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!

Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech Firms

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the say-clancy-why-don't-you-drop-by-the-club dept.

Businesses 137

The gentleman's agreement that several Silicon Valley firms are now widely known to have taken part in to minimize employee poaching within their own circles went much further than has been generally reported, according to a report at PandoDaily. The article lists many other companies besides the handful that have been previously named as taking part in the scheme to prevent recruiting, and gives some insight into what kind of (even non-tech) organizations and practices are involved.

cancel ×

137 comments

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

Capitalism at its finest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558737)

Yuck

Re:Capitalism at its finest (2)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46558773)

That's not capitalism.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558805)

No -true- capitalist would engage in that behaviour.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558851)

True capitalists would tell their competitor they will not poach, then go ahead and do it anyway. Big win for workers.

Liberals would form a union, go on strike, and put both companies out of business.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (2, Interesting)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46558875)

Yep and then try to convince us all it was the fault of capitalism.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46559275)

What make you think it's not the case ? After the poaching is done, it's always easy to say that "the underling was not away of the agreement", fire the underling, and go back to good old business.

Re: Capitalism at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560689)

And idiots will try to pigeonhole and categorize everything into discrete political camps

Re: Capitalism at its finest (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560717)

Which 'camps' are not present?
Capitalists certainly.
Criminals as well.
Monopolists too...but then I repeat myself

Re:Capitalism at its finest (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558823)

Ah, yes, the "no true capitalism" defense. The final and greatest argument Randroids resort to when faced with the reality of their idiotic beliefs.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558987)

I think it would be good if a bunch of people with lots of money got executed, since they are among the most dishonest.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (2, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46559317)

it would include people who would make these law, so it will never happen. Let's face it, a sheep will always complain about the wolves, but it will always remain a sheep...

Re:Capitalism at its finest (3, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46559223)

How is that not capitalism ? Capitalism is free market, all the player are free to interact as they please, might it be by competing or by cooperating. By your same logic, the whole open-source community should be forbidden by law to cooperate.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559995)

It's a free market not a free-for-all market. Get your terminology right before you start with your rhetoric. We have laws like anti-monopoly, property rights, insider trading and such that ensure competitiveness and free market principals. That's Captialism. These Corporate scum deserve to have the book thrown at them because they are undermining those principals for their own advantage.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560443)

The system you describe is closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism. In capitalism, whatever is beneficial to me is good.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560529)

And you've just gone full retarded, thanks for playing

Re:Capitalism at its finest (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560619)

I don't see how, but that often the case when people go emotional... Maybe you can do better and have a logical reasoning on all this ? Btw, yes, I do appreciate Ayn Rand more than appreciate Marx or Kant.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560751)

Why? Because she prefered to enrich the most corrupt with monopolistic power?
Sure, she loved the rich. She also was in love with mass murderers.
Do you approve of the Bohpal massacre by neglect?

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560831)

thanks to discredit yourself with more emotional arguments.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560961)

Not the same person but your smug attitude demonstrates your hypocrisy

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560923)

My logical reasoning on this is IF - you think that anti-trust laws are mercantilism THEN - you have gone full retarded because you do not understand the correct terminology as I initially pointed out. BTW, are you assuming that just because someone points out that you have gone full retarded that that somehow implies that that person thinks you're a communist ? I think you are an idiot not a communist.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 7 months ago | (#46560795)

The system you describe is closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism. In capitalism, whatever is beneficial to me is good.

By that logic, I I were to engage in loan-sharking and racketeering, those are good because they benefit me (so long as I can get away with it, of course). In fact, if I had the power to change the law so that I can get away with it, then that would be good as well.

See, there is good, and there is right. Knowing or ignoring the difference indicates more the type of person you are than the economic system that is in place.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560737)

It is not a free market. All of Capitalism is monopolism.

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560727)

Capitalism is a monopoly market, like this 'gentlemen's agreement' forced on workers.
The WORKERS are made unfree by this cooperation.
Try again!

