Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Technology

RIM Accuses Motorola of Blocking Job Offers 353

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the if-i-can-have-you-nobody-will dept.
theodp writes "Taking a page from the insanely-jealous-husband-playbook, Motorola management has adopted an if-I-can't-have-you-nobody-can stance on its fired employees, reportedly blocking RIM from offering jobs to laid-off workers. In a complaint filed in state court, Motorola is charged with improperly trying to expand a previous agreement 'to prevent the RIM entities from hiring any Motorola employees, including the thousands of employees Motorola has already fired or will fire.' Through its Compete America membership, Motorola has repeatedly warned Congress that failing to accommodate the lobbying group members' 'principled' demand for timely access to talent would not be in the United States' economic interest and would make the US second-rate in education and basic research."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIM Accuses Motorola of Blocking Job Offers

Comments Filter:
  • Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zerth (26112) on Friday December 26, 2008 @12:59PM (#26235435) Homepage

    But if you aren't playing with your toys, you have to share with the other children.

    If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.

    • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tsstahl (812393) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:13PM (#26235515)

      If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.

      Can we get a +6 insightful?

      I hope Motorola's lawyers get spanked so hard, the stockholders have hand prints on their butts.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by soloes (415223)

      Cant say im surprised after reading their letter to congress.
      They want to keep Americans unemplyed and sell our jobs overseas.

      I truly hope that teh execs at motorla rot in hell with ken lay. (keep people hungry to pad your own bonus, dante didnt even have a layer of hell for that!)

      • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mixmatch (957776) on Friday December 26, 2008 @02:29PM (#26235947) Homepage

        and sell our jobs overseas.

        What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ScrewMaster (602015) *

          and sell our jobs overseas.

          What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?

          Short answer: no.

        • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hplus (1310833) on Friday December 26, 2008 @02:45PM (#26236031)
          You forget about differences in worker protection laws, environmental regulations, etc. that create artificial differences in the price of labor between different regions of the world.
        • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)

          by phliar (87116) on Friday December 26, 2008 @03:04PM (#26236129) Homepage

          "Cheaper" is just another word for exploitation. I think you're the one displaying hatred -- why do you think that workers in other countries don't deserve the rights, benefits and salaries that you get? I got mine, fuck the rest!

          How's this: companies can outsource to people from these "shithole countries" to reduce their costs as long as they also reduce their salaries and bonuses to what execs in that country get.

          We as a society need to remember that corporations exist at the pleasure of society, and must not be allowed to destroy society to make a buck.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jlarocco (851450)

            We as a society need to remember that corporations exist at the pleasure of society, and must not be allowed to destroy society to make a buck.

            No they don't, at least no more than you exist for the "pleasure of society". Corporations exist because it's a convenient way to organize a group of people. Society has nothing to do with it.

          • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Deagol (323173) on Friday December 26, 2008 @05:52PM (#26236909) Homepage

            Sure, the worst of capitalism results in our exploitation of less developed nations. However, the worst of consumerism is why people in the US "need" the high salaries/wages/benefits that drive companies overseas for their labor. In then end, it comes down to the greed and gluttonly of everyone.

            I support a family of four (myself, wife, plus two kids). This year, my year-end gross from my job: $9243. I work 2 hours a day, from home. A small real estate investment a few years ago grosses me about $1200/year, and that will be gone in maybe 5 years. In total, we live comfortably on under $12k/year.

            How do we manage this? We live cheaply, humbly, and within our means.

            I'm $1000 away from having our 1000-ft^2 fixer-upper (cost $40k) home paid off, which is the last of our debt. No consumer debt -- never again. Our single beater of a car is paid off, and it gets good mileage. We raise much of our own food, and hunt a little to supplement. Between the garden and livestock (meat, eggs, milk), we produced 90 days' worth of calories for the entire family this year. Not bad for 1/4 of an acre. Sure, there were some inputs (grains, hay, straw, etc.), but the cost of animal feed is far cheaper than people feed, plus you get a healthier, tastier product. What we do purchase, we buy staples in bulk and cook damned near everything from scratch. Store-bought white flour is "convenience food" in our house (yes, we grow and mill wheat for some of our flour needs). We use whole, unprocessed foods as much as possible. We don't indulge in health insurance, as there's no need -- we enjoy a very healthy diet and we never get sick.

