Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Facebook The Courts

Emails Reveal Battle Over Employee Poaching Between Google and Facebook 132

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-scratch-my-back dept.
colinneagle (2544914) writes "Apple, Google, and a slew of other high-tech firms are currently embroiled in a class-action lawsuit on allegations that they all adhered to tacit anti-poaching agreements. With that case currently ongoing, we've seen a number of interesting executive emails come to light, including emails showing that Steve Jobs threatened Palm's CEO with a full-fledged legal assault if the company kept going after Apple engineers. There is also correspondence between Sergey Brin, Marissa Mayer, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and Google's Jonathan Rosenberg discussing the threat that Google saw in Facebook hiring its engineers. The discussion elevates, with Sandberg pointing out the hypocrisy of Google growing to prominence by hiring engineers from major Silicon Valley firms. Rosenberg then hints at the potential for a 'deeper relationship' that Google would be willing to reach as long as Facebook stops hiring its engineers, going so far as to tell Sandberg to 'fix this problem.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Emails Reveal Battle Over Employee Poaching Between Google and Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • by SpzToid (869795) on Monday March 31, 2014 @12:37PM (#46623123)

    Poaching and wanting H1-B rules relaxed means I.T. workers whose knowledge is perishable in the marketplace as technology evolves are getting screwed from the tech billionaires. Been that way for decades, and if that's not enough to make you puke, young Zuckerberg and his buddies even started a PAC to lobby on their behalf.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Innov... [csmonitor.com]

  • This is NOT slavery (Score:5, Informative)

    by sjbe (173966) on Monday March 31, 2014 @12:41PM (#46623171)

    For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants.

    Seriously folks. Let's not for a moment pretend that this is remotely similar to actual slavery. We're talking about two companies to collude to suppress wages for employees that by all objective standards are paid pretty well and have pretty good lives. Are you seriously going to claim that that is in any way comparable to being the property of another human being?

    Yes this collusion is wrong. No it isn't even close to slavery. Claiming that the two are anything similar is unbelievably clueless.

  • Re:Unions (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2014 @12:41PM (#46623173)

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Party-of-the-rich-In-Congress-it-s-the-Democrats-5363121.php

    "WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

    But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

    The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

    Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

    Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

    Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents."

  • Re:Unions (Score:2, Informative)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:47PM (#46623905) Homepage Journal

    We're talking about uber-rich rich, the ones that have hundreds of millions in the bank - THEY are mostly Republican.

    Not true [huffingtonpost.com].

    In fact, 8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are long-time Democratic strongholds.

    From the article:

    ...in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

    The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Hold on to the root.

Working...