There are companies that specialize in "head hunting" so there is no need for Google to do any active recruiting on their own. They would just contract it out if they wanted to go after Apple employees.
It seems to me if the evidence so damning as claimed criminal charges are not out of the question. Well, in theory anyway. I am sure these companies have enough money to get whatever political influence they need to see that it won't happen.
The assessment of actual damage will result in a more realistic dollar amount. $90,000 for all of 100,000 employees is pretty unrealistic. There also has to be evidence that there was an intent to move from one company to another because if an employee didn't have that intention then there was no harm caused. Then there's the cases where no-poaching wasn't enforced and employees successfully moved from one company to another. Then they have to assess the potential salary raise in moving from one company to another and the frequency of the moving resulting in the gain. I would say each employee would move no more than 3 times during a 10 year period and the gain each time $10-20k so say they are on $40k and Google would offer $50k and another company offered $60k and this possibility was removed, they'd potentially lose $20k over the period. The amounts will vary for all of the employees. I doubt they'll go through every case but rather consider job roles and pay brackets.
Given the amount of people, I'd expect the salaries to be heavily weighted to the lower end, which wouldn't necessarily be job roles that come under the anti-poaching scheme. But say the amounts vary between $1k-20k and average at $10k, that's $1b split between multiple large companies so they pay maybe $200m each and each employee gets a small amount.
Aside from the obvious objections to such an absurd view, this is a class action lawsuit. Nothing to do with Government. Unless you think there shouldn't be laws or courts in general.
Class-actions benefit law firms.
Laws that protect individual and property rights are A-OK. Interpretation and application of those laws are usually where the problems arise.
I honestly don't see how the companies did anything wrong. From Apple's perspective, it likely wasn't about wages. How do you come out with compelling products, if you have to keep worrying about employees from jumping ship? Every time a key employees leaves, you have to train somebody new, catch that person up to speed, and worry about information from the departing employee being passed on to a new company.
From what I've seen this "agreement" doesn't prevent an employee from looking for work where they choose to - it prevents company A from actively trying to lure away an employee from company B. As such, I don't see how any employee could be harmed. Nobody is "forcing" them to stay with the company they're currently employed with.
Exactly ! Two things: Show me a survey of tech wages 15 years ago and one that shows what they are today. I'll "eat my shirt" if they're not substantially higher today. Two: Employees who are more valuable "find a way" to earn that value on their own. If they're sitting on their ass waiting for "opportunity to come a knocking".... they're not all that valuable as they might think they are, This is just another bunch, in a long line, of greedy assholes that have let Apple's earned cash pile blind them from knowing right from wrong
How do you come out with compelling products, if you have to keep worrying about employees from jumping ship? Every time a key employees leaves, you have to train somebody new, catch that person up to speed, and worry about information from the departing employee being passed on to a new company.
Tough. Law says you can't collude to stop competitive recruitment.
This is what I don't understand about this situation. As an employee, co-founder, and VP in the software business for decades, I was always under non-compete agreements. Those agreements can and sometimes do list specific companies for which an employee is forbid to work at for a period of, typically, 18 months after the end of their employment with the company with which the non-compete is executed. So my question is, why didn't each company simply place every valued employee under a non-compete agreement listing specific competitors? And given that non-competes, of some sort, were likely in place for valued employees, who are the 100,000+ employees who are suing? Those who were not under non-compete agreements and would likely not have been recruited away anyway?
Exactly ! Two things: Show me a survey of tech wages 15 years ago and one that shows what they are today. I'll "eat my shirt" if they're not substantially higher today. Two: Employees who are more valuable "find a way" to earn that value on their own. If they're sitting on their ass waiting for "opportunity to come a knocking".... they're not all that valuable as they might think they are, This is just another bunch, in a long line, of greedy assholes that have let Apple's earned cash pile blind them from knowing right from wrong
There was an actual guy who was being recruited from Apple, who Google then stopped recruiting.
