Apple and Google Face Salary-Fixing Lawsuit 402
beaverdownunder writes "Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel have been accused of maintaining an agreement not to poach each other's staff, thus restricting increases in salary and restricting career development. California District Judge Lucy Koh has found that the plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated antitrust injury. Sparked by a request from the late Steve Jobs, from 2005 to 2007 the defendants had a 'no cold-call' policy of staff recruitment amongst themselves. Jobs is also alleged to have threatened Palm with litigation for not entering into a 'no cold-call' agreement with Apple." Besides the companies named above, Intuit, Pixar, and Lucasfilm are also involved.
a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.
Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil.
Do a little checking into Sony before you deem this the pinnacle of evil.
I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.
Oh please. Both of these companies have done much worse. Most customers aren't going to care all that much if some high-priced high-tech employees didn't get to leverage one company against another for a job.
... until the next scheme crosses one of their minds.
What they did was wrong - all of them (there were others besides Apple & Google), and this will be another ethics wakeup call to corporate America
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the height of evil, that wasn't my claim. My claim was only that this was starkly beyond the gray zone.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "much more very evil?" and "much more incredibly evil"? Which is more evilerist?
Magic 8 ball says (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It does make a difference. The original poster claimed in essence that what Google did was 'over the line' into clearly evil practices, not still in some gray area. You're the idiot trying to turn that into some sort of "Oooohhh, he said Google is teh Hitler - Godwin!!!!!" bit. You're the one insisting on a 7th grade level of comprehension as the standard (Literally, it's in 7th grade in the U.S. that a standardised test is expected to show the student has grasped how a modifier such as clearly is used, bef
Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:5, Insightful)
You're reading it as: Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. This reading implies that it's the pinnacle of the state of being "clearly evil".
He's reading it as: Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. This reading implies that it is difficult to be more obviously "evil". Reading it this way leaves headroom for there to be more evil, but suggests that this is far enough beyond the line distinguishing evil from not evil that it doesn't make much of a difference in spotting it.
See the difference? It's a question of which is modifying which, and both readings are correct. Bad choice of words, perhaps, but having a big long argument and flamewar over two perfectly valid readings of the same sentence seems rather pointless and pedantic. Isn't the English language wonderful?
Re: (Score:2)
We're dealing with an evil/delusional Googler here. They do exist, I met some myself. Just notch that one up and move on. Not all Googlers are evil, in fact not even most. But more than should be.
Re: (Score:3)
It's shit like this that really makes me disgusted with this stupid site. The people here are sad, pathetic excuses for "nerds", and would really be better suited as lawyers, since they're clearly not scientists or engineers. Scientists and engineers don't have bullshit arguments over trivial grammar interpretations; they might have arguments over some technical details in software or electronics or physics or whatever, but not the English language. This is the domain of lawyers or English majors, and I
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First to resort to Ad Hominem loses. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
English isn't even my first language and I understood it easily the first time I read it.
"Clearly evil" doesn't mean "the most evil", and if you don't get that, YOU are the weakest link. This whole thread is BS, I truly feel for the OP :/
Re: (Score:2)
No need to. Just read it again: "clearly evil" doesn't mean "pinnacle of evil". It just means clearly evil.
Mods, get off the crack (I'm referring to the guy being modded down for giving you morons a lesson in fucking reading comprehension)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not evil at all, it's no different than what every union does
This is true.
/more/ power over their employees through such antics.
But... there is already a power differential between a worker an their boss. It would be hard to argue that employers need
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Mainly because unions are simply attempting to even the balance of power between corporations and employees. Nothing wrong with that.
Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the most clearly evil thing I know of Google doing. Apple has done plenty worse, but they don't make any claim to not being evil the way google does.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the most clearly evil thing I know of Google doing. Apple has done plenty worse, but they don't make any claim to not being evil the way google does.
Does one evil act make someone evil? If that's the standard, then absolutely everyone is evil, and evilness becomes a useless yardstick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google's done plenty of evil things over the years...
- Manipulating the yahoo executives to tank Microsoft takeover: if you are a yahoo shareholder, that one ranks right up there.
