While they bring in H1B1 fresh meat that come pre packaged from diploma mills cutting wages even more.
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.
Apple, Google and Others Set to Face Trial Over Anti-Poaching Agreements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are no unions for hardware and software engineers.
This agreement was specifically so these companies would not see their top talent poached and only had to compete when the employee was out looking.
Active recruitment is a part of the employment process in the tech field if you want the best talent. You go out and you find them. You don't wait for them to come to you unless you are afraid of competition for your own employees.
Pay them enough so they can't be poached. What a novel idea!!
Supply and demand.
----------
Did any of you read the original article?
THey were found in violation, this is to see if damages should be awarded to the class that was affected.
"The anti-poaching agreements were investigated in 2010 by the Justice Department. The claims were eventually settled, with the companies agreeing not to form no-solicitation agreements for five years. "
See this link -> https://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/2...to-stop-engaging-in-anti-poaching-agreements/
The U.S. Department of Justice today announced that it has ordered Apple, Google, and four other companies to refrain from entering into "no solicitation" agreements in which companies agree not to actively seek to hire each other's employees.
"The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies - Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar - that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees. The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities."
This Was/Is Illegal Behavior!!!!!!
They now have to potentially pay the piper!
I work in high tech and it affected salaries across the board in Silicon Valley for years.
I understand why corporations are over protective of their talented employees. In many cases employees are hired and trained extensively before they shine and become highly valuable. Such an employee would be a bad investment if he or she were to be recruited by competitors. Nevertheless, an employee should have the right to leave a corporation and join a competitor if current employer is not willing to match an offer from a competitor. That way corporations won't be as greedy underpaying their employees. It is a very complicated issue it'll be very interesting to see the outcome.
Let me start this off by saying that I'm a free-market capitalist type Republican, and a bit of an Apple fanboy. That being said, what Apple and other tech companies did is absolutely wrong. It is collusion, plain and simple. The end result is lower wages for employees, due to less competition for labor. I can understand why Steve Jobs wanted to do it, but he went about it the wrong way. Instead, he could have offered conditional compensation (like stock options every year of employment) or something of that nature.
Whenever there's a choice presented like this, the law should always favor an economic system that is more dynamic and more competitive. Agreements not to poach employees is the opposite of competitive, and keeping employees more locked in to long-term jobs is less conducive to a dynamic economy.
Let's think about the cost vs benefit here. Cost: employers have slightly more frequent employee turnover, and must pay employees more in order to retain them. Benefit: greater employee pay, more flexible career opportunities for employees, more "cross-pollination" of employees among Silicon Valley firms, and more of an incentive for people to go into tech careers. I believe the net benefits vastly outweigh the costs, and thus this is a good regulation.
Whenever there's a choice presented like this, the law should always favor an economic system that is more dynamic and more competitive. Agreements not to poach employees is the opposite of competitive, and keeping employees more locked in to long-term jobs is less conducive to a dynamic economy.
Let's think about the cost vs benefit here. Cost: employers have slightly more frequent employee turnover, and must pay employees more in order to retain them. Benefit: greater employee pay, more flexible career opportunities for employees, more "cross-pollination" of employees among Silicon Valley firms, and more of an incentive for people to go into tech careers. I believe the net benefits vastly outweigh the costs, and thus this is a good regulation.
Is that why she has continuously sided with Apple regardless of the evidence?
Is that why she refused to let Samsung even display their evidence ?
She's a brainwashed Apple freak and her bias shows, besides, I'm certain Apple has paid her off.
I'm no fan of Samsung but this lady has been criticized on a very large scale.
Keep on painting whatever picture of denial you wish but facts are facts. She has continuously ignored evidence to accommodate Apple and needs to be terminated
If an employee working at Apple making $90,000 got offers from other companies for $80,000, but didnt get an offer from Google to get a $100,000 job because of this agreement, then clearly he is harmed.
And what price? That's what a court gets expert witnesses for.
Absolutely agree with this. Also agree the Free-Market ideology has largely been a Republican stronghold. People need to realize that we typically get 40 years or so of work and we've got to capitalize on that. After all why should Apple and Google get to overcompensate their Executives on the backs on workers they are working hard to depress their salaries?
My post dealt with anti-trust laws in general. Unions force wages and conditions across the board, denying the right of the owners of jobs the right to set their own conditions.
Jobs are owned by the companies who offer them - not the employees. If collusion between companies is the only way to keep the lid on costs, then so be it.
What you described is more of a non-Compete, he was suggesting that the non-Disclosure (NDA), prevents you from discussing your specific accomplishments but really, thats a non-issueYou can easily discuss things in abstract without disclosing specific product details.
FWIW, non-Competes are hard to enforce too, I had one with the company that acquired my Biz #2, and most of my legal resources said its tough to enforce, and certainly nothing longer than 6 months. Theres a gray area between disclosure of trade secrets and going to work for a company in direct competition, so there is some overlap in the two types of agreements.
In most cases they're unenforceable in California.
This is a good thing.
After all, it's not like owners are without their own resources.....
This is a good thing.
After all, it's not like owners are without their own resources.....
Would you like it if I were to tell you how and when you could drive your own car?
It is a matter of ownership - companies own the jobs, and they should be free to set the conditions. No-one owes you a living.
Oh, it happens in many industries. That must mean it's okay then.
