Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIM Accuses Motorola of Blocking Job Offers

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-i-can-have-you-nobody-will dept.

Businesses 353

theodp writes "Taking a page from the insanely-jealous-husband-playbook, Motorola management has adopted an if-I-can't-have-you-nobody-can stance on its fired employees, reportedly blocking RIM from offering jobs to laid-off workers. In a complaint filed in state court, Motorola is charged with improperly trying to expand a previous agreement 'to prevent the RIM entities from hiring any Motorola employees, including the thousands of employees Motorola has already fired or will fire.' Through its Compete America membership, Motorola has repeatedly warned Congress that failing to accommodate the lobbying group members' 'principled' demand for timely access to talent would not be in the United States' economic interest and would make the US second-rate in education and basic research."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Much like (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235413)

A reach around [goatse.fr]

A friendly holiday reminder (0, Troll)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235415)

Jews did 9/11

Re:A friendly holiday reminder (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235989)

[citation needed]

p1st fr0st! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235425)

First boxing day post!!11!one

Sorry Motorola (5, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235435)

But if you aren't playing with your toys, you have to share with the other children.

If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.

Re:Sorry Motorola (4, Insightful)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235515)

If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.

Can we get a +6 insightful?

I hope Motorola's lawyers get spanked so hard, the stockholders have hand prints on their butts.

Re:Sorry Motorola (2, Insightful)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235541)

Cant say im surprised after reading their letter to congress.
They want to keep Americans unemplyed and sell our jobs overseas.

I truly hope that teh execs at motorla rot in hell with ken lay. (keep people hungry to pad your own bonus, dante didnt even have a layer of hell for that!)

Re:Sorry Motorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235677)

I truly hope that teh execs at motorla rot in hell with ken lay.

What makes you think Ken Lay is really dead?

Re:Sorry Motorola (1)

sjdude (470014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235697)

I truly hope that teh execs at motorla rot in hell with ken lay.

What convinces you that Ken Lay is actually dead?

Re:Sorry Motorola (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235717)

honestly, not much. But I am positave that when he does die... he will goto a place that would terrify even Baal himself

Re:Sorry Motorola (4, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235763)

he will goto a place that would terrify even Baal himself

Wal-Mart after a payday?

Who says that you have to die to be in hell? (0)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235831)

Interesting but Dante had figured that one out. In his version of hell, some people were in hell even before they died. The devil just can't wait for that mere formality to take you to hell. He appoints some demon to take over your body until your body dies. I actually saw an updated version of Dantes Inferno where Cheney was one of these people.

Re:Sorry Motorola (3, Insightful)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235947)

and sell our jobs overseas.

What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?

Re:Sorry Motorola (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235749)

Sigh. It's bad enough that I can't get my girlfriend to give me a RIM job.

Re:Sorry Motorola (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235841)

Sigh. It's bad enough that I can't get my girlfriend to give me a RIM job.

We already know that. I mean, if you could, you'd be too busy to be hanging out here.

Re:Sorry Motorola (1)

vigour (846429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235853)

But if you aren't playing with your toys, you have to share with the other children.

If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.

Nah, they just don't like it when their engineers get rimmed.

You never go ass to mouth.

Northbound Brain Drain (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235439)

R.I.M. is a Canadian company, and this is Motorola's way of keeping talent in the U.S. All good and patriotic Americans should support Motorola's actions in this matter!

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235501)

R.I.M. is a Canadian company, and this is Motorola's way of keeping talent in the U.S. All good and patriotic Americans should support Motorola's actions in this matter!

As it was modded, clearly meant as "flamebait". But there is actually a good point here.

As much as people like to bitch about outsourcing here in the USA, why should we allow our talent to migrate to Canada? Doesn't allowing High Tech workers to work for foreign companies support Microsoft's contention that we need to increase H1Bs because the talent isn't here anymore?

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (4, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235575)

Perhaps we should retain our high-value educated workforce by preventing them from leaving the country, to make sure they carry out their patriotic duty! Maybe we could set up some sort of iron... curtain... or such, to make sure they stay.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235597)

Maybe we need a job czar to help enforce that iron curtain as well, maybe just a minister of the interior

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235807)

just a minister of the interior

I've got just the person! [wikipedia.org]

I can hear it now "There are no infidel jobs in Canada!" "Our glorious jobs are not crossing the border!" "There are no jobs anywhere outside of our glorious country!"

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (2, Insightful)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235595)

As much as people like to bitch about outsourcing here in the USA, why should we allow our talent to migrate to Canada? Doesn't allowing High Tech workers to work for foreign companies support Microsoft's contention that we need to increase H1Bs because the talent isn't here anymore?