Re:Capitalism at its finest (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 7 months ago | (#46559283)

Capitalism is whatever rehtorically useful construct I define it to be. For example, today, capitalism is a system for distracting me from my overloaded inbox to post on Slashdot. Capitalism is the oppressive system that prevents me from sleeping in on the weekends.

What's your Capitalism today?

Re:Capitalism at its finest (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 7 months ago | (#46560691)

That's not capitalism.

We don't actually do capitalism here in America, it's just not profitable.

America is to capitalism what China is to communism.

Re: Capitalism at its finest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558777)

Fuck off lib

Do the crime, do the time (4, Insightful)

Herkum01 (592704) | about 7 months ago | (#46558783)

So, can look forward to anyone doing jail time? That is the really the only way this will stop. That or directly start suing the individuals who implemented the policies and make them pay. After that I am willing to bet once a few executives lose their hard won millions will be a little gun shy about conspiring to do anything.

Actually the more I think about it, the best way to reign these practices in is directly suing individuals. Once they can no longer hide behind the corporate veil, the less inclined they will be collude together.

is it illegal? (5, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#46558799)

Is it illegal to make these "agreements"?

I think it's ridiculous, and like another pointed out, shows a flaw in capitalism.

It *should* be illegal. IMHO it's an anti-trust issue. Workers are vendors of their labor, and the owners of the capital are colluding, like a 'trust', to monopolize & unnaturally control the scarcity of that capital.

Re:is it illegal? (0)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 7 months ago | (#46558829)

Your HO is not important.

Anti-trust was setup up to protect the free market for businesses.

The only Labour anti-trust you are going to find is anti-union sentiment.

HO HO HO

Re:is it illegal? (0)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46558859)

Actually I have never heard of a law making it illegal. I suppose it depends how you want to categorize their actions. Is it colluding? At its most basic level; "come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire." its certainly done in secrecy but who is it harming? Obviously the worker since it limits their employability not because of their skills but simply by who employes them, so I think such collisions should be illegal.

Re:is it illegal? (5, Insightful)

mikael (484) | about 7 months ago | (#46558947)

Making employees sign Non-Compete Agreements are illegal in California. But by preventing employees from moving around freely, that could have restricted them from getting pay rises and consequently depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.

Re:is it illegal? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 7 months ago | (#46559539)

depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.

Not exactly. Either the company will pay the taxes, or they pay the employee more, claim that as a deduction, and the employee pays the taxes.
Yes the tax rate for the employee and the company will be different (which is why I said not exactly) and the company might find other loopholes to hide the money. But that is a separate issue.

Re:is it illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559645)

It's probably not very close at all. The average US corporation pays a single digit tax rate, if anything, by the time deductions, depreciation, business expenses, losses booked in previous years and any number of other complex tax sheltering financial arrangements are taken into account. Corporations have the time, wealth, manpower and political wherewithal to maximize their tax savings whereas individuals, even highly paid ones, are more limited in what they can do to avoid paying tax and generally pay at higher rates on what they do pay.

Re:is it illegal? (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 7 months ago | (#46558885)

It obviously restrains free trade of services by employees and vendors. It probably violates federal law and many state laws but maybe not in every state. Watch out for a class action suit that may be a wolf in sheep's clothing that works to the benefit of the criminals. Individual suits would be better for almost all workers.

Re:is it illegal? (1)

metlin (258108) | about 7 months ago | (#46558973)

I think there may be two elements to it -- one is the criminal aspect (i.e. it is illegal) and the other is the civil (i.e. it has other consequences that could result in a civil class action lawsuit).

Ultimately, I think that even if it is not illegal per se, the affected employees could still file for a civil suit citing any number of reasons. Now will that happen? Probably not.

Re:is it illegal? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46559005)

The test for weather something is good for capitalism or not is "Does it increase or reduce transparency in the marketplace" If it increases it, then it's good. If it decreases it, then it's bad. Clearly these agreements reduced transparency and closed off parts of the market to both the workers and even the firms involved. The firms were then able to use this secret blacklist against their employees to reduce the rate at which they increased their compensation. The worker would apply and quickly learn that most places wouldn't hire them. This is exactly what anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent. Secret agreements between 2 parties that affect public agreements of a 3rd unwitting party are the bane of capitalism. And, in fact, if you were to argue against capitalism, the inevitability of such agreements would be one of your strongest arguments.