- If you were a user of any of the sites which they bought and closed down (JaiKu, Gears, Lively, Wave, etc, etc)
- Supporting proposals (e.g, w/ Verison), that gut net neutrality rules for new wireless internet services.
- Using their corporate muscle to buy discount landing rights at Moffett field for their founders plane to land a
A little perspective is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.
I assume you were just being a little overzealous this morning (assuming you are in the US), but that is so wrong that I doubt even you really believe it. Whether you want to compare this no-poaching agreement with FoxConn or with the even more evil period of slavery in our country, there are probably numerous example every day of companies being more "evil" than this.
That said, I hope they are penalized harshly for this, and not just in the court of public opinion. Because as someone else already said, I
Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil.
Ok, seriously, I'm not defending what they did but "evil"? Really? Come on! Can we please get some sense of perspective. What they did was wrong. What they did was possibly morally unethical. But evil? No. Evil is reserved for a special breed of person/organization/action. What they did was not evil. All you're doing by branding them "evil" is utterly watering down the meaning of the word and completely weakening your stance.
Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right, what these corporations did was "somewhat evil" but not "completely, totally evil". Right, we understand that. Now lets move on to the "illegal" aspect of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss my point - I'll spell it out for you - it was NOT evil. Not somewhat. Not a little bit. Not "in my opinion". It was NOT evil.
Re: (Score:3)
So far as I know, Google is the only company involved who make the claim to not being evil. All the others admit to it.
Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:5, Insightful)
A few nits to pick.
Google didn't claim to not be evil. They approve an internal motto of "don't be evil" which is far from the same thing. The motto got leaked and they've been paying for it ever since, because nearly any action could be seen as evil by someone.
Re: (Score:3)
Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out,"
It was an intentional deliberate statement that Google wanted people to know. Or from Google's Investors Page Code of Conduct [google.com]. It's not a misunderstood or leaked idea.
Re:a nice whopper of an evil by Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Since incorporation means that you obligate yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else, it is not much of a stretch to say it also effectively obligates you to evil.
Uh, no. Maybe you can argue that an IPO or accepting outside investment obligates yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else, but not incorporation in and of itself. If my LLC cared about profit over all else, I'd be charging a lot more for my services.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorporation itself does not mean you obligate yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else. Having outside investors does.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are all worse, and equally clearly beyond the gray zone.
Re: (Score:2)
No, those are more evil, but not any clearer. Once you're safely beyond the gray zone, there's no more clarity to be achieved. 100% is 100%. There is no 101%.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he was threatening litigation over something perfectly legal (e.g. patents) if they did not collude.
Re: (Score:2)
this is going to fly way under the radar, as it affects their employees, not customers
Nice theory, but I have one word for you: conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Seems like you're the one crying. You're the one resorting to Ad Hominem and shouty letters. You seem quite upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Any other such "secret" agreements out there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Any other such "secret" agreements out there? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the 90's I was working at Sun Microsystems, and I had gotten a call for a job at Cisco because a colleague had recommended me (unbeknownst to me). When I told the recruiter who had phoned me that I was currently at Sun, she said "oh, we can't hire you until you get permission from Scott to talk to us. Scott and John have an agreement to not go after each others employees."
So these things have been around a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't matter (Score:2)
Unless all employees are in the class and assumed to increase their salaries 10% during the time frame; the resulting lawsuit/settlement has little to no chance of being more expensive then if all the companies had been competing for talent as it will be extremely difficult to prove financial damages. I am very disappointed in the DOJ settling this one with little more then a "don't do it again" as they may have been the only way to stop this cold going forward.
Misnomer (Score:5, Funny)
They're nerd rustling. Hence the (now trademarked) "Yahoo!"
Admitting No Wrongdoing (Score:5, Insightful)
The seven companies were also investigated in this connection by the U.S. Department of Justice, and they settled in 2010 while admitting no wrongdoing, but agreed not to ban cold calling and not to enter into any agreements that prevent competition for employees.
Is anyone else sick of seeing this type of solution? Bank robbers aren't allowed to go free if they don't admit wrong doing but promise not to rob anymore banks in the future. There is no disincentive if the companies (and the people making these agreements) aren't punished for their behaviour.
