yeah, and if your employee knows too much about company secrets, you better keep him; don't let him go easily, unless you prefer to kill him (but that's another subject and not a good way of do things).
They get sent to factories in China...
yeah, and if your employee knows too much about company secrets, you better keep him; don't let him go easily, unless you prefer to kill him (but that's another subject and not a good way of do things).
However - the worker is an asset; they should be able to choose WHO they give their labour to.
Waaaaaahhhh! I can't break the contract that I signed!
Please explain. I thought this was an agreement among the companies involved, not between companies and their employees.
There is, it's called NDAs. These non-compete only hurt the workers.
Waaaaaahhhh! I can't break the contract that I signed!
Non-competes have been around for decades.
I can understand to a degree why these companies do this sort of thing. If there were no agreement the tech world would have more technological espionage than it already has.
Google poaches an employee from Apple just to get information. Etc.
There has to be some kind of rule.
Prices are governed by supply and demand, not production cost.In this case, consumers were better served by keeping prices down. Employees were not better served by keeping their wages low.
That was my question as well. It was my understanding that the deal was that these companies wouldn't call employees to try to get them to leave where they were, but if the employee applied on their own there was no issue.
Problem is the contract was illegal and not like you were given a choice. The boilerplate contracts have many things that are abuse of power.
If you want a job you have to sign that contract like that. So you have 2 choices. Be unemployed or sign a contract like that. There are no other choices.
I dunno about the US, but in the UK that is mad illegal!
These are not contractors, they are employees with employee rights. Its illegal to artificially block the employment of anyone. Having an NDA does not mean you cant work for somoeone else it just means that if you share a secret you can be sued.
In an area like Silicon Valley where there will be a limited amount of companies that want your specific skills it is so "anti-employee" to limit there choices by a "gentlemen's agreement". What if the employee falls out with his line manager? Or his company does something unethical that he doesnt agree with. They are now banned from seeking meaningful employment elsewhere?
If you want to impose these things, use contractors not employees and pay ridiculous money for them to compensate for the "lock in". Dont use normal employees and break the law to benefit your fat cat executive salaries.
(btw, if your company policy is not to cold call directly staff under contract in other companies then you can be sacked, thats fine. But if a job is in the paper or online and an employee applies, his current employer should not prejudice his application, being that the employee has initiated the application)
From what I've read, this wasn't an agreement not to hire qualified applicants from the other companies involved. This was an agreement not to ACTIVELY seek out and recruit employees of the other companies. The employees were ALWAYS FREE to apply for positions at any of the other companies, and they were always free to BE HIRED by them.
If that same employee applied for a job at Apple, they could be hired without issue, but Apple agreed not to be the one to initiate the process (and vice-versa, between these companies). I see no problem with this.
jW
First stop having its products produced under near-slave labor conditions by Foxconn.
[...]
If Apple doesn't stop it, it will one day catch up with it.
What is so pervert about Apple's behavior: even at time of historic level profit levels, the corporation tries to cheat on the people who do the work for them, causing them a lot of harm.
"Just following orders" is never a good defense, unless you're on trial in the Hague for war crimes I guess.
In this case, consumers were better served by keeping prices down. Employees were not better served by keeping their wages low.
That was my question as well. It was my understanding that the deal was that these companies wouldn't call employees to try to get them to leave where they were, but if the employee applied on their own there was no issue.
Waaaaaahhhh! I can't break the contract that I signed!
It's time for Apple to ramp up its ethics.
First stop having its products produced under near-slave labor conditions by Foxconn.
Then stop stomping on its employees' human rights in order to keep them cheaper.
What is so pervert about Apple's behavior: even at time of historic level profit levels, the corporation tries to cheat on the people who do the work for them, causing them a lot of harm.
If Apple doesn't stop it, it will one day catch up with it.
One day there will be an online video be going viral that shows a slave doing slave labor on a cotton plantation, and then seamlessly transit into a ant style almost-slave laborer putting together iPhones and barely making enough to live, not having an apartment, and sleeping in dormitories.
Once a company has gotten a bad reputation, it will take a deep hit in the numbers.
So, hopefully, Apple will get its act together so its ethics will be as good as its computers and phones.
To be fair, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates shouldn't have been allowed to come into contact with each other then...
We have that in the nuclear industry due to an aging work force. The industry started on a massive down sizing from 1995 to 2005, when they released many technical and engineering personnel to increase their bottom line. The industry went overboard, where there is a lost generation of workers in their 30ies and 40ies, with a lot of experienced workers now approaching retirement, yours truly included. Add 20 year life extension to plants, Fukushima, and new nuclear plants, companies have their back against the wall trying to maintain the plants. Exelon, in order to get EdF to drop their objection into merging with Constellation Energy, agreed, among other things agreed not to go after any employees at Calvert Cliffs for three years.However, the agreement made is such a Google manager could not say, "I remember so-and-so did some great work at Apple and cold call so-and-so to offer them a job doing a specific task. Since so-and-so might be happy at Apple, Google would have to offer so-and-so much more $$$ to leave and these companies wanted to avoid this type of wage inflation.
In this case, consumers were better served by keeping prices down. Employees were not better served by keeping their wages low.
Not in nuclear power.I never said "all parts" but you can reject some parts. I do it all the time typically with contractual "IP rights grab" clauses. Some states have provisions to protect individuals; most don't.
----------
Given employee costs tend to be the most expensive part of these companies, keeping wages down keeps prices down. Wages go way up prices go way up.
What part of simple are you missing?
Methinks someone didn't read the article. This is not about non-compete agreements (preventing someone from seeking another job in the same field), which have been upheld as legal. This is about not poaching another company's employees, as in calling up an engineer who works at Google and offering them a better salary to come work for Apple. If that same employee applied for a job at Apple, they could be hired without issue, but Apple agreed not to be the one to initiate the process (and vice-versa, between these companies). I see no problem with this.
jW