Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#81

Post by undata »

balls187 wrote: post #73
bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment.

Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#82

Post by alexqgb »

undata wrote: post #81
balls187 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

Not convinced this helps the investors either, if the employee is staying within their broader portfolio of companies. Yes, he may cost a bit more, but presumably he's moving to do more valuable and / or productive work, so the uptick in salary should pay for itself several times over.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#83

Post by alexqgb »

Zigurd wrote: post #43
Consultant32452 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of what the economic impact of these depressed wages has been. $3 Billion is probably not too far off the mark. Probably not $3 Billion directly to the programmers impacted, but definitely to the broader economy.

Across the industry, the number of employees affected is easily in the high hundreds of thousands, at a direct cost to them of tens of thousands of dollars per year. So billions to maybe low tens of billions is not an unreasonable range. And would that get trebled under California employment law?

As of April, Apple had cash reserves of about $160 billion. Just saying.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#84

Post by balls187 »

undata wrote: post #81
balls187 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

Yes, my comment favors investors, by way of favoring companies (and the potential return on investment), but it does not (in my opinion) hinder employees.

I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment:

> Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them

I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from seeking employment. It means, me as an employer, will not actively solicit employees of other companies if we have shared investors (given the size and complexity of the investments).

"Do Not Hire" on the otherhand, seems to be what you are taking umbrage with, and I concur. Employees should (generally speaking) be allowed to seek employment opportunities without back-room deals preventing that.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#85

Post by gress »

maxerickson wrote: post #41
8154730 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think $324 billion dollars is appropriate? Wouldn't that essentially bankrupt all the companies involved? Who needs to worry about jobs when some of the biggest tech firms on the planet are wiped out! Not to mention that $324 billion spread across 64000 plaintiffs is $5 million each... You wouldn't be looking for that easy windfall, now would you?

Apple has ~$160 billion in cash reserves. Google has ~$35 billion. I'm not presenting that as an argument about the reasonableness of $300 billion, but it would likely not bankrupt them.

How would an amount that is greater than the cash of the two combined companies not bankrupt them?

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#86

Post by alexqgb »

LordKano wrote: post #61
8154730 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think $324 billion dollars is appropriate? Wouldn't that essentially bankrupt all the companies involved? Who needs to worry about jobs when some of the biggest tech firms on the planet are wiped out! Not to mention that $324 billion spread across 64000 plaintiffs is $5 million each... You wouldn't be looking for that easy windfall, now would you?

If I go with your figure of 64,000 * 5,000,000, it's not the tech-apocalypse. It's not like that money is going straight into a crack pipe. People with a lot of technical know-how would suddenly be set loose in a cash rich environment full of new millionaires who are looking to build their own empires. That scenario could very well be a second dotcom boom. More to the point, when one of the little people gets caught…

The effect of this scenario on the high end real estate market in the Bay Area would horrifying / amazing depending on whether or not you were already holding property.

Also, Tesla sales would go sub-orbital.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#87

Post by Retric »

gress wrote: post #85
maxerickson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has ~$160 billion in cash reserves. Google has ~$35 billion. I'm not presenting that as an argument about the reasonableness of $300 billion, but it would likely not bankrupt them.

How would an amount that is greater than the cash of the two combined companies not bankrupt them?

It need not be instantly due and there cash flow positive. 15b each per year and there done in 10 years and still profitable.

Also, free cash is hardly their only capital. Google could for example sell YouTube. They could also sell bonds or stock etc.

PS: Not that I think 300B is the right penalty, but there needs to be some real risks to prevent such behaviors or the penalties simply become yet another cost of doing business.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#88

Post by phaker »

balls187 wrote: post #73
bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

Seems taken out of context.

In a [post] on his blog Horowitz describes a scenario in which a person currently employed at a company that is "important" to you comes in for an interview. The recommended course of action is to 1: block the hire, 2: inform said company about it. There are two things i just can't agree with at all:

* The part about informing the current employer: about 50% of the time it will end with ruining the next few weeks or months of his/her life. I.e. getting them fired, with ruined prospects of getting the job they took the risk for. Note that at e.g. apple the standard procedure when they find out that an employee is looking for a job is to escort them out of the building right then and there.

* Note it's not about "poaching", he explains thoroughly that it applies to people who ask for an interview on their own accord too.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least read this gem:

It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies violate the Right to Work laws in California. Specifically, if you block a hire based on this kind of policy and the employee loses their job and cannot find work, your company is liable for his wages. As a result, the business relationship with the other company must be extremely important for you to employ any kind of “hands off” policy.

said blog [post]: http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_f...

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#89

Post by argonaut »

bkeroack wrote: post #75
balls187 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

There is a difference between active poaching and simply getting a resume (or some other expression of interest) from somebody for an open position. a) If you get sent a resume in response to an open req and you reject them based solely on the current employer of the applicant being a "friendly company" ("do not hire" list), that is illegal and wrong. b) If you realize the applicant is from a "friendly company" and s…

How is that a subtle threat? That's not a threat at all. That's just being upfront about it. And if you don't like that you can tell them: "No that's not okay with me" and then walk away.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#90

Post by argonaut »

bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

I did not find it especially disgusting. The specific approach Ben advocates is asking candidates at the interview stage whether they would be okay if you checked with their company. It is your choice whether to say yes or no. You have total latitude to walk away.
Post reply on HN