Apple, Google reportedly shared agreement to not poach employees

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple and Google had an informal agreement not to recruit each others' workers while Eric Schmidt, the search engine's CEO, served on both boards, according to a new report.



While the agreement was not written, it was considered protocol in Google's recruitment division, sources told TechCrunch. The alleged agreement between the two companies may have sparked an antitrust investigation from the U.S. Justice Department.



Whether the unofficial rule is still in place is uncertain. Earlier this month, Schmidt stepped down from the Apple Board of Directors, citing Google's encroachment into the Mac-maker's core businesses with Android and Chrome OS. Sources told TechCrunch that it's possible that Schmidt's resignation may have signaled the end of the agreement.



"To be clear, this unwritten agreement was that Google would not go after Apple employees, and vice versa," the report states. "However, employees of both companies were free to apply to the other company on their own, we?re told. That?s a small, but important difference as the practice of going after other company?s talent, also known as ?poaching?, is considered to be an important component of healthy competition in the market. That?s why the Justice Department is looking into it."



The report also includes an e-mail from Google's hiring department that states "Google has an agreement with Apple that we will not cold call their staff."



In recent weeks, trouble has developed between Google and Apple. Weeks ago, Apple rejected the Google voice application, and pulled two programs that used the Voice service from the App Store. Both Google and Apple have been talked to for an investigation from the Federal Communications Commission over the matter.



Prior to his resignation, Schmidt already had to recuse himself from board meetings that involved iPhone plans, many of which would clash with Google's own attempts to promote its Android mobile operating system. Though the Google executive was adamant that the two companies don't occupy the same markets, the Federal Trade Commission has been investigating the Apple-Google link for a possible violation of antitrust laws through unfair collaboration.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    I had hoped apple and google could do great things together. Or is all this tension a media invention ?
  • Reply 2 of 42
    Interesting times ahead. If you wanted to make Android better, who would you hire
  • Reply 3 of 42
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    I had hoped apple and google could do great things together. Or is all this tension a media invention ?



    More likely than not.
  • Reply 4 of 42
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    If this is a violation of an anti-trust law, which law? AppleInsider, please do your readers a service and explain.



    Frankly, I've never heard of something like this being an anti-trust violation. As the article claims, Apple and Google were free to hire each others' employees if they applied.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    If this is true, it would seem that ES stayed on Apple's board for too long! I agree that poaching is a beneficial practice in the long run and should not be allowed to be hindered by business relationships.



    KRR
  • Reply 6 of 42
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post


    If this is a violation of an anti-trust law, which law? AppleInsider, please do your readers a service and explain.



    Frankly, I've never heard of something like this being an anti-trust violation. As the article claims, Apple and Google were free to hire each others' employees if they applied.



    Anti-trust is all about allowing and even promoting competition within a market. There are likely several laws under the Anti-trust umbrella that would be potentially violated. Including but not limited to laws against one person serving on the board of two companies in the same market (which is why Schmidt left the Apple board now that Google is creating an OS), laws against overly restrictive anti-competition clauses that prohibit a worker from hiring on with another company etc.



    the sticky bit is of course proof that this practice was codified in any way. even just this alleged email. otherwise it's all really hearsay. Particularly if there were persons that voluntarily applied and were hired. That at least shows that there was no practice of not hiring from each other.



    Frankly I think cold calling to be tacky so I have no issue with a practice not to do it. But my opinion is not law.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    I worked as a Google engineering recruiter for over two years and this was a WRITTEN policy. Apple was on a "no poach" list for all Google sourcers and recruiters.
  • Reply 8 of 42
    Google's os sounds like it will be open source and free. Apple's os is great but is still a small player when compared to Windows market share. I just don't see how this is anti competitive at this time and I think that this is a big waste of tax payers money.

    Would it have been smarter if they had done a stock swap or smallish cross stock purchase? Would that have made Eric being on both boards moot?
  • Reply 9 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Buddha56 View Post


    I worked as a Google engineering recruiter for over two years and this was a WRITTEN policy. Apple was on a "no poach" list for all Google sourcers and recruiters.



