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!

Anti-Poaching Lawsuit Against Apple, Google and Others Given the Green Light

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the hands-off dept.

The Courts 172

An anonymous reader writes "A class action lawsuit against Apple, Google and a number of other high-profile tech companies has been given the green light by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. The lawsuit stems from anti-poaching agreements that Apple a number of tech companies entered into from 2005 through 2009. Parties to the agreement all promised not to recruit employees from one another. The companies involved include Apple, Intel, Google, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Adobe."

cancel ×

172 comments

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

Let me the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45260801)

As an "Apple fanboy", I'm glad to see that lawsuit is given the green light. Not only against Google and Adobe but against Apple too.

Wellcome to corporate captialism (5, Funny)

postmortem (906676) | about 10 months ago | (#45260857)

...you get to see the tip of the iceberg

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45260961)

Oh yes, the people who's lives were broken apart like a ship thrown against the rocks in a great storm is astounding....
 
Let's not get too dramatic here, recruiting a competitions employees is nothing new and this really isn't news beyond a sad attempt to get fanbois fighting over who's to blame for everything that is wrong in the world today.
 
You took the bait and you look like a fool for doing it.

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261221)

Agonize over these posts much???

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (3, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | about 10 months ago | (#45261569)

Put much after a sentence fragment much?

God I hate this trend. Putting "much" after a half-developed question does not make the question cool. I wish this would die.

And now I'm sure someone will respond with something like "Sensitive much?"

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45262367)

engage with ACs in conversation much? pro tip: don't feed trolls.

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45260969)

Richard Stallman's lazy third testicle

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261073)

...you get to see the tip of the iceberg

I'm sure all we need is a few more government rules to fix it, right? Because nothing runs better than something run by the government. Why, they can take you money in taxes, and turn it into programs that spy on you! What could be better than to give them MORE power?

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261973)

Yeah, right...all we need to do is get rid of "Big Gov" and then "Big Biz" fix it all for us.
I don't know about you, but in my life I've been screwed a lot more by "Big Biz" than by "Big Gov".

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 10 months ago | (#45261387)

Judging by the color and smell, I don't think that's an iceberg.

(Unless all pictures of icebergs I've ever seen are "embellished", in which case I pity the survivors from the Titanic).

Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261469)

As a raving Libertarian (notice the upper case "L.") I think this is an awful intrusion of the government into the normal flow of capitalism. The government has no business interfering with the companies and allow the free market to straighten this out. The invisible hand of the marketplace will surely, somehow reward companies that treat their employees with decency and respect, and Apple and Google will go under from their own weight.

And then I can ride my flying pig to happy land where it will all work out.

Google did something evil? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45260865)

Oh my God! My entire world view is shattered. I have to kill myself!

/fanboi

Re:Google did something evil? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45261237)

I suppose it depends on whether the agreement was not to hire from each other, or not to actively recruit from each other. In my opinion, the former is evil (and should be illegal), the latter is not.

Re:Google did something evil? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#45261335)

I suppose it depends on whether the agreement was not to hire from each other, or not to actively recruit from each other. In my opinion, the former is evil (and should be illegal), the latter is not.

It's just a matter of degree. The former is more damaging to employees than the latter, but they are both damaging.

Re:Google did something evil? (1)

isorox (205688) | about 10 months ago | (#45261257)

Oh my God! My entire world view is shattered. I have to kill myself!

/fanboi

Have a look on google, I'm sure it will help you

Time to update California laws (5, Insightful)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45260869)

Time to add anti-poaching to the California Business and Professions code to make it strictly forbidden. This keeps coming up year-after year. There needs to be a law to protect the free market for talent. California should lead the way, but it would be really nice to see it at the Federal level as well.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about 10 months ago | (#45261001)

That's such a futile approach to becoming an absolute bayernude, don't you think?

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261085)

Taking advantage of ignorance is to be discouraged. This is one of my pet peeves about the American way, and it is a fundamental flaw in the American way of thinking. There should be basic protections in place to prevent these shenanigans from happening in the first place.

