Actually it is not, all I said is the pay to pull someone out of a competitor is not what the person is worth or value of doing the job they do, it is the value of slowing your competitor down. To put numbers around it, if the engineer was making $50K at apple and Google offer him $200K to leave, they person is now not worth $200K nor is the job is doing has a market value of $200K. the $200K the cost Google is willing to pay to slow Apple down. The FTC is claim that company were trying to keep wages below the $50K which the real value of the job the person was doing when in fact they were agreeing not to drive salary up to the $200K mark. I see this happen personally, company try and recruit talent away and they offer them some big number and they come back to their current employer and say they were just offer X will they match it to stay. If the original company does match and the it get out to other employees they all get the bright idea of doing the same thing to inflate their pay and companies get into a situation of deciding to pay or let them go. I even send a particular nationality of engineer actually sit in the conference room and write on a white board how much they were getting paid, (forget some we junior engineer only been out of school for a few years and others had way more experience in terms of yrs and knowledge) and they all decide that since they were all engineers they should be paid the same pay just because they we doing similar work. Talk about causing problems since now the more experience people then demand more if they gave the newer people more money.
Trust me this was not about trying to keep people's wages below the market, it was to keep companies from activity recruiting their employees and driving wage up to take or keep the person. I work on one company and we hire a tour bus with big signs of it that said come on in with your resume we ready to hire and park the damn thing right outside our competitors builds in various areas of the country. Talk about some nasty legal letters.
So this is not new, but hell the government is going to make an example of all these companies, even those is nothing illegal about saying you agree not to activity recruit a person, you can not say they can not hire the person if they walk in your door on your own which it what looks like google did when they got Steve's nasty call, but steve's call is hearsay.
Actually if Google were to offer an engineer 200k that would be his market price. Just as if Chelsea offer 400k a week to Rooney that would be his price, even if Manchester United couldn't match it, even if they could only pay 200k a week, even if part of the reason to poach Rooney was to slow United down, as well as get a good player. Win win.
If you have guys who are leaving for higher money that's their market price. That's what the free market means. It's not just for executives and business men.
Actually it is not, all I said is the pay to pull someone out of a competitor is not what the person is worth or value of doing the job they do, it is the value of slowing your competitor down.
Can't "slowing your competitor down" be considered as part of "the job they do" if at the end of the day it increases the value of your company relative to your competitor?
I understand why you say that, and I understand Phil agreeing. But I think it's a very select group of people that this applies to: those who hold trade secrets that would materially affect Apple.
Non-compete agreements are legal in some states, but not California (in almost all circumstances).
California also typically refuses to enforce non-compete agreements settled in other states.
This is why the employers tried to form a cartel: they couldn't achieve what they wanted through NCAs in California. (That they also may not have been legally able to form a cartel to have the same effect is a separate question.)
Trade secrets aside (and these can be handled through separate contractual arrangements), this is one of the main reasons that Silicon Valley is in California: even though it's undesirable from employers' point of view to lose personnel to competitors, the result is that there is a deep pool of talent immediately available in California. In the tech industry, a lot of people are regularly hired on project contracts for a period of time; non-compete agreements could mean that they would have no (or much less in some other industry) income between projects. (This is even more important for Hollywood workers.)
I understand why you say that, and I understand Phil agreeing. But I think it's a very select group of people that this applies to: those who hold trade secrets that would materially affect Apple.
Chaining them to their beds at night would help with that huh? During the day let them wander free on the grounds. Razor wire will keep 'em in.
Actually if Google were to offer an engineer 200k that would be his market price. Just as if Chelsea offer 400k a week to Rooney that would be his price, even if Manchester United couldn't match it, even if they could only pay 200k a week, even if part of the reason to poach Rooney was to slow United down, as well as get a good player. Win win.
If you have guys who are leaving for higher money that's their market price. That's what the free market means. It's not just for executives and business men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
Can't "slowing your competitor down" be considered as part of "the job they do" if at the end of the day it increases the value of your company relative to your competitor?