This is hardly new (Score:5, Informative)
My grandpa had to move clear across the country back in the 50s because of "no poaching" deals in the aircraft industry on the east coast. The only way to advance was for someone above you in your company to retire/die/quit/get fired then they'd fill the gap. And no worries for the company about having to provide competitive wages. If they caught someone sniffing around another company, the person was fired and blacklisted. If someone from another company came sniffing around, they'd call the other company and the person would be fired and blacklisted. It's pretty close to creating a slave labor force. Sure, the shackles are padded but it's very demoralizing to know that trying to advance your career could end it.
Re: (Score:2)
My grandpa had to move clear across the country back in the 50s because of "no poaching" deals in the aircraft industry on the east coast. The only way to advance was for someone above you in your company to retire/die/quit/get fired then they'd fill the gap. And no worries for the company about having to provide competitive wages. If they caught someone sniffing around another company, the person was fired and blacklisted. If someone from another company came sniffing around, they'd call the other company and the person would be fired and blacklisted. It's pretty close to creating a slave labor force. Sure, the shackles are padded but it's very demoralizing to know that trying to advance your career could end it.
I'm not that old, but I would hazard a guess that the aircraft industry in the 50's was as hot or better than IT is today.
It's not fair in a relative sense, and we can safely argue amongst our peers the value of our work, but the upper middle class complaining about padded shackles is a lot like the CEO of BP wanting his life back.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not that old, but I would hazard a guess that the aircraft industry in the 50's was as hot or better than IT is today.
It's not fair in a relative sense, and we can safely argue amongst our peers the value of our work, but the upper middle class complaining about padded shackles is a lot like the CEO of BP wanting his life back.
OK, then, try another analogy. Look at the lifetime contract rules in place in MLB until Curt Flood finally got them nullified. Look at the difference in player salaries before
Re: (Score:3)
It's a slippery slope. You've gotta nip this crap in the bud before it has a chance to grow.
open salary discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
These conracts couldnt ever really work if people were allowed talk salary...There is nothing for me that is more awkward than when I have to answer that question from a prospective employer about salary, I don't know if I am really too high for the market or if he is BSing me to pay me less...
I just wish people were a little less shy about talking salary...am i worth 70 80 or 110k per year? I honestly don't know, so I just take a guess, its like throwing darts, I cant really put much stock in sites like CBSalaries and Glassdoor because I dont know where they get their data, how do I know it isnt just the companies putting in low ball salaries?
Re:open salary discussion (Score:4, Interesting)
When you look at glass door, you look at the range. Let's say it's 80k-210k for 5 years experience in silicon valley area. You discount the low end of the range, that's probably low-balling efforts by companies. You discount the high end, that's people bragging, or factoring in positive stock outcomes in order to inflate their self worth. You look at the average value, say 123, add about 10% (to account for the sandbagging). So call that 135. Then you ask yourself, am I better than the average, or worse? Add an appropriate percentage. Let's say you're a little better than average, but you know you're not a superstar. Bump yourself up another 10%. Call that 150.
You've now arrived at a reasonably fair value, in spite of the distortions present in the system.
Also, if you have any friends in your industry but not at your company, you can ask them (and discount about 10-20% for the bragging factor).
Re: (Score:3)
I know of many companies (including my own) that have policies against openly discussing salaries between employees at the same level. But there's really no way to stop it when employees are away from the office. It's just that Cathy can't mention the fact that Mike makes more than her up when she's negotiating pay with her manager. Nor can anybody stop the sharing of this information between employees of two different companies as long as it takes place out of sight of management.
The biggest discrepanci
Re:open salary discussion (Score:5, Informative)
These contracts couldn't ever really work if people were allowed talk salary
Of course you can talk salary. It's a legal right in the US. (29 U.S.C.157). Here's the NRLB workplace poster [nlrb.gov]. Report employer violations to 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) .
Under the NLRA, you have the right to:
Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If you believe your rights or the rights of others have been violated, you should contact the NLRB promptly to protect your rights, generally within six months of the unlawful activity. You may inquire about possible violations without your employer or anyone else being informed of the inquiry. Charges may be filed by any person and need not be filed by the employee directly affected by the violation. The NLRB may order an employer to rehire a worker fired in violation of the law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and may order an employer or union to cease violating the law. Employees should seek assistance from the nearest regional NLRB office, which can be found on the Agencyâ(TM)s Web site: http://www.nlrb.gov/ [nlrb.gov] You can also contact the NLRB by calling toll-free: 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) or (TTY) 1-866-315-NLRB (1-866-315-6572) for hearing impaired.