Re:is it illegal? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 7 months ago | (#46559087)

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, so you want to make it ILLEGAL (as in illegal based on government laws) for individual companies to agree not to hire people from each other? :)))))))

Why don't you also make it illegal for people to come to agreements to avoid sleeping with each other's wives while you are at it?

Re:is it illegal? (2)

nut (19435) | about 7 months ago | (#46559221)

It is a restraint of trade [wikipedia.org] . If it was built into a contract it would be unenforceable at the least, probably illegal in many jurisdictions, although some restrictions in employment contracts [wikipedia.org] are enforceable provided they are, "reasonable."

It tells you something that it had to be a gentleman's agreement. I'm sure if they could have legally put it into employment contracts they would have.

Re:is it illegal? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 7 months ago | (#46559593)

and you have to be PAID for these reasonable restrictions and no just having the job is not payment enough

Re:is it illegal? (3, Funny)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 7 months ago | (#46559259)

Is it illegal to make these "agreements"?

Yes, which is why the DoJ is already well on the track to sentencing, and the companies are begging to broker a deal. And what's more, they've got the dirt on one of the originators of the scheme admitting he knew it was probably illegal and trying to cover his tracks (mens rea [wikipedia.org] ).

âoeI would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I donâ(TM)t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric [Schmidt]â

Remember that whenever you hear "Do No Evil" -- that was mostly Sergey, and a little bit Larry. Eric Schmidt hates you and masturbates while thinking of doing evil.

Re: is it illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559371)

They might have tried to adopt the phrase for image purposes, but it didn't come from either of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

Personally, I trust none of them...and yeah...Eric Schmidt - it's pretty much a given that he'll do the opposite of anything resembling 'good'.

Re:is it illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560839)

The label of capitalism is being over-used here. First, most of the people who started these firms and work for them are the liberal majority, and by definition, anti-capitalists. Second, capitalism encourages anybody who wants to benefit from their own efforts to take a shot at it without interference from government or ruling classes (in this case the liberal-leaning tech companies). Bottom line here is that greed is universal- liberals, conservatives can all be guilty of it. And just like any tool, it is only as noble as the person controlling it. But this is not a case of capitalism suppressing, it is the ruling class of the tech companies & their mentality of do what I say, not what I do. Look at two of the most wealthy men in the history of the world: Gates & Jobs were classic left of center guys who became as predatory in business as Carnegie or Rockefeller ever were.

I'm not saying one is better/worse than the other, but the criminals in this case are the sheep in wolves clothing, not the other way around.

I would agree though, that it should be investigated as a possible anti-trust issue.

Re:Do the crime, do the time (2)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46558809)

Jail time? Your chances are better at getting struck by lightning or winning a lottery. Its always the big fish getting called out on these practices but it would not surprise me if the same occurs with the small fry.

Re:Do the crime, do the time (1)

dk20 (914954) | about 7 months ago | (#46559331)

Seriously, how many "rich" actually go to jail?.
.
Poor and steal a chocolate bar - Jail time...
Rich and steal $1MM - you are required to do community service and teach a 1 hour ethics course.

Re:Do the crime, do the time (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 7 months ago | (#46559139)

or apply the "not a fit and proper person" test to the C level execs ie you are bared for say 10 years or for life from ever being a director of a company.

Re:Do the crime, do the time (5, Insightful)

geek (5680) | about 7 months ago | (#46559217)

The executives essentially formed their own union. The gentlemen's agreement (which is anything but. A crony capitalists agreement is a better name for it) is simply their by-laws.

To counter this, every tech worker in the entire valley should form their own union and stick it to the fucking executives for a change. I moved from the valley 15 years ago because of shit like this. I'll never return but would love to see these mother fuckers get what is coming to them.

Re:Do the crime, do the time (1)

tjb (226873) | about 7 months ago | (#46559583)

Well, except if you RTFA, it appears to have applied to executives and sales staff, not engineers. From the google document:

"3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates."