In any case this is clearly designed to keep all wages down. All wages.
The assessment of actual damage will result in a more realistic dollar amount. $90,000 for all of 100,000 employees is pretty unrealistic. There also has to be evidence that there was an intent to move from one company to another because if an employee didn't have that intention then there was no harm caused. Then there's the cases where no-poaching wasn't enforced and employees successfully moved from one company to another. Then they have to assess the potential salary raise in moving from one company to another and the frequency of the moving resulting in the gain. I would say each employee would move no more than 3 times during a 10 year period and the gain each time $10-20k so say they are on $40k and Google would offer $50k and another company offered $60k and this possibility was removed, they'd potentially lose $20k over the period. The amounts will vary for all of the employees. I doubt they'll go through every case but rather consider job roles and pay brackets.
Given the amount of people, I'd expect the salaries to be heavily weighted to the lower end, which wouldn't necessarily be job roles that come under the anti-poaching scheme. But say the amounts vary between $1k-20k and average at $10k, that's $1b split between multiple large companies so they pay maybe $200m each and each employee gets a small amount.
No, its not going to work like that. Basically these agreements reduce everybody's wages across the board. If the high earners move on, they are replaced by people demanding more money ( as they move into higher paid positions and because the original company will increase wages to keep people). If people get high wages doing X somebody else will demand X, and so on. It will increase across the board. So all employees can join this class action suit.
Exactly ! Two things: Show me a survey of tech wages 15 years ago and one that shows what they are today. I'll "eat my shirt" if they're not substantially higher today.
You mean now that an anti-poaching agreement has been discovered? Sure.
...... In any case this is clearly designed to keep all wages down. All wages.
I think it's more a case of trying to protect company "secrets". A company, like Apple or Google, has more to lose on "lost info" than it does on paid wages.
Many employees are required to agree to a 'non-compete' clause, and often held to it even if fired.
Non-compete agreements are generally illegal in California, at least for employees, and that covers the majority of Apple, Google, and Adobe employees.
I think it's more a case of trying to protect company "secrets". A company, like Apple or Google, has more to lose on "lost info" than it does on paid wages.
I think you're wrong. You protect "secrets" through non-disclosure agreements and IP patents (i.e. legally). Conspiring to collude is not only illegal but rather ineffective.
Comments
non-compete clauses are generally illegal in california ... not sure about elsewhere.
(full disclosure: i am not a lawyer, and i did not stay at a holiday inn express last night.)
The assessment of actual damage will result in a more realistic dollar amount. $90,000 for all of 100,000 employees is pretty unrealistic. There also has to be evidence that there was an intent to move from one company to another because if an employee didn't have that intention then there was no harm caused. Then there's the cases where no-poaching wasn't enforced and employees successfully moved from one company to another. Then they have to assess the potential salary raise in moving from one company to another and the frequency of the moving resulting in the gain. I would say each employee would move no more than 3 times during a 10 year period and the gain each time $10-20k so say they are on $40k and Google would offer $50k and another company offered $60k and this possibility was removed, they'd potentially lose $20k over the period. The amounts will vary for all of the employees. I doubt they'll go through every case but rather consider job roles and pay brackets.
Given the amount of people, I'd expect the salaries to be heavily weighted to the lower end, which wouldn't necessarily be job roles that come under the anti-poaching scheme. But say the amounts vary between $1k-20k and average at $10k, that's $1b split between multiple large companies so they pay maybe $200m each and each employee gets a small amount.
Class-actions benefit law firms.
Laws that protect individual and property rights are A-OK. Interpretation and application of those laws are usually where the problems arise.
Where's the actual damage to the employees?
From what I've seen this "agreement" doesn't prevent an employee from looking for work where they choose to - it prevents company A from actively trying to lure away an employee from company B. As such, I don't see how any employee could be harmed. Nobody is "forcing" them to stay with the company they're currently employed with.