Take your "corporations can do whatever they want" mantra and shove it. I'd like to see the actual people that are doing the actual work getting whatever salary they're worth on the open market.
If you don't think collusion among corporations agreeing to not compete for each others' talent isn't holding down salaries, you're on crack. It's the main reason they do it.
Damn, you want to kill her?!!!!!! Actually, I don't think you meant that as your phrasing indicates English is not your first language. Therefore you must be paid by Samsung or have an unnatural relationship with your Android phone, or maybe with an actual android. Facts are facts.
In that case, if shooting the company directors and any successors who want to keep wages low is the only way for employees to get the wages they deserve, so be it. It's clear that you argue for illegal behaviour, so surely you don't mind a bit more illegal behaviour. If the company directors don't like it, they can quit and try to find a different occupation, like janitor at another company.
You forgot one benefit: crappy products made by people that didn't have time to care. Quality will go down, plain and simple. But that'll get Samsung what it wants, equivalency with Apple.
You guys are all crying about jobs where the minimum wage is 6 figures. Pardon me while I try to care.....
I'm still trying.
The correct "protection" would be providing good enough pay and working conditions and recognition, so that employees would not be easily tempted away.
Usually the kind of people who get poached, are not trainees.
And if they're treated well where they are, they usually won't leave.
People switch companies for multiple reasons, but being appreciated, and being allowed to put their ideas into practice, are certainly common ones.
Palm hired away some Apple folk to work on WebOS, and it's pretty obvious that they went because they were allowed to implement things like that cool multitasking card paradigm.
Oh, it happens in many industries. That must mean it's okay then.
Take your "corporations can do whatever they want" mantra and shove it. I'd like to see the actual people that are doing the actual work getting whatever salary they're worth on the open market.
If you don't think collusion among corporations agreeing to not compete for each others' talent isn't holding down salaries, you're on crack. It's the main reason they do it.
Quote my entire post please so you have the context.
There is nothing wrong going on here. You just can't steal one employee already hired at another company. But there is no harm if another company advertises a job and you at a rival company applies for that job.
This is all about X company hires great guy. And Y company secretly offers more money to great guy then X company does to lure him to working for Y company. That should be banned and the companies have all worked together to make this so. Better for everyone involved.
This means jobs for positions have to be advertised the usual ways and anyone can apply. And people who are not famous in the industry have a chance to get their foot in the door. Because without this no poaching rule, those good jobs would never be advertised, they'd just be told to the great guys already working at other companies for very high salaries to poach them.
This rule just puts the great guys in the same boat as everyone else when applying for jobs within that industry. Which in my opinion is a very good thing.
Well my mantra is about everyone getting what they are worth, not just a small percentage of people grossly overpaid in an attempt to secure their services and prevent other companies poaching them.
"If you don't think collusion among corporations agreeing to not compete for each others' talent isn't holding down salaries, you're on crack."
If you believe this, then you simply don't get it. They can compete for talent that is on the open market. But once they are employed they are no longer on the open market. When they come back on the open market (by getting fired or leaving the job for whatever reason), then every company can compete for their their services then.
The end result?
Employees get better job stability and people new into the industry (or just not so well known) get to apply for jobs they would have otherwise not have been able to.
Employers get the knowledge that once they have secured a person to work for them, no other company can poach them. And they can pay the person a fair wage (not an over priced one just to prevent poaching). And the left over cash from not paying a over priced wage can be put into R&D or something similar.
Customers win, as talent is at a company for longer term and more money spend on R&D and other things which in theory means a better end product.
This is the bigger issue here. But it's a double edged sword. You need the employees to be able to talk about their work history so they can get another job. But on the other hand you don't want a disgruntled employee running the the competition and spilling all the secrets on unreleased products and other such things. I think a balance needs to be struck here.
So..... What your saying is that something suspicious could be happening, not sure what, but either way Apple can do no wrong
Bravo !----------
Visit an apple store
There you will find very highly devoted individuals who are extremely passionate about their jobs , who frankly do not get paid enough.
This is most interesting, because it flies completely in the face of my experience. I work in the UK, and am head of department at a private school. There have been many times when I might wish to have bypassed the normal recruitment process, because there was someone I knew who was perfect for the job. I've always been given to understand though that in the UK at least, headhunting of this sort, poaching talent, was illegal (although I can't easily find evidence of this!). Indeed, even contacting someone and inviting them to apply through the official channels is frowned upon (as it sets up potentially false expectations).
A very quick Google would suggest that the sort of poaching we're talking about here is certainly illegal in some parts of the States (http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Job-Poaching-is-unethical-illegal-156213.S.238357511?_mSplash=1) so it's odd that it's being encouraged to this extent on a more federal level.
A very quick Google would suggest that the sort of poaching we're talking about here is certainly illegal in some parts of the States (http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Job-Poaching-is-unethical-illegal-156213.S.238357511?_mSplash=1) so it's odd that it's being encouraged to this extent on a more federal level.
Any company--including Apple--that engages in practices that assume an employee is somehow their property or assumes it has any right to influence a person's life outside of work, including working for the competition, deserves to have their a** handed to them in court.
It is a dumb, borderline evil idea. Apple was dumb to have been a party to it.
It is a dumb, borderline evil idea. Apple was dumb to have been a party to it.