or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs asked Google to stop poaching Apple workers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs asked Google to stop poaching Apple workers

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
As part of a civil suit involving the employment practices of seven major tech firms, a court filing was unveiled on Friday that includes an email which late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs personally sent to former Google chief Eric Schmidt requesting an end to worker poaching.

The March, 2007 email specifically asked Google to put a stop to its active recruitment of an unnamed Apple engineer, and alluded to halting worker poaching in general, reports Reuters.

"I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," Jobs wrote in his email to Schmidt, who was on Apple's board of directors at the time.

Schmidt took immediate action and forwarded the correspondence to certain undisclosed members of Google's staff, including a staffing director who responded that the employee responsible for the recruitment "will be terminated within the hour."

The unnamed staffing manager also asked that his apologies be conveyed to Jobs.

The suit responsible for bringing the email to light is civil litigation stemming from a Justice Department probe that investigated the anti-poaching practices of Google, Apple, Adobe Systems, Intel, Intuit Inc. and Pixar. In 2009, it was revealed that Apple and Google reportedly created an unofficial agreement to not poach each others workers, resulting in the antitrust investigation.

All six companies involved settled with the Justice Department in 2010, agreeing to a five year moratorium on "no solicitation agreements."


Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt during the iPhone's introduction at MacWorld in 2007


This week's court hearing brings civil suit claims from five software engineers who accuse the companies of colluding to keep employee salaries low by quashing labor competition. The case will continue, however it may be split into separate class action lawsuits.
post #2 of 46
Definitely not okay if true. If another software company offered me a larger salary and better benefits to join them instead, I would use that to:

1. Leverage to bump my salary and benefits to stay at my current company;
2. Leave if I respect the other company and believe I will have a brighter future with them.
post #3 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Schmidt took immediate action and forwarded the correspondence to certain undisclosed members of Google's staff, including a staffing director who responded that the employee responsible for the recruitment "will be terminated within the hour."

Wow. Google do listens to Apple.

Too closely.
post #4 of 46
Apple would have the world believe that the degradation they support in China is far away and nothing to worry about it, but in fact, corporate sociopathy begins at home. This perspective is so common that it's easy to grow numb to just how appalling the underlying assumptions are.

Consider that the definition "poaching" is theft of livestock, and that it's historical use has often involving livestock belonging to royalty. You can't steal what someone else doesn't own, and the last time I checked, Apple was neither King of any country nor Lord of any manor and ownership of human beings was a violation of the US Constitution.

Of course multi-national corporations have spent the last half century successfully acquiring more rights than individual American citizens, simply buying new law whenever violating existing strictures becomes too expensive. It's not difficult to imagine that slavery, indentured servitude, "company" towns, and all the rest might be even larger in our future than they are in our past. In an era of declining labor representation, rage, terror, and immediate action would be appropriate responses to this news-that-isn't-really-news for anyone who doesn't care to be a serf.

The press will cover this is as a minor legal issue, not a major social nightmare, when in fact, Apple and any other company involved in such practices should suffer extraordinarily severe penalties for violating one of the core precepts of the society in which they exist. Nothing any corporation is, does, or makes can ever justify even the hint of treating human beings as property, and Apple would make an excellent example "to encourage the others."
post #5 of 46
Several of my former Apple and earlier, NeXT Engineers went to work at Google with huge incentives, to work on the same area of work they did at Apple.

I won't name names.

Great people, but let's be clear, a Search Engine company suddenly became an OS Company and a lot of Apple talent shows up and you don't think Steve's going to intervene?
post #6 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Several of my former Apple and earlier, NeXT Engineers went to work at Google with huge incentives, to work on the same area of work they did at Apple.

I won't name names.

Great people, but let's be clear, a Search Engine company suddenly became an OS Company and a lot of Apple talent shows up and you don't think Steve's going to intervene?

Apple should have paid more to retain those Apple talent, with all the cash that Apple has.
post #7 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

...
Great people, but let's be clear, a Search Engine company suddenly became an OS Company and a lot of Apple talent shows up and you don't think Steve's going to intervene?

Such intervention appears to break antitrust legislation, and is obviously against employee interests. Talent has the right to move, if it takes along IP that belongs to the former employer, that should be brought to court, not solved by fixing deals behind curtains and threatening people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

Apple should have paid more to retain those Apple talent, with all the cash that Apple has.

Exactly.
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

Apple should have paid more to retain those Apple talent, with all the cash that Apple has.

Nailed it. People don't leave jobs because they're happy.
post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Several of my former Apple and earlier, NeXT Engineers went to work at Google with huge incentives, to work on the same area of work they did at Apple.