            We buy most clothing from second-hand stores. We haven't paid for broadcast TV in 8 years, opting to view select shows via Netflix or sites like Hulu. Related to the no TV stance, we avoid advertising, thus our kids (as well as ourselves) are not enticed to by useless crap, and we are quite happy with a few occasional luxuries (coffee, internet, movies, and PC games). We don't celebrate Christmas (the wife and I being atheist, and the kids not indoctrinated to any religious philosophy), so we don't buy anyone anything. For "the holidays" we treated each child to $20, and they get a few things from extended family. No cell phones. We cut our own hair (well, the kids -- the wife and I have long hair). Wife doesn't get her hair or nails done, and she doesn't wear makeup. I telecommute, and don't incur the costs of dressing nicely, commuting, and eating out for lunch every day. We home-school our kids, so we don't need to pay pointless school fees.

            Our unavoidable (for now) monthlies are: $50 for landline+DSL, $25-to-$200 (depending on the season) for electricity, $20 for auto insurance (I hardly drive, so I get "pleasure" use rate, state minimum coverage), and $15 for county trash pick-up. At the worst of times (dead of winter), we spend $200/month for food and livestock feed. At the best of times, we spend almost nothing for food. Maybe $20/month for gas, even when it was $4/gallon.

            I don't expect everyone in this country to go as hard-core with the simple living as we do. Somewhere, though, there should be a balance between the $12k/year I enjoy now vs the $55k/year at my earning peak (with all the expense, hassle and stress that lifestyle mandates) to support a family. If the majority of people lived without consuming so much, this world would be a far better place, and we'd all be able to live well without demanding so much in income. And if that happened, companies wouldn't need to outsource. Of course, if much of the population scaled back their living, companies would be forced to scale back what they would accept in profitability.

            In summary, wage disparity between the typical US worker and the typical third world worker isn't always about exploitation. Some people -- like myself -- just live simpler lives. If a worker in another country has a roof over their heads, access to food and clean water, and isn't under duress to perform th

            • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)

              by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Friday December 26, 2008 @06:38PM (#26237147) Journal

              Just one question: Where did you find a woman willing to marry you?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Dun Malg (230075)

              Somewhere, though, there should be a balance between the $12k/year I enjoy now vs the $55k/year at my earning peak (with all the expense, hassle and stress that lifestyle mandates) to support a family. If the majority of people lived without consuming so much, this world would be a far better place, and we'd all be able to live well without demanding so much in income.

              Heck, if everyone just scaled back and lived without TV, fancy cars, hairdos and nailjobs, fine clothes, or processed food, we'd all live happier, simpler lives.... unless we're TV installers, auto workers, hair stylists, garment workers, or food service workers, in which case wed be unemployed and living on $0. "Scaling back" is fine on a limited, individual basis, but you can't have the majority of people living "simplified" lives without actually reverting to pre-industrial subsistence farming. You're ad

          • by p0tat03 (985078)

            Exploitation doesn't last forever. My mother worked as a child laborer in an third-world Asian country in the past, and it is with that hard-earned pittance that she was able to go to school and get an education. As opposed to if the "workers' champions" of the world got their way, she'd have been stuck in that shack in the mountains somewhere in Asia even now.

            Just look at China - they are seeing a surge in interest in workers' rights. Once income improves to a certain extent, people will start looking at q

        • by Tablizer (95088) on Friday December 26, 2008 @04:22PM (#26236511) Homepage Journal

          What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?

          From a more practical perspective, we are already running a huge trade deficit. Some economists say this doesn't matter, but others say it risks nasty bubbles and major instability. If the US continues being the dumping ground for cheap products and services, this bubble risk grows as the trade imbalances create credit bubbles. Economists tend to under-estimate bubbles, perhaps because they are overconfident in their ability to "fix" them, so I will take the view of the "bubblers".