Re:Do the crime, do the time (1, Interesting)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46559339)

I am not a religious man, but there is a few valuable quote. In this case, John 8:7:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.

For a moment... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 7 months ago | (#46558819)

I thought this was about an agreement to not support anyone who goes on grey-market safaris, etc. to protect endangered species...

Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558837)

And so much cheaper than having to pay what employees are actually worth.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 months ago | (#46559009)

From what I read in the emails referenced in TFA, the agreements only extended to managers and executives, not individual contributors like engineers and food workers. Of course there are managers who are H-1B, but I doubt many of them are complaining about their salary.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46559241)

It does not applies to engineers, only to manager and execs. Please read the fact before spreading FUD.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559755)

The OP said "employees", but you're complaining he's spreading FUD because it only applies to managers and execs. Are you saying they're not employees?

If the companies got away with this for long enough w/ managers, what makes you think they wouldn't apply it to engineers next? This practice should be stopped, regardless of who it applies to.

Re:Another factoring in increasing H-1Bs (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560025)

Of course not, but he is using the term "employee" as in "lower in the food chain". Target employee are not H-1B workers, which he is throwing stone at to be the cause of his "low" income. He obviously has never been working for a temp agency hourly paid $8 minus "fee"...

yo0 Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558841)

Rivalr7, and we'll Else to be 1an How it was supposed

Collusion vs no solicit (3, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 months ago | (#46558907)

The article mixes two things:

Collusion between the companies to not recruit from each other, which is apparently illegal (since the DOJ stepped in).

No solicit agreement with employees. That's part of a contract, I'll hire you but you have to agree that you won't refer my other employees to the headhunter who placed you. That's pretty standard and presumably is legal.

Re: Collusion vs no solicit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558943)

Not in California it isn't, same with non completes. Edwards decision killed non-solicits. You want capitalism then have captialism and make sure you pay your employees well.

http://www.hrthatworksblog.com/2013/01/30/the-difficulty-of-enforcing-non-solicitation-clauses-in-california/

Re:Collusion vs no solicit (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46559029)

The "legal" method that's fairly standard is the other way around. The temp agency places you, and you work for them. The company hiring the temp agency agrees not to hire you for a term... 6 months to 2 years depending, because the temp agency needs to recoup the cost of scouting you. Often there's a clause where the hiring company can buy their way out of it if they really want you bad or they're afraid you could just go to a 3rd party. All of this is pretty standard and legal because everyone knows what they're getting into. But, if unknown to you, every other party has made a secret agreement with the original company not to hire you, you're screwed. There's no-where to go and you're no longer dealing with a free market. You're being forced to abide by a contract that you never signed and don't even know exists.

"They" Blackball all good employees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558909)

I've worked at several places and when I do a great job, I get blackballed.

Then they don't have to worry about me leaving and they don't have to give me pay commensurate with my contributions.

Gentleman's Agrees Are Hard to Prove (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46558989)

Should be pretty obvious, but nothing gets written down. To do anything they would need years of collecting testimony. The companies could just say that was a few CEO's ago and disavow all knowledge.

I wish I were oppressed (4, Funny)

LordNimon (85072) | about 7 months ago | (#46559111)

Apparently, none of the companies I've ever worked for were on that list, because I'm hounded by clueless recruiters every week.

Re:I wish I were oppressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559297)

I especially like the ones who clearly have no idea what it is I do (because they failed to look in any of the obvious places) and yet have an urgent need for me to call them up right now and accept some crappy contract writing code in a language I detest, "at your best possible rate."

Should I, in a moment of curiosity, respond and then inevitably decline, I always get the push to continue; as they have no idea what the client actually needs and seeing as I have lots of experience, they figure I could probably sell myself and get the work (at my best possible rate, of course.)

Re:I wish I were oppressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559679)

and yet have an urgent need for me to call them up right now and accept some crappy contract writing code in a language I detest, "at your best possible rate."

