Originally Posted by wubbus
... anti-poaching agreements just say "yes you as an employee are extremely valuable but we certainly don't want to pay you full value (or let you get full value from another company)" ...
Nothing personal, but I see this angle as total BS. We aren't talking about factory workers being forced to work for pennies on the dollar, nor are we even talking about skilled workers who float around the economy and have their wages rise and fall based on job availability or any of that stuff.
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
The only reason this case is even moving forward is because of it's high profile. It's going to make some lawyers look extremely good for a short amount of time. Some of them will no doubt run for office later on.
To bring up labour law in this situation is technically valid because the law is the law. However, to imply that this is some kind of "workers rights" issue with shades of union involvement and that the government should step in and "do something about it" for the good of the economy and the world etc., is specious bull IMO.
I believe in the law and this is illegal so it should be prosecuted, but on balance, what they did here is not only a very common practice, it's probably actually the best practice both for the companies and the employees concerned.
Without such agreements, your products would generally arrive later, take longer to design and be less distinctive. Patent lawsuits would also double in number and frequency and the whole industry would step up a notch, in terms of animosity and lack of inter company cooperation.