          Further, many times those countries are cheaper because they lack regulations that keep us safe and healthy. They may have 60-hour work-weeks in asbestos-festered offices or work with dangerous chemicals and pollution in factories. It's unfair if we have to compete with regulations that they don't have.

          Further, it would push us to all be Walmart greeters and shoes salesmen as "non-face" jobs shift to where the labor is cheaper. Diversity in careers would diminish, and lack of diversity is also a bubble-risk.

          The "open borders" labor thinking just has too many unsolved problems. Adam Smith's equations need a rewrite to reflect risk and uncertainty better. Maximizing an economy based over-simplistic models is partly what got us into the current mess.
             

          • by Alpha830RulZ (939527) on Friday December 26, 2008 @04:59PM (#26236675)

            Further, many times those countries are cheaper because they lack regulations that keep us safe and healthy.

            I think this is right on. I'm in favor of letting jobs move around the world, but in order for this to work and be fair, the countries around the world need to operate at a common level of protection for workers, environment, etc. I think in equilibrium, this means that the US and Europe need to back off some, and Asia/Mexico/etc need to step up.

            I'd like to see the first world countries motivate this through a differential level of tariffs that equalize costs for businesses between the countries.

            This is not a quick or easy solution. You have to have it, though, or we'll get a race to the bottom as production flees to countries with the lowest regulatory costs.

        • Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Insightful)

          by pwizard2 (920421) on Friday December 26, 2008 @05:12PM (#26236721)

          What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?

          NO.

          There are not enough good jobs to go around. That's why globalization is bad for everyone except the rich. It's a race to the bottom for everyone else, and if people in the USA have to compete for jobs with people living in the third world who would do the same job for peanuts, everyone ends up living in squalor and no one gets ahead. I'll go as far to say that I would rather see a job go unfilled forever than see it outsourced.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by walterbyrd (182728)

          You want to be fair, and have no protectionist practices? Okay, when does India stop being protectionist? In case you didn't know, India is extremely protectionist.

          And maybe India isn't wrong. I think it can be argued that it is the right, and responsibility of any nation to protect it's own national interests.

          At the very least, it would be nice if US corporations stopped lying about the severe shortages of US workers. For example Microsoft wants to lay off Americans, and hire unlimited h1bs.

          Microsoft Plans To Cut Jobs By 10 Percent
          The reality is, this should be no surprise to anyone currently in the technology sector. The industry is bleeding and other companies such as Yahoo, Google, Sun, and Sony recently had massive layoffs.

          http://www.new [newsoxy.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:51PM (#26235749)

      Sigh. It's bad enough that I can't get my girlfriend to give me a RIM job.

    • by vigour (846429)

      But if you aren't playing with your toys, you have to share with the other children.

      If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.

      Nah, they just don't like it when their engineers get rimmed.

      You never go ass to mouth.

  • Move to CA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rinisari (521266) * on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:00PM (#26235441) Homepage Journal

    If RIM had a division in California, they could hire anyone they wanted since California law essentially forbids non-compete clauses [wikipedia.org].

    There was a recent Slashdot discussion about this when a Former IBM Exec Ordered To Stop Working For Apple [slashdot.org].

    • Re:Move to CA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:12PM (#26235507) Homepage

      Actually, this could easily pave the way for legislation to make every state like California. In this age of rising unemployment, legislation that removes arbitrary restrictions of this nature on employment only makes timely sense. Sure, it would make some businesses angry, but they don't vote. And truly, anyone who preaches "free market society" and at the same time seeks to "limit the competition" doesn't know what the spirit of the free market is about.

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        In this age of rising unemployment, legislation that removes arbitrary restrictions of this nature on employment only makes timely sense.

        So how do you prevent someone from quitting or being poached and taking their technical or company specific knowledge to a competitor?

        • Re:Move to CA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by zifferent (656342) on Friday December 26, 2008 @03:00PM (#26236109)

          So how do you prevent someone from quitting or being poached and taking their technical or company specific knowledge to a competitor?

          Pay the person what they are worth to your company!

