At the end of the day, laws, like contracts, SLAs, copyrights, EULAs, trademarks, and patents can be viewed from a purely game-theoretic perspective - If I do X then Y will happen. Is it worth Y to me to do X? If so, then I do Y, regardless of whether it means breaking a (contract|EULA|Law|SLA|Patent|Copyright|Trademark).
Also factored into this is the possibility that you may not be caught. And, if you are caught, the maximum damages may not be imposed.
I'm certain that before communicating their enforcement of rules regarding the 70/30 split for all published content on the iPad, that Apple counsel took a long and hard look at the anti-trust laws and made a cost/benefit decision based both on the penalties that they would face, as well as the potential rewards.
Likewise, Ben is just being honest when he says that all sorts of companies have these "Non-Recruit" agreements in place - he's pretty transparent in this article, and just puts it on the table - no pussyfooting around the topic, something that I actually appreciate.
I tend to value my friends and my own moral code much more than I value the moral code of lawmakers. I won't say it's OK to break the law, but when there is a conflict, I will always recommend that you follow your own higher law. Of course, this will also be dependent on the legal risk involved; I wouldn't do time to avoid an [minor] insult to a friend, but I would accept the fine or other slap on the wrist that I expect would be given in this particular case.
>I tend to value my friends and my own moral code much more than I value the moral code of lawmakers.
We're talking about a law made to protect employees. I don't want to work for a CEO who values his friends over his employees' legal rights.
There's also the point that a CEO who follows this advice risks exposing his company to a lawsuit, which is a violation of his duty to the company's shareholders.
It could be argued that the CEO was doing exactly his duty to the shareholders by protecting a very important relationship. Ben used the word friend but made it very clear that this also meant critical business partners.
No, if you read the article, the author ultimately suggests that you proceed with the hire in an open and transparent way -- giving the potential hire a way to back down if they would be uncomfortable with you doing a reference check. The (imho) important part of the article is this:
> "... the best way to deal with these situations is openly and transparently. Once the you become aware of the conflict between hiring the superstar employee and double-crossing your valued friend, you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer. Let him know that if he does not want that to happen, then you will stop the process now and keep the process to date confidential. By speaking with your friend before making the hire, you will be able to better judge the relationship impact of hiring her employee. In addition, you may avoid making a bad hire as often candidates who do well in interviews turn out to be bad employees."
Ah, I hadn't looked at it that way -- interesting perspective. I looked at it as someone who was between two desires and seeking resolution by increasing communication (which is generally a strategy that I condone,) however this might adversely impact the candidate so the hiring ceo gives them the opportunity for an out first. I didn't take this as a threat at all, but rather a measured approach that allows all parties to be on even ground and have their input heard.
Some consider the 'law' created by their own freely-exchanged obligations with other people to be coequal to, or even above, the laws from governments. This mindset can sometimes lead to more efficient or moral outcomes, and can also be crucial in limiting the harm of, and eventually overturning, bad governmental laws. So don't expect laws to always, or even mostly, supersede other customs of friendship and interpersonal loyalty.
That's a reasonable moral position, but in this case the outcome is immoral: preventing an employee from changing jobs because the CEO values his friendship with some other CEO.
That depends on the specificity of the employee's skills, and the variety of other options. If the employee's top two options are the companies with close CEOs, maybe the inter-corporate coordination is part of the reason the employee has especially valuable skills. If the employee has other options, the tiny marginal loss from being disqualified from one open position may have been outweighed by the benefits they had previously received by being 'inside the zone or cooperation'. There are too many considerations to offer a pat judgement for all cases.
If giant employers have a no-poaching agreement covering thousands of employees, I can see that being mostly harmful – and also the easiest practice to detect and punish (as with the DOJ action regarding Apple, Google and others). If the no-poaching agreement is limited to a small number of strategically-central people, or a few very chummy smaller-enterprise management teams, its benefits could outweigh the costs.
So, what, it's OK to break the laws that protect employees if you're doing it to help a friend?