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261429)

Other than having a brain?

You know, to prevent ignorance. In case you missed that.

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261621)

All citizens deserve a basic level of protection against exploitation from greedy entities. This isn't Lake Wobegon where everyone is "above average". As I stated previously, this type of behavior needs to be discouraged. There are too many "fish being shot in the barrel" in this country. Time focus our efforts on something more worthwhile...

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261813)

"All citizens deserve a basic level of protection"

They may deserve it, that's fine. But you have no such right.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261907)

If enough of us vote for a change then it will either happen, or there will be a Coup.

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45262019)

"or there will be a Coup"

What are you talking about?

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 10 months ago | (#45262103)

Says who? If you read the constitution as a grant of power as it was arguably intended than there is an infinite number or rights that we have, just a matter of if we wanna force our government to recognize it. The only things you can factually state people dont have a right to are the things the constitution says they dont have, or grant to the government.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

jbov (2202938) | about 10 months ago | (#45262381)

What is a bayernude?

Re:Time to update California laws (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about 10 months ago | (#45261089)

Is an update really necessary? Isn't collusion already illegal? The only difference between this and some almond growers secretly meeting to fix prices is that the almonds are people. OMG, I just realized something. People are almonds, corporations are people, therefore... Corporations are almonds. I'm not sure exactly what we've discovered here; but I'm pretty sure it involves quantum mechanics and heavy drinking.

Re:Time to update California laws (2)

Drethon (1445051) | about 10 months ago | (#45261273)

I think we need new categories, sarcasm +1 and sarcasm -1 to be used as appropriate... sorry, messed up random thoguht of the day.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 10 months ago | (#45261311)

Or maybe you were just drunk last night and watched Soylent Green while eating almonds.

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261381)

Almonds contain cyanide; cyanide is toxic! People are toxic! QED

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 10 months ago | (#45261595)

Pretty sure I remember a joke from my Quantum professor about that, involving an easily memorable statement of the digits in Pi out to 15 digits.

Ah, yes... here it is:
How I need a drink, alcoholic of course after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
3.14159265358989

Re:Time to update California laws (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 10 months ago | (#45261115)

IIRC there is already some federal laws on this. Part of the laws forbid cooperation on hiring which are part of the labor laws / monopoly laws. Part of the law forbids pooching, in particular when one firm tries hiring away entire departments from another firm, as an anti-competitive tactic.

Re:Time to update California laws (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45261537)

I don't think there's a government or large organization in the world that doesn't have at least some employees pooching. It's practically a sport in some cases.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 10 months ago | (#45261687)

Well, yes, and in some cases that it’s perfectly fine but not so much in others. Let’s take the current World Series. The Red Socks can’t pouch all of the Cardinals’ pitchers in the middle of the series. That would be a exterme case. That would be anti-competitive – as well as breaking some MLB rules.

The pouching cases I am thinking about is when everybody (from the department manager to the assistants) in a functional department (sales office, specialized technical team, or something else that is self-contained.) hands in their resignation letters en mass at 4 p.m. on Friday and show up across the street on Monday doing their old job for a competitor. I have seen some companies seriously gimped by such a move. In the case of a sales office defecting there are supposed to leave client lists behind but they almost never do.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

SeattleGameboy (641456) | about 10 months ago | (#45262077)

Red Sox cannot poach Cardinals' pitchers during the World Series because there are collective bargaining clauses between the league and players associations to bar that from happening. But Red Sox can sign any free agent from Cardinals when they are available.

There are no such collective bargaining agreements between employees and employers in Silicon Valley. You are working with "at will" agreements which can be broken at any time. There is nothing stopping anyone from poaching other company's employees, sans collusion.

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261163)

u will find this reduces wages, you are now competing in a global job market

Re:Time to update California laws (2)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261307)

California has one vital thing going for it: Weather. Executives want to live here because of it. Executives want to have there employees close to manage them. (Especially at a start up) That's why Gov. Perry was largely unsuccessful in wooing California tech companies to Texas. While large scale manufacturing can be done anywhere, R&D is still predominately stateside and on the Left coast due to the favorable weather.