It is only the market price if everyone who might employ that person is willing to pay them that wage. The answer to that question is usually no. I personally seen people jump to a company for the higher pay, only to find out later if they wanted to leave and go elsewhere no on is willing to pay them that wage so it not the market value of the job. Just because companies do desperate thing to hire someone does not mean a job or the person has that value. People over pay for things all the time since they do not understand the real market value of a item or service.
This is why most companies are very careful about what they pay people over or under paying people can become very costly to companies. The real issue is if these company kept people from changing company, you can agree not to actively no recruit but you can not say you can not hire. CA is one of the only state where making an employee sign a non-compete it illegal employer can not keep you from finding another job doing the exact same work for another company, this assume you are leaving on your on merit verses someone calling you up from the competitor and trying to pull you and everyone else out of business. Since you not seeing all the evidence and paper trails behind this case, it had to say if they agreed to not recruit or not hire, there is a difference.
It is only the market price if everyone who might employ that person is willing to pay them that wage. The answer to that question is usually no. I personally seen people jump to a company for the higher pay, only to find out later if they wanted to leave and go elsewhere no on is willing to pay them that wage so it not the market value of the job. Just because companies do desperate thing to hire someone does not mean a job or the person has that value. People over pay for things all the time since they do not understand the real market value of a item or service.
This is why most companies are very careful about what they pay people over or under paying people can become very costly to companies. The real issue is if these company kept people from changing company, you can agree not to actively no recruit but you can not say you can not hire. CA is one of the only state where making an employee sign a non-compete it illegal employer can not keep you from finding another job doing the exact same work for another company, this assume you are leaving on your on merit verses someone calling you up from the competitor and trying to pull you and everyone else out of business. Since you not seeing all the evidence and paper trails behind this case, it had to say if they agreed to not recruit or not hire, there is a difference.
No, the market price for somebody is not what "everybody" would offer but what anybody would offer.
Again back to Soccer. Not everybody would offer Rooney the maximum he could get at Chelsea, but what he would get at Chelsea, or the counter offer from Man united, is his market value. If he had gone to Chelsea and didn’t fit in, didn’t do well, and then moved on his value would not doubt be subsequently diminished but at the moment his market value is the “highest” not the average price he is offered. Same with anybody else. Same with anything else. It’s like an auction, the market price is the highest price, not the average.
In fact there has always been a clear silent cartel on hiring technical staff - while companies spend millions on executives top level architects and engineers have a clear wage ceiling, probably because there are more of them. Jobs himself said the best software engineers are up five to ten times the average in ability, it turns out he was just reluctant to pay them that much.
Well, except in stock I suppose, but executives get more of that too.
In this case the Safari guy - Mr Redacted in the second email in the original post - is amongst the best in the world according to the email. He should have been paid accordingly, because of the cartel, he wasn’t.
Comments
Actually if Google were to offer an engineer 200k that would be his market price. Just as if Chelsea offer 400k a week to Rooney that would be his price, even if Manchester United couldn't match it, even if they could only pay 200k a week, even if part of the reason to poach Rooney was to slow United down, as well as get a good player. Win win.
If you have guys who are leaving for higher money that's their market price. That's what the free market means. It's not just for executives and business men.
Actually it is not, all I said is the pay to pull someone out of a competitor is not what the person is worth or value of doing the job they do, it is the value of slowing your competitor down.
Can't "slowing your competitor down" be considered as part of "the job they do" if at the end of the day it increases the value of your company relative to your competitor?
That's ridiculous.
I understand why you say that, and I understand Phil agreeing. But I think it's a very select group of people that this applies to: those who hold trade secrets that would materially affect Apple.
Non-compete agreements are legal in some states, but not California (in almost all circumstances).
California also typically refuses to enforce non-compete agreements settled in other states.
This is why the employers tried to form a cartel: they couldn't achieve what they wanted through NCAs in California. (That they also may not have been legally able to form a cartel to have the same effect is a separate question.)
