In addition to shutting down MegaUpload, the US Department of Justice made another choice chunk of information public last night: evidence of multiple Silicon Valley companies conspiring to not poach each other’s employees. On the surface, it may sound like tepid HR industry fodder, but it’s something that affects all of us through the products we use.
According to documents TechCrunch, a DOJ investigation drudged up proof that Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, LucasFilm and Pixar all made agreements with one another to not only refrain from going after an employee from one of the other companies, but to not make them an offer if an employee voluntarily offered. The most prominent example being an email from Adobe CEO to Steve Jobs making explicit mention of such an agreement. The DOJ called this anti-competitive and now these companies face a class-action lawsuit.
But more than just quelling the threat of a company losing employees, behaviour like this can cause a chain effect. Not having to worry about losing an employee to another company gives an outfit less incentive to offer raises and/or promotions to deserving workers. That, in turn, can breed job dissatisfaction and poor morale for those who feel they can’t work their way up. And considering these are all firms who generate products we all like and use, why would an employee who doesn’t care about their job care about working their hardest to help develop something new and awesome? Then you get stuck with shitty products.
For their part, the companies contest that this agreement was not made en masse, but rather individual agreements were struck between certain companies, though the DOJ believes they have evidence pointing to the contrary.
…documents state that there is “strong evidence that the companies knew about the other express agreements, patterned their own agreements off of them, and operated them concurrently with the others to accomplish the same objective.”
If these companies choose to settle or plead guilty, a large, large percentage of people employed at these companies may be entitled to a payout. Which they very well may deserve. [TechCrunch]
Image: Piotr Marcinski/Shutterstock
jamall
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 10:47 AMWhat’s worse, an agreement between companies to not pach each others staff, or employees chopping and changing between multi-billion dollar projects, disrupting schedules and sharing competitors corporate strategies and intellectual property. I’d suggest that the highly skilled staff these agreements refer to are already fairly compensated for their efforts, and any alleged collusion boils down to professional courtesy among similarly minded companies seeking to avoid open warfare.
jamall
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM*poach
chris p
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM“Not having to worry about losing an employee to another company gives an outfit less incentive to offer raises and/or promotions to deserving workers. That, in turn, can breed job dissatisfaction and poor morale for those who feel they can’t work their way up. And considering these are all firms who generate products we all like and use, why would an employee who doesn’t care about their job care about working their hardest to help develop something new and awesome? Then you get stuck with shitty products.”
it was in the article
Roman
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:33 PMagreed.
if you are worried about losing them then give them a long contract like in professional sports
anonymouse
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 11:33 AMIf employees can’t change business, then they could quite easily be underpaid compared to what a competitor would be willing to pay them.
Steven Janjic
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 4:28 PMThis could potentially lead to a lot more independent startups if employees leave one company and are unable to be hired at another. Strange to not see Microsoft on that list, I would’ve expected them over Pixar/LucasFilm