I won't name names.

Great people, but let's be clear, a Search Engine company suddenly became an OS Company and a lot of Apple talent shows up and you don't think Steve's going to intervene?

That's business. Jobs took a lot of talent with him when he started NeXT.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

Apple should have paid more to retain those Apple talent, with all the cash that Apple has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarchetta View Post

Nailed it. People don't leave jobs because they're happy.

It's business as usual. In my line of work, when you've been at your company/firm 8 years or so, you're bound to have recruiters approaching you at cocktail parties with their business cards. If you look're a young buck in his 30s who looks like he has promise and tons of experience under his belt, expect to get a lot of salary bump offers and promises of benefits.


Poaching is a commonplace practice, especially during better times. Those of us who have baby boomers as parents were taught not to be blindly loyal to one single company, especially as any one of us can be given the pink slip.


As for the risk of carrying technical know-how and risking importing it into the new company: welcome to reality. Once you've spent years immersed in the culture and practices of the old company, it's hard not to separate and quarantine your old skillsets from the new skillsets. All it takes is your manager to say to you "I hear you were a bigshot at Apple. Wanna help us design the next tablet OS?"
post #11 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Apple would have the world believe that the degradation they support in China is far away and nothing to worry about it, but in fact, corporate sociopathy begins at home.

How do you think all of the Android phones are made?
What about the servers that host AppleInsider?
Or the network switches that manage the packets?
Or the lightbulb you are using to light your room?
Or the parts that make up the power plant powering your computer?

They all come from the same conditions/place.
post #12 of 46
They should try sharing more of the profits with guys that helped build them rather than stopping other people from hiring them. Didn't Steve himself ask for more apple shares because he thought he deserved them. Bet those apple employees felt great knowing that it was more important to have more money in a bank account not doing anything, rather than use it to keep them at the company.
post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

How do you think all of the Android phones are made?
What about the servers that host AppleInsider?
Or the network switches that manage the packets?
Or the lightbulb you are using to light your room?
Or the parts that make up the power plant powering your computer?

They all come from the same conditions/place.

Do what I do and ignore anyone who chooses to blame one company for all these conditions worldwide.
post #14 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

They should try sharing more of the profits with guys that helped build them rather than stopping other people from hiring them. Didn't Steve himself ask for more apple shares because he thought he deserved them. Bet those apple employees felt great knowing that it was more important to have more money in a bank account not doing anything, rather than use it to keep them at the company.

if apple used just one of its hundred billions to pay out a one-time employee bonus, then every one of their 60,400 perm employees could have a roughly $16,000.00 payday.
post #15 of 46
Did they agree to not recruit from each other, or to not hire someone already employed by the others? There's a huge difference, in my mind at least, between actively headhunting an already employed individual to work for you, and hiring someone for an openly posted position.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #16 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Several of my former Apple and earlier, NeXT Engineers went to work at Google with huge incentives, to work on the same area of work they did at Apple.

I won't name names.

Great people, but let's be clear, a Search Engine company suddenly became an OS Company and a lot of Apple talent shows up and you don't think Steve's going to intervene?

He clearly did intervene...he just as clearly shouldn't have.
post #17 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

Apple should have paid more to retain those Apple talent, with all the cash that Apple has.

A good company has an established compensation structure. If it is not competitive, you need to upgrade it. But you cannot blow it up in smoke just because Joe threatens to leave for a higher paying job. If you acquiesce to his demands, what do you say to Larry and Bob?

There are only so many irreplaceable individuals in any company (some would say 0).
post #18 of 46
Doesn't Pizza Hut have practices in place that prevent certain employees working for other pizza places for a period of up to two years?

What's the difference between that and what we're seeing here?
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

if apple used just one of its hundred billions to pay out a one-time employee bonus, then every one of their 60,400 perm employees could have a roughly $16,000.00 payday.

But Apple is craftier than that.

Instead of a cash payout, they will issue stock options for excellent performance. They're called "golden handcuffs" in Silicon Valley for a reason. A typical stock option vesting schedule would call for 15-20% vested one year after the date of the grant, followed by 2% additional vesting each subsequent month. This encourages the best performing employees to stay with the company.

Does the person who started working at Apple on November 30, 2011 really deserve a $16K windfall?

That said, it would be better to issue a one-time dividend payment. The shareholders own the company. Most Apple employees are shareholders anyhow (they have a venerable ESPP). Plus, qualified dividends are taxed at a much lower rate than wages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Doesn't Pizza Hut have practices in place that prevent certain employees working for other pizza places for a period of up to two years?

