Apple, others talking to DoJ about anti-poaching agreement
Apple, Google, Pixar, Intel, and a few other companies are currently in talks with the Department of Justice about an alleged anti-poaching agreement, according to sources speaking to the Wall Street Journal. The government is considering accusing the companies of agreeing to not hire each others' employees for a certain period of time. If, as a law professor tells the Journal, the government finds that these companies are actually agreeing to not poach, then employees could be hurt by not having access to the best deal available.For their part, the companies are reportedly arguing that non-poaching agreements are a requirement, especially when companies are so closely collaborating on various technologies and standards. Apple and Google, for example, would want to create the best products possible for customers, and wouldn't be able to do that if they had to worry about their employees possibly getting hired away by the other partner.
There's no actual lawsuit yet -- this is still just an investigation, and the Journal says that there are "some companies more willing to settle to avoid an antitrust case than others." But we'll see -- if the Department determines that the companies did make an agreement and that employees were punished by it, then the case could end up in court eventually.
Share
Categories
Apple, Google, Pixar, Intel, and a few other companies are currently in talks with the Department of Justice about an alleged anti-poaching...
Add a Comment
As I understood it, the "no poaching" agreements didn't stop employees from getting jobs with the other companies, they just kept the companies from actively recruiting each others work force.
If this is the case, I really don't see how anyone could have been harmed.
If this is the case, okay then. I personally think non-compete contracts are crap. If you're not happy at your current job, you shouldn't be prevented from going to work for someone else. I mean what are you supposed to do, change your entire field so you're not working for a competing company?
If the intention is to stop competing companies from actively recruiting employees, I understand that. But if the employee applies to a job at a competitor, that should be allowed.
I know for a FACT that these companies do not poach. I use to work for PayPal, which of course is owned by eBay. Before I left the company, I had been told by executives that they have contracts with Google to not hire each others ex employees within a 4-5 year timeframe.
September 18 2010 at 6:49 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyNot to mention I was under contractual obligation...
September 18 2010 at 6:53 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHere is an idea- treat your employees well. Instil loyalty. All non competes and garbage like this do is allow the employer to be lazy and not give a rip about their staff = miserable employees stuck in a job they dispise = not the best products/services to consumers.
Take some responsibility.
You need to re-read. It isn't about employees leaving, it is about one company hiring away talent from another company.
September 18 2010 at 1:14 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyTrouble is that a company can treat you grand. But then the competition, which is hoping to use your insider info about what your current boss is up to, offers you just a little more. You might not actually need it, but hey why not take it.
Personally I have no issue with non competes etc. So long as the time limit is reasonable (3-5 years max) and they are very specific. If I'm working Software development at Apple, for example, and I am approached to go work for Goggle in marketing it seems unfair that I can't simply because Apple and Google are deemed competitors. but software to software sure, that is a totally fair prohibition.
I'm gonna use this as the excuse for when I don't get hired at another place I apply to that's similar to my current job.
September 18 2010 at 10:26 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyWow. That's pretty crappy. I completely understand why they want to do this... but wouldn't it be easier to get California to enforce non-competes? I know people jump around a lot in the tech industry (ie Mark Hurd)
But come on, the DoJ???? Again, it's just big business wanting to stay big and get bigger. Kind of like the banks, and the politicians, and everything else. Nobody cares about the individual anymore.
Protect the bank! Protect the business! protect the our power! Forget about the INDIVIDUALS who made it possible and built it to begin with.
WALMART has this with places like target...
~Tim
So is the DoJ going to start looking into states that enforce non-competes too?
September 18 2010 at 10:06 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyProbably not as there is a huge difference between something you KNOW you signed which you then KNOW is affecting you vs. some behind closed doors, no definite time span, deal to keep you unhired...
September 18 2010 at 10:09 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyDeals of the Day
more deals- Cases for New iPad at HandHeldItems: Extra 20% off, $2 credit, from $3 + $3 s&h
- $15 Apple iTunes Gift Card for $8 for new Saveology customers
- Philips Fidelio Docking Speaker Station for iPhone / iPod for $38 + $6 s&h
- Retro 80's Case for iPhone for $11 + $2 s&h
- HHI 360 Dual-View Stand Case for new iPad w/ $2 credit for $12 + $3 s&h
- HHI ReElegant Smart Cover Companion Case for new iPad from $5 + $3 s&h
Software Updates
more updatesFeatured Stories
more stories
Popular Stories
TUAW (or The Unofficial Apple Weblog) is a website devoted to tips, reviews, news, analysis and opinion on everything Apple.
12 Comments