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

US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#11

Post by parallax7d »

smakz wrote: post #4
kgermino wrote: post #2

I tend to lean more conservative but I have to say that the government cracking down on this seems like a good thing. I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. However I don't have a great understanding of all the issues at play here, so I may be wrong. Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?

Honestly this seems like a cash grab from the federal government more then anything. Knowing friends who worked at these companies, they never felt the anti competitive pressure, and several moved between the companies several times. Most likely, the government found some clauses buried in some contracts that said in a foot note that the companies would agree not to cold call employees in their own respective compani…

I don't see anything wrong with these alleged agreements, per se, but it sets a terrible anti competitive precedent that is all manner of bad for employee marketability. It would be difficult to sus out the truth of what these types of agreements actually do behind the closed doors of these company's HR departments.

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#12

Post by ghshephard »

jeromec wrote: post #3
kgermino wrote: post #2

I tend to lean more conservative but I have to say that the government cracking down on this seems like a good thing. I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. However I don't have a great understanding of all the issues at play here, so I may be wrong. Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?

I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. If you're an employee who has invested money and many years building up skills and education to become valuable to companies you might have a different view. It's a coincidence this article comes on the heels of AngelGate, where it was Angels seeking to form anti-competitive agreements for their own ben…

I parsed your response five times, and I think you've got it backwards. The OP was stating that he thinks this is negative for employees.

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#13

Post by [deleted] »

jeromec wrote: post #3
kgermino wrote: post #2

I tend to lean more conservative but I have to say that the government cracking down on this seems like a good thing. I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. However I don't have a great understanding of all the issues at play here, so I may be wrong. Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?

I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. If you're an employee who has invested money and many years building up skills and education to become valuable to companies you might have a different view. It's a coincidence this article comes on the heels of AngelGate, where it was Angels seeking to form anti-competitive agreements for their own ben…

[deleted]

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#15

Post by jeromec »

ghshephard wrote: post #12
jeromec wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good. If you're an employee who has invested money and many years building up skills and education to become valuable to companies you might have a different view. It's a coincidence this article comes on the heels of AngelGate, where it was Angels seeking to form anti-competitive agreements for their own ben…

I parsed your response five times, and I think you've got it backwards. The OP was stating that he thinks this is negative for employees.

You're right, the OP and I have the same position. I read the comment quickly and focused on the "Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?"

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#16

Post by jbjohns »

parallax7d wrote: post #11
smakz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this seems like a cash grab from the federal government more then anything. Knowing friends who worked at these companies, they never felt the anti competitive pressure, and several moved between the companies several times. Most likely, the government found some clauses buried in some contracts that said in a foot note that the companies would agree not to cold call employees in their own respective compani…

I don't see anything wrong with these alleged agreements, per se, but it sets a terrible anti competitive precedent that is all manner of bad for employee marketability. It would be difficult to sus out the truth of what these types of agreements actually do behind the closed doors of these company's HR departments.

Do you believe in the free market? If so, you really don't see anything wrong with companies conspiring together to constrict that market for employees?

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#17

Post by hga »

will_critchlow wrote: post #14

A lot of our client contracts include mutual "no poaching" clauses. Obviously we are a lot smaller, but what determines when this is OK and when it's not?

You and your clients are presumably not peers. While it might make sense for some of your employees to jump to or from them, it's not nearly the same as jumping to a competitor of yours.

Of course, if you aren't in California you can lock them down with a non-compete, but then again that's why (I think) Silicon Valley has been so consistently and overwhelmingly successful (it's the one absolutely unique advantage it has).

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#18

Post by hga »

dantheman wrote: post #8
rphillips wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This decision is a good thing. I have first hand experience with the anti-poaching policy, since I work for a different company that employs the same practice. When I was searching for a job within town I was told by recruiting firms and other companies that they could not and would not talk to me, because of the agreements they have with my employer. It makes searching for a job extremely difficult as one mi…

Why Federal Law? Wouldn't it make sense to try it at the local level and see it's effects before pushing it to the national?

This has long been recognized as a problem:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book I, Chapter X, Part II

And therefore it's long been a part of US Federal anti-trust law and case law. Modern Republican administrations in particular have tended to focus their attention on these type of price fixing cases.

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#19

Post by anonymousDan »

hga wrote: post #17
will_critchlow wrote: post #14

A lot of our client contracts include mutual "no poaching" clauses. Obviously we are a lot smaller, but what determines when this is OK and when it's not?

You and your clients are presumably not peers. While it might make sense for some of your employees to jump to or from them, it's not nearly the same as jumping to a competitor of yours. Of course, if you aren't in California you can lock them down with a non-compete, but then again that's why (I think) Silicon Valley has been so consistently and overwhelmingly successful (it's the one absolutely unique advantage it…

This is something I've been harping on about lately but no-one seems to listen. Silicon Valley is the only place I know of where it is illegal for a company to restrict the work you do after hours and without company resources. This is such a massive boon for people trying to create their own startup. It means you can work on a project on the side until you are ready to commit without having to worry about your current employer stealing your IP.

Re: US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact

#20

Post by hga »

anonymousDan wrote: post #19
hga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and your clients are presumably not peers. While it might make sense for some of your employees to jump to or from them, it's not nearly the same as jumping to a competitor of yours. Of course, if you aren't in California you can lock them down with a non-compete, but then again that's why (I think) Silicon Valley has been so consistently and overwhelmingly successful (it's the one absolutely unique advantage it…

This is something I've been harping on about lately but no-one seems to listen. Silicon Valley is the only place I know of where it is illegal for a company to restrict the work you do after hours and without company resources. This is such a massive boon for people trying to create their own startup. It means you can work on a project on the side until you are ready to commit without having to worry about your curre…

No one listens because it only directly helps competitors, and of course startups by definition are not entrenched businesses.

Few are wise enough to realize the advantages of an overall healthy ecosystem, and the giants like Intel, once they became giant, only want that to a limited extent anyway.

Post reply on HN