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.
Employee Anti-Poaching Agreements May Extend Far Beyond Apple and Google
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is exacty what it means.
If I signed a anti-poaching agreement, I still wouldn't hire somene simply because they came to me. Even the appearence of poaching would open my company to losing my top people.
Therefore these employee wouldn't have anywhere to go or use as leverage for a raise. This would keep the salaries artifically low for these types of positions.
Read
It's probably best to read through the source material before commenting. I read it over the weekend.
Saying this is a "wage-fixing scheme" affecting "over a million employees" is a bit sensationalist. Yes, there are agreements stating that certain candidates for certain positions are not to be explored further even if that person actively applies for a position from his/her own volition.
However, many of these agreements are just "Do Not Cold Call" agreements that were brought about because some low-level Google recruiter was reaching out specifically to certain upper-management employees at other tech firms. Some of the other agreements specifically exclude "engineers" which are the drivers of these businesses -- this would indicate that engineer salaries have not been stymied.
Still, the broad reach of this agreement program is alarming.
It's probably best to read through the source material before commenting. I read it over the weekend.
Saying this is a "wage-fixing scheme" affecting "over a million employees" is a bit sensationalist. Yes, there are agreements stating that certain candidates for certain positions are not to be explored further even if that person actively applies for a position from his/her own volition.
However, many of these agreements are just "Do Not Cold Call" agreements that were brought about because some low-level Google recruiter was reaching out specifically to certain upper-management employees at other tech firms. Some of the other agreements specifically exclude "engineers" which are the drivers of these businesses -- this would indicate that engineer salaries have not been stymied.
Still, the broad reach of this agreement program is alarming.
I have worked for several companies where we had agreements in place with other companies that we would not directly recruit their employees, but if they applied on their own to an open posted position it was okay. Now most of the consultants sign a non-compete clause that prevents them from working for the same client through a different consulting firm.
I think in the end it will come down to how the language was worded. Based on my experience as stated above, it seem to be okay to say I can go after your people, but if they come on their own its okay.
I think in the end it will come down to how the language was worded. Based on my experience as stated above, it seem to be okay to say I can go after your people, but if they come on their own its okay.
This is not the first time this has happened in the Valley
Having spent the bulk of my career working and living in the Silicon Valley, this type of anti-poaching tactic was tried back in the the 1980's as well.
It was quite common for a sought-after Valley employees to jump companies every 2 years or so, and with it, get a bump in salary of 15-25% or more. Companies tired to stop this job hopping back then but to no avail. And I say 'why the hell not let my services go to the highest bider"? I personally have no issue with it. If one believes in capitalism and free trade, and the Valley is ground zero for people with those beliefs, then this is just an extension of that. Last I checked, the Execs of the companies in question practice that philosophy, right? And the Execs of those same companies get golden parachutes, massive bonus packages and other perks, as well, so, as they say, whats good for the goose....
An addendum: I totally forgot about that fact that about 20 years ago, Oracle, Sybase and Ingess were poaching each other's talent on a regular basis and it was really messy. I believe Oracle and Sybase's HQs were about a mile apart and Ingress was across the Bay about 15 miles away. This anti-poaching story is not a new one and I for one believe it will be retold in the future if the Bay Area continues to be the largest technology talent hub in the world.
Having spent the bulk of my career working and living in the Silicon Valley, this type of anti-poaching tactic was tried back in the the 1980's as well.
It was quite common for a sought-after Valley employees to jump companies every 2 years or so, and with it, get a bump in salary of 15-25% or more. Companies tired to stop this job hopping back then but to no avail. And I say 'why the hell not let my services go to the highest bider"? I personally have no issue with it. If one believes in capitalism and free trade, and the Valley is ground zero for people with those beliefs, then this is just an extension of that. Last I checked, the Execs of the companies in question practice that philosophy, right? And the Execs of those same companies get golden parachutes, massive bonus packages and other perks, as well, so, as they say, whats good for the goose....
An addendum: I totally forgot about that fact that about 20 years ago, Oracle, Sybase and Ingess were poaching each other's talent on a regular basis and it was really messy. I believe Oracle and Sybase's HQs were about a mile apart and Ingress was across the Bay about 15 miles away. This anti-poaching story is not a new one and I for one believe it will be retold in the future if the Bay Area continues to be the largest technology talent hub in the world.