Re:Time to update California laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261551)

"largely unsuccessful"?

You're kidding, right?

30 of the Fortune 100 companies have their headquarters in the center of the DFW metroplex. Some very high-tech companies. When I lived in California, I had a hell of a time finding a job. Here? Had tons of offers.

Re:Time to update California laws (1)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261749)

Did Intel, Qualcomm, Cisco, Oracle or move out of California?... I thought not... If they do, then it will be an issue.

Also, Texas allows non-competes and it is this reason, along with the horrible weather, and no state initiative and referendum why I would never move there.
I do like the gun laws in Texas though....

Poached eggs are best eggs (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45260877)

Far superior to any other method of preparation.

Where's the union? (-1, Troll)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 10 months ago | (#45260891)

The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.

Wait, what?

I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?

Re:Where's the union? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45260979)

Not to worry, as soon as this class action lawsuit is won, every employee will get a $20 coupon at the Microsoft store! What has any union ever done for anyone by comparison?

Re:Where's the union? (2)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 10 months ago | (#45260991)

Don't get ahead of yourself my friend. This is just the start of the suit. Nothing says this suit will be successful, or that the resolution will be helpful to the employees even if it is successful.

Re:Where's the union? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261011)

>>even non-union employees have rights, too?

Indeed, which is why we're reading an article about how prohibitions against unionizing helped prevent anti-poaching agreements between corporations.

Ah who am I kidding, what I just typed makes about as much sense as what you typed, and is loaded with just as much bias!

Re:Where's the union? (5, Informative)

duckintheface (710137) | about 10 months ago | (#45261087)

Anti-poaching is only one means by which corporations weaken workers. Illegal retaliatory firing for union organizing is another. The suit is about maintaining a free market in labor. Union membership is one way that individuals participate in that free market. The decline in union membership is a major cause of the decline in the income of American workers.

As documented in Robert Reich's book Super-Capitalism, the most productive and prosperous time in US history was the age (1950s-1960s) of collaboration between big government, big business, and big labor. With labor out of the picture and government oversight waning, is it any wonder that corporations are feasting on the bones of their powerless workforce?

Re:Where's the union? (3, Informative)

MillerHighLife21 (876240) | about 10 months ago | (#45262259)

That's not the reason for decline in income. The reason for decline in income is lack of jobs because of all of the cheaper off-shore labor and increased the supply of workers in the US. Wage laws, regulations, and an environment generally unfriendly towards manufacturing ultimately drove any industry that doesn't HAVE to operate in the US OUT of the US to places that were happy to have the jobs at all.

If you had all of those jobs back and a thriving manufacturing industry again, the supply of workers would be much thinner, unemployment would be virtual non-existent unless by choice and because of that the wages / compensation would increase in order to attract and retain people. All we've done in the US is drive away a lot of jobs. There's plenty of places in the US where income levels are just fine and those are the areas where there is demand.

You create demand, the income levels will take care of themselves.

The Boeing thing has been especially interesting. As they've started things up in SC, Union workers have come down from Seattle trying to get people to organize to try to convince people that they aren't making enough. The general response they're getting is that most people are just happy to have a job...which is a point that a lot of people tend to forget when they start talking about wanting "more" vs wanting "anything".

Re:Where's the union? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45261145)

I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?

We are talking about hard to find, high demand employees here.

Re:Where's the union? (1)

teg (97890) | about 10 months ago | (#45261149)

The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.

Wait, what?

I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?

That depends. If you are able to sell a unique skill - yourself - you can do that well. If you are more of a commodity, you'll be nickel and dimed [wikipedia.org] . Often with a salary so low you need public support on top of it [chicagobusiness.com] , and also forego healthcare. These could really need a union.

That said, where I live I think unions are too strong. But they are a needed balance.

Re:Where's the union? (1)

Chalnoth (1334923) | about 10 months ago | (#45261175)

And this lawsuit is far less effective at improving working conditions than a union would be. Your point?