What's the difference between that and what we're seeing here?

That's a non-compete clause and is probably only included with the contracts for senior management.

Due to state labor laws, non-compete clauses are basically unenforceable in the state of California for regular, non-exempt employees as well as low-level manager. Even high-level managers are heavily protected against non-compete clauses.

Even Mark Papermaster, an IBM executive who took a job at California-based Apple had his non-compete shot down. Basically, the non-compete that Papermaster signed for NY-based IBM in 2006 was declared not enforceable by a federal judge in 2008.

Non-competes are stupid and frankly go against the spirit of Silicon Valley. This place was built by people who left companies to make something better.
post #20 of 46
Par for the course in Apple and MS's disrespect for IT and other industry professionals. To them, the cheapest possible worker is always the answer. Bill Gates is extensively on record saying MSFT needs to import more H1-B workers even though the US has unlimited talent pools in law, medicine and MBA. Why can't Microsoft and Apple recruit staff? Because they don't want to pay American wages to high achieving Americans. Instead, those people go into law, medicine, consulting, banking etc.

My point is, they could pay the relevant people a wage in the 300k-800k bracket. But they would rather hire a person from India or China at $70,000. I might rather hire a heart surgeon from Thailand at $70k. And make a killing off the proceeds of his surgery. It's all about what you can negotiate, in the end. And if powerful companies write the laws, as they do in China, then the people are nothing but slaves.
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

Definitely not okay if true. If another software company offered me a larger salary and better benefits to join them instead, I would use that to:

1. Leverage to bump my salary and benefits to stay at my current company;
2. Leave if I respect the other company and believe I will have a brighter future with them.

Schmidt and company could have told Steve to kick rocks and what could he do. Stop making Google the default search engine for Apple stuff, ask that Schmidt be kicked off the board. Okay sure, go for it. Sue, nope. Not unless they can prove that what Google was doing was illegal.

Schmidt and friends are the ones that decided to halt things, to fire the recruiter and to stop talking to Apple staff from the sounds of things. So that's all on them, not Apple.

I suspect a big part of how this suit will fall out will depend on the nature of the employment contracts and whether they contain valid clauses that would prevent the employee from leaving at the time that they were being actively recruited. If this is the case then the recruitment could be seen as encouraging said parties to violate their contract by leaving, which is not so cool. Another big part of the game will be if what we are talking about is not chasing after active employees or agreeing to turn them away even if they approach the company to change jobs (the latter I totally agree is and should be a no no)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Consider that the definition "poaching" is theft of livestock, and that it's historical use has often involving livestock belonging to royalty.

And this isn't the middle ages. Language is fluid and grows. While that might be the historic definition and use, today poaching has other meanings.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

He clearly did intervene...he just as clearly shouldn't have.

I would suspect Steve was thinking about the non compete clauses which I am sure valuable Apple employees all have. Better to discuss this verbally than fire off law suits.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Several of my former Apple and earlier, NeXT Engineers went to work at Google with huge incentives, to work on the same area of work they did at Apple.

I won't name names.

Great people, but let's be clear, a Search Engine company suddenly became an OS Company and a lot of Apple talent shows up and you don't think Steve's going to intervene?

I'd agree, by communicating Steve was actually trying to avoid legal action by the sounds of it. You would know but surely these ex Apple staff had signed non compete contacts?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Apple would have the world believe that the degradation they support in China is far away and nothing to worry about it, but in fact, corporate sociopathy begins at home. This perspective is so common that it's easy to grow numb to just how appalling the underlying assumptions are.

Consider that the definition "poaching" is theft of livestock, and that it's historical use has often involving livestock belonging to royalty. You can't steal what someone else doesn't own, and the last time I checked, Apple was neither King of any country nor Lord of any manor and ownership of human beings was a violation of the US Constitution.

Of course multi-national corporations have spent the last half century successfully acquiring more rights than individual American citizens, simply buying new law whenever violating existing strictures becomes too expensive. It's not difficult to imagine that slavery, indentured servitude, "company" towns, and all the rest might be even larger in our future than they are in our past. In an era of declining labor representation, rage, terror, and immediate action would be appropriate responses to this news-that-isn't-really-news for anyone who doesn't care to be a serf.

The press will cover this is as a minor legal issue, not a major social nightmare, when in fact, Apple and any other company involved in such practices should suffer extraordinarily severe penalties for violating one of the core precepts of the society in which they exist. Nothing any corporation is, does, or makes can ever justify even the hint of treating human beings as property, and Apple would make an excellent example "to encourage the others."