That is a separate issue. If I fire you, what right do I have to say where you can and can't work? It is that simple. I believe we (U.S.) have a constitutional amendment addressing such practices.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (3, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235647)

Unfortunately being fired does not automaticly negate a signed contract. However, on the flip side, most noncompetes are so vauge, over reaching, and one sided that they are unenforceable from the get go, even assuming you don't live/work in a state such as California.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235991)

It seems to me that the only time a non-compete clause should be enforceable is if:
1. You take special knowledge of a product/design to another company.
2. You use work relationships to bring in clients of your former employer.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235603)

As much as people like to bitch about outsourcing here in the USA, why should we allow our talent to migrate to Canada?

Allow your talent to migrate? Jesus fucking christ, is this the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or SOVIET RUSSIA?

A FREE COUNTRY does not lock in its citizens and prevent them from leaving. Are you building the new Berlin wall?

Is this the USA? The FREE WORLD? Or did someone cut off your country's balls?

Doesn't allowing High Tech workers to work for foreign companies support Microsoft's contention that we need to increase H1Bs because the talent isn't here anymore?

If you are FIRING the talent, you can't claim that the talent isn't there anymore.

In case you didn't know, RIM has offices all over the world. RIM employs quite a few people in the USA.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (0, Troll)

Alexandra Erenhart (880036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235607)

If they're such "talents", why are they being fired in the first place?

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235983)

If they're such "talents", why are they being fired in the first place?

You generally don't see large-scale layoffs for incompetence (although, sometimes that wouldn't be a bad idea.) In most cases, it's because management screwed up, didn't make use of those talents profitably, and had to lay them off. That, or they're just planning on rehiring most of those workers at a substantial salary reduction or loss of benefits.

I call bullshit on that one. (3, Interesting)

internetcommie (945194) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235631)

[corporate flamebait start]
If US companies want to keep US workers in the US, they should offer them so attractive working conditions (this includes working environment, good salaries, and job security for those who are concerned with such) that they don't want to leave. US citizens are free to leave the country if it suits them, and if we are to continue calling this country a "beacon of freedom" or whatever the latest slogan is, then it will have to continue to be that way.
And if Microsoft has such a hard time finding workers in the US, why aren't they looking into hiring some of Motorola's castoffs?
[/corporate flamebait end]

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (5, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235659)

WTF?

Company A laid off people...

People have no jobs....

Company B said, "hey you know we could use you..."

Company A says, "oh no you can't work there because well we don't want you to kill our business completely..."

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!!! Yes I am screaming here, but this patriotic act is completely misguided. The issue here is that people are laid off and they would like to put food and bread on their table. And if they need to travel to Canada so be it! This is what competition and capitalism is all about.

Want to know what might result?

Instead of hiring out of work American workers they will hire out of work workers from some other place. And then what spot is America? With more unemployed bitter people who say the government gets in their way!

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (2, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235681)

Like an ANON said to you, there is a freedom thing. If you stop the flow of people out of the country, you are stopping the flow of people into the country too. If canada gets pissed at us for quite literally stealing jobs from them, they won't exactly smile through it.

Meanwhile, I seem to recall articles saying that H1B's have been abused/etc so issuing more would solve one problem and create another ripe for abuse.

Maybe they need to come up with a new system that isn't as easy to game as current H1B systems are. If you RTFA you'd notice that the "non-hire" agreement has already expired as well, so it's kinda irrelevant at this point. Anyone laid off from Motorola that decides to go to RIM should be able to do so at this point, bar company politics deliberately breaking the law.

What I mean by the last comment is that many states don't like noncompetes. Currently, Illinois does uphold them unfortunately. However, instead of having the employees sign a noncompete (which they could contest in court), the two companies signed a noncompete (which it's impossible for an employee to contest in court)....essentially making it impossible for people to switch companies in that scenario. Specifically because they could just BS their reasoning for declining to hire someone such as "they didn't meet our qualifications" (with no explanation).

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235737)

True but their agreement expired in August.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (2, Insightful)

RedK (112790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235721)

If you don't want Canadian companies hiring your talent, maybe you should fire the H1Bs and give those jobs to your own people. Otherwise, what reason do they have to stick with your shitty economy that won't even let them work in the first place ? That, and RIM probably has a few offices in the US, meaning the people aren't moving up to Canada because they work for a Canadian company.

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (2)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235849)

As much as people like to bitch about outsourcing here in the USA, why should we allow our talent to migrate to Canada?