Tell them that you would be most happy to work on their project at a contract rate of $1,000 per hour with every hour paid in advance. I doubt that they will call you again with their "urgent" request and you never know, somebody might actually pay that if their need is "urgent" enough.

Re:I wish I were oppressed (1)

metlin (258108) | about 7 months ago | (#46559349)

You're probably not high enough on the totem pole -- my take from reading that article was that the collusion targeted poaching of high-value employees whose loss would hurt the company in question.

Individual contributors, by their very nature, are usually not worth the concern (except in rare cases).

Re:I wish I were oppressed (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46559391)

Reply to them and say your minimum is $210k per year (or whatever). That will shut down almost all of them.

Re:I wish I were oppressed (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 months ago | (#46560479)

Reply to them and say your minimum is $210k per year (or whatever).

Yeah, I'll get right on that... I'm still a little busy replying to every spam e-mail I get, telling them I'm not interested and asking them to remove me from their mailing list. Once I get that finished up, and don't get any more spam, I'll switch over to recruiters.

Have you seriously not talked to a recruiter in the past 5 years? There's a horde of (I'm guessing: Pakistani?) 3rd world "recruiters" that call up the phone numbers of EVERY SINGLE RESUME they find with a single matching keyword on it. Hiring companies are smart enough that they don't even tell these morons what salary they are even willing to pay. Hell, these guys don't even check where you are located, with a few maybe making sure you're somewhere in the state, but nothing more.

They're not even hired by any firms, they're just hoping you'll hear about the job from them, before you've submitted your own resume, so they'll get the $1,000 finders fee that meant to reward GOOD leads. When you've got 3rd world recruiters that don't earn that much in a month, it's worth a bunch of non-stop fishing expeditions, submitting completely random resumes to every company, for every job, in the hopes of just one of millions matching-up... Tell them you want $X, and they'll tell you they have no clue, and they'll keep trying to sign you up, anyhow. Ask them a question, and they'll tell you they have no clue, and keep trying to sign you up, anyhow. It's so bad I've entirely removed my phone number from my resume, it's been such a massive nuisance.

The only counter-measure I've seen is companies requiring recruiters to state that they've met the candidate in person, before they can submit the resume. That's quite a mess when the recruiter may be 200 miles away from you, and again, they don't know anything about the job, the company, or the salary, so I'm not willing to go through the hassle. I've even removed my resume from certain job sites, because the irrelevant noise e-mails from recruiters became incessant.

If things keep going this way, I suppose I'll be permanently unemployed in just a few years, and unable to find jobs, even if there's an opening across the street from me.

Re:I wish I were oppressed (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46560817)

Don't stick your phone number on your resume. That's a mistake.

If things keep going this way, I suppose I'll be permanently unemployed in just a few years, and unable to find jobs, even if there's an opening across the street from me.

Yeah, unfortunately; skill #1 of finding a job is actually finding a job to apply for.

Re:I wish I were oppressed (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 7 months ago | (#46559549)

Recruiters from other tech companies, or recruiters from headhunting agencies?

Re:I wish I were oppressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559711)

I don't know about the parent, but in my case it's almost always the later and not the former. In my experience, not one in ten unsolicited recruiting contacts comes from the company that's actually paying to have the work done. Instead, it's almost always some consulting body shop that the company has outsourced to do the work for bottom dollar. I find that like spam, replying to these people only gets you more junk offers. Watch out for these guys and don't fall for their tricks.

Like MS and Borland (2)

ToasterTester (95180) | about 7 months ago | (#46559295)

I remember when I worked for Borland we used to joke that we were Microsoft's training site they poached so many people. From what I understand in one of the MS/Borland lawsuits Borland got no-poaching added as part of the settlement.

I'm calling bullshit. (2)

jcr (53032) | about 7 months ago | (#46559315)

If anyone actually was trying to collude to hold tech wages down, they failed. We're some of the highest-paid workers in the country.

I got cold-called by Google recruiters when I worked at Apple, and I know people who've gone from Apple to Pixar, Apple to Yahoo, Microsoft to Apple, etc, etc.

-jcr

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46559401)

We're some of the highest-paid workers in the country.