Last edited:
Thank heavens for Anti Poach agreements
I don't think the majority of posters have worked in the high end tech industry. Cold calls are the bane of a productive day. A friend of a friend gives your name to his head hunter and the phone barrage begins. You change jobs and once your one or two year commitment is fulfilled (so the headhunter keeps their commission) the calls start again. Unless you tell them you're not interested and you like what you're doing you get at least a call a week.
How can a company keep a productive workforce if they are on the phone a good piece of the day with head hunters and their mind distracted by promises of higher wages, better benefits, more perks, etc.
Everyone's misinterpretation of what was going on is that employees couldn't seek employment at competing firms. This is totally FALSE, unless you signed a non compete contract, employees could go to a bar, gym, etc and meet an employee of another firm and find out they are looking for a person with XYZ capabilities which you have, you are more than FREE to call a recruiting company to negotiate a employment deal or just submit a resume through your contact at the other company. Or you can call a recruiter yourself, cold, and say you are looking to work elsewhere in your field because of some dissatisfaction at your current place of employ.
The main term here is poaching. You don't want to groom and train an employee to have all your top talent stripped away by a competitor on a regular basis. Another issue mentioned is executive compensation tech America has overly paid executives to keep them in the fold and out of the clutches of recruiters. What more could you offer Bob Mansfield over $24M that would make him leave Apple.
I don't think the majority of posters have worked in the high end tech industry. Cold calls are the bane of a productive day. A friend of a friend gives your name to his head hunter and the phone barrage begins. You change jobs and once your one or two year commitment is fulfilled (so the headhunter keeps their commission) the calls start again. Unless you tell them you're not interested and you like what you're doing you get at least a call a week.
How can a company keep a productive workforce if they are on the phone a good piece of the day with head hunters and their mind distracted by promises of higher wages, better benefits, more perks, etc.
Everyone's misinterpretation of what was going on is that employees couldn't seek employment at competing firms. This is totally FALSE, unless you signed a non compete contract, employees could go to a bar, gym, etc and meet an employee of another firm and find out they are looking for a person with XYZ capabilities which you have, you are more than FREE to call a recruiting company to negotiate a employment deal or just submit a resume through your contact at the other company. Or you can call a recruiter yourself, cold, and say you are looking to work elsewhere in your field because of some dissatisfaction at your current place of employ.
The main term here is poaching. You don't want to groom and train an employee to have all your top talent stripped away by a competitor on a regular basis. Another issue mentioned is executive compensation tech America has overly paid executives to keep them in the fold and out of the clutches of recruiters. What more could you offer Bob Mansfield over $24M that would make him leave Apple.
his more active stance on civil, social, and worker issues, maybe? visits to china, new audits on manufacturing partners, more humanitarian programs, etc..
according to you.
Not in California where most of the affected folks work.
There is value to corporate memory so employee retention goes beyond salary expenses and into replacement and training costs and delays as well, which the employee mostly does not see.
Rocketman
Although my inclination is to agree, I don't believe it is that simple. As a CEO, you want to retain your talent at a reasonable costs. Given how wildly successful Apple was in the mid-2000s, they were prime targets for poachers who could throw ridiculous amounts of bait money to pull them away from the company in an effort to tear it apart. Not cool. I'm not saying that the way Steve and Apple fought this was a good way of doing it. In fact it was illegal and harmful to the employees. On the other hand, it is easy to see that Apple stood to have lost a lot of talent had they not done what they did. Could they have done the same to their competitors' employees? Spent them under the table so to speak? Maybe or maybe not. There should be better ways of handling this. I wish I knew what it was.
Ha ha ha, sounds like you are describing every major professional sport on the planet, just insert players for employees. My question to you is this: Should it not be that way? Should not those that create the magic be the ones getting the dosh? Why should the administrative managers/executives get it instead? Is it not better to create a larger sub-class of semi-elite mechanical and software engineers tham a super small 1% ultra-elite?
Someone else pointed out that this seemed like capitalism out of control, conspiring to keep wage earners pay down in order to protect disproportionately high executive oay amd bonuses. The only correction to this I would make is to take away the out of control part....
I'm not advocating the demise of capitalism or promoting socialism. Proportionate compensation has never been a principle either of these economic ideologies has ever embraced
In any democratic country Judge Koh would not be a judge anymore after all the failures to do the job properly.
worker issues is what this thread is about.
tims sexuality plays a part in his stronger views on civil and social matters but i applaud him for taking a stance.
new audits at the plants and getting greener was a process at apple though.
what gave it away? was it the "i doubt". they are baseless though. at best its ones feeling that would be better substantiated if tim had just arrived in 2011 to take charge of the company but he had been an executive at the company for many years.
but what better way to distance apple from this then to blame it on the previous ceo? and considering some of the coverage of this book thats two birds in one stone.
not for a millisecond. i was highlighting how far some go to protect their favorite billion dollar enterprise.