Trade secrets aside (and these can be handled through separate contractual arrangements), this is one of the main reasons that Silicon Valley is in California: even though it's undesirable from employers' point of view to lose personnel to competitors, the result is that there is a deep pool of talent immediately available in California. In the tech industry, a lot of people are regularly hired on project contracts for a period of time; non-compete agreements could mean that they would have no (or much less in some other industry) income between projects. (This is even more important for Hollywood workers.)
Chaining them to their beds at night would help with that huh? During the day let them wander free on the grounds. Razor wire will keep 'em in.
Actually if Google were to offer an engineer 200k that would be his market price. Just as if Chelsea offer 400k a week to Rooney that would be his price, even if Manchester United couldn't match it, even if they could only pay 200k a week, even if part of the reason to poach Rooney was to slow United down, as well as get a good player. Win win.
If you have guys who are leaving for higher money that's their market price. That's what the free market means. It's not just for executives and business men.
Can't "slowing your competitor down" be considered as part of "the job they do" if at the end of the day it increases the value of your company relative to your competitor?
It is only the market price if everyone who might employ that person is willing to pay them that wage. The answer to that question is usually no. I personally seen people jump to a company for the higher pay, only to find out later if they wanted to leave and go elsewhere no on is willing to pay them that wage so it not the market value of the job. Just because companies do desperate thing to hire someone does not mean a job or the person has that value. People over pay for things all the time since they do not understand the real market value of a item or service.
This is why most companies are very careful about what they pay people over or under paying people can become very costly to companies. The real issue is if these company kept people from changing company, you can agree not to actively no recruit but you can not say you can not hire. CA is one of the only state where making an employee sign a non-compete it illegal employer can not keep you from finding another job doing the exact same work for another company, this assume you are leaving on your on merit verses someone calling you up from the competitor and trying to pull you and everyone else out of business. Since you not seeing all the evidence and paper trails behind this case, it had to say if they agreed to not recruit or not hire, there is a difference.
It is only the market price if everyone who might employ that person is willing to pay them that wage. The answer to that question is usually no. I personally seen people jump to a company for the higher pay, only to find out later if they wanted to leave and go elsewhere no on is willing to pay them that wage so it not the market value of the job. Just because companies do desperate thing to hire someone does not mean a job or the person has that value. People over pay for things all the time since they do not understand the real market value of a item or service.
This is why most companies are very careful about what they pay people over or under paying people can become very costly to companies. The real issue is if these company kept people from changing company, you can agree not to actively no recruit but you can not say you can not hire. CA is one of the only state where making an employee sign a non-compete it illegal employer can not keep you from finding another job doing the exact same work for another company, this assume you are leaving on your on merit verses someone calling you up from the competitor and trying to pull you and everyone else out of business. Since you not seeing all the evidence and paper trails behind this case, it had to say if they agreed to not recruit or not hire, there is a difference.
No, the market price for somebody is not what "everybody" would offer but what anybody would offer.
Again back to Soccer. Not everybody would offer Rooney the maximum he could get at Chelsea, but what he would get at Chelsea, or the counter offer from Man united, is his market value. If he had gone to Chelsea and didn’t fit in, didn’t do well, and then moved on his value would not doubt be subsequently diminished but at the moment his market value is the “highest” not the average price he is offered. Same with anybody else. Same with anything else. It’s like an auction, the market price is the highest price, not the average.
In fact there has always been a clear silent cartel on hiring technical staff - while companies spend millions on executives top level architects and engineers have a clear wage ceiling, probably because there are more of them. Jobs himself said the best software engineers are up five to ten times the average in ability, it turns out he was just reluctant to pay them that much.
Well, except in stock I suppose, but executives get more of that too.
In this case the Safari guy - Mr Redacted in the second email in the original post - is amongst the best in the world according to the email. He should have been paid accordingly, because of the cartel, he wasn’t.