Marketplaces are global now, whether you like it or not, and restricting labour to work in their home country is not only holding back the global market but also restricting viable financial options of those workers.
What if Canada didn't let any hockey players play in the NHL that were not originally born in North America (or even Canada)? Wouldn't be as good a league. Restricting how and where people can work only lets the entire industry suffer as a whole.
These people have been laid-off and/or fired. If they can't find gainful employment in their field in the area in which they live, who has the right to tell them they can't move to a place where they have a job that they are experienced in and making equal money. Who could tell them to stay put and take a huge pay-cut in a semi-related field? If the US economy can't handle them without taking a hit on their quality of life and their is an alternative then 'all's fair in love and war'.
   

Re:Northbound Brain Drain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235993)

What if Canada didn't let any hockey players play in the NHL that were not originally born in North America (or even Canada)?

Who gives a flying fuck about hockey.

Marketplaces are global now

Only if we let them be. National security is national security.

Who could tell them to stay put and take a huge pay-cut in a semi-related field?

This is why H1Bs should be sent home on a slow steamer.

If you all want to be China's nigger, that's your problems.

Move to CA (5, Interesting)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235441)

If RIM had a division in California, they could hire anyone they wanted since California law essentially forbids non-compete clauses [wikipedia.org] .

There was a recent Slashdot discussion about this when a Former IBM Exec Ordered To Stop Working For Apple [slashdot.org] .

Re:Move to CA (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235507)

Actually, this could easily pave the way for legislation to make every state like California. In this age of rising unemployment, legislation that removes arbitrary restrictions of this nature on employment only makes timely sense. Sure, it would make some businesses angry, but they don't vote. And truly, anyone who preaches "free market society" and at the same time seeks to "limit the competition" doesn't know what the spirit of the free market is about.

Re:Move to CA (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235517)

Of course if they did that, then they'd lose their own non-competes. Which, I doubt is something they are all that interested in.

So... (5, Interesting)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235451)

Interesting to see how the paragons of capitalism don't believe in the free market.

A company I once worked for once had a written policy that anyone who had ever worked as a direct employee could not be hired at a later date as a contractor (contracting is very lucrative in this industry). I always thought that sounded legally dubious but despite some efforts the media had no interest in pursuing it.

I eventually left that company to contract at a competitor. On my last day the director of engineering told me "You realize I can't approve of this." To which I did not reply, but always wished I had "I can not approve of the way you accept public subsidies and then exported my job to Ireland."

Can't wait until I get a little older so I can name names.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235477)

Interesting to see how the paragons of capitalism don't believe in the free market.

Motorola is no paragon of capitalism. They've been part of the military-industrial complex for a very long time.

As for responding to that clown on your last day, I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.

-jcr

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235493)

As for responding to that clown on your last day, I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.

-jcr

It's too bad circumstances have led you to have a "tend to" regarding this kind of conversation.

Re:So... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235901)

I say "tend", because I wouldn't necessarily deliver that line verbatim.

-jcr

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235821)

Motorola is no paragon of capitalism. They've been part of the military-industrial complex for a very long time.

Yes, and China suckered them out of a lot of money and technology too. Motorola is only reaping what they've sown, so far as I'm concerned.

I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.

Back in the mid-eighties I worked for an outfit that really tried to nail their developers to the wall, contract-wise. When I was hired, I was given a bunch of papers to sign ... one of them was this completely outrageous non-complete/non-disclosure agreement. It said (among other bits of obnoxiousness) that any software I wrote, any products I developed, whether relevant to my work or the industry, or not, even if done on my own time, for a period of five years after I left employment with the company was the property of the company. In addition, I was not allowed to work as a software developer during the same period. I mean, what the Hell? Was I supposed to just switch careers after leaving the place? Anyway, that incredible document went on for some time in the same vein ... I'm not even a lawyer but I could see the ridiculousness of it. Probably it wouldn't have been enforceable, but I had an attorney look it over. He didn't even finish reading it before he said, "You'd be nuts to sign this." So I didn't.

Well, I got hired anyway, and apparently nobody noticed that I hadn't signed the thing because a few months later the HR guy's secretary comes by with a bunch of papers on a clipboard, and asked me to sign it at the bottom. "Just routine", she said, or words to that effect. I immediately noticed that there were several rather innocuous sheets on top, and underneath ... was that stupid NC/NDA. Sneaky. But I told her I had no intention of signing it.

She went away, and back comes the HR guy himself. He was nice enough, but he tried to convince me that I had to sign it, "Why is it a problem? Everyone else here signed it." I told him that if my continued employment was dependent upon that "agreement", that I would happily clean out my desk right then and there. He went away, and that was the last I heard of it. I was serious, however, and if they'd pushed the matter I'd have walked out right then and there. As it happens, I work in an "at-will" State: sometimes that sucks, but sometimes it works in your favor.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235933)

I had a similar situation, where the sticking point was the phrase "remedy of specific performance", which my sister (who is a lawyer) told me was completely beyond the pale, and then explained to me what it meant. In a nutshell, if I had signed that, I would have been agreeing to an injunction to force me to return to work for them if I left and they wanted me back.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that it was boilerplate that they didn't understand, explained it to the company president. His reply was "Well, I can see where that might be to the company's advantage." I told him "I didn't say it wasn't to your advantage, I said I wouldn't sign it."