Re:Where's the union? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261261)

Important distinction, class action lawsuits are really about punishing the offender, not about getting reparations for the victims. A strong union might have been able to do that.

Re:Where's the union? (4, Informative)

isorox (205688) | about 10 months ago | (#45261277)

The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.

Wait, what?

I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?

Yes, it's possible. If you have the money and the time you can even get it to court. Then it's you, and maybe a few others, against the combined experience and cash of the justice a multi billion dollar company can buy.

Lawyer settle (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 10 months ago | (#45260967)

Typical class actions: Lawyers will settle for $20 million dollars for the lawyers and $3 for each person who didn't get a job.

Re:Lawyer settle (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 10 months ago | (#45261475)

That's ok. Most of those people got $20M in stock options.

Re:Lawyer settle (2)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about 10 months ago | (#45261841)

and the $3 will be a credit to be used in the AppStore.

Re:Lawyer settle (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#45262231)

But the important question is "will these companies stop the anti-worker conspiracy." It's like hitting your dog with a rolled up newspaper for pooping on the floor. It won't clean up the poop: that's not the point.

Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1, Troll)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261027)

Let the free market work its magic. Companies should start using employment contracts for stellar performers so that they don't have to fear them leaving for competitors, and the contract can be renegotiated every 2-3 years, if the stellar employee doesn't like the terms, they can walk when the contract expires.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (4, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 10 months ago | (#45261169)

Let the free market work its magic. Companies should start using employment contracts for stellar performers so that they don't have to fear them leaving for competitors, and the contract can be renegotiated every 2-3 years, if the stellar employee doesn't like the terms, they can walk when the contract expires.

And once your anti-poaching agreement kicks in, that employee will spend 6 months unemployed, then come back begging for the same job at half the pay! Free market FTW!

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (0)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261235)

Any smart employee will have at least 1 year of living expenses banked. In that case, the opposite could very well happen, and the company could be begging for the employee to return at double the rate of the prior contract.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261431)

Right, because they're paid so well, they can easily afford to bank a year's worth of living expenses. Why don't you just come right out an admit you want to reinstate slavery? Oh, excuse me, "indentured servitude".

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (2)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261501)

People who are truly good at what they do should be paid well....

Actually it is quite the opposite: MoneyInTheBank == Freedom. If you truly want to be free, you must make the effort and do this, otherwise you will always get the short end of the stick.

If you really want indentured servitude, just continue with the secret no-poach agreements, and the H-1B visa program....

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

clovis (4684) | about 10 months ago | (#45262127)

"Any smart employee will have at least 1 year of living expenses banked."

and I suppose that's easy to do because everyone graduates from college with a year's living expenses in the bank and no debts

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about 10 months ago | (#45261197)

How does that benefit the employee? Why would I ever sign a contract like that?

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

Quila (201335) | about 10 months ago | (#45261243)

Guaranteed period of employment in exchange for not defecting to a competitor during that period.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about 10 months ago | (#45261627)

A stellar employee would probably hate that. What if the company sucks? Now the employee has a great salary but is forced to work with people he doesn't like. What's the point of that? Without the contract, he could have just quit and gotten another job with another company.

Unions and job contracts are great for run-of-the-mill workers who have little hope of job mobility. The anti-poaching agreements were not created for those employees. They were created for employees who can easily get another job with a competitor.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

Quila (201335) | about 10 months ago | (#45261997)

A stellar employee would probably hate that. What if the company sucks?

Then he doesn't sign the contract, and instead goes to work for someone else. You get to make your decision every 2-3 years. The difference between this and anti-poaching is that this is actually a contract with considerations on both sides. Anti-poaching is just screwing the employee.

Or they could do it like executives, wrapping up much of the compensation in ways that depend on long-term employment.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (4, Informative)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#45261281)

Because if you are truly a stellar employee, you can put in the contract what YOU think your raise should be and not be beholden to what the company thinks your raise should be.