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by TheoMurpse (729043)

        Yes, but how would this be any less reactionary and ill-advised (i.e., to negate the freedom to contract) than passing the PATRIOT Act because of terrorism, etc.?

        If we criticize Congress for passing overreactive laws in response to the fear of a terroristic death, shouldn't we also rightly criticize Congress for passing overreactive laws in response to the fear of an economic death?

        I worry about Congress, in the current climate, passing an overrestrictive law destroying much of the freedom to contract.

    • by Chyeld (713439)

      Of course if they did that, then they'd lose their own non-competes. Which, I doubt is something they are all that interested in.

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by florescent_beige (608235) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:01PM (#26235451) Journal

    Interesting to see how the paragons of capitalism don't believe in the free market.

    A company I once worked for once had a written policy that anyone who had ever worked as a direct employee could not be hired at a later date as a contractor (contracting is very lucrative in this industry). I always thought that sounded legally dubious but despite some efforts the media had no interest in pursuing it.

    I eventually left that company to contract at a competitor. On my last day the director of engineering told me "You realize I can't approve of this." To which I did not reply, but always wished I had "I can not approve of the way you accept public subsidies and then exported my job to Ireland."

    Can't wait until I get a little older so I can name names.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:06PM (#26235477) Journal

      Interesting to see how the paragons of capitalism don't believe in the free market.

      Motorola is no paragon of capitalism. They've been part of the military-industrial complex for a very long time.

      As for responding to that clown on your last day, I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.

      -jcr

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

        As for responding to that clown on your last day, I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.

        -jcr

        It's too bad circumstances have led you to have a "tend to" regarding this kind of conversation.

        • by jcr (53032)

          I say "tend", because I wouldn't necessarily deliver that line verbatim.

          -jcr

          • I say "tend", because I wouldn't necessarily deliver that line verbatim.

            -jcr

            True ... something along the lines of "fuck off" is often more appropriate. Feel free to interpret the general sentiment to suit your particular situation.

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Friday December 26, 2008 @02:04PM (#26235821)

        Motorola is no paragon of capitalism. They've been part of the military-industrial complex for a very long time.

        Yes, and China suckered them out of a lot of money and technology too. Motorola is only reaping what they've sown, so far as I'm concerned.

        I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.

        Back in the mid-eighties I worked for an outfit that really tried to nail their developers to the wall, contract-wise. When I was hired, I was given a bunch of papers to sign ... one of them was this completely outrageous non-complete/non-disclosure agreement. It said (among other bits of obnoxiousness) that any software I wrote, any products I developed, whether relevant to my work or the industry, or not, even if done on my own time, for a period of five years after I left employment with the company was the property of the company. In addition, I was not allowed to work as a software developer during the same period. I mean, what the Hell? Was I supposed to just switch careers after leaving the place? Anyway, that incredible document went on for some time in the same vein ... I'm not even a lawyer but I could see the ridiculousness of it. Probably it wouldn't have been enforceable, but I had an attorney look it over. He didn't even finish reading it before he said, "You'd be nuts to sign this." So I didn't.

        Well, I got hired anyway, and apparently nobody noticed that I hadn't signed the thing because a few months later the HR guy's secretary comes by with a bunch of papers on a clipboard, and asked me to sign it at the bottom. "Just routine", she said, or words to that effect. I immediately noticed that there were several rather innocuous sheets on top, and underneath ... was that stupid NC/NDA. Sneaky. But I told her I had no intention of signing it.

        She went away, and back comes the HR guy himself. He was nice enough, but he tried to convince me that I had to sign it, "Why is it a problem? Everyone else here signed it." I told him that if my continued employment was dependent upon that "agreement", that I would happily clean out my desk right then and there. He went away, and that was the last I heard of it. I was serious, however, and if they'd pushed the matter I'd have walked out right then and there. As it happens, I work in an "at-will" State: sometimes that sucks, but sometimes it works in your favor.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jcr (53032)

          I had a similar situation, where the sticking point was the phrase "remedy of specific performance", which my sister (who is a lawyer) told me was completely beyond the pale, and then explained to me what it meant. In a nutshell, if I had signed that, I would have been agreeing to an injunction to force me to return to work for them if I left and they wanted me back.

