41–50 of 144 posts
Am I the only one that loves the fact that it involves 64K programmers?
It is perhaps worth reminding that the interplay between regulators and the market, and their co-evolution, have taken a different historical path than in Europe. While in Europe big government preceded laissez-faire, or at least, evolved hand-in-hand, the US was largely unregulated for many years. The result was that Ayn Randian titans took control of pretty much all power in the US, advancing the "economy" but at the same time practically enslaving the population. It was after many years of cries for help by the American people, and a long struggle led largely by the press, that Teddy Roosevelt was able to strengthen the government, wrestle back some power, and save the people from feudalist oppression.
Ironically, many Americans forgot what the US looked like when the government was powerless, and the market was allowed to roam free. People like Ayn Rand, who sadly came to the US just as the wheel was turning, didn't see the suffering that their romantic fantasies had brought about when playing out in the real world.
Obviously, as patent law demonstrates, regulation can be (and is) abused by capitalists. As the world changes, power shifts, and players adapt new strategies in this constant power struggle, both the market and regulation need to evolve hand-on-hand. The big question is what will play the role the press once played in exposing the workings of the intricate system of interests that is the economy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about quitting first after knowing of this fact?
You mean everyone quit together? That's called a strike.
In 1999, Major League Umpires Association (MLUA) were not able to legally go strike so they opted to use mass resignation as their negotiation strategy. It backfired, cost 22 umpires their careers and led to decertification of the union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Major_League_Umpires_Assoc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean everyone quit together? That's called a strike.
A strike involves work stoppage, it's a very different tactic than mass resignation. In 1999, Major League Umpires Association (MLUA) were not able to legally go strike so they opted to use mass resignation as their negotiation strategy. It backfired, cost 22 umpires their careers and led to decertification of the union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Major_League_Umpires_Assoc...
I'm still surprised Google was in on this considering they are developer friendly and are a "do-no-evil" company to a considerable extent. It was probably pressure from Jobs. Developers hurt by this should squeeze them for every penny possible.
FYI, the exact definition of the class here is people who "worked as a salaried Technical Employee": (a) for Apple from March 2005 through December 2009; (b) for Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c) for Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) for Intel from March 2005 through December 2009; (e) for Intuit from June 2007 through December 2009; (f) for Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December 20…
What happened in December 2009?
Wouldn't a better idea than putting up a 'no poaching' kind of exit barrier be to give 'bonus every X period of time' kind of incentive, for employees you value and would like to retain? I wonder if in the world of technology it makes sense to retain a demotivated employee?
This is really pathetic. I can understand companies being ruthless in maximizing their profits but this sort of move is seriously counter productive. If the wages are not competitive it also means less incentive for bright youngsters to get into these professions. If this kind of agreements become more common, I think that will be like we killing our future.
--> smaller than they should be engineer wages --> higher engineer wages --> even higher engineer wages -->
... --> absurdly high unsustainable engineer wages -->
... --> more outsourcing --> even more outsourcing -->
... --> massive outsourcing -->
... ... ... --> smaller than they should be engineer wages
...I think the "evil masters" of this "no poaching" pact managed to prevent an engineers' job marked fluctuation. And you think about it, such a fluctuation would only have benefited the foreign outsourcing providers and encouraged the displacement of parts of tech industry outside US ...which imho would've have been a great thing for Europe's tech sector and maybe even for worldwide IT innovation as a whole, since lots of new pseudo-innovations start to sound more and more like "american-inbread ideas".
I have personally witnessed the frustrating side of this "no poaching" pact. A close friend was tired of the "Manager Arrogance" at one of these colluding companies. He quietly put out the word,pretty quickly got approached by a hiring manager at another company - things were going swimmingly. Then the Hiring manager put in the Req to HR - a V.P. called him personally and but confirmed this "no poaching" B.S. The wag…
What about quitting first after knowing of this fact?