Upshot: I struck the offending language, and signed my modified version. I never got a copy back from them with a signature on it, but they did pay me the rate we'd discussed.

-jcr

Re:So... (1)

ArmchairGeneral (1244800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235543)

A lot of companies have those non-competition clauses in their contracts. I tend to ignore them, I'm working in my chosen field, so don't expect me to actually remain unemployed or switch professions because you think it suits you. And yes I realize it goes against the contract, but as far as I'm concerned, if I've been downsized or my job has been migrated, this will no longer apply.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235581)

No one who is a paragon of "Capitalism" believes in "Free Market" regardless of the mouthings their PR tasked people make. The aim of any successful capitalist is to leverage yourself into the position of having all the capital and therefore controlling the market. The only time free market is observed as a "good thing" by true capitalists is when forcing their competitors into one gives the capitalist an advantage.

Economic theorists aside, only failed capitalists actually follow the theory of modern capitalism. In a way, it's much like Scientology in that respect. The initiates believe and the 'true believers' don't.

Re:So... (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235665)

We have similar "No-Compete" clauses in our contracts here.
They basically say that we are not allowed to enter competition with our (then former) employer for 5 years after the employment has ended.

Is such bullshit even enforcable anywhere in the world?
I mean it's obvious that I cannot work at, say, motorola, take a blueprint from them and start selling a knockoff later.

But I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to start my own mobile phone business after having worked in one.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235729)

5 Years?

That's ridiculous.

Non-competes are unethical in the first place, and 5 years is just stupid. Frankly I'd just ignore it.

As long as you aren't actually taking designs, code or other property with you, they have no call to stop you and (AFAICT) no legal basis to do so either.

Re:So... (1, Insightful)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235811)

I always thought it would be brilliant if the Democrats developed a policy platform based on competition. Real competition.

Where the vision would be a marketplace where the small guy could take down the big guy based on brains and good ideas. The only tool the big guy would have to fight back would would be brains. Not legal shenanigans based on deep pockets, old boys clubs and family fortunes.

The policy should proudly proclaim that today's underprivileged are encouraged to drive today's upper class back to the middle class and trade places with them.

Because, in Western society, the upper classes are in grave danger of starting to consider themselves royalty.

That would completely outflank the Republicans claim to be the pro-business party leaving them with only the faith communities as a support base. Unfortunately the Democrats have trouble organizing anything more complicated than a birthday party.

Re:So... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235921)

You don't have to. I know who your employer was.

I won't rat them out, though. Despite their penchant for odd employment policies ( I contracted with them for a few months - that makes me a pariah for a while), they are still not so nasty as some.

And they still make stuff in the U.S., which is something I will not damage now.

Motorola is a shit company (1)

kpainter (901021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235455)

just another log on the fire.

In-post duplicates? (1)

jitterysquid (913188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235457)

The two linked news sites contain identical regurgitations of the Reuters article.

I have noticed the space between duplicates has been shrinking over the years. Now they have found a way to occupy the same post! How do we stop this collapse before it destroys the universe?

the twilight zone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235539)

The two linked news sites contain identical regurgitations of the Reuters article.

I have noticed the space between duplicates has been shrinking over the years. Now they have found a way to occupy the same post! How do we stop this collapse before it destroOH SHI{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

Pathetic. (2, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235471)

From TFA: "BlackBerry maker Research in Motion sued Motorola over claims the mobile phone maker is improperly blocking it from offering jobs to laid-off Motorola workers"

This is really sad. The US has a very high unemployment rate and people are struggling to find jobs. Some people are barely able to put bread on the table and Motorola wants to keep it that way? For what? A dispute with Blackberry? Screw you Motorola, you've just lost my business forever.

Re:Pathetic. (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235531)

For what? A dispute with Blackberry? Screw you Motorola, you've just lost my business forever.

Motorola is having a lot of troubled times lately. They might be laying off people, but I think they are probably playing the 'end of the year' game I see so many large companies do. Basically what they're trying to do is lay a bunch of people off to make the end of the year budget, but after the first of the year they'll hire a signicant percentage of those laid off back when new budgets kick in. I've seen this pattern a thousand times, especially in the auto industry. Of course, the people they'll hire back will be taking a pay cut.

That's why they want to keep RIM from hiring them off.

Kinda dirty.