Imagine how much we could be paid if they hadn't colluded.

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (1)

BrianPRabbit (2020846) | about 7 months ago | (#46560521)

Is Your sig on the level?

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46560771)

Yes. If you look at salary surveys, don't believe them, because they usually don't include things like bonuses or stock grants. Also, location makes a difference.

Re: I'm calling bullshit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559427)

You fail in math.

It's the rate of increase, that was most certainly affected. Just because there was an increase doens't mean it wouldnt have increased more if employers had to complete to hire those employees instead of having a back door agreement to not do so.

Re: I'm calling bullshit. (1)

tjb (226873) | about 7 months ago | (#46559559)

From TFA:

"“For each of these ‘Restricted Hiring’ companies, Google has agreed to the following protocol.

1. Not to pursue manager level and above candidates for Product, Sales, or G&A roles — even if they have applied to Google;

2. However, there are no restrictions to our recruiting from these companies at individual contributor levels for PSG

3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates."

Point 1 will probably get them in trouble, but point 3 makes it pretty clear that this did not apply to engineers.

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (1)

tjb (226873) | about 7 months ago | (#46559463)

Yup, same here (well, not Apple but a different company that was mentioned and have totally gotten cold-called by Google). Based on the documents in TFA, it appears that the agreements were mostly about cold-calling and didn't apply to engineering staff. This seems mostly to be about executive staff and salesforce.

Now, excuse me while I play the world's tiniest violin for those executives at major tech companies that had their salaries suppressed.

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (2)

jcr (53032) | about 7 months ago | (#46560001)

This seems mostly to be about executive staff and salesforce.

I know people who've gone between these companies at all kinds of levels. Engineers, first-level management through SVP level, everybody.

-jcr

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 7 months ago | (#46559567)

Look at this clause from the article:

3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates.

That's interesting because it suggests it's non-tech-wages being held down. It would still be blatantly illegal I think, but it undermines much of the rhetoric about this issue. Doesn't completely destroy it -- some agreements might have that for engineering candidates.

Re:I'm calling bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559745)

You may think you are the highest paid workers . you also live in one of the highest expense area so that $200K / year salary is roughly equivalent to the $70K in Kansas where a 3000 square foot house costs $125K with a $800/month mortgage.
What do you pay to live in a 800 square foot apartment ?

SV gets what SV deserves (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559455)

I often wonder what supposed geniuses want to live there. SF is a dirty shit hole that costs 4-5 times more to live there. NYC in a tiny apartment is great for your twenties and I can totally understand that. Senior positions for 100-150k in SF? Yeah right. You can get that in most parts of the US. I am not suggesting to move to Iowa or Nebraska. There are plenty of tech cities out there if you want to keep your options. Maybe some of those lazy VCs will get a clue and hop on more planes. They should be chasing investment not forcing a concentration of tech people bad at economics.

Re:SV gets what SV deserves (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46559833)

Excuse me? Did you read the Article? Hmm?
Forcing concentration of tech people is GOOD economics.
It's how you keep the peons working for pennies while you get home every night and richer every hour

Re:SV gets what SV deserves (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560051)

Please, do you even know what you are talking about ? Tech worker are parsec away from "peons working for pennies", though, I admit $100k is a penny to $10M+ CEO salaries. Though, by the same standard, I bet you every temp unskilled worker in the US would *love* to work for a penny...

Re:SV gets what SV deserves (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560207)

Wrong.
The majority of those "Parsec away" peons work for less than 1/3 what an equally educated Wall Street Statistics Manipulator makes.
Meanwhile, the average CEO is making more than 250x what the peons is making.
And, where are MOST of those STEM workers now?
In Bangalore and Hyderbad and Chengdu, working for $18K U.S.D. if they can get it.
I agree, most of the people working TEMP make a good living...until the new software version comes out and then "sorry, not current"

Re:SV gets what SV deserves (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560507)

Just calling traders "Wall Street Statistics Manipulator" discredit your whole comment...

Proud to be an American (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46559503)

The game is, was and always will be rigged! If you work for a living, your doing something wrong! That's why I'm joining the ruling class, suckers!