    Ok but if an Apple engineer came to you was he still off limits? If so then that would indeed be anti competitive.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    It will be interesting to see an antitrust investigation go forward. It may bring out some legal precedents of which most people are unaware, or it may or may not lead to the establishment of new precedents related to anticompetitive behavior across the business spectrum.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    Way to go FCC - this informal agreement was actually beneficial for not only both companies but also innovation but by sticking your nose in you forced Eric to step down and now I'm quite certain there will be no such gentleman's agreement - great, thanks.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


    Ok but if an Apple engineer came to you was he still off limits? If so then that would indeed be anti competitive.



    Yes, that would be the work-around but we would have to reach out to our manager and get approval to speak w/any engineer whose company was on the list. I've seen folks get in trouble for ignoring this rule and just contracting them directly from an inquiry.
  • Reply 13 of 42
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    If you are going to quote somebody, at least have enough respect to quote them accurately.







    Equally important, you have not only misquoted the author, it is out of context relative to the headline and the article, which makes it even worse.



    OUCH

    I fixed it
  • Reply 14 of 42
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    If the FCC were to go after a Google or Apple because of this, imagine the hullabaloo that would be created if they included the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc., in their investigation. Particularly, since many of them are owned by communication companies. And all have no-poaching rules.



    Let's not forget: amateur scholarship athletes do not have the right to even move freely among schools.



    Many business have no-poaching strategies in place. Makes sense. Both for the employer or employee.



    Being approached directly by a company opens yourself to the bigger payer. How many here would like it if the Yankees could just go to anybody? (Please exclude Yankee fans)



    You, as an employee, have basically every right unless stipulated in your contract to approach just about anybody for a job.



    Careful now. I would suggest that as an employer for, or an employee of the CIA, FBI, SEC, FCC, Homeland Security, Armed Services, etc., there are written and unwritten rules on 'poaching' that are more restrictive than what Google or Apple may have enjoyed.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Anti-trust is all about allowing and even promoting competition within a market. There are likely several laws under the Anti-trust umbrella that would be potentially violated. Including but not limited to laws against one person serving on the board of two companies in the same market (which is why Schmidt left the Apple board now that Google is creating an OS), laws against overly restrictive anti-competition clauses that prohibit a worker from hiring on with another company etc.



    the sticky bit is of course proof that this practice was codified in any way. even just this alleged email. otherwise it's all really hearsay. Particularly if there were persons that voluntarily applied and were hired. That at least shows that there was no practice of not hiring from each other.



    Frankly I think cold calling to be tacky so I have no issue with a practice not to do it. But my opinion is not law.



    The article states there was not a prohibition from Apple and Google hiring employees from the other company. The prohibition was to not actively recruit them. It's also a stretch to say that Apple and Google are even in the same market though I suppose that is now changed with both producing a mobile phone operating system. However, Apple doesn't "sell" the iPhone OS nor does Google (but for different reasons).



    What hasn't been brought up is the most likely reason this recruiting prohibition started in the first place -- to help prevent the transfer of technology between companies. There are laws against stealing technology, not just against market collusion.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    OUCH

    I fixed it



    So did I.



    Thank you.
  • Reply 17 of 42
    What's even more annoying is that we do everything we can to promote collusion among labor, in the form of unions, to prevent competition with cheaper, non-union labor, but once two companies agree to not poach each other's talent, people think the Justice Department needs to get involved.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    The more we learn about Apple's relationship with Google the more I think it hasn't been the best thing for the consumer. To what extent did either company hold back competitively where they otherwise might not have? I'm not talking conspiracy as much as the possibility of more of these "unwritten" or polite agreements or understandings.



    Maybe Google would have played Android a bit differently? Developed a music store maybe?
  • Reply 19 of 42
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    I would think that the no-poaching agreement was a reasonable and necessary thing. Since Schmidt would have access to know which Apple engineers were working on which projects, he could easily use his position on Apple's board to make a list of top talent and hand it off to Google's recruiters to go after.



    Imagine how much turmoil there would be on the board if Google started cold-calling Apple's top talent. There would be questions and concerns about where they got their list of target employees.
  • Reply 20 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Buddha56 View Post


    Yes, that would be the work-around but we would have to reach out to our manager and get approval to speak w/any engineer whose company was on the list. I've seen folks get in trouble for ignoring this rule and just contracting them directly from an inquiry.



    While we're on the subject and you seem willing to talk about it, what other companies were on that list besides Apple?
Sign In or Register to comment.