NRLB enforcement was weak under the Bush Administration. Now they're back. Here's a case where an employer fired someone for posting about working conditions on Facebook. The NLRB forced the employer to rehire them with back pay. [nlrb.gov]
Re:open salary discussion - this has been solved (Score:3)
In such a negotiation, you never want to give your salary requirement first.
Possible answers are
"This is not the same position as my last job, so I don't think my last salary is really relevent"
"Let us discuss requirements and expectations first before discussing salary"
"I am very interested in the position, and I am sure you will pay in line with the market -- a fair and reasonable amount"
"I am sure you know what this position is worth to your company and that's important for me to know. I am sure that you
just more evidence... (Score:2, Insightful)
...of what a truly despicable person Steve Jobs was.
Re: (Score:2)
...and Eric Schmidt, and Sergey Brin, and Larry Page. You left them out.
Don't Tease me Bro! (Score:2, Insightful)
A giant "anti-trust" lawsuit regarding only a "no cold-call" policy? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
All that means is that when someone is happily working at the job they actually applied for, they wouldn't be teased by some other company offering them more money.
It says NOTHING about if an employee was fired, and once again applied for a job at a competitor, whether they would take him/her or not (which would most likely be a resounding yes).
Nor does it imply anything in the situation where a
You think conspiracies against employees are okay? (Score:3)
Seriously? These huge corporation conspire to stomp their employees, and that's cool?
How is this not anti-competition? How is this not oligopoly abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
IT employers again conspire against employees (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been going on for a long time.
There was Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Just recently there was a bill before congress to eliminate overtime for IT employees. Nobody else, just IT employees.
The entire H-1B visa workers scam was manufactured to bash tech employees.
The reason that techies are so easy to stomp, is that techies are not organized. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and so on, are organized, and they can protect themselves (to some extent) against conspiring employers. Techies will never learn.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire H-1B visa workers scam was manufactured to bash tech employees.
Not to bash -- to force them to compete for salaries and working conditions with indentured servants (people for whom getting fired means getting deported). If it just "bashed" them it wouldn't be nearly as harsh. If someone resides in a country and is allowed to work there, they are not "guest workers". They are resident aliens. And they deserve the appropriate status -- a green card. If foreign IT workers could leave work and not be afraid that firing means getting their family uprooted, that would do
Re: (Score:2)
Just recently there was a bill before congress to eliminate overtime for IT employees. Nobody else, just IT employees.
The bill being referred to by the parent was the CPU act (cute acronym). The status is here [govtrack.us]. Thankfully it seems kinda stalled but three more cosponsors signed on since it was first read on Oct 20, 2011.
developers come in, developers don't leave (Score:2)
However, I understand the logic... (Score:4, Insightful)
From the company's perspective, they would hardly get anything done if their key staff members were switching sides all the time. From my point of view the "no cold-call" agreement makes sense. I would even go further saying that this should be a general law. If I own a small business, I would hate some big company throwing its money around at my employees, tempting them all the time. If they want to leave my company, in search for greener pa$tures, it should be THEIR initiative, not because someone planted the idea in their mind out of thin air. And I don't see how this freezes salaries and/or hinders employee development. If someone in my staff is unhappy with his job, THEY can call my competitors and ask for a job offer. They can then come to me with that offer and ask me to top it or otherwise make changes so that they stay. But having the other firms sniffing around all the time is just annoying.
Re:Cold calls? (Score:5, Informative)
"Hi Mr. X, we'd like to pay you 25% more to come work for us if you're a good fit for the team."
I love my job and the people I work with, but if Google called with that offer, I would listen. I would be stupid to not listen and at least give my boss the opportunity to make a counter-offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Then call Google and let them know you're interested. The agreement doesn't say they won't hire people away, it says they won't initiate the contact (i.e. "cold call").