Last edited:
In my opinion I can only see them being useful in very specific/limited situations. Such as if by having the job you obtain very specific customer information and proprietary knowledge that you could use to steal a customer if you move to a competing company. But if they just want to prevent employees from accepting a better job for the sole purpose of not wanting to have to pay to train a new employee... hogwash.
Non-compete agreements aren't enforceable in CA. They'll still have you sign one, but they're worthless. They are enforceable in other states though, which really needs to change. Those agreements limit an employees potential work options and drive down wages.
Here is a clue. If companies don't want people to leave they shouldn't treat their employees like dirt. Apple, Google and others are completely in the wrong here. They acted unlawfully and now the roosters have come home to roost.
----------
----------
I know. I always roll my eyes at that two. I met several CEOs and they couldn't be bothered to upgrade their own browser let alone do much else other than set the general business direction. CEOs have about as good a track record of success as any other employee in an organization.But .. but ... the difference in pay between CEO's and company minions is because CEO's are so talented that high salaries have to be paid in an open market to get the best CEO talent.
Totally agreed. Everyone should be allowed to take advantage of the free market working in their favor and creating golden parachutes for themselves even when they are a complete disaster for a company.
----------
Or the upper management could take a lower salary....and give more money back to investors or investors could take less of a return on their money. There are a number of things that could happen.
----------
That happened to me and when I finally did decide to move my salary doubled.
----------
That will cost companies more money and people will start demanding severance and other things that can be written into a contract. This will not be cheap.
CEO pay is ridiculous, even if you are performing quite well some of those amounts are insane, I can't even see myself spending some of that money they make in a year, let alone getting it year after year, seems to me it would be better utilized being spread out to others for them to spend and not for a few to horde
I can't even begin to wrap my head around CEOs that get paid millions to leave a company they tanked or get a raise after losing billions and get into legal troubles
I can't even begin to wrap my head around CEOs that get paid millions to leave a company they tanked or get a raise after losing billions and get into legal troubles
Don't treat people like dirt. Maybe they won't leave. Sometimes, it's not all about the money. However, the money in this case shows that Google, Apple and others don't want to do what it takes to keep their money makers happy.
The Bottom line.
Sadly, you can take all the sincerity expressed in public by high tech execs and put it in a thimble, and still have room left over for three caraway seeds and all of their hearts.
I reworked this from a joke about movie producers. I'd give credit but I don't remember to whom it belongs.
In other words, these guys would take milk from a baby and replace it with water until they are caught. Scum top to bottom. If you think otherwise, you've deluded yourself. Stop drinking the Kool Aid. The rich have a sense of entitlement. And the permeates every decision they make. Period. And that includes decisions about "their" serfs.
Sadly,
you can take all the sincerity expressed in public by high tech execs and put it in a thimble, and still have room left over for three caraway seeds and all of their hearts.I reworked this from a joke about movie producers. I'd give credit but I don't remember to whom it belongs.
In other words, these guys would take milk from a baby and replace it with water until they are caught. Scum top to bottom. If you think otherwise, you've deluded yourself. Stop drinking the Kool Aid. The rich have a sense of entitlement. And the permeates every decision they make. Period. And that includes decisions about "their" serfs.
I think the point is that the rising tide isn't lifting all boats. Instead, the tide is lifting a few boats really, really high above everyone else. And now we know that part of the reason for that is an agreement between these companies to artificially manage wages.
People have a right to be frustrated that most (I believe something like 90%) of the economic gains since the Great Recession have gone to relatively few organizations and people. And, really, that trend is 40 years old.
----------
Or you could let the market decide what to pay them. Seems to work for the execs.
Heck yes. All my jobs for the past 30+ years have come from cold calls. Early on, one new job nearly doubled the salary of the previous job.
Many people underestimate their worth, and would not realize it. Nor would they know about unique opportunities.
They put a big damper on mobility. First off, they won't know about all the opportunities. One example would be knowing about the iPhone project. You wouldn't have been able to find out about that from visiting a gym or burger shop. You'd only know if Apple cold called you.
Secondly, it can be dangerous to reach out and apply for another job. Word gets around. You could lose your current job with no guarantee that the other company wants you or not.
With poaching, you DO know ahead of time.
The correct answer 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. They're highly experienced.
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.