You didn't read the story, did you. I guess your little own apocalyptic drama fit better, so why not get all dramatic? They were all doing it. It's all over now. They've agreed to stop. In 2007, Jobs asked Schmidt, on the board, if they'd all agree to stop poaching. The people they're talking about are on the highest level, and some might have been hurt by it. If there was some fixing of salaries in basketball -- oh, wait, they call that the salary cap, and it was negotiated as part of the last NBA agreement. Is it the same kind of upset when a bball player can only make $14 million a year, and not $20 million, because of the other salaries on his team? Not hardly.

Still, it's wrong. If I was in line for high positions at a number of companies, I'd want a bidding war to erupt -- but then again, I'd probably stay with Apple. If some inferior firm wants to get you for another $5 million, but it would have to be at HP - well, nuts to that.

I doubt that it really hurt so many people as you seem, so breathlessly, to say.
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

You didn't read the story, did you. I guess your little own apocalyptic drama fit better, so why not get all dramatic? They were all doing it. It's all over now. They've agreed to stop. In 2007, Jobs asked Schmidt, on the board, if they'd all agree to stop poaching. The people they're talking about are on the highest level, and some might have been hurt by it.

I was contacted by a recruiter for one of the companies involved, who quickly followed up with "I'm sorry, I just learned that we're not allowed to active recruit from your company." I'm certainly not a 'high-level' employee.

Quote:
Still, it's wrong. If I was in line for high positions at a number of companies, I'd want a bidding war to erupt -- but then again, I'd probably stay with Apple. If some inferior firm wants to get you for another $5 million, but it would have to be at HP - well, nuts to that.

I doubt that it really hurt so many people as you seem, so breathlessly, to say.

It hurt all employees in the industry by hindering mobility and therefore depressing wages. Granted, as an industry that has largely escaped the recession and is compensated at above average rates to begin with, this is hardly a particularly sympathetic group. But as someone pointed out in another thread, if it's OK here, it's OK for Target and Walmart to do the same thing with entry-level employees.
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl View Post

I was contacted by a recruiter for one of the companies involved, who quickly followed up with "I'm sorry, I just learned that we're not allowed to active recruit from your company." I'm certainly not a 'high-level' employee.

No surprise. Big companies use all sorts of ways to control cost and keep wages low.

Apple is keeping all this money in the bank, and the stock keeps going up, it's all nice and warm, but even as a shareholder i won't mind they bump the wages of employees even more to retain talent instead of using these tactics. This basically ties to the China situation, it's dumb for Apple to not find ways to treat those Chinese workers better.
post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Par for the course in Apple and MS's disrespect for IT and other industry professionals. To them, the cheapest possible worker is always the answer. Bill Gates is extensively on record saying MSFT needs to import more H1-B workers even though the US has unlimited talent pools in law, medicine and MBA. Why can't Microsoft and Apple recruit staff? Because they don't want to pay American wages to high achieving Americans. Instead, those people go into law, medicine, consulting, banking etc.

My point is, they could pay the relevant people a wage in the 300k-800k bracket. But they would rather hire a person from India or China at $70,000. I might rather hire a heart surgeon from Thailand at $70k. And make a killing off the proceeds of his surgery. It's all about what you can negotiate, in the end. And if powerful companies write the laws, as they do in China, then the people are nothing but slaves.

You want the benefits of a free enterprise system? Then you have to live with its drawbacks as well. The US did not become the center of the high tech industry because they shut out all those lean and hungry engineers from overseas.
post #29 of 46
"terminated within the hour"

That sounds like something in a movie. In the real world, you wouldn't fire someone so hastily unless egregious behaviour has already been documented, which does not sound like the case here. I think this is either an exaggeration or pure fabrication on someone's part.
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl View Post

I was contacted by a recruiter for one of the companies involved, who quickly followed up with "I'm sorry, I just learned that we're not allowed to active recruit from your company." I'm certainly not a 'high-level' employee.



It hurt all employees in the industry by hindering mobility and therefore depressing wages. Granted, as an industry that has largely escaped the recession and is compensated at above average rates to begin with, this is hardly a particularly sympathetic group. But as someone pointed out in another thread, if it's OK here, it's OK for Target and Walmart to do the same thing with entry-level employees.