Re:Cold calls? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cold calls offering employment opportunity trade the negative of disruption against the positive of the opportunity offered. So long as the cold caller is legitimately offering you something of value, I think they can reasonably make the case that their call is ethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Are they calling you at the office (IMHO, a big "NO NO") or at home (am I on the "do not call list for cold call recruiting")?
Re: (Score:3)
They are almost universally calling employee-owned cell phones. They have no way to know if you are in the office or at home in advance of the call. They might make a reasonable guess, but they could still be wrong.
Re:Cold calls? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a pharmacist and I get cold called, at work, at least 4 times every month. I want to shove the phone up their ass and twist it.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them ... and you are pissed about it? I do get annoyed by recruiters who consistently email and call me, but that is just because they never really have a specific job they need you for. But this story is talking about companies specifically targetting valuable employees they want to hire (with a high enough salary bump to make them jump ship).
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig. --
A team member who lacks loyalty, or lacks job satisfaction may take the opportunity to switch employers. A more loyal team member, may take this offer and negotiate higher pay with their current employer. Either way, the employee benefits. This is not against the economic interests of the employee. In
Re: (Score:3)
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
You must be new here.
Re:Cold calls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you clinically delusional or just stupid?
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
No there isn't, employers will lay you off in a heartbeat if it's in their interest. They'll provide no raises and pay new hires 20% more. They'll do everything they can to pay you as little as possible.
The possibility of you leaving is what keep them inline, if they know you won't leave then they'll fuck you up the ass till you need wear an adult diaper. It's called capitalism and supply and demand. Look it up sometime.
I've been treated rather well by my employers and that's because they knew I could leave and find a new job within a week for probably more pay. I also know many people who don't have that luxury and they did not get the same treatment as me.
and the employee will not part for something as low as a 30% change in pay, and nor will the employer necessarily fire the employee just because they found someone willing and able to do the same job for 30% less.
30% is considered low for you? What are you smoking. In most places that's around 10 years worth of experience at least and there's no way in hell you'll get a raise like that from your employer. That's an extra 30k per year in decent IT jobs.
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
Yeah, great idea. Hire people for pennies on the dollar during a recession and then lock them in even when the economy recovers. *rolls eyes*
Some companies love people like you, so easy to underpay you and make you their bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes but in a way it is the fear (and cost) of losing that valuable employee that keeps a company inline. The contract, the research and so on and so on. Replacing any employee is expensive but that doesn't mean, for example, they won't underpay them as much as possible if they can. Companies know that it's also expensive for an employee to switch jobs and they will happily take advantage of that.
I've been through four rounds of layoffs at two companies, one thing I've learned is that no one is safe. If it's
Re: (Score:3)
A team member who lacks loyalty
Considering most companies have no loyalty to their employees, I don't care that employees don't show loyalty to their employers. In fact, I prefer it.
The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
Sucks to be them. That's the nature of competition.
Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
If that's happening, then clearly the employer was not treating their employees good enough. I cannot blame a worker for deciding to go to another company who is willing to treat them better.
Re: (Score:3)
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
This is quite possibly the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM YET. You have basically said that employers should not have to compete for employees, and that any employee who feels they are not a fit, or that they want to move on should have to do so at a sacrifice to both their earning power and their skillset, making them less attractive to other potential employers.
If you don't want your employees to leave, treat them better. That's all you have to do. Yes, that can cost money, and yes, it means that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because A has no authority over B's actions. If A doesn't want to provide its employees with phone service, or wants to deny calls from B to office phones that's all fine, that's their equipment. But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
Employer B picking up their phones is fine.
The issue is Employer B harrassing Employer A by calling Employer A's phone numbers, and attempting to disrupt staff from doing their jobs, by enticing them to personally jump ship and join Employer A.
Employees may have a use of a phone in their office, and might even have a direct extension, but it seems reasonable that if Employer A has issues with the calls, they could contact Emplo
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones. I have personally received 3 of these to my cell, and none to my work phone. So far as I know, this is the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones.
In that case, the Employee has somehow provided their phone number. Their current employer has no right to say what calls they can take on their personal cell phones, or what calls other people can make to an employee cell phone.
