Er ... a read of my above posts would have told you that I was on the other side of the fence, and a ten hour day was a half-day for me. Also, you forgot Sunday.
You're not a fan of Tony Abbott, I take it.
Last edited:
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
Er ... a read of my above posts would have told you that I was on the other side of the fence, and a ten hour day was a half-day for me. Also, you forgot Sunday.
You're not a fan of Tony Abbott, I take it.
You mean something like a settlement agreement with, say, the Department of Justice?
...which constitutes neither concrete proof, confiction or admission of guilt. A settlement means that the parties agree to disagree, generally for the reason that both sides agree that the settlement is more favorable to them than the outcome would be in court, particularly after legal expenses are accounted for. I once settled a lawsuit, even though I fully believed that the other party was clearly in the wrong, because the cost of the settlement was far less than my legal expenses would have been to try the case in court, not to mention the waste of my time that would have entailed.
lol, I know what a settlement means. And if you think that Apple's decision to settle with the DOJ was simply because it wanted to avoid lengthy and costly litigation, I have a bridge that I would very much like to sell you.
I was merely commenting on your assertion that a settlement amounted to an admission of guilt.
Likely Apple wasn't sure that it could prove its innocence, and the DOJ wasn't sure it could prove Apple's guilt.
Trade secret problem is very easy to solve - I don't start blabbing out details of my previous employer's business when I start a new job. And my current employer would have actually told me off if I had told them details of my old job. So don't even try taking that as an excuse to limit employee's access to new jobs.
Exactly that.
----------
Of course they did. What you are saying is that these agreements didn't produce an unsurmountable obstacle preventing Bob from ever getting a better job. But they did clearly diminish competition and they clearly did impact Bob negatively. That was the whole purpose of these agreements.
----------
In Germany, it is a requirement that the employee receives reasonable compensation. So if the previous poster insists on me not working for any competitor for five years, he is welcome to get what he asks for - as long as he pays my salary for the next five years.
----------
That's rather stupid. If Apple makes mistakes, as an Apple fan you shouldn't defend them, but help them fixing their mistakes and improving. Of course, if they are right, it's absolutely proper to say so.
The evidence already submitted to the court, includes quite a few emails to & from CEOs... especially Jobs... and recruiters citing their no-poach agreements... many of which included comments about keeping them secret and without a paper trail. It's pretty damning that most wanted it kept off the record, and none wanted employees to know about it.
Google "apple google poach emails" and you'll find tons of articles like these:
Steve Jobs personally asked Eric Schmidt to stop poaching - The Verge
Apple, Google, and the Email Trail - CNET
On the bright side, one major company did refuse. When asked by Jobs to comply, the Palm CEO wrote back and told him that he thought Jobs' request was both unfair and probably illegal. Jobs reportedly then threatened to launch patent lawsuits against Palm if they continued to hire Apple employees. The Palm CEO called Jobs' bluff and still said no.
.
Last edited:
Not true.
They are paying for expertise in the field.
Unless you work in the field you have no clue.
Non-comptete agreements are not legal in California as they allow a previous employer to restrict the future livelihood of employees. What prevents them from not giving raises and then suing when you leave?
People with no knowledge of technical workers want to chime in and have no idea.
----------
Depending on how the agreement is written with a supplier, it might be legal.
Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others agreeing, is not partners.
These are direct competitors .
People who defend the practice and the companies, should give it a rest.
They did this so they could retain talent at a lower price.
You can always retain employees if you are willing to pay them.
This had a direct effect on the employees at the companies and a broader effect on salaries in the technical industry at large.
The bottom line is this.
That 80% of salary and options at the top Spread some around at the lower levels. You people should read the annual reports of these companies you defend and see how much of the compensation is taken at the very top.
Pay the people and the won't eff'n leave.
I agree with Steve's view on this. Anyone abondening your company is a traitor. And they will take the experience gained in your excellent environment and share those teqnique with their new employer.
Exactly. While I'll admit this is a little shady, it's not as bad as the situation I'm in, where I've essentially been forced to sign a no-compete by my employer wherein I'll essentially have to leave the state/region to get another job in my exact field, whether a recruiter contacts me about it or not. I pretty much will have to find another industry to take my skills to, which isn't that big a problem for me; I'm not really crazy about the industry I'm in currently, but for others it's a pretty big deal, they're pretty much screwed, well, unless they want to get sued. And my company has sued employees for going to work for local competition before. I'll take an Apple employee's situation over mine every day of the week.
But you know, go ahead and fine the big tech companies, got to keep the state alive somehow.
I made no such assertion. I noted the settlement agreement because it provides more than an adequate basis for macrumors to run this article, which you asserted it should not have done. The publicly available information, as well as the facts recited in the Competitive Impact Statement to the settlement agreement show that Apple did indeed participate in these agreements. That's newsworthy. Whether Apple will actually be found liable in this class action is another matter, but there are certainly excellent arguments against it. Is your solution that news and/or rumor outlets omit Apple's name until final resolution of any and all litigation?
Oh good grief. It doesn't sound like you've ever even had a job.
Where the heck do you think that Apple gets their employees? At birth?
Apple employs people who worked at Palm, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Burberry, etc... where they gained experience that Apple found valuable enough to want to hire them, and even place them in high positions.
Nope. Never had a job. More do I ever plan on running on someone's watch. A couple friends and I were very successful making websites and got into bitcoin extremely early, back in high school.
I would never forgive the a 'former' employee of mine if they were to quit and work for my competition. That's a traitor in my book.
And yes I like to scoop them up young. Around 16-18. That's the magical age. Still full Of dreams, ready to pledge their loyalty and work on something cool. That's around the time I developed the skills to build cool things and see what happens. Fortune struck.
