Lawsuit Filed Against Apple and Other Tech Companies Over Anti-Poaching Agreements

[CalBoy]

Although anti-poaching agreements could certainly be used to the detriment of employees seeking to further their careers by changing employers, I believe the original reason for such agreements was to prevent one company from interfering with the development plans of another. For example, if Google were to make a significantly above-market offer to the top 20 engineers working on OS X 10.7, it could delay Lion's release by months or even years. If a larger company, like Apple, wanted to put a smaller company permanently out of business, it would just have to make above-market offer to all of the other company's employees.

Then the solution to that is to have longer term contracts with options on both sides.

Many industries make use of contracts that specify a minimum time period (say 2 years) with the additional condition (in legal terms, technically a duty) that a particular project be completed. If someone is so vital to your project, you would be a fool not to incentivize them to stay.

You are a criminal if you break the law to keep them there.

I have a feeling that this case goes beyond short term projects, though. I'm sure that since top talent typically works on multiple projects at the same time, it would have been hard to go long without a contract renewal. The companies thus had the "brilliant" idea to simply fix the market for an extended period, greatly benefiting them in negotiations.

With respect to this case, would the plaintiffs not have to prove that they were not hired for positions for which they were the most qualified candidates?

They only have to prove it beyond a preponderance of the evidence, though, not beyond reasonable doubt (the standard for a criminal case). As long as it's more likely than not that the companies colluded to prevent worker mobility, the companies will lose.

However, don't think for a moment that this case is actually going to end up before a jury. The discovery process and evidence introduced at such a trial would be ruinous for all of these companies. I would bet that they would much rather settle it now and avoid the bad publicity and legal expense.

 

[Number 41]

They only have to prove it beyond a preponderance of the evidence, though, not beyond reasonable doubt (the standard for a criminal case). As long as it's more likely than not that the companies colluded to prevent worker mobility, the companies will lose.

That's not true. The named plaintiffs will also have to prove they suffered some harm as a result -- otherwise there's no damages to the case.

Even then, it's not a simple case of "these companies colluded, therefore plaintiff wins." Anti-trust law is significantly more complicated than that.

 

[Little Endian]

As much as I agree with this suit in principle and I think talent should be rewarded we are not speaking about low paid employees in this case. I wish somebody would sue on behalf of all the working poor in this country. Large company's that use temporary or part time employees to avoid paying benefits, raises and can terminate them when time for pay raise in due.

A little of topic but I completely agree. It seems that people often forget that capitalism has no boundaries in the race to the bottom. It is ironic when you have highly skilled employees whining about unfair labor practices. Fortunately most highly skilled employees are at least decently compensated enough to escape their situation or in this case attempt a reasonably well planned law suit.

Sadly most don't care about the working poor and the working poor are often too disenfranchised to do anything about unfair labor practices. But then again who are the "working poor" anyway right? Minimum wage employees? Service employees making sub $20 an hour. Blue collar workers who go from job to job and have seen their labor unions decline. Lower mid level white collar folks stuck in dead end jobs who may never see a six figure salary, and so on.

Bottom line is everyone experiences scarcity whether they are poor or rich. Anyone can feel shafted and cheated no matter how educated or compensated the may be. Sadly though the false conscious of most people prevents them from having any concern or sympathy for those less fortunate than themselves.

 

[CalBoy]

That's not true. The named plaintiffs will also have to prove they suffered some harm as a result -- otherwise there's no damages to the case.

Even then, it's not a simple case of "these companies colluded, therefore plaintiff wins." Anti-trust law is significantly more complicated than that.

Well yes, but it should be easy enough to show salary suppression when the class is this large. I think the tougher part is going to be providing evidence of the collusion.

 

[reden]

If I was an Apple employee, I would be pissed to know the company that pays me for my skills, and is supposed to watch out for me to some extent, is really only screwing me by holding me hostage without my knowledge to other prominent employers I might be interested in advancing my career to. Way to go Apple.

 

[caspersoong]

This is quite dumb. This case will be dismissed soon enough IMO.

 

[macrumorsuser10]

Pure ignorance

What junk! People will sue over anything these days.

Personally, I think the anti-poaching is good. If someone wants to look for a job with another... fine, but for each to be trying to steal the others best talent is defocusing and a waste.

This is one of the ignorant and embarrassing statements I have ever read. It's one thing to hold such opinions, and it's quite another to broadcast your lack of adult-level knowledge for the whole world to see.

 

[ULFoaf]

Lots of challenges, possibly violation of Right to Work laws

I've worked for companies that have had agreements like this. It depends on local law, but is often viewed as a violation of the law in "right to work" states in the U.S. Essentially, it prevents someone from leaving one company to take a higher paying job at another, so it is in the interest of companies involved, not the employees. There were ways around it, meaning someone could be hired to do a different job than their old, then after a year move back to their old area of expertise. I believe it has been abandoned as just more trouble than it was worth.

 

[mdelvecchio]

What junk! People will sue over anything these days.

Personally, I think the anti-poaching is good.

ah yes, because artificial salary caps agreed on by industry titans is so good for the working class and free market.

sure bud.