Exactly ! Two things: Show me a survey of tech wages 15 years ago and one that shows what they are today. I'll "eat my shirt" if they're not substantially higher today. Two: Employees who are more valuable "find a way" to earn that value on their own. If they're sitting on their ass waiting for "opportunity to come a knocking".... they're not all that valuable as they might think they are, This is just another bunch, in a long line, of greedy assholes that have let Apple's earned cash pile blind them from knowing right from wrong
This is what I don't understand about this situation. As an employee, co-founder, and VP in the software business for decades, I was always under non-compete agreements. Those agreements can and sometimes do list specific companies for which an employee is forbid to work at for a period of, typically, 18 months after the end of their employment with the company with which the non-compete is executed. So my question is, why didn't each company simply place every valued employee under a non-compete agreement listing specific competitors? And given that non-competes, of some sort, were likely in place for valued employees, who are the 100,000+ employees who are suing? Those who were not under non-compete agreements and would likely not have been recruited away anyway?
Non-compete agreements are illegal.
Exactly ! Two things: Show me a survey of tech wages 15 years ago and one that shows what they are today. I'll "eat my shirt" if they're not substantially higher today. Two: Employees who are more valuable "find a way" to earn that value on their own. If they're sitting on their ass waiting for "opportunity to come a knocking".... they're not all that valuable as they might think they are, This is just another bunch, in a long line, of greedy assholes that have let Apple's earned cash pile blind them from knowing right from wrong
There was an actual guy who was being recruited from Apple, who Google then stopped recruiting.
In any case this is clearly designed to keep all wages down. All wages.
The assessment of actual damage will result in a more realistic dollar amount. $90,000 for all of 100,000 employees is pretty unrealistic. There also has to be evidence that there was an intent to move from one company to another because if an employee didn't have that intention then there was no harm caused. Then there's the cases where no-poaching wasn't enforced and employees successfully moved from one company to another. Then they have to assess the potential salary raise in moving from one company to another and the frequency of the moving resulting in the gain. I would say each employee would move no more than 3 times during a 10 year period and the gain each time $10-20k so say they are on $40k and Google would offer $50k and another company offered $60k and this possibility was removed, they'd potentially lose $20k over the period. The amounts will vary for all of the employees. I doubt they'll go through every case but rather consider job roles and pay brackets.
Given the amount of people, I'd expect the salaries to be heavily weighted to the lower end, which wouldn't necessarily be job roles that come under the anti-poaching scheme. But say the amounts vary between $1k-20k and average at $10k, that's $1b split between multiple large companies so they pay maybe $200m each and each employee gets a small amount.
No, its not going to work like that. Basically these agreements reduce everybody's wages across the board. If the high earners move on, they are replaced by people demanding more money ( as they move into higher paid positions and because the original company will increase wages to keep people). If people get high wages doing X somebody else will demand X, and so on. It will increase across the board. So all employees can join this class action suit.
Exactly ! Two things: Show me a survey of tech wages 15 years ago and one that shows what they are today. I'll "eat my shirt" if they're not substantially higher today.
You mean now that an anti-poaching agreement has been discovered? Sure.
I think it's more a case of trying to protect company "secrets". A company, like Apple or Google, has more to lose on "lost info" than it does on paid wages.
You mean now that an anti-poaching agreement has been discovered? Sure.
A decent survey would show "when" and how much wages have increased. Would that be enough to satisfy you ?
Many employees are required to agree to a 'non-compete' clause, and often held to it even if fired.
Non-compete agreements are generally illegal in California, at least for employees, and that covers the majority of Apple, Google, and Adobe employees.
I think it's more a case of trying to protect company "secrets". A company, like Apple or Google, has more to lose on "lost info" than it does on paid wages.
I think you're wrong. You protect "secrets" through non-disclosure agreements and IP patents (i.e. legally). Conspiring to collude is not only illegal but rather ineffective.
It depends on the state. Illegal in California, legal in New York.
In any event that's not what happened here. None of the employees had a say in the matter or agreed in any way to a no-poaching scheme.