When I was 18 I flew to Vietnam and outsourced 4 college students from NSI (their 'MIT'), put them in an apartment, without AC at first. Then after a couple complaints of it being so hot In there to the point where they took frequent cold baths. Then the AC came in and you should of seen their smiles. Needless to say these people became very good at their job (thanks to me whipping them in shape) and then they wanted $50/hr a couple years later. Needless to say they found a new job and I resumed talent scouting.
Last edited:
Then you would not have rehired Steve Jobs at Apple, after he formed NeXT and stole top Apple employees to do so.
--
As you've found out, people often work someplace until they gain enough experience, that others want to hire them.
That's not being "a traitor".
Unless you think Tim Cook was a "traitor" for learning how to manage sales at IBM for 12 years, then leaving to work for Compaq computer, then leaving them to go work for Apple.
--
If your employees are now worth $50 a hour, then it'd make more sense to pay them that, than to spend the rest of your life constantly retraining new people.
Nor do I like the ramp up periods of new trainees. That's also a waste of time and money but inescapable.
Some are worth more than $50/hr and are keepers. That's very rare and is usually reserved for a polymath. You'd be astonished the work ethic and talent you can hire at $50/hr outside the US that are never given the opportunity to work on cutting edge cool things because of
their location. Nor do I like the idea of narrowing down my talent to a geographic region. That's idiotic. The internet has no borders.
Anyway. Employee and employer will have different perspectives on this.
Employer sees the person as a traitor.
Employee sees the person as a nutcase.
--
Once Tim cook joined apple he was in the place
He was destined to be. Leaving apple now makes him a traitor. And the companies he worked for in the past are irrelevant now. Think of those companies as the result of the many wrong turns Cook made in his life. Apple was ten right one.
That's how I see my company. People work for the wrong ones until it clicks in their head and they realize this is the place they were designed for.
Last edited:
Yep. We use offshore developers who are paid pretty well for junior people, and who get to work on cool stuff. It attracts a lot of talent.
However, that doesn't stop them from leaving once they gain more experience, and can make more money somewhere else.
It's a constant problem, but that's part of doing business. Doesn't matter whether it's the lowest employee or the CEO. Anybody will leave if they'll be happier somewhere else.
Does not make them traitors
Yep. We use offshore developers who are paid pretty well for junior people, and who get to work on cool stuff. It attracts a lot of talent.
However, that doesn't stop them from leaving once they gain more experience, and can make more money somewhere else.
It's a constant problem, but that's part of doing business. Doesn't matter whether it's the lowest employee or the CEO. Anybody will leave if they'll be happier somewhere else.
Does not make them traitors
I don't like to lose.
That’s a job. I guess you mean to say take on corporate position with a more formal environment[?]
Anyway ...
I’ve had/have a number of successful businesses, been in the tech industry for 24+ years, and I’ve always been incredibly positive and supportive when I had employees move on. We gave people terrific salaries and had an amazing culture, so if someone was ready for a change, the more power to them, we did everything right.
People’s goals change, they move and travel plays into it, technology companies head into territory that’s not interesting to some folks - there’s 100s of reasons someone might move on and it’s painfully silly to suggest they’re a “traitor”.
It was more of a hobby. Captured my interest for a time being. Never ever considered it work as I was never paid? Nor did I care about being paid?
Yeah sure they can move with their life and go play the piano or sing.
those agreements mean absolutely nothing unless they plan to pay you for the remainder of the term when you plan to leave.
It is a scare tactic and those non-compete agreements have been found not worth the paper they are printed on. So if they plan to pay you to sit idle they can enforce them, otherwise, not.
And as you so for others it's a big deal, yes.
If you are an engineer, it is a big deal.
Also at my level, companies don't train me or pay to train me.
I'm an expert in my field and if someone reads my profile they should be able to contact me on LinkedIn.
Engineers as a general rule are trained generally by doing work specifically by doing design and reading specifications.
And there lies the rub, these engineers, even if they had an active profile on LinkedIn, could not be contacted by the companies on the list if they worked for another company. No matter how experienced and in demand the skillset was. People will claim they will take IP with them. What if I'm an expert in video processing and the competitor doesn't want me for the same type of job but was interested in my generic expertise for H.264, how does the argument of the company investing money in my apply?
I say good. I want them all to be taken to the cleaners big time as this does effect me indirectly.
This is direct wage suppression and as such it does lower the over all average for the industry and guess what I work in the software development industry. This effects the average all over the place which causes anyone in the industry pay to be lower when massive top dogs like this do this.
So anyone in the software industry should be up in arms about this and want all the companies to be taken to the cleaners. I am in full support of making a massive example out of all of them.
The give away that something pretty illegal went on is how they made a point not to leave a paper trail. Apple is clearly screwed as they have the lovely smoking gun from palm.
This is direct wage suppression and as such it does lower the over all average for the industry and guess what I work in the software development industry. This effects the average all over the place which causes anyone in the industry pay to be lower when massive top dogs like this do this.
So anyone in the software industry should be up in arms about this and want all the companies to be taken to the cleaners. I am in full support of making a massive example out of all of them.
The give away that something pretty illegal went on is how they made a point not to leave a paper trail. Apple is clearly screwed as they have the lovely smoking gun from palm.
You know, most of the people that don't understand the ramifications, don't work in the tech industry.
This agreement screwed up wages for good talent for years; for both hardware and software.
I would farther it out and say people who do not see it at all are rather blind to how wages work and how this is wage surpression.
Another item I am strongly against is H1B1 Visa's expansion. I would rather say reduction. The proof that we do not have a shortage of qualifided IT workers in the US (standard argument for them) is the fact that the wages have not been increasing. If their was a shortage IT workers pay would be increasing a lot faster than inflation. Given that it has not even kept up with inflation tells us that there is no shortage.