Google, Apple Settle Justice Dept. Hiring Probe 73
Ponca City, We Love You writes "The LA Times reports that under a proposed settlement with the Justice Department, six major Silicon Valley firms — Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Intuit and Pixar — would be barred from pledging not to 'cold call' one another's employees. Federal officials have been scrutinizing such agreements for more than a year, concerned that they restrained competition for skilled workers and kept an artificial cap on wages by avoiding expensive bidding wars. If the court fight had proceeded, it could have helped decide the legality of such accords, not just in the high-tech sector but across all industries. But the fight had risks for each side. To win, the Justice Department would have had to convince a court that workers had suffered significant harm. A loss for the companies would have opened the door to a rush of lawsuits."
Chris O'Brien summed it up best: (Score:5, Interesting)
1. There is no way that potential savings from these ridiculous schemes could have warranted the risks. Just how much money are we talking about saving by not losing a few important employees? Thousands? Chump change. Dumb.
2. Whatever the costs, we're talking about multinational corporations with billions of dollars in the bank. Really, they couldn't dip into those rainy day funds to counter a few offers? It's not just miserly. It's dumb.
3. We knew Apple was a bully. Turns out, it is an even bigger bully than we realized. According to the complaint: "Apple requested an agreement from Adobe to refrain from cold-calling each other's employees. Faced with the likelihood that refusing would result in retaliation and significant competition for its employees, Adobe agreed." Pissing off a key ally? Dumb.
4. Now, everyone working at one of these companies has got to be thinking the same thing: "Did I get screwed?" That's not exactly the kind of gung-ho, morale-building conversations you want going on. Dumb.
5. Those who do think they got the shaft may sue. And because this is an antitrust finding, the settlement will allow anyone who wins in federal court to "recover three times the damages the person has suffered." Say goodbye to whatever measly amounts the companies saved through these agreements. Dumb.
6. People maintained lists. They kept records. According to the complaint: "Pixar instructed human resources personnel to adhere to the agreement and maintain a paper trail in the event Apple accused Pixar of violating the agreement." Dumb.
7. Under this settlement, the Justice Department gets to check up on the companies just about whenever it pleases. Thought the federal government was interfering too much before? Well, congratulations. It will get worse. Dumb.
8. Did they really not think this would come to light? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Original Source [mercurynews.com]
Did Google Mislead Congress on Hiring Efforts? (Score:5, Interesting)
June 6, 2007 Congressional Testimony of Laszlo Bock [blogspot.com]: "Google's hiring process is rigorous, and we make great efforts to uncover the most talented employees we can find."
September 24, 2010 Justice Department Press Release [justice.gov]: "Beginning no later than 2006, Apple and Google executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees...Beginning no later than September 2007, Google and Intel executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees...In June 2007, Google and Intuit executives agreed that Google would not cold call any Intuit employee."
Re:Do no Evil? (Score:3, Interesting)
He works at Google and he's saying he is oblivious to the wayward track they have taken. My position is that he's turned his head to it, like many others there, and that is why I said I rested my case. Now obviously that's not enough for everyone. Okay fair enough -- I'll respond.
Google was forged by the fact Yahoo had lost its way. If Yahoo wasn't a profiteering, cantankerous example of a company that had lost its focus around the time Google was gaining momentum, then Google could not have gained momentum.
Google is an example of how a company like Yahoo was begging to be replaced. The irony is that now we find Google in the same position because of many examples of how they are not following their motto of "Do No Evil".
Phoning someone up to see if they want a job, out of the blue -- cold calling your competitors... well that's the kind of thing Mr. Burns would do. It's fucking evil. Now I expect companies like Apple to do it. I expect the other corporations to be that shady. That's their way.
But Google? No.
Now I keep reading examples in the media -- often little stories presented of how Google has lost its way. They add up.
Now you can ignore the examples, but it seems that every day or every other day there are comments about Google harpooning Net Neutrality, presenting examples about how Net Neutrality is bad or a thing of the past, and we hear tales now of how Google is poaching employees directly by phoning competitors... it adds to prove they are NO DIFFERENT now than other companies their size.
Anyone against the Net being free and neutral supports evil. Google has taken this position.
Okay back up a second. Think of how Google started out. Google was like an oasis among other websites when it first launched. That didn't last. They introduced advertising and a model to create adds. They sank a lot of other email providers and then targeted the users with advertisements.
The kinds of people who pay to use adsense/adwords are the kind of get-rich-quick fucks that caused the first internet bubble to burst (well they formed the bubble and it popped because of financial physics...)
But now recently we hear stories about how they send a paralegal to try and prevent some poor schmuck from claiming his $721 adsense revenue [reddit.com]. That's not an isolated case.
My position is that Google is evil now.
Re:Chris O'Brien summed it up best: (Score:1, Interesting)
Entering into a conspiracy that limits financial opportunities for employees should be more than a civil violation. It should involve criminal penalties. I've seen this done by an industrial district that supposedly, for the good of the community, entered into a restrained pay agreement that used the excuse that new businesses would be attracted to the community by wage restraints. Obviously the public could benefit even more if they had profit restraints in place upon the businesses but businesses seemed to be blind to that line of thinking.
Re:Do no Evil? (Score:2, Interesting)