Re:Proud to be an American (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46559813)

Sure you are. Just as soon as you gather enough brownie points to be let into the game.
or find a few hundred thousand suckers to pay for your first 3 failures (think Bush)

Re:Proud to be an American (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560053)

To some extend, it might be argued that Bush was democratically elected, twice. Who's the sucker now ?

Re:Proud to be an American (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560179)

Tell that to the MAJORITY who voted Gore
Oh, and the MAJORITY voted Gore in Florida, too. See NORC results for proof

Re:Proud to be an American (1)

Szechuan Vanilla (1363495) | about 7 months ago | (#46560329)

No, Bush II was elected only once (2004). The first time was a judicial coronation un-ironically pushed into the Federal courts by the "state's rights" party, who trampled Florida's state's rights (and black letter law) about recounts (specifically, there were provisions of Florida law which the Feds stepped in and stopped).

Speaking as a resident of Florida (at the time), it is incredibly funny to me that the GOP shill who did the RNC's dirty work in FL (Sec. of State Katherine Harris, who was also Bush's FL campaign manager) thought this was going to "make her bones" with the national party, but what actually happened was they used her to get the job done and then dumped her as fast as they could (even encouraging other GOPers to run against her). The political lesson? When they put you up as the front person to do something illegal, be ready to be abandoned or scapegoated.

A perfect example of why Unions are required (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46559799)

Like any glutinous, power hungry 1%'er, there are always be Capitalists ready to engage in monopoly behavior.
The defenders of the thieves are Judas Goats or Chauvinists, singing the Praises of the Emperors until they starve to death themselves, hoping for a greater reward for loyalty.
Here's a hint chumps.
Loyalty in Capitalism goes ONLY up, never down.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560063)

The problem, with unions, is that once you gave them the moon, they'll start asking for the solar system, or a their leader will start asking for a backshish keeping the mob under control. All in all, once a sheep, always a sheep.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560169)

Fine. What's wrong with that? Perfect Capitalism.
They demand, you fight back, a compromise is reached
you have something against dickering?

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560635)

What is wrong which that ? You are currently asking the government to step in because you failed to gather enough momentum to unionize.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 7 months ago | (#46560705)

The government has a job to do
Their job is to neutralize the advantage the 1% have in owning more than the whole bottom 80% put together, so people can vote WITHOUT FEAR of reprisal.

Re:A perfect example of why Unions are required (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560759)

The government leaders are AMONG the 1% you are trying to fight, just like unions are just a mean for their leader to get their share... The only thing you are doing by asking for more regulations is to preserve the system in place. The more regulation there is, the easier it gets to keep people under control.

Tempest in a teapot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560303)

I don't get it. Engineers voluntary entered into employment agreements, and now they're crying? If they'd "won the lottery" (Apple, Google, etc.) with stock options, I doubt they'd complain. Plus from what I understand, this was mostly above the engineering level. By definition, if engineer "X" had a better opportunity, he/she would have taken it.

Sounds like a bunch of 20-something hipsters whining that they could have bought more craft brews if only big bad Apple/Google hadn't screwed them over. What an injustice.

Re:Tempest in a teapot? (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#46560641)

this is nothing more than the good old resentment of the weaklings...

Where to report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46560417)

Where do you report this type of illegal deal ? I know there is on ein place in telecoms between vendors and carriers and has been for a long time.

List of Companies (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46560701)

which the TFS failed to include, as contacted by the publisher:

AMD
AOL
Adecco
Adobe
Apple
Best Buy
CDI Business Solutions
Cingular/AT&T
Clear Channel
Comcast
Dell
Dreamworks
eBay/PayPal
Foxconn
Genentech
Google
IBM
Illumita Inc.
Intel
Intuit
Jcrew
Kelly
Kforce
Lucasfilm
Mac Zone
Microsoft
Nike
Novell
Nvidia
Oglivy
OpenTV
Oracle
PC Connection
PC Mall
Pixar
Sun Microsystems
Virgin Media
WPP

It would be interesting to see the connectedness of the Boards of Directors graph for the set.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?