There's a difference between not recruiting and not hiring. Mobility is only hindered if a no-hiring from so-and-so policy is effected, which is not the case here.
post #31 of 46
There's a world of difference between a company not proactively recruiting from another company and a company not accepting applications or refusing to hire somebody from that company. Of course that critical distinction gets lost in the tech pundit hysteria. Ergo, if an Apple engineer was looking to shop his skills at Google and they told him to hit the door, both Apple and Google should be punished to the full extent of the law but if the agreement was simply not to solicit Apple engineers to see if they'd switch companies, different ball game.
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

There's a world of difference between a company not proactively recruiting from another company and a company not accepting applications or refusing to hire somebody from that company. Of course that critical distinction gets lost in the tech pundit hysteria. Ergo, if an Apple engineer was looking to shop his skills at Google and they told him to hit the door, both Apple and Google should be punished to the full extent of the law but if the agreement was simply not to solicit Apple engineers to see if they'd switch companies, different ball game.

How would you tell the difference in practice though? Imagine you are an engineer at Apple, and get approached with a better offer from Google. What's to stop you from accepting that better offer and pretending that it was you who contacted Google first? Or, if you don't want the offer, would you go like a serf and spill the beans in front of you boss at Apple?

Some arrangements between companies may be legal, but none is moral nor in the best interest of the employees, any any arrangement not prohibiting hiring can be circumvented.
post #33 of 46
Another angle is, what if Eric was still on the Apple board when the incident occurred? I'm thinking it would be bad form at best to have a board member's company actively soliciting workers, the board member could have access to which engineers to target. Just a thought.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #34 of 46
Employees that leave for a higher salary can be equally poached by another company offering yet a higher salary.

From a recruitment perspective, the companies should avoid people like this. All it encourages is increasing the amount of pay for the same relative skillset.

NB - This is glaringly apparent in Hong Kong, which no rules at all on employee recruitment. The only people that benefit are headhunters. You end up with mediocre talent in extremely overpaid tech positions. It doesn't benefit the company and the employee jumps ship every 1-2 years. I'd hate to imagine what that would do to an actual productive industry like Silicon Valley.

Plus, employers aren't stupid. Guess who gets fired first when the layoffs come - exactly these overpaid resources which could be replaced by a headhunter in very short time.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Consider that the definition "poaching" is theft of livestock, and that it's historical use has often involving livestock belonging to royalty. You can't steal what someone else doesn't own, and the last time I checked, Apple was neither King of any country nor Lord of any manor and ownership of human beings was a violation of the US Constitution.

The press will cover this is as a minor legal issue, not a major social nightmare, when in fact, Apple and any other company involved in such practices should suffer extraordinarily severe penalties for violating one of the core precepts of the society in which they exist. Nothing any corporation is, does, or makes can ever justify even the hint of treating human beings as property, and Apple would make an excellent example "to encourage the others."

The linked Reuters article used the term "poaching," and ReutersInsider copied that verbage because, you know, that's what they do. However, the companies involved in the practice call it "no recruit" or "no solicitation" which is a more accurate description of what allegedly took place.

So the press is correct to cover this as a "minor legal issue" because that is what it is. Your argument that it is a "major social nightmare" is based entirely on you taking the metaphor "poaching" too literally and blowing this out of proportion. Apple doesn't claim to be King or Lord of any thing, and they don't treat employees as property. If you have any proof beyond paranoid fantasies of Apple's "violation of the US Constitution," bring it before a court.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #36 of 46
I guess I need a clarification about what this means. If it just means that each company agrees not to actively target another company's talent, then no big deal. I don't see the harm in that. But if it goes further and includes not hiring or offering such a person more money if they're seeking a new job, then it's bullshit and all companies involved should be kicked in the ass.
post #37 of 46
Anti-competitive...even down to its employees.

Apple was an inch away from sueing Google for poaching its own employees.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #38 of 46
Is it just me, or does Eric Schmidt look like he's perpetually constipated with searing gas pains? I mean, does he look relaxed?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

I guess I need a clarification about what this means. If it just means that each company agrees not to actively target another company's talent, then no big deal. I don't see the harm in that.

That's basically the key problem here. Many people think it's actually !OK! for companies to agree not to actively target another company's talent, in order to - collectively - pay lower salary to employees. And yet, employees have to actively compete with other employees in order to get hired by companies. Otherwise, it's bad (a.k.a. unions are bad, as many people here have said, which I in a degree agree with). It's the inconsistency in viewing what companies can do vs. what employees can do that's really pissing off a lot of ordinary folks on the main street, not the 'oh poor people envy rich people' kinda crap.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Is it just me, or does Eric Schmidt look like he's perpetually constipated with searing gas pains? I mean, does he look relaxed?


Dont make fun of people of how they look. They didnt choose to be so when they were born.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs asked Google to stop poaching Apple workers