

DoJ: Apple, Google Now Free to Steal Each Other's Staff; This Is Better How? - jrwoodruff
http://www.fastcompany.com/1691464/doj-ruling-apple-google-intel-now-freer-to-steal-each-others-staff-and-this-is-better-how?partner=homepage_newsletter

======
btmorex
This guys analysis is pretty bad.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think the deal was at all
about maintaining good partner relations. I think it was more about trying to
hold wages down in the valley. I realize that it was only a handful of
companies, but those are the companies that literally everyone else looks to
(for wage levels) and competes with for employees. It's quite possible that
that agreement had very real effects on average salaries.

~~~
shin_lao
I don't see how a company could have prevented an employee from leaving
voluntary.

The article states that the company agreed not to use the most aggressive
recruitment techniques (cold calling) on each other, which sounds like a
gentlemen agreement more than collusion.

Google states that they recruited from Adobe, Intel, Apple, etc., that's
pretty easy to verify.

~~~
ohyes
They agreed not to actively compete for each other's employees.

In my simplistic (possibly wrong) view; If you look at employment as a market
place, and individual employees as different commodities, it keeps the market
price of employees (specifically the extremely talented ones) artificially
low. In the extreme it would be similar to price fixing. This is good for
Larry and Sergei and Steve, but not good for the rest of us.

They shouldn't be making any agreements about hiring practices. (Gentlemen's
or not).

~~~
matwood
I think your view is spot on. This was large companies engaging in collusion
to artificially hold down wages in the labor market.

The article mentions that employees should know their worth, but doesn't
mention how? The only way to know is to either actively seek a new job and get
offers or be approached through cold calling. This ruling clearly helps the
employee.

------
nerfhammer
"steal" each other's staff. Fascinating how some people conceptualize this.

~~~
ergo98
It's the slavery, owned-property model. It really is grotesque.

------
robertg
"But, who benefits in this case?"

uh.... everyone. Trying to sue someone so you can force your employees to stay
is lose/lose.

~~~
zephyrfalcon
None of the companies involved in this ruling forced their employees to stay.
They didn't stop them from getting a job at a competitor either. All the
original agreement said was that the companies involved would not actively try
to lure employees away from each other.

------
yardie
steal? I wasn't aware that you could own someone in the modern world.

Poach, entice, lure, certainly, but steal?

------
kj12345
I think it's right to be strict on this given that the labor market is so
asymmetrical even without anti-poaching collusion. Employers get detailed
resumes, credit reports, references, and often salary history before hiring.
Employees are expected to believe the company's marketing about being a great
place to work, get no references, and the salaries of others at the company
are kept secret. Hopefully sites like <http://www.glassdoor.com> can help to
even out this imbalance.

~~~
mmt
_Hopefully sites like<http://www.glassdoor.com> can help to even out this
imbalance._

Agreed. I'm a huge fan of glassdoor and would encourage everyone (including
managers/founders) to participate.

They seem to encourage balance and only criticism that is constructive.

------
natemartin
How often do people recruit through cold-calls anymore?

I was at one of the companies mentioned, and was contacted by a recruiter from
another one of the companies menteioned, but they contacted me through linked-
in, not through a cold-call.

Did the agreement really matter anymore with all the alternative ways of
communicating?

(I ended up leaving where I was, but didn't go to the place that was
recruiting me.)

------
JoeAltmaier
Imagine these compianies controlled who offered you cars, or siding, or which
schools your kids got invited to. Its not a decision they have the right to
make for their employees - its paternal and selfish.

I know, its just cold calls, and smaller companies make these agreements (or
just don't do it out of respect). But these are not small companies. They must
behave differently.

~~~
zephyrfalcon
"Imagine these compianies controlled who offered you cars, or siding, or which
schools your kids got invited to. Its not a decision they have the right to
make for their employees"

And so they don't. All these companies decided was that THEY don't
aggressively try to recruit employees from certain other companies. They are
not "controlling" anything. Their employees are free to apply wherever they
want, including other companies that were part of the informal agreement, and
those companies are free to hire them if they want.

I agree that recruiting employees from other companies isn't "stealing", and
the argument that this agreement could artificially lower wages isn't
unreasonable either. However, some people seem to be jumping to conclusions
here. The agreement does NOT mean that someone cannot move from e.g. Google to
Apple (etc), nor that Google would sue Apple if they did, nor that any of
these companies "control" where their employees are going.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That's why I said "Imagine". My point being that this is a small step, but in
the wrong direction.

------
warmfuzzykitten
Life may be complicated, but the antitrust laws are very simple. Competitors
may not collude. Ever. Even if some random blogger whines about it.

