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.
Employee Anti-Poaching Agreements May Extend Far Beyond Apple and Google
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i was going by how the company behaves. i cant pin it on cook though.
well maybe it was with ios6 as well but that was released a year after jobs died.
no i didnt. well it remains to be seen. one answer is seen in the post below mine.
and it was a positive pro big business spin that is so often seen on this board.
Last edited:
Enough already. It's being handled.
Does anyone believe the employees were paid less because the companies agreed not to poach another company's employees? It would seem that an underpaid employee would have sought employment elsewhere.
Those anti-poaching agreements didn't prevent an employee from seeking employment elsewhere.
Suit was filed in 2011. 3 years. The U.S. Federal court system is VERY backed up, and cases like this also have a ton of discovery.
Yep, those who rely on the mid- and lower- level employees get all the benefits of their work but don't have to bother sharing in the wealth that's generated. I don't want to sound commie, but this is capitalism out of control.
You're living in an Apple fantasy world. Stop putting Apple and it's executives on a pedestal and grow up kid.
----------
God damn it you people are stupid, you'll defend Apple for anything won't you? You've been conditioned well, congratulations for having such a weak mind. Apple is grateful for your full compliance now go buy more Apple products and shut the fucup
Last edited:
Do not have a link, but one of the earlier accounts I heard in the context was that a guy who already resigned from one company, found that other companies simply refused to hire him. He had to relocate to find a new job.
IOW, it is not a benign anti-poaching agreement. They have made, as you put it, an explicit agreement to limit employability/careers of the employees.
That is why the class action.
You honestly believe they were passing on those savings to consumers, and not their own pockets?
Maybe I'm nuts
OK, so maybe I'm nuts here, but I think this type of agreement, while possibly illegal, may have been necessary for silicon valley to exist. Here's why...
All of these companies are highly successful and growing. This means that talent is hard to come by. So, one natural manner of acquiring talent is to poach talent from another company. Seems fair. The issue is that if these companies only did that, you are going to start to have trouble. Talent would simply game the system and continue to increase their wages. As employees move from company to company, they need to be retrained. All of this raises prices since labor is probably a large amount of these company's over head expenses. In addition, it creates a more hostile work environment and not one where cooperation is valued.
Right now, there is a class discrepancy issue happening in San Francisco and probably other cities in the valley. Imagine if there is no price cap and no agreements in place. Now you have a highly mobile, tremulous, high-class workforce that make millions. What impact would that have with wage disparagement?
I think California shot themselves in the foot by also prohibiting companies from making moonlighting and non-compete clauses in their employee manuals. So the only recourse for these companies is a non-poaching agreement to prevent complete chaos.
OK, so maybe I'm nuts here, but I think this type of agreement, while possibly illegal, may have been necessary for silicon valley to exist. Here's why...
All of these companies are highly successful and growing. This means that talent is hard to come by. So, one natural manner of acquiring talent is to poach talent from another company. Seems fair. The issue is that if these companies only did that, you are going to start to have trouble. Talent would simply game the system and continue to increase their wages. As employees move from company to company, they need to be retrained. All of this raises prices since labor is probably a large amount of these company's over head expenses. In addition, it creates a more hostile work environment and not one where cooperation is valued.
Right now, there is a class discrepancy issue happening in San Francisco and probably other cities in the valley. Imagine if there is no price cap and no agreements in place. Now you have a highly mobile, tremulous, high-class workforce that make millions. What impact would that have with wage disparagement?
I think California shot themselves in the foot by also prohibiting companies from making moonlighting and non-compete clauses in their employee manuals. So the only recourse for these companies is a non-poaching agreement to prevent complete chaos.
Am I the only one who feels like this is a good thing? Because it seems like it is.
If we have these companies snatching away these valuable assets, progress could be severely hindered. Just look at what impact Jony I've had on the look of iOS alone. Now forstal wasn't hired by another company, but imagine of now Ive got picked up by google somehow. Things would go bad really fast.
It has it's disadvantages of course, but I see things getting way worse it they didn't do this.
