Feds Probing Google, Apple for Antitrust Hiring Practices
|
Are major technology companies such as Google, Apple and others violating antitrust laws by negotiating not to hire away top talent from each other? That's what the federal government is said to be investigating, according to an article in the Washington Post. From the article: The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on the search engine giant Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple, maker of the popular iPhone; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing... None of the companies or the government were willing to comment on the case in the WP article. Overall details beyond this information are scarce, but it certainly underscores the challenges of employees who are open and willing to be recruited for positions at competing companies, many who are stymied by non-compete agreements already. That is, if you live in a state or the company you work for is based in a state that recognizes non-compete agreements. California, for one, does not recognize non-compete agreements, though as with all law, judgment is open to interpretation. However, storage and data giant EMC was recently able to stop an executive from managing the storage division of HP after a California judge chose to uphold the Massachussets law that permits non-compete agreements. Given that the law on non-compete agreements differs state to state, the potential of collusive behavior on refraining from hiring top talent between competing tech companies could be worrisome for those looking to make a change in a down economy. |
For more IT Careers and Workplace News, check out eWeek Careers
Comments (8)
Non-compete agreements = corporate slavery.
If you took care of your employees, they might not want to go somewhere else.
Not allowing them to work in the field of their choice is akin to cutting off their god-given abilities and forcing them to go broke.
Posted by DeBunkTheMyths | June 9, 2009 1:24 PM
Looks like California's law doesn't pass constitutional muster anyway; Article I, section 10, clause 1 states:
" No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Posted by Freeman Presson | June 9, 2009 1:57 PM
Now, when Apple tried to hire Papermaster from IBM, they were taken to court. Could it be that they stopped pursuing top level talent because of the treat of similar suits as opposed to any sort of collusion with their competitors?
Posted by Taras | June 9, 2009 2:55 PM
"Slavery". They will go broke because they have to stay in one high-paying job instead of taking what the learn from one company and taking it to a competitor? Youe response is typical of those who don't see the investments these companies make. Not every corporate advantage can be copyrighted or patented. You can't blame a company from telling their top employees that they can't take what they learn from them and immediately go to the competition.
Posted by billy cameroon | June 9, 2009 3:39 PM
I wonder why they care about this here, and not give a damn about Apple subsequently blocking the competetion for appliances like Bluetooth Headsets or similar devices.
Sources who know (but also remain anonymous here ;-) confirmed, e.g. each iPhone modern enough to even support Bluetooth bans all non-Apple devices despite the standard being open and compatible.
I keep using a Motorola stereo Bluetooth headset with phones from Nokia, Palm and Sony-Ericsson (I had not Motorola so far, but I assume it also works ;-) without problem. So why is Apple blocking the competition and ignoring standards here??!
Posted by CAT | June 10, 2009 8:27 AM
I agree with the above. Non-compete agreements take advantage of an already tight employment market (thanks to work visa's and jobs shipping overseas).
If a company wants to use Non-compete agreements, they should be made to guarantee the employee a job or means of survival.
Nothing will ever change for the better of the employee as big business is what runs our government and "OUR" government will ALWAYS take care of big business first and foremost!
Posted by joe | June 10, 2009 12:14 PM
I agree that the government protects big business and big business gives monies to support political figures to manipulate the system. But I think if any of us had a big business because of a product we produced you would not want your competition to know your secrets or you would be out of business.
Posted by Tonmiester | June 10, 2009 1:49 PM
This is simply another corporate effort to suppress salaries for all workers below the executive level. Are these "savings" really necessary? Where does this money go? Fact: while companies squeeze the rank and file ever harder executive salaries and benefits climb ever higher. Fact: Executives of "beleaguered" corporations fly to Washington in private corporate jets to beg for government bailouts then turn around, pay themselves huge bonuses and celebrate their "success" with opulent parties! Meanwwhile the hard-earned compensation of the "little guys" is slashed or they are laid off to foot the bill. So draw your own conclusion...
Posted by WTK | June 10, 2009 7:51 PM