It balances the concept of salary negotiations, however, there is a risk that if you are not a truly stellar employee, the company will not want to renew your contract.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261401)

Mod parent up... Somebody gets it

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45262265)

But the whole "stellar employee" thing is a red herring.
1) The anti-poaching agreements generally apply to all employees, and no employee whether average or stellar should be held in secret bondage due to anti-poaching agreements.
2) Also, due to anti-poaching agreements, you lose all power in contract negotiations. No matter how much they love you, they know you can't get as good a job elsewhere due to the anti-poaching agreement, so any negotiations are done in bad faith.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261639)

You get paid not to work when the company changes strategy. Chris Claremont is being paid not to work for Marvel Comics. Vernon Wells is being paid not to work for the LA Angels. At one time, their employers wanted their services and locked them up into long-term contracts.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261395)

I hope your "free market magic" comes with plenty of lube, because employees are going to need it.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261531)

The lube is already there: It's called "Employment At Will" and only the US practices this. The rest of the civilized world uses the contract form of employment.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#45261479)

Why would a company deal with contracts like that when they can just have a industry non-poaching agreement?

That's just as free market.

The free market ends when government comes in and creates these annoying anti-trust laws.

Please read Adam Smith again. (1)

catfood (40112) | about 10 months ago | (#45262097)

That's the exact opposite of what "free market" means. Since Wealth of Nations at least.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (2)

Kagato (116051) | about 10 months ago | (#45261533)

Tech employees have no reason to sign onto those agreements unless there was a buy-out for early termination. Although that's typical in C level employment contracts I think you'd be hard pressed to get executives to offer them to rank and file folks. Even if they are stellar performers.

Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (1)

hwstar (35834) | about 10 months ago | (#45261807)

The truly stellar performers are not rank-and-file, and should be handled differently and with above-board negotiations.

I'm confused (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#45261029)

I fail to see the problem here.
Company gets to get the people they want
People get paid more
People pay more tax (If the company didn't pay their employees as much, the money they save wouldn't be taxed, they're expert tax dodgers)

Re:I'm confused (4, Insightful)

Chalnoth (1334923) | about 10 months ago | (#45261135)

Pretty sure that anti-poaching agreements actually lead to people getting paid less, as there isn't as much competition between companies for salaries.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about 10 months ago | (#45261309)

Similar to do not compete clauses. A company that provided me a desk (which was part of their client's building) and nothing more (including no training) complained when I tried to take my knowledge elsewhere. Apparently while working for them any possible work I was exposed to was their property.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261505)

http://www.breakmynoncompete.com/

Not a shill, just a happy customer.

Posting anon because the filter at work hates /.

-Tekfactory

Re:I'm confused (2)

swan5566 (1771176) | about 10 months ago | (#45261313)

One problem is that poaching encourages a dichotomous working class system. Poaching is good for employees who have experience, since their wage will go up because companies fight over them, but it's bad for potential employees fresh out of school. No employer wants to be the one to front the capital to train them. They would just rather poach someone that will be effective on day 1.

Re:I'm confused (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | about 10 months ago | (#45261445)

Because those brand new graduates will be getting paid the same as the superstar who was poached.

Oh wait....

Re:I'm confused (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | about 10 months ago | (#45261733)

For fresh graduates, it's not about the salary, it's about even getting your foot in the door.

Re:I'm confused (4, Interesting)

LordNimon (85072) | about 10 months ago | (#45261355)

People get paid more? I think you're confused. Anti-poaching agreements results in employees being paid less.

Anti-Trust (1)

redelm (54142) | about 10 months ago | (#45261165)

wtf? in the 21st Century? This looks like a clear violation of the US Anti-Trust rules against agreeing not to compete in a market. Or agreeing to boycott suppliers. Even a wink is illegal.

I work for a similar mega-corp and we are continually drilled in the importance of Anti-Trust. Where were their lawyers?

Monopsony is far worse than monopoly because you can always decline to buy. Does anyone have any explanation beyond rank corruption?

@fp bitch! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261333)

goals I personaaly posts. Due to the number of FreeBSD Battled in court, The point more since then. More they're gone Came GAY NIGGERS from That should be

I Call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261339)

I know how big corps work. Just because an exec had a stupid email exchange doesn't make it real.

