Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No, it was an agreement to NOT HIRE any employee

Look at The Verge post

It depends on who you're referring to. The Verge post did mention Pixar not hiring a guy, but that's unique and not the general agreement amongst the companies. (I'd venture a guess the guy in that HR dept just screwed up.)

All the other notes in the post refer to sacking the guy in HR who cold-called. (Personally, I'd think sacking the HR guy was kinda going overboard.)

sessamoid and Mal are correct in that the agreement was to not poach or cold-call. And that should an employee choose to apply themselves to a competitor, they're free to do so. (I've talked with people in Google's HR dept about it as well. My opinion was that I thought the whole thing made sense and wasn't unfair to the employees.)

In fact, the Verge specifically titles the post referring to it as a "no poach scandal". Not a "no hire scandal."
 
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.

And finally cut to a single-teared indian. With a "do it for the children!" legend. Maybe with some baby seal thrown in for good measure.

'cause we are going for the emotional effect, not for the difficult nuances, aren't we?
 
Not at all true. You can always reject specific parts of a contract. I have done that many times.

If you're a high enough level or if you're a freelance consultant, maybe. But unless you're someone really special who a company desperately wants, you have no negotiating power. Most companies simply say, "that's the policy of our company and a standard provision of our contracts and if you want to work here, you have to sign it." It doesn't matter what it's actually about - they don't want to get a lawyer involved to renegotiate it.

And I have walked away from one potential employer who wanted me to sign a non-compete which would have been in effect for one year after I left the company, even after the contract term was over. Most states now prevent that type of limitation, especially right-to-work states. For another freelance consulting deal, they wanted me to sign a similar non-compete. I told them that was ridiculous - this was the industry I made my living in and I worked for companies before them and I would be working for companies in the same field after them. They agreed to remove the offending clause.

And: When Jobs left Apple, didn't he piss Apple off by claiming he wasn't going to take any employees and then actually taking a bunch?
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.