          I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that it was boilerplate that they didn't understand, explained it to the company presi

        • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday December 26, 2008 @03:27PM (#26236247) Homepage

          She went away, and back comes the HR guy himself. He was nice enough, but he tried to convince me that I had to sign it, "Why is it a problem? Everyone else here signed it." I told him that if my continued employment was dependent upon that "agreement", that I would happily clean out my desk right then and there. He went away, and that was the last I heard of it. I was serious, however, and if they'd pushed the matter I'd have walked out right then and there. As it happens, I work in an "at-will" State: sometimes that sucks, but sometimes it works in your favor.

          Thank you. It's tough to do the right thing sometimes, and you took a big risk. Your integrity helps all of us, and our entire industry.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gmai l . c om> on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:25PM (#26235581)

      No one who is a paragon of "Capitalism" believes in "Free Market" regardless of the mouthings their PR tasked people make. The aim of any successful capitalist is to leverage yourself into the position of having all the capital and therefore controlling the market. The only time free market is observed as a "good thing" by true capitalists is when forcing their competitors into one gives the capitalist an advantage.

      Economic theorists aside, only failed capitalists actually follow the theory of modern capitalism. In a way, it's much like Scientology in that respect. The initiates believe and the 'true believers' don't.

    • We have similar "No-Compete" clauses in our contracts here.
      They basically say that we are not allowed to enter competition with our (then former) employer for 5 years after the employment has ended.

      Is such bullshit even enforcable anywhere in the world?
      I mean it's obvious that I cannot work at, say, motorola, take a blueprint from them and start selling a knockoff later.

      But I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to start my own mobile phone business after having worked in one.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nursie (632944)

        5 Years?

        That's ridiculous.

        Non-competes are unethical in the first place, and 5 years is just stupid. Frankly I'd just ignore it.

        As long as you aren't actually taking designs, code or other property with you, they have no call to stop you and (AFAICT) no legal basis to do so either.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I always thought it would be brilliant if the Democrats developed a policy platform based on competition. Real competition.

        Where the vision would be a marketplace where the small guy could take down the big guy based on brains and good ideas. The only tool the big guy would have to fight back would would be brains. Not legal shenanigans based on deep pockets, old boys clubs and family fortunes.

        The policy should proudly proclaim that today's underprivileged are encouraged to drive today's upper class back to

    • by rickb928 (945187)

      You don't have to. I know who your employer was.

      I won't rat them out, though. Despite their penchant for odd employment policies ( I contracted with them for a few months - that makes me a pariah for a while), they are still not so nasty as some.

      And they still make stuff in the U.S., which is something I will not damage now.

  • What bothers me most about Motorol's behavior here is that there are people who are not drawing a paycheck. Some are on unemployment and they could be back in the ranks of the employed, spending money and helping our economy... not to mention the personal ramifications of no longer being unemployed...
    However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed. they want to flare their feathers no matter who is hurt in their little a pissing match.
    We all wonder what went wrong when some ex husband dresses p as s

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jcr (53032)

      However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed.

      I see a massive and expensive class-action suit in the offing. Motorola shareholders should contact the company's general counsel and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut that shit out.

      -jcr

      • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:33PM (#26235635)

        However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed.

        I see a massive and expensive class-action suit in the offing. Motorola shareholders should contact the company's general counsel and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut that shit out.

        -jcr

        I doubt the shareholders give a damn, in fact, it's the shareholder's general lack-of-interest in ethical behavior that has bought corporate America to its current state. All Motorola's management would have to say is, "by doing this we're going to raise the share price." That would be the end of the matter so far as the shareholders are concerned.

        You're right though: it would certainly be in the employees best interests to get organized, talk to a good law firm, and apply for class-action status.

        Does anyone know exactly how many people we're talking about here? The articles linked were rather skimpy on details (in fact the first two were links to the same text.)