Here's what happens.
    Exec A to Exec B: "Lets not hire each other's staff"
    Exec A's lawyer to Exec A "That's stupid"
    Exec B's lawyer to Exec B "That's stupid"
    Messaging sent to staff - "Please attend the mandatory anti-corruption training.

Cue Sealed Settlement in 10...9...8...7... (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#45261413)

The only persons that win these are the lawyers.

Re:Cue Sealed Settlement in 10...9...8...7... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261567)

Money directly from winning this case, yes. But it will discourage the practice, creating better opportunities to key contributors. That sounds like a win, as well.

Re:Cue Sealed Settlement in 10...9...8...7... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45262011)

You're half right - an open, unsealed settlement would do just that.

Price fixing (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about 10 months ago | (#45261433)

... is "the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers". Switch sellers to employers and prices to wages, and you've got what this agreement is, and it should be just as illegal.

Other places too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261455)

If you think this shit is only for big tech companies think again. This has been going on to some extent in Detroit of all places. Agreements between the auto companies and suppliers and between suppliers. A couple of managers actually told me this was so, including another company notifying my employer of me trying to get a job there. Evidence suggests this is sometimes a transient thing - the ban has lifted where I'm at AFICT we are no longer trapped for now.

TomTom and Tele Atlas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45261605)

I believe there may also be an overlap here with navigation employees as these industries share a common usage and dataset but there was no transfer of employees within the geographic data silo in the same time period, just wondering.

I don't get it.. (2)

Drathos (1092) | about 10 months ago | (#45261681)

Maybe I'm not understanding this agreement, but to me it sounds like they just agreed not to actively recruit from each other. I've never seen anything indicating that, for example, an Apple employee couldn't apply for a position at Google (and vice versa).

Re:I don't get it.. (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about 10 months ago | (#45262061)

No, they actually agreed not to hire each others employees. So Apple would reject a Google resume and vice versa.

Re:I don't get it.. (1)

arnott (789715) | about 10 months ago | (#45262249)

It was more involved than that. If a google employee applied to work for Apple, Apple notified google and vice versa.

Re:I don't get it.. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#45262307)

I guess it depends on if they discriminate against unemployed people. If they don't actively hire people from other companies, and they don't hire unemployed people, and if they don't employ people for life, then that could easily be an abusive situation. A steady stream of fresh employees to replace the ones who would otherwise be getting pay raises, leaving a bunch of unemployed or underemployed people.

Someone should give Palm CEO Ed Colligan A Medal (4, Informative)

Kagato (116051) | about 10 months ago | (#45261703)

From Ed response to Steve Jobs:

"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal. [...] Palm doesn't target other companies -- we look for the best people we can find. l'd hope the same could be said about Apple's practices. However, during the last year or so, as Apple geared up to compete with Palm in the phone space, Apple hired at least 2 percent of Palm's workforce. To put it in perspective, had Palm done the same, we'd have hired 300 folks from Apple. Instead, to my knowledge, we've hired just three."

Reminds me of Borland (1)

ToasterTester (95180) | about 10 months ago | (#45261723)

When I worked for Borland we used to joke that we were Microsoft's training site, because so many employees were either recruited away or just plain left for MS.

Even the non-compete's don't work because MS have so many types of projects they can put you on something different till your non-compete expires.

Re:Reminds me of Borland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45262303)

A non-compete agreement is a useless piece of paper and nothing more. They are virtually impossible to enforce in any legal sense.

What they think of you. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45262093)

The fact that this phenomenon has been given the term "poaching" by these corporations shows exactly what they think of you, the tech worker.

Finally a use for that Apple cash stockpile (1)

afidel (530433) | about 10 months ago | (#45262363)

If this doesn't end up like a typical class action suite Apple and the other big players could end up paying out Billions in damages, probably making it the most expensive lawsuit ever and making an ever so small dent in the mountains of cash they've managed to pile up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>