Apple, Google, and Others in Negotiations With Regulators Over Anti-Poaching Agreements

[Rodimus Prime]

I think you mean "salaries are artificially not raised." Or "not skyrocketed for no decent reason".

Sorry that really only seems to apply to CEOs.

In the late 90's earily 2000's Google by itself did cause CS majors salaries to all raise because they went on a hire spree. It was a good thing for CS and there still is a shortage of them but this crap hurts programers who are rank and file.

It is one thing to see out of control wages in CEO but you will never see it in the rank and file of a given area.

 

[spillproof]

But, we (the consumers) may get better products if a smart guy/woman gets hired by a company that can do more with him/her.

LEAVE APPLE ALONE!!!

 

[Stella]

But, we (the consumers) may get better products if a smart guy/woman gets hired by a company that can do more with him/her.

LEAVE APPLE ALONE!!!

Sorry, but did you even read the story?

It says that each companies came to an agreement that they wouldn't hire each other employees. Therefore the opposite would be happening if Apple et al were left alone.

 

[andiwm2003]

Boy you need to wake up andiwm - there are all kinds of safeguards, the biggest being anti-competition clauses in contracts. Any employee of this caliber would be required to sign one.

.................................

that makes me chuckle. seems you're the one who isn't fully awake.


BTW.: your logic is flawed:
As for safeguards in my contract like NDA's I can decide if I sign them or not. That is a free market with a free contract. And even the non competition clause are limited in their validity by law. And at least the ones I signed so far clearly state that only direct competition is prohibited, not working for a company in a related business in general. Read yours and you'll see.

Corporations deciding with back-room deals without my knowledge who I can work for or not is not free market.

And yes theoretically I can leave my job at any time in case I find out that my employer agreed with some other company that they don't poach me. But now wake up: the fact that some Exec VP tells some low level HR person not to "poach" employees from company X leads in real life to the fact that the HR person does not hire any person from that company X because she/he got the message and doesn't want to piss off the VP. Working in a company with many partners then leads to the fact that you can't get any job elsewhere. I have seen that and I have been part of those deals. Believe me it's disgusting.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thus, people focus on the rights of the corporation, less on the impact on individuals.

amen

 

[JAT]

Sorry that really only seems to apply to CEOs.

In the late 90's earily 2000's Google by itself did cause CS majors salaries to all raise because they went on a hire spree. It was a good thing for CS and there still is a shortage of them but this crap hurts programers who are rank and file.

It is one thing to see out of control wages in CEO but you will never see it in the rank and file of a given area.

Tell that to the hospitals of Minneapolis/St. Paul. 2 months ago we had a nurses strike where they basically were after more money, although they tried to put a "patients first" spin on their demands. These are RNs making $40/hr or more, LPNs at around $30. Once the facts came out, public opinion was actually on the side of the hospitals, not the nurses & their union, which is pretty rare. The strike ended fast.

I just don't see agreements to not poach as anti-worker. Actual wage-fixing collusion is different. But they didn't agree not to compete over new workers. With all of the other news surrounding Apple & Google over the last 5 years, it sounds more like they are just trying to prevent an all-out war.

 

[alhedges]

I just don't see agreements to not poach as anti-worker. Actual wage-fixing collusion is different. But they didn't agree not to compete over new workers. With all of the other news surrounding Apple & Google over the last 5 years, it sounds more like they are just trying to prevent an all-out war.

Of course they are anti-worker. If you receive a call from a competitor offering you $50k more p.a. to change jobs, you are better off than if some agreement between CEO's prevents you from getting this call.

And the free market *means* all out war.

 

[schmidm77]

Government logic:

collusion of labor unions to prevent competition from non-union labor = good

collusion of employers to not have their talent hired away = bad

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Government logic:

collusion of labor unions to prevent competition from non-union labor = good

collusion of employers to not have their talent hired away = bad

The top one depends on the state. I personally do not like it when labor unions get that put in. The nice thing about is in some states those agreements requiring to use union labor do not hold up well.

Union labor being when you need a 3rd party supplier that supplier has to be union.
Now as for keeping unions out of companies it is not that hard. Unions tend to form when workers are not paid enough. Most non-union companies keep unions away by paying their workers slightly more. It is cheaper for the companies to do this because they do not have to pay for a union boss (guy who gets paid to make sure union contract is honored) and workers are happier because they do not have to pay union dues every month.

Hell they could match union pay to the hour and all sides but the union wins. Workers keep more of their pay. Cheaper for company and so on.

 

[tbrinkma]

Their companies... they're free to do what they want as far as HR goes. Not seeing the issue there.

They are companies...etc.

They're, not their. I can't make the grammar work in my head for "their" at the beginning of that sentence, as there is no hint of an appropriate antecedent. (because the original post is about "companies", not individuals) Too vague.

(I can only assume this is what roland was thinking)

Let me clear this up for you...

It's similar to the phrase, "My house, I'm free to do what I want."
Their companies (they belongs to them; possessive), They're (they are; not possessive) free to do what they want...

His grammar was correct. Your usage also would have been grammatically correct, but it would have carried an entirely different meaning.