Re:Pathetic. (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235555)

they are trying to make their bonuses

Re:Pathetic. (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235689)

they are trying to make their bonuses

Golden Parachute opening in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Re:Pathetic. (4, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235609)

Regardless, if you lay someone off and aren't paying their wages, you shouldn't have claim to block them from picking up somewhere else. Regardless of your self serving plans to hire them back at a pay cut a couple of months later.

Re:Pathetic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235707)

Totally agreed, but honestly when is the last time Motorola has released a quality product ?

This is just one more reason that I won't purchase Motorola products.

Re:Pathetic. (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235679)

but after the first of the year they'll hire a signicant percentage of those laid off back when new budgets kick in.

That, and they'll hire some back as part-time or contract workers, and completely avoid the need to provide health care or benefits of any kind. I've seen that happen too: fire a regular full-time worker and then hire him or her back for just under the state's minimum requirement for "full time" status. They only work 39.5 hours/week, say, and the company saves the cost of the benefits. No effective difference in work load, but the employee gets screwed out of benefits. Yeah, it's kinda dirty, and totally violates the spirit of the law.

Re:Pathetic. (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235937)

Let's see ... we create laws that force employers to do certain things, such as pay a certain wage if someone works a certain number of hours per week ... and in some places mandate expensive "benefits" ... and at the same time "hide" half the taxes taken from the employee's work ... and when the company can't afford to keep said employees ... but will offer them a job working at-will ... which allows the company to continue to survive, and the employee to continue to eat ... we say the company screwed the employee ... and yet the government is the good guy with its short-sighted laws.

Re:Pathetic. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236003)

Let's see ... we create laws that force employers to do certain things, such as pay a certain wage if someone works a certain number of hours per week ... and in some places mandate expensive "benefits" ... and at the same time "hide" half the taxes taken from the employee's work ... and when the company can't afford to keep said employees ... but will offer them a job working at-will ... which allows the company to continue to survive, and the employee to continue to eat ... we say the company screwed the employee ... and yet the government is the good guy with its short-sighted laws.

Well, I'd have more sympathy for your perspective if said companies hadn't generally mismanaged themselves into the ground. Motorola is a classic example.

Re:Pathetic. (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235653)

Don't forget that RIM made a deal with Motorola in the past about hiring their workers. If RIM were serious about free markets, they wouldn't have made the deal with Motorola in the first place.

Just as well, here in the States, the free market and saving jobs are just catch phrases to get Congress to legislate some sort of benefit for your organization; whether it's labor or corporate mgt.

Re:Pathetic. (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235965)

I think that's the deal. RIM was probably poaching employees that knew the Moto Ship was sinking so they didn't want to be sued directly for the non-competes and cut a deal.

Now Moto is cutting weight but the deal has run out and RIM is ready to snap up all the people they couldn't have before... Moto doesn't like that and wants the court to tell RIM they cant' hire people Moto has cast off under the old agreement.

Neither company wanted to open the secret reason for the original settlement that ran out, so I'd guess a sane judge would tell Moto tough luck....Whatever real issue they has has already got court time and the settlement ran out. Trying to sneak this into court on Christmas holiday so it won't be dealt with for a few weeks and RIM can't start cutting deals lets them play the process when they know they won't win the case.

out of work and a place to go (2, Interesting)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235473)

What bothers me most about Motorol's behavior here is that there are people who are not drawing a paycheck. Some are on unemployment and they could be back in the ranks of the employed, spending money and helping our economy... not to mention the personal ramifications of no longer being unemployed...
However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed. they want to flare their feathers no matter who is hurt in their little a pissing match.
We all wonder what went wrong when some ex husband dresses p as santa, goes to his ex wife's fmaily xmas party and kills 8 people, but when a company tries to do the same thing to thousands, we stand idolly by.
Because of this action, I will no longer allow any motorola product in my house. period.
I have never been an employee of motorola and am not mad because i am one being hurt, but I would want opthers to do this if my former company wanted to keep me poor after laying me off.
Stand up, consumers, and let motorola know that it is time to move past the anger stage already.

Re:out of work and a place to go (2, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235487)

However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed.

I see a massive and expensive class-action suit in the offing. Motorola shareholders should contact the company's general counsel and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut that shit out.

-jcr

Re:out of work and a place to go (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235523)

good point.
I hope that they do, As for me, I forgot about that. I need to be sure that my roths and 401k are motorla free.
Time to make a few moves. If I wont have it in my house I sure wont hold their stocks.

"Motorla, meet worldcom; worldcom, meet motorla... hope yall like each other since yall will be in hell together for a long long time!"

Re:out of work and a place to go (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235635)

However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed.

I see a massive and expensive class-action suit in the offing. Motorola shareholders should contact the company's general counsel and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut that shit out.