    • by rmadmin (532701)
      I somehow doubt your boycott of moto products are going to change anything. I have about 1000 Motorola cable modems, a couple dozen canopy, and a couple dozen digital set top boxes out in production that all have a Motorola tag on them. I'm not going to stop using them either, as they're good products. I do have a blackberry sitting on my desk too. :D

      I think where this will actually hurt them is when Motorola can't find employees willing to work under crap contract conditions. Though that's unlikely
  • fired vs quit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:10PM (#26235499) Homepage Journal

    I can't believe that anyone is even allowed to fire someone and then to prevent them from attempting to get another job anywhere they want.

    One thing is when someone quits and there is a non-competition agreement, another thing is when someone is fired. Has anyone ever lost in court to a company that fired them when they started working for a competitor?

    Everyone: if you are a 'permanent' employee, don't sign non-compete clauses, and if you do, at least modify them to say that if the company terminates your employment, then this clause does not apply.

    Nice of Motorola, by the way, to attempt and stop people that they fired from trying to find employment, especially in this economy. If anything is going to hurt economy of the USA it's going to be millions of unemployed people.

  • It is one thing to pass right to work laws which prevents labor to organize to prevent such bad behavior. It is understandable to to abuse the H!B visa system so that one can gain completive advantage by creating a workforce of indentured servants with little opportunity to protect themselves against abusive behavior, while jobs that legitimately use the H1B visa program, and do help the overall US economy, for instance skilled seasonal labor, goes unfilled. But preventing a person from earning a living?
    • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      Yeah, you know, if you had bothered to read the article you might have posted something that makes sense, instead you post that pile.

      This is not about employer-employee non-compete agreements. This is about two companies making a legally binding agreement not to poach each other's employees. Now, one of the companies, RIM, wants to renege on the agreement and has been sending job offers to Motorola's employees. Rim is choosing the employees using information gained through the agreement which specifically f

  • An improvement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ClubStew (113954) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:23PM (#26235567)

    ...and would make the U.S. second-rate in education and basic research.

    Since the US is far behind being 2nd in education - most notably math - wouldn't being 2nd be an improvement?

  • And they all have draconian NC contracts. It's actually rather sad; I've run into dozens of ex-Illinoisians (sp) here in NYC who simply don't understand that they can negotiate a NC agreement. And none who would ever dream that in many circumstances here in NY and NYC, you don't have to sign them at all without any risk to your employment.

    I started my tech career in Illinois, and I'm glad I did. It was incredibly competitive in Chicago in the early and mid 90s, and I learned more there in six years than
  • CorpAmerica (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bloobamator (939353) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:32PM (#26235625)
    People must wake up and realize that we allow the corps to employ us at OUR sufferance, not the other way around. Do not let them make you think they are doing you some huge favor by employing you. It's the other way around.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kneo24 (688412)

      Do not let them make you think they are doing you some huge favor by employing you. It's the other way around.

      Ah, so very true. I had to remind my bosses of that just very recently. They seemed to think it was acceptable to treat me like dirt and expect me to take it. When I left early for a day because I had enough of the shit, they were threatening to fire me the next day. Either fire me, or don't. Threats mean nothing. I just told him that the company needed me more than I needed that job (both of which are true). I'm still there. It's nice now as none of my bosses will speak directly to me or even look me in th

  • How can it possibly be in the economic interest of the US to allow a corporation to lay off/fire workers and then not allow them to accept a job in their own field?

    To side with RIM would be to side with forcing the taxpayers to pay unemployment/welfare benefits while the corp gets off scott free. I say make RIM pay these benefits if this is how they want it. In fact, I think that if such "noncompete" crap is to be legal at ALL, it should be allowed ONLY if the corporation pays the worker his/her regular s

    • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      Apparently, you didn't read or understand the write or the articles.

      First, RIM and Motorola have/had an agreement not to poach each other's employees.

      Second, the agreement in question is not about preventing employees from accepting jobs, but rather keeps RIM from making offers to Motorola employees.

      Third, RIM is the company trying to higher people from Motorola. If the court side's with RIM, RIM gets to hire the employees, which is the exact opposite of what you have described.