The only person Employer A has to complain to in this case is the employee, if they chose to take the call while they're supposed to be working, against ta
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And almost everyone in the industry in question (silicon valley engineering) has pretty complete discretion to take personal calls built into their employment agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
So B is both a competing employer and A's employee? If A is paying B to work, and B is using that time to recruit A's employees instead of doing the contracted work, then A probably has a legal claim against B.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it seems clear how you'd make the case that the employees could be restricted, after all, they are being paid to work. But how are you making the case that B can be restricted?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they meant. They threaten to sue Palm using their patent portfolio unless Palm plays ball on the do-not-cold-call game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He's probably the only one on staff not celebrating 4-20.
Are you kidding? If the editors got totally baked, it could only improve their efforts.
I, for one, would welcome our totally zoned out Slashdot Overlords^HEditors.
Re: (Score:2)
If corporations weren't people you couldn't take them to court and sue them when they behaved poorly.
The problem is the political status of corporations. They shouldn't have the ability to make campaign contributions or lobby etc. The aggregate financial power distorts the process.
It's a surrogate for voting which they feel entitled too because they pay taxes.
IMNSHO corporations should not be taxed nor be able to participate in politics. The taxes should fall on the owners of the corporations - which will g
Re: (Score:3)
Small problem, nobody in their right mind would take a job that made them personally subject to criminal prosecution for the actions of others.
As far as owners of small corporations, they are eligible for the corporate liability shield just as much as any other owner of a corporation. You can't sue them any more than you can sue CALPERS.
You seem to be woefully ignorant of corporate law, the reasons behind it, and it's history. Perhaps you should do some reading.
Re:Ahhhh! Corporations own the government! (Score:5, Informative)
You can vote out your government.
You can't vote a damn thing out of Apple and Google.
Not a great choice, but by far the best choice we have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in theory. Practically speaking, the political parties in the US have all of the votes locked up (in part due to agreements to not participate in debates with other parties due to the 1996 upset.). And both parties are basically the same.
Re: (Score:3)
It is possible to vote in publicly traded corps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't do that with Google. The class B shares held by insiders get literally 10 times the votes of the publicly traded class A shares. Unless Larry or Sergey agree with you, you're not making Google do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other difference is that you have only ONE government, so it damn well better get things right. Atleast I can opt out of supporting google and apple if I choose. Not so much with the government. Of course the flip side of all this is that the megacorps and elite, with the purchased support of our lovely elected officials are working hard to make it impossible for the little guys to 'vote with our dollars'. You have the freedom to choose option A, or option B citizen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You sound like a principled person who has well thought out reasons for taking positions. I can respect that, even though I think most of those beliefs are dead wrong as far as running a fair and just society go. For example, the only competition anti-union policies encourage is workers with each other in a race to the bottom. It reduces bargaining power of workers in an already clearly imperfect market.
Conservatives tend to paint all regulation with the same brush too, when there are clearly multiple typ
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know of any conservatives who support this kind of effort.
Okay, great. Now, what are conservatives willing to do about it? We liberals are pretty clear about our preferred solutions (strengthening unions, anti-trust enforcement, etc.) Do you have any actual ideas from your side of the aisle? Note that "less regulation and lower union involvement" don't count, because it's pretty clear that that approach does not work [wikipedia.org] in restraining oligopolist behavior.
Conservatives, come up with new ideas! (Score:4, Interesting)
I want to mod you up, but it wouldn't be clear why I think your words deserve more notice, so I'm replying instead.
Conservatives often have (what I consider) valid criticisms of liberals' proposed solutions to various problems.
The problem is, instead of offering alternative solutions, they deny the problems.
We need to get a dialogue going on both sides of the aisle which both acknowledges the existence of the problems, and the inadequacy of the proposed solutions currently on the table, and begins brainstorming new ideas, instead of this monotonous repetition of "There is a problem and THIS is the solution!" vs "That solution sucks, therefore there is no problem." Somebody needs to say "There is a problem; now, what is the solution?"
Re:It's GOOD! (Score:5, Funny)
I read the body of the message first, and as soon as I saw the huge leap between the first paragraph & the second I knew it was you.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, suing is a very good way to ask questions. The difference is that in a lawsuit, you can ask the judge to order the other party to answer. And she might just do that for a reasonable question.