-jcr

I doubt the shareholders give a damn, in fact, it's the shareholder's general lack-of-interest in ethical behavior that has bought corporate America to its current state. All Motorola's management would have to say is, "by doing this we're going to raise the share price." That would be the end of the matter so far as the shareholders are concerned.

You're right though: it would certainly be in the employees best interests to get organized, talk to a good law firm, and apply for class-action status.

Does anyone know exactly how many people we're talking about here? The articles linked were rather skimpy on details (in fact the first two were links to the same text.)

Re:out of work and a place to go (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235651)

I have been trying to find out how many people as well.
Post if you find out.

Re:out of work and a place to go (1)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235529)

I somehow doubt your boycott of moto products are going to change anything. I have about 1000 Motorola cable modems, a couple dozen canopy, and a couple dozen digital set top boxes out in production that all have a Motorola tag on them. I'm not going to stop using them either, as they're good products. I do have a blackberry sitting on my desk too. :D

I think where this will actually hurt them is when Motorola can't find employees willing to work under crap contract conditions. Though that's unlikely considering our current economic problems.

Re:out of work and a place to go (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235583)

it is your choice how you "dollar vote."
There are choices. My cable modem is 2wire. I just called charter and they are replacing my hd dvr/reciever.
You choose who you support as a consumer. It is your choice where your money goes and we as consumers have forgoitten that the market can work if we actually take an interest in how we vote these companies into power.
You vote to keep people out of work, that is absolutely your choice.

Re:out of work and a place to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235637)

Exactly. It's not going to change anything. Motorola is doomed, boycott or not. They are loosing a lot of money with their mobile devices division.

Note: I used to work for them.

Re:out of work and a place to go (0, Flamebait)

Strep (956749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235839)

Oh. So you'll be spending the next few weeks with a soldering iron removing all those pesky motorola ICs that infect all your appliances? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235491)

You'd think Motorola would want their competitors taking on those responsible for their vast array of shitheap products.

Re:Surprising (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235591)

You'd think Motorola would want their competitors taking on those responsible for their vast array of shitheap products.

Depends. If they're firing lots of middle and senior management I'd tend to agree. Engineers design the kinds of products that management wants them to design: if those are shitheap then management is ultimately responsible.

fired vs quit (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235499)

I can't believe that anyone is even allowed to fire someone and then to prevent them from attempting to get another job anywhere they want.

One thing is when someone quits and there is a non-competition agreement, another thing is when someone is fired. Has anyone ever lost in court to a company that fired them when they started working for a competitor?

Everyone: if you are a 'permanent' employee, don't sign non-compete clauses, and if you do, at least modify them to say that if the company terminates your employment, then this clause does not apply.

Nice of Motorola, by the way, to attempt and stop people that they fired from trying to find employment, especially in this economy. If anything is going to hurt economy of the USA it's going to be millions of unemployed people.

Re:fired vs quit (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235563)

Everyone: if you are a 'permanent' employee, don't sign non-compete clauses, and if you do, at least modify them to say that if the company terminates your employment, then this clause does not apply.

Or, how, about, they pay you for the rest of your life.

Re:fired vs quit (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235641)

Or, how, about, they pay you for the rest of your life. - you are being facetious but I am not certain why exactly, I suppose there is very thick sarcasm somewhere there. Certainly a company should be able to fire someone they don't need, someone who is not doing his/her job, whatever, and there if someone is fired, they are fired. If there is a contract that forces the company to pay compensation for certain types of dismissal it's all good, whatever.

However this does not have anything to do with the anti-competitive clauses that people routinely sign when they get a position. I am a contractor, haven't worked permanently since the beginning of 2001 and I do sign various NDAs, anti-competition clauses and such. But I always read them first and I modify them where I see it necessary. Most people make the mistake of not doing this and it will bite them.

NDAs and anti-competition clauses are really anti-capitalist in nature, they are protectionist ideas, they go against my system of believes. But enough about that.

Motorola stating that the unemployed people, who were fired by them must not be allowed to be hired by a competitor because this will cause harm to the economy of the USA is not simply mean spirited and false, it is pure evil.

It cannot be argued that an unemployed person, or a person who has good experience to do a job that requires special knowledge will harm any economy by obtaining a job that requires this expertise. However it can be argued economy gets harmed by having people who are under-utilizing their potential or simply are unemployed, collecting employment insurance or welfare or whatever. Economy suffers from this much more than from people working for competitors, because in fact working for competitors, creates more competition, whether it is fair or not, competition does what it is supposed to do.

