There is a fascinating report in the FT this morning that says a law suit has been settled in the US. The law suit was a US class action and was between about 64,000 staff of Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel and their employers.
I am sure the detail of the action was complex but the nub seems to have been quite simple: these employers agreed not to poach staff from each other. The motive can, I am sure, be easily presumed: they wanted to prevent a market in wages breaking out.
Now I am not saying every market in wages is good. That for bankers is clearly harmful, and the market that pushes many into poverty is equally harmful. But these are polarities, and it tends to be extremes that need to be regulated. But in ranges where there can be a market - because there are enough participants on both sides - then by and large I am in favour of markets having a role in setting labour rates (subject to recognition of collective bargaining).
Here the intention was obvious: the claim was that these companies were refusing to create a market in wages for their own benefit. It's a classic case of capital seeking to suppress the return to labour.
And another example of the malign nature of tech companies.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I don’t see this as wages, maybe you are right. However I see this about the information these people carry. I suspect that HR and marketing people are less likely to be involved in this deal. More likely, in my mind, the experts who design and programme the systems that we all use every day. That information is the most important part of the technology sector.
Ah…so people must be ring fenced to reinforce monopoly profit – that’s your argument
I haven’t read the full document, I think they are still allowed to start other companies themselves.
As I pay a large amount for these companies products. I know they are all as bad as each other. SO it doesn’t matter who they worked for.
Also please note, its only a few companies listed. You can still join other companies if the desire was needed.
It seems as if you are defending the indefensible
You don’t need to look so far.
There are at least 10 local authorities I know of in this country of that have no-poaching clauses in their standard contracts. It is rarely enforced, though I do know of cases where the local authority has made an issue of it with a service provider.
But I agree with you – they are wrong, unless there are genuine concerns (eg confidentiality, conflict of interest etc).
That is serious….
http://www.answers.uk.com/services/employment03staffpoaching.html
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/employers/employer-prevention-of-poaching-talent.htm
Judging by the amount of returns on google, I see that poaching is seen as a potentially serious employment problem.
In fact there are many services offered to construct employment contracts to minimise any effect, and to maximise the chance/s of being able to litigate to halt it.
10 years ago the HR chief of a large UK consulting engineers admitted to me that similar arangements were in place between the various big players in the civil engineering game in order to keep wage inflation in check. No wonder the so-called laws of suply and demand never came through when workloads peaked. Another big business rigging of the jobs market, what a surprise…
You only have to look at the fairly recent ¨employment blacklisting¨ case in construction to realise that the employment market is seriously ¨rigged¨.
Admitting you are a member of a trade union when trying to get a job is a serious mistake!!
Employment agencies operate information exchange, and engineering companies have done so for decades.
The lack of interest in such cases by labour, during their period in government, did not go down well in union circles.
That’s one side of the argument. The other side is that many of the employees of the companies hold large amounts of IP, which having been developed at the expense of the company remains the property of the company. Companies quite reasonably don’t want to be seen to be poaching staff in order to acquire that IP. If they want to acquire IP then they will agree to buy it from the rightful owner.
All that proves is we have IP law very wrong
But aren’t there anti “poaching” rules in professional sport? What about the rules on “tapping up” in football? Are these objectionable?
That’s a game
Supposedly
Different rules apply