If we have these companies snatching away these valuable assets, progress could be severely hindered. Just look at what impact Jony I've had on the look of iOS alone. Now forstal wasn't hired by another company, but imagine of now Ive got picked up by google somehow. Things would go bad really fast.
It has it's disadvantages of course, but I see things getting way worse it they didn't do this.
Of course they should be paid the most. What should NOT happen is them making more in an hour than some employees make in a year. No employee is worth 2080x more than another employee.
What should NOT happen is a CEO being rewarded for running a company into the ground by being given a $100million+ bonus for leaving.
You don't sound commie. You sound socially responsible. I am all for people being incented for their work, but there comes a point where you have answer the (literally) embarrassing question of "What am I going to do with all this money?" There are too many hard-working people in the world who are hurting and starving who need help. Charity among the rich is never as great as it needs to be in my humble opinion. I'm glad for the charity that Apple gives as a company. I wish they would do more.
Apple fans are so incredibly Naive and stupid. I find it hilarious that a group that prides itself as being superior and smarter than everyone else because of the products they choose to buy is actually the most gullible and ignorant. You people are living in an Apple fantasy world and you need to snap out of it..
Close. The average Fortune 500 CEO is actually paid about 400 times as much as the average worker in their companies.
Whenever I see someone side with employers on these topics, I am flabbergasted. Of course, it could potentially hurt progress. However, I am not aware of any real issue with tech companies hurting in the current environment. They all seem to be doing quite well. If anything, they keep complaining that there is not enough talent to hire. ANY attempt by a company to limit the rights of its workers is not ok. These companies are just trying to benefit themselves at the expense of the employees.
I think you are very naive if you think this did not affect overall employee pay. Not all employees are constantly aware of their market value or looking at the other opportunities that are available in the market. Many jobs keep people so busy it is difficult to look for other opportunities. Any employees in these situations would be impacted. It actually occurs to me that loyal employees might be most hurt salary-wise by these limits because they are not being contacted and may be unaware of the true demand for their talents. Therefore, their current employer can get away with paying them less.
----------
Supposedly it was only a limit on approaching employees. Though I would argue that there would be other consequences. Let's say an employer looks for employees through a recruiter and a potential employee also is looking for a new job through that same recruiter, independently. Technically, I would say that the employee reached out on their own and the poaching agreement shouldn't matter, but I could see the employer potentially being worried about their poaching arrangement and being cautious in their pursuit of this employee.
Short of fines in nine figures or higher and/or people going to prison, it will still have been highly profitable for the companies to engage in this illegal and unethical activity, and we all know that's not happening here.
The class action system has been totally neutered and the fact that the DOJ's settlement was utterly trivial tells you all you need to know here - big government politicians & bureaucrats and big business always collaborate to the detriment of the people, and idiot sheep believe that the government is keeping business in line for their benefit.
The class action system has been totally neutered and the fact that the DOJ's settlement was utterly trivial tells you all you need to know here - big government politicians & bureaucrats and big business always collaborate to the detriment of the people, and idiot sheep believe that the government is keeping business in line for their benefit.
Ha, ironically there are academics that argue that the valley took off because CA doesn't enforce non-competes like Boston and New York. They argue that it is the very mobility of talent that is what has led to the valley's success.
Oh, and whether this is just a PR problem in the US tech industry, or there are real benefits to limited mobility, point Samsung.
I think this is being painted in the wrong light. As a business owner, if secrecy in product development drives my success, I would greatly limit the level of collaboration between strategic partners like Apple has begun to do since this lawsuit. Giving a competitor who is also a partner access to someone who knows the ends and outs of the products you are working on with out some assurance the partner isn't going to gain full access and an unfair advantage by knowing what you are doing, or handicapping you by stealing the talent working on the product that you introduced them too.
That's naive in the extreme. True, it didn't prevent them from looking. It just prevented them from actually being hired. If you can't go elsewhere you don't have much leverage to ask for a raise, do you? When no employees can seek (and achieve) higher pay elsewhere the average for the entire market is artificially low, so that even new employees (to that market) get ripped off. And then, because of the sizes of these companies multiple markets are affected.
There is no spin.
This is just a backroom/country club deal made between billionaires which would only benefit the bottom line of the major share holders.