    • How can it possibly be in the economic interest of the US to allow a corporation to lay off/fire workers and then not allow them to accept a job in their own field?

      Well, RIM is Canadian, isn't it? Maybe we're just trying to make sure them furriners don't steal our American progress!

  • Agreement? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cdrguru (88047) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:37PM (#26235657) Homepage

    This sounds like it could very well be due to RIM taking advantage of some information it got from Motorola under NDA.

    RIM and Motorola had (have?) an agreement to share confidential information about some unrelated matter. RIM notices that Motorola is going to be laying off people from this information. RIM immediately starts soliciting these people that are likely to be laid off.

    Now that doesn't sound entirely reasonable, does it? Especially since these people can be approached on the basis of "we're offering you a job with a 25% cut in pay because we know you are about to lose your job."

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      You missed this part:

      RIM , in a complaint filed in state court in Chicago, asked for an order invalidating an agreement the companies reached this year not to solicit each other's employees, the agency said.

      The fact that RIM had already agreed NOT to solicit Motorola's employees makes this the lawsuit very unreasonable.

      • by rcw-home (122017)

        The fact that RIM had already agreed NOT to solicit Motorola's employees makes this the lawsuit very unreasonable.

        If you stop paying someone, they aren't your employee.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Chyeld (713439)

          And not one 'non-solicit' agreement I've ever seen uses that sort of definition and if a corporate lawyer of a company as large Motorola did, they'd deserve to join the laid off crew.

          Almost every one of those type of agreements have some sort of clause in them counting people who had been employeed at all in the past X years (actively employeed or not) as employees.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rcw-home (122017)

            Almost every one of those type of agreements have some sort of clause in them counting people who had been employeed at all in the past X years (actively employeed or not) as employees.

            Contract boilerplate is viral. Do you know of any case law upholding that? Just because someone signed something saying they wanna be a slave doesn't mean they are one.

  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Friday December 26, 2008 @01:51PM (#26235745) Journal

    The agreement expired in August and is no longer enforceable, the agency said, citing the complaint.

    The agreement has expired, then why the lawsuit?

    From one article:

    Motorola is improperly trying to expand the agreement 'to prevent the RIM entities from hiring any Motorola employees, including the thousands of employees Motorola has already fired or will fire,' RIM was quoted as saying in the complaint by the agency.

    But from the other:

    RIM (nasdaq: RIMM - news - people ), in a complaint filed in state court in Chicago, asked for an order invalidating an agreement the companies reached this year not to solicit each other's employees, the agency said.

    So, both companies agreed not to solicit each other's employees and now RIM wants out of the deal. Why should the be let out of the deal?

    The lawsuit comes three months after Motorola sued RIM in Chicago in violation of the agreement, according to the agency.

    Either the writer is incompetent or the above is false because "three months" ago was after the agreement supposedly expired, therefore the suit could not be in violation of the agreement.

    From the linked letter to Congress:

    Recapturing Congressionally authorized EB green cards from prior fiscal years that went unused
    due to bureaucratic delays would help reduce visa backlogs. EB green card recapture has been
    endorsed by over 70 employer, family and community-based organizations. In 2005, 85 U.S.
    Senators voted in support of green card recapture.

    How does that apply to anything in this case, in any way shape or form?

    To me, this looks like a lot of biased reporting and RIM trying to weasel it's way out of an agreement.

  • I'm shocked (Score:5, Funny)

    by willoughby (1367773) on Friday December 26, 2008 @02:09PM (#26235847)
    I own two Motorola GSM telephones & judging by their performance I was under the impression Motorola had no engineers left.
  • by nog_lorp (896553) *

    We need to ENSURE ex-Motorola employees' right to get RIM jobs!

  • These are the same guys who arrogantly rejected digital cellphones for a long time because it would interfere with their market share grasp of analog cellphones.

  • by PPH (736903) on Friday December 26, 2008 @10:24PM (#26238487)

    ... a form of restraint of trade? A violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act?

    If the labor market is similar to any other market and I negotiate with my competitor to split a market between us and not compete with them, I'd get a vacation at Club Fed. Striped pajamas and all.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...