Re:fired vs quit (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235903)

It has been my own personal experience that non-competes in hiring contracts are generally not legally enforceable in situations where the company terminated the employment. The only thing in non-competes that is really legally enforceable is that a former employee must ensure that they not disclose any confidential company information or knowledge they they acquired while working with them to any new employer. Portions of contracts that are not legally enforceable can be treated as if they were never printed on any page you signed and will have identical legal weight in court. You don't even really need to scratch them out, unless you are inclined to want to point out to your future employer that their contracts aren't entirely legally enforceable (which even if true can easily come across as just trying to show off or be a know-it-all, which of course is probably not what you want to do when you are just starting a brand new job).

Re:fired vs quit (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236017)

I agree with you except for this part: You don't even really need to scratch them out, unless you are inclined to want to point out to your future employer that their contracts aren't entirely legally enforceable (which even if true can easily come across as just trying to show off or be a know-it-all, which of course is probably not what you want to do when you are just starting a brand new job). - I am anti-union, but I am pro-principle. I believe some NDAs and some anti-competition statements and entire clauses are evil in various ways and I do not want the evil to do evil to me. I am pro-intelligence and believe that others also do not want evil to be done to them. So it is my strong believe that evil must always be pointed out and it should be defeated where possible.

Crossing out certain statements/paragraphs, changing wording to be less evil and such is very necessary and if everyone was doing it there would be less evil. We should never be complacent when evil wants to hurt us. That's why I do read contracts and I do remove / change portions of contracts, if not to make them 'good' then at least to remove the excess of 'evil'.

heartless (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235547)

It is one thing to pass right to work laws which prevents labor to organize to prevent such bad behavior. It is understandable to to abuse the H!B visa system so that one can gain completive advantage by creating a workforce of indentured servants with little opportunity to protect themselves against abusive behavior, while jobs that legitimately use the H1B visa program, and do help the overall US economy, for instance skilled seasonal labor, goes unfilled. But preventing a person from earning a living? Preventing a person from supporting their family? That seems beyond any reasonable persons ability to comprehend. I mean it is absolutely the right of a company to fire whom they wish, but to prevent them from getting another job?

The defense of this is that do not have to for RIM, the could be independent contractors. But the non compete clause might prevent a person from doing that as well. Non complete clauses are not uniformly bad. They may be good for preventing someone from quitting and going to a competing entity, or purposefully getting fired and doing the same. OTOH, in a country where many fears the welfare state enough to allow children to die of lack of medical care, but not due to accidental or forced conception, it would seem that we would not laws or regulations hat force highly trained persons onto those roles, or taking lower skilled jobs that might force other who might take the lower skilled jobs onto the rolls.

Re:heartless (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235865)

Yeah, you know, if you had bothered to read the article you might have posted something that makes sense, instead you post that pile.

This is not about employer-employee non-compete agreements. This is about two companies making a legally binding agreement not to poach each other's employees. Now, one of the companies, RIM, wants to renege on the agreement and has been sending job offers to Motorola's employees. Rim is choosing the employees using information gained through the agreement which specifically forbade it from poaching employees.

An improvement? (5, Insightful)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235567)

...and would make the U.S. second-rate in education and basic research.

Since the US is far behind being 2nd in education - most notably math - wouldn't being 2nd be an improvement?

Motorola is an Illinois Tech Company (2, Informative)

yttrstein (891553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235589)

And they all have draconian NC contracts. It's actually rather sad; I've run into dozens of ex-Illinoisians (sp) here in NYC who simply don't understand that they can negotiate a NC agreement. And none who would ever dream that in many circumstances here in NY and NYC, you don't have to sign them at all without any risk to your employment.

I started my tech career in Illinois, and I'm glad I did. It was incredibly competitive in Chicago in the early and mid 90s, and I learned more there in six years than I could have ever learned anywhere else in twice the time.

But I'd rather sling coffee out of a truck in Union Square than ever move back to Chicago and work in the tech industry there. It's unnecessarily brutal.

Re:Motorola is an Illinois Tech Company (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235693)

love being in GA. At will laws may be greeat for companies, but they also mean that NC agreements are null and void.

Re:Motorola is an Illinois Tech Company (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235875)

learned more there in six years than I could have ever learned anywhere else in twice the time.

Please. As everyone knows, Seattle is the center of the tech universe. Your comments show that you are a fraud who probably lives in your mom's basement. Go back to your masturbation.

It doesn't matter whether you sign a non-compete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235599)

I'm currently looking for work and I have been troubled to find that potential employers are not willing to look at my resume because of the perception that I might have a potential conflict-of-interest from a previous employer. Employers are apparently not willing to spend the time to determine if there are any legal issues hat actually exist (in my case I am unencumbered), and instead would rather toss a resume than invest the time/take the perceived risk of hiring someone with a background in my industry. I will probably have to relocate and take work in a unrelated business sector -- which is too bad because I enjoyed and was good at what I used to do.

grrrrr

MOTOROLA SUCKS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26235605)

Well, Motorola phones sucks long time, anyway.

