freedom and hurts consumers (and workers).
One of the reasons I quit IEEE is because I got tired of reading articles from them about how the government needs to allow more H1B1 visas to hire foreign engineers/programmers. Clearly IEEE was colluding with corporations and representing their interests. Why would I want to face competition from Temp Engineers willing to work at $15/hour? If companies face a shortage, let them hire some unemployed or fresh-out-of-college Americans rather than import workers. So I stepped sending money to IEEE.
Corporate fascism (Score:2, Interesting)
-edfardos
Apple Board Connection? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like more than a coincidence to me.
Re:The devil in the details (Score:3, Interesting)
Then explain these job opening totals [netmedia1.com]:
Engineering (hardware): USA 67, India 0, China 17, Other 47
IT & Telecommunications (non consulting): USA 233, India 181, China 113, Other 574
Research: USA 125, India 4, China 8, Other 29
Software Development: USA 126, India 50, China 320, Other 468
All categories combined: USA 2781, India 615, China 1043, Other 3596
Or are you claiming the R&D is outsourced to other companies (as opposed to working for IBM overseas), in which case I'd have to ask which companies? As far as I can tell IBM owns more pure research facilities [ibm.com] than most companies. Note that three out of the eight are in the US, while no other country has more than one.
Microsoft? It just so happens.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I happened to work in a place where both HP and Microsoft employees in close proximity, and I was informed by many employees that there were agreements that the other would not hire the workers of one, until they had been away from their respective company for at least 6 months...
I knew guys on the HP side that wanted to work for Microsoft, but they couldn't afford a 6 month vacation in order to get a job elsewhere...
Re:The devil in the details (Score:3, Interesting)
The following companies confirmed they were questioned but have been relieved of the Justice Department investigation:
IBM
There's probably not a lot of demand for a bunch of 65-year-olds...
Microsoft
Except for maybe HP - where would Microsofties go, exactly? MS Research folks might have suitors from Google I suppose... but really, the main "competitor" would be academia.
Yahoo
Yeah, Yahoo's been such a player over the past 10 years, I'm sure their people are in high demand... (yes, that's sarcasm)
Genentech
All I can say is - how does Genentech fit in with these other companies at all?
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:1, Interesting)
Shrug. My definition is the correct definition. Free means free.
It's the same false definition people use when claiming the GPL is the most "free" license. It's obviously less free than many other OS licenses, because it puts more restraints on what can be done with it.
Note I'm not saying a market in which there are some restraints can't also be called "free". I'm saying that complaining that a "cowboy, wild west, unregulated" market isn't free is simply false.
I mean, I see why you do it. You think you can co-opt the word "free" and beat capitalists at their own game by being "freer than thou". I guess it's a nice tactic and all, I just don't buy it.
Hey rabble..I mean my constituents, I want a truly free market. One where you are free to buy a price-controlled house for $100k, where gas is price-controlled at no more than $2 a gallon, and where we hike taxes those fat cat corporatists when they collude to distort the free market by refusing to immediately give up the rights to life-saving technologies to other companies. Why should those fat-cat pharmaceutical CEOs rake in all that profit, I want a free market where every discovery is immediately in the public domain!
Yes, I've noted the rabble rouser's favorite phrase is Fat Cat X. Fat Cat Washington Politicians. Fat Cat Corporate CEOs. Fat Cat Lawyers. Fat Cat...
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you know for a fact they have a really dreadful allergy, you will.
More to the point, however futile the gesture, if you actually believe it will kill them, you are guilty of attempted murder.
Re:Competitive labor markets (Score:3, Interesting)
Well sure, when you use the threat of using overseas slavery.... that will go over well with the American people.
Every corporation could pull out of America if they want...
Is that what they want?
America will be fine without them. We'll rebuild ourselves without them, and take care of our people, and lock those corporations out of our country all together.
Is that what you want? :)
Being a hard ass can go both ways... and believe me... Nothing is more fun and exciting than our country (America) angry, and determined to say Fuck you as a united front.
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, I wonder if that's because the population has grown massively and poor people breed faster than middle class or rich people?
Furthermore, this is false. Across the board you make more (in inflation sdjusted dollars) than you did in 1967 in every quartile. So your standard of living has not gone down.
Complaining about income inequality is like complaining about attractiveness or intelligence inequality - it's pointless tilting at windmills.