The details aren't clear, but if they ignore job applications from anyone currently working in one of the other companies in the agreement, that would be a major disadvantage for those employees.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lawsuit Filed Against Apple and Other Tech Companies Over Anti-Poaching Agreements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The details aren't clear, but if they ignore job applications from anyone currently working in one of the other companies in the agreement, that would be a major disadvantage for those employees.
I think that is the key point to the agreement. If a potential candidate is ignored because he has a "partner" name under the present employer in his application that is a very serious issue.
I really don't think this is about cold-calling competitors employees, I don't think many companies actually do that.
I find this outrageous... If you value an employee than make it worth for him to stay in your company... These companies make BILLIONS in revenue... Pay the people who make your revenues what they deserve!
I think that is the key point to the agreement. If a potential candidate is ignored because he has a "partner" name under the present employer in his application that is a very serious issue.
Apple actually specializes in exactly this.
I think this is probably a case of a "do good" law firm that supposedly is "looking out for the little guy" with a class action suit that will amount to some two figure settlement check for whoever the class might be, and a nice six to seven figure check for legal fees for the lawyers. I hope that there are at least some actual complains behind this and it's not one of those "call us if you worked/used/etc for/by/in x, y, or z companies/product/industry/etc and felt you were hurt <by something> because we'll make you rich" type ads we all see for anything from Mesothelioma to roof shingles.
Anti-head hunting agreements are kind of a panacea for CA's 100+ year old laws that make non-compete agreements illegal (unless you're breaking some sort of partnership, LLC, or in some cases where someone is selling a business). To that end, it can likely be argued that they are not within the spirit of CA law (probably the conclusion the DOJ came to as well in 2010). Likely our would be "do-gooders" are going to use the DOJ's dealings with this in their case against the companies involved. I'd guess that the case is likely to end in a settlement.
Anti-head hunting agreements are kind of a panacea for CA's 100+ year old laws that make non-compete agreements illegal (unless you're breaking some sort of partnership, LLC, or in some cases where someone is selling a business). To that end, it can likely be argued that they are not within the spirit of CA law (probably the conclusion the DOJ came to as well in 2010). Likely our would be "do-gooders" are going to use the DOJ's dealings with this in their case against the companies involved. I'd guess that the case is likely to end in a settlement.
Last edited:
Knee-jerk anti-labor response.
It takes 2 sides to create a job offer, and if companies can't let workers know a job exists, then the worker is cut off at the knees.
Reminds me of the argument that unions aren't necessary because I have sufficient bargaining power as an individual against a billion dollar corporation.
Absurd.
Because it happened AFTER Apple and others were barred from participating in such agreements, if I read the article correctly.
If the employers agree to not recruit one another's talent, that's shaky.
If the employers agree to not consider hiring people who apply for positions if their current employer is part of such an agreement, that's extremely shaky.
Might as well institute a draft for those with computer-related degrees on the day they graduate. I wonder if restricted-free agency would kick in by age 45?
I'd love to hear what an antitrust specialist would have to say about this.
If the employers agree to not consider hiring people who apply for positions if their current employer is part of such an agreement, that's extremely shaky.
Might as well institute a draft for those with computer-related degrees on the day they graduate. I wonder if restricted-free agency would kick in by age 45?
I'd love to hear what an antitrust specialist would have to say about this.
Was it actually posted that "companies can't let workers know a job exists?" My understanding of poaching, and I've been in this situation, is simply that a partner company can't offer you a job while you are actively working with them.
If, as others have posited, HR departments were FORCED to round-file applications because of these agreements, then that is wrong. If they did it out of a misunderstanding, that's a training issue.
I sincerely doubt that these companies were keeping their employees from reading all the different job posting venues.
Time for the Lawyers to upgrade their Yachts this Summer...
Thanks for the good laugh.
I generally am against class action lawsuits over trivial matters that result in a $9 "COUPON" to the consumers while the lawyers, both win and loss, all laugh their asses to the bank to cash their hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions.
But since the criminal case has already been settled largely against these companies, I don't blame people denied an opportunity for advancement from suing all of the companies involved in this scheme.
What they were doing is almost akin to price fixing, because it prevented competition for higher wages in the industry. They're reasoning for doing this has been proven illegal.
I think they have a good case and I don't think it will drag out very long since they've already been busted by the Justice Department.
Theres nothing to stop an employee from seeking a position, this agreement is about poaching. In other words, one company wants a key person from another, so they wine them, wdine them and offer them big salary increases to leave where they are. This is not anti-labor. They are all just agreeing they won't do this to each other.
Besides... Apple had a really bad experience here. Remember... They poached John Scully from Pepsi and look where that got them!
Very good point.
As for the posters getting worked up about the dollars at stake here, the amount of money is not the issue here. Seriously. The issue is opportunity.
It's one thing to accept a job and sign a contract with a no-compete clause. In that case, the employee is going into the situation fully aware, and usually the salary reflects that exclusivity.
It's another situation entirely if you get a job with Company A and afterward discover that your employment with Company A puts you on a blacklist for companies B, C, D, E and F — at least some of which you'd prefer to work for — for reasons that have nothing to do with your competency.
These companies could fix this situation simply by negotiating with current employees to add no-compete clauses that detail specific companies or types of companies. In return for the stability that the employers desire, the companies should have to include extra pay or perks for the workers to give up their right to seek employment elsewhere within a certain period of time. They could then make such clauses standard for new hires.
Edit: This is said with the presumption that this situation isn't limited to just wine-and-dine, come-work-for-us recruiting but also extends to exclude prospective job candidates who currently work for specific companies but are seeking new employment.
Last edited:
Theres nothing to stop an employee from seeking a position, this agreement is about poaching. In other words, one company wants a key person from another, so they wine them, wdine them and offer them big salary increases to leave where they are. This is not anti-labor. They are all just agreeing they won't do this to each other.
Besides... Apple had a really bad experience here. Remember... They poached John Scully from Pepsi and look where that got them!
Oddly enough that more than likely saved the company. If steve jobs was not fired when he was SJ would of killed Apple.
Yes, I'm sure poor old Tim Cook suffered with his $59m salary last year cause of these horrible agreements made by Apple.
Meh. I guess the gander in your analogy is a guy making a six or seven figure salary. While the goose is a $12/hour laborer.
Somehow, I'm not sure those people have equivalent issues.
It all depends on what's meant by "anti-poaching" -- if it means that the companies agreed to not actively target each other's workforces, then I fail to see any illegality here. If it means that the companies agreed not to hire each other's workforces, I think there's a liability issue here.
I don't believe he'd have a case if his claim is just that he wasn't targeted by corporate headhunters because of his current employment status elsewhere.
Although anti-poaching agreements could certainly be used to the detriment of employees seeking to further their careers by changing employers, I believe the original reason for such agreements was to prevent one company from interfering with the development plans of another. For example, if Google were to make a significantly above-market offer to the top 20 engineers working on OS X 10.7, it could delay Lion's release by months or even years. If a larger company, like Apple, wanted to put a smaller company permanently out of business, it would just have to make above-market offer to all of the other company's employees.
I must admit, however, that I would be upset if my application for a job was shredded just because of who I currently worked for.
With respect to this case, would the plaintiffs not have to prove that they were not hired for positions for which they were the most qualified candidates?
I must admit, however, that I would be upset if my application for a job was shredded just because of who I currently worked for.
With respect to this case, would the plaintiffs not have to prove that they were not hired for positions for which they were the most qualified candidates?