WHO CARES? Nokia ownz.

CorpAmerica (3, Insightful)

bloobamator (939353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235625)

People must wake up and realize that we allow the corps to employ us at OUR sufferance, not the other way around. Do not let them make you think they are doing you some huge favor by employing you. It's the other way around.

This is as Un-American as it gets (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235655)

How can it possibly be in the economic interest of the US to allow a corporation to lay off/fire workers and then not allow them to accept a job in their own field?

To side with RIM would be to side with forcing the taxpayers to pay unemployment/welfare benefits while the corp gets off scott free. I say make RIM pay these benefits if this is how they want it. In fact, I think that if such "noncompete" crap is to be legal at ALL, it should be allowed ONLY if the corporation pays the worker his/her regular salary NOT to work.

I find it funny how corporations are "gung ho capitalists" when it comes to axing thousands of workers on a whim for their benefit, but become devout orthodox Stalinists when it comes to workers going elsewhere for THEIR benefit...

Re:This is as Un-American as it gets (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235791)

Apparently, you didn't read or understand the write or the articles.

First, RIM and Motorola have/had an agreement not to poach each other's employees.

Second, the agreement in question is not about preventing employees from accepting jobs, but rather keeps RIM from making offers to Motorola employees.

Third, RIM is the company trying to higher people from Motorola. If the court side's with RIM, RIM gets to hire the employees, which is the exact opposite of what you have described.

Re:This is as Un-American as it gets (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235797)

How can it possibly be in the economic interest of the US to allow a corporation to lay off/fire workers and then not allow them to accept a job in their own field?

Well, RIM is Canadian, isn't it? Maybe we're just trying to make sure them furriners don't steal our American progress!

Agreement? (2, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235657)

This sounds like it could very well be due to RIM taking advantage of some information it got from Motorola under NDA.

RIM and Motorola had (have?) an agreement to share confidential information about some unrelated matter. RIM notices that Motorola is going to be laying off people from this information. RIM immediately starts soliciting these people that are likely to be laid off.

Now that doesn't sound entirely reasonable, does it? Especially since these people can be approached on the basis of "we're offering you a job with a 25% cut in pay because we know you are about to lose your job."

Re:Agreement? (2, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235759)

You missed this part:

RIM , in a complaint filed in state court in Chicago, asked for an order invalidating an agreement the companies reached this year not to solicit each other's employees, the agency said.

The fact that RIM had already agreed NOT to solicit Motorola's employees makes this the lawsuit very unreasonable.

Re:Agreement? (1)

vectorious (1307695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235911)

But if they are about to be let go or have already been let go, surely that should be null and void? After all Motorola clearly does not want them.

Re:Agreement? (1)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235961)

The fact that RIM had already agreed NOT to solicit Motorola's employees makes this the lawsuit very unreasonable.

If you stop paying someone, they aren't your employee.

Ok, someone is full of shit (3, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235745)

The agreement expired in August and is no longer enforceable, the agency said, citing the complaint.

The agreement has expired, then why the lawsuit?

From one article:

Motorola is improperly trying to expand the agreement 'to prevent the RIM entities from hiring any Motorola employees, including the thousands of employees Motorola has already fired or will fire,' RIM was quoted as saying in the complaint by the agency.

But from the other:

RIM (nasdaq: RIMM - news - people ), in a complaint filed in state court in Chicago, asked for an order invalidating an agreement the companies reached this year not to solicit each other's employees, the agency said.

So, both companies agreed not to solicit each other's employees and now RIM wants out of the deal. Why should the be let out of the deal?

The lawsuit comes three months after Motorola sued RIM in Chicago in violation of the agreement, according to the agency.

Either the writer is incompetent or the above is false because "three months" ago was after the agreement supposedly expired, therefore the suit could not be in violation of the agreement.

From the linked letter to Congress:

Recapturing Congressionally authorized EB green cards from prior fiscal years that went unused
due to bureaucratic delays would help reduce visa backlogs. EB green card recapture has been
endorsed by over 70 employer, family and community-based organizations. In 2005, 85 U.S.
Senators voted in support of green card recapture.

How does that apply to anything in this case, in any way shape or form?

To me, this looks like a lot of biased reporting and RIM trying to weasel it's way out of an agreement.

I can't resist... (0)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235801)

Motorola: Sorry guys, no RIM job for anyone.

I'm shocked (5, Funny)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235847)

I own two Motorola GSM telephones & judging by their performance I was under the impression Motorola had no engineers left.

This is an outrage! (1, Redundant)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26235869)

We need to ENSURE ex-Motorola employees' right to get RIM jobs!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?