Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#2Literally so much collusion in the valley it's insane. Maybe I should write an article about it.
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#3Literally so much collusion in the valley it's insane. Maybe I should write an article about it.
Please do.
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#4That's interesting. A company may see it as only fair not to poach, but in the eyes of employees it's (rightly) collusion.
On that note, "Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatened to hit Palm with patent litigation if the company did not stop poaching valuable employees"[1] is not ethically defensible.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/angry-over-employee-poa...
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#5That's interesting. A company may see it as only fair not to poach, but in the eyes of employees it's (rightly) collusion. On that note, "Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatened to hit Palm with patent litigation if the company did not stop poaching valuable employees"[1] is not ethically defensible. [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/angry-over-employee-poa...
It wasn't about being fair on the companies part; not poaching each others employees was a form of cost control.
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#6That's interesting. A company may see it as only fair not to poach, but in the eyes of employees it's (rightly) collusion. On that note, "Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatened to hit Palm with patent litigation if the company did not stop poaching valuable employees"[1] is not ethically defensible. [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/angry-over-employee-poa...
It wasn't about being fair on the companies part; not poaching each others employees was a form of cost control.
What I'm saying is that while it may seem wrong to poach employees, employers have a greater duty to the workforce than to other companies, ethically.
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#7Literally so much collusion in the valley it's insane. Maybe I should write an article about it.
What collusion are you talking about?
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#8This collusion was frankly beyond obscene and should be totally illegal. Like non compete clauses, they're put in place so corporations are basically given a way to work together to oppress their employees. It's just as bad as Unions, but for corporations.
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#9Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all...
But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy...
Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side?
I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market".
Is there anyone who can explain how the law differentiates between them? I have zero legal background/knowledge of these things...
Edit: To be clear, I think unions can be great things, and think the anti-poaching agreements are bad... I'm just trying to figure out a way to reconcile these in my mind! :)
Re: Silicon Valley workers may pursue collusion case as group
#10Not that I'm disagreeing with this outcome at all... But if agreeing not to poach is collusion and conspiracy... Then how is it that it's legal for workers to form unions and strike? Isn't that just as much "collusion and conspiracy" from the other side? I mean heck, consumers organizing to boycott a product is a kind of "collusion" and "conspiracy" as well that is just as arguably "anti-market". Is there anyone who…
IANAL, but unions are highly visible, while this "agreement not to poach" was not.