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This discussion has been archived.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 Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:17PM (#46622929)

    "Finally, we (or basically I) have not done a good enough job of high rewards for high performance." - Sergey Brin

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If there was a bigger sign that said "we are not interested in training our employees and have a terrible corporate culture" poaching would be it.

    • by Aighearach (97333)

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Those poor indentured servants, making only four times the median salary, instead of five.

        • By the same logic, the H1Bs should be supremely happy, what with landing their dream jobs...or not? Now I'd argue that if the money offered doesn't correspond to what demand and supply would want it to be, it's still bad even if it's only partially bad.
          • By the same logic, the H1Bs should be supremely happy, what with landing their dream jobs...or not?

            Many H1Bs do land their dream jobs, and actually get paid the same as their American colleagues, you know. The entire anti-H1B story focuses on cases of abuse, which, I'll give you, are numerous, but do not represent the industry as a whole. I don't know of a single H1B person in Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple that would get less than what a local would with the same skills and experience. It's sweatshops like Tata that really abuse it, but their horror stories are the only thing you ever hear

            • I actually get paid a little more than my domestic counterparts, and had my pick of employment upon graduation.
            • by Arker (91948)
              Well if you have some who are treated fairly, and others who are 'horror stories' in your own words then clearly their average pay is below the market value of their labor even if some of them do ok. Which is exactly what we should expect.

              The difference between an H1B worker and his first cousin from the same town who has a green card is that the latter can probably go get a job with your competitor if the notion strikes him, while the H1B guy is more firmly under your control. It's reminiscent of indenture
              • As an H1B worker, I am fully in agreement with you :) yes, I do not like the part of my situation where I am effectively bound to my employer, and yes, it does lead to a disparity in my ability to negotiate my wage. Thankfully they don't abuse it, so I don't need to negotiate - I get a fair market price as it is - but it still irks me. And a green card, which I have applied for, takes years to actually get due to the current multiple-year processing queues (which are growing still).

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

        by sjbe (173966) on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:41PM (#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.

        • by Aighearach (97333)

          Uhm, I didn't say it is like slavery, I said it is like the set of things that includes slavery and indentured servitude. How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer? How is wage suppression via collusion that involves locking employees to one employer NOT like indentured servitude?

          Your attack on my statement is idiotic, you don't even address my point. You

          • by sjbe (173966)

            I didn't say it is like slavery,

            You most certainly did. You said "For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants." It is nothing like a substitute for slavery and claiming so makes you look really clueless.

            How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer?

            Because Google and Facebook and Apple are not the extent of the IT universe no matter what they might want you to believe.

            How is wage suppression via collusion that involves locking employees to one employer NOT like indentured servitude?

            Are you really that stupid? You can't figure out the difference? Do you even know what indentured servitude is? Nobody was locked to Google. It's at will employment even if th

          • How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer?

            You mean, aside the fact that you're not working for free to pay off a previous debt?

            Think of it this way - if you don't want have your income "limited" at six figures because your employer has a "gentleman's agreement" with some of their local competitors, you're always welcome to walk out that door and go apply at McDonald's.

            I'd avoid bitching about how your former 6-figure job was "slavery" to your new minimum wage co-workers, in that case.

          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer?

            Wait, isn't "poaching" only DIRECTLY going after people and offering them a job or at least interview?

            Are people claiming that if a potential employee found a job listing themselves, they couldn't successfully get the job through the normal interview process?

        • by geek (5680) on Monday March 31, 2014 @02:01PM (#46623435) Homepage

          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.

          Is it that far off really? Many engineers come out of school with 100k+ in debt. They go to work for one of these companies and can never leave because of secret agreements from the execs. Their wages are kept artificially low in a high cost of living area. Between rent/mortgage and other costs of living, they simply can't afford to drop the job and go elsewhere without having another job in the wings.

          This isn't much different from indentured servitude. Only with indentured servants there is typically a contract up front, after X number of years you're free to move on. In Silicon Valley its all backroom deals, under the table and out of sight from the public. Your "owners" own you without you explicitly knowing it, there is no end date and there is serious direct career consequences if you try to change it.

          They may not be subjected to beatings but they are certainly subject to economic ruin if they try to change or improve their station. I've seen it happen. I've seen good engineers leave engineering altogether because they became untouchable simply because of who they once worked for.

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            They may not be subjected to beatings but they are certainly subject to economic ruin if they try to change or improve their station. I've seen it happen. I've seen good engineers leave engineering altogether because they became untouchable simply because of who they once worked for.

            Can you elaborate on this please?

            • by geek (5680)

              They may not be subjected to beatings but they are certainly subject to economic ruin if they try to change or improve their station. I've seen it happen. I've seen good engineers leave engineering altogether because they became untouchable simply because of who they once worked for.

              Can you elaborate on this please?

              My father worked for Cisco. Amazingly, every place he applied for while still there, would refuse to interview him, when only 5 years before he was one of the most sought after engineers in his field. Eventually he left Cisco and opened his own small business outside of Engineering because he simply couldn't even get interviewed anywhere. He nearly went broke trying.

              I have two friends, one who worked for Google and another for Apple. Both left Engineering and went into the Accounting sector because they wer

              • by swillden (191260)

                I have two friends, one who worked for Google and another for Apple. Both left Engineering and went into the Accounting sector because they were untouchable by anyone.The only jobs they would get interviewed for were paying half what they used to make at small shops with virtually no health benefits.

                I don't buy it. I work for Google and not only am I headhunted to an almost ridiculous degree by firms large and small, I know plenty of other Google engineers who've left the company to work for others, including a couple who didn't arrange a new job before they left, choosing instead to just take a few months off. I also know a number of Apple engineers and none of them have any trouble finding other jobs, either.

              • by Grishnakh (216268)

                The thing that doesn't make sense here is: why would other companies not want to touch these employees? What time period was this anyway? Yeah, if this all happened during the time when this illegal collusion was going on, I can see how someone at Google wouldn't be able to get interviewed at Apple or vice versa, but there's far more companies out there than that, especially smaller and esp. medium-size companies that pay just fine.

                Also, I used to work for Intel, one of the companies who colluded, and I h

          • by Raenex (947668)

            Is it that far off really?

            Yes, there's a huge difference. In one scenario, if you try to leave your owner you are a fugitive of the law. In this scenario, you can always get another job. Just because a few big name companies prevented poaching doesn't mean you couldn't find work at the countless number of startups or established companies. The comparison is ridiculous and insulting to the people who experienced the atrocities of slavery.

            • by geek (5680)

              Is it that far off really?

              Yes, there's a huge difference. In one scenario, if you try to leave your owner you are a fugitive of the law. In this scenario, you can always get another job..

              Ever seen a non-compete clause in a contract? They are standard operating procedure now and companies will actively threaten you with them. So my point stands.

              I don't think you have a very good grasp on what slavery is. You seem to have the Hollywood definition in your head when the reality is very different. Most slaves were indentured servants and still are. This is a temporary situation, usually remedied in time when the agreement is done. Historically in the middle east slaves were set free every 7 year

              • by Raenex (947668)

                Ever seen a non-compete clause in a contract? They are standard operating procedure now and companies will actively threaten you with them. So my point stands.

                No, your point doesn't stand. They can't lock you out of the entire computer industry. At best they are against direct competition. They aren't even valid in California. You also have the freedom not to sign one. And even if you did sign one, you can still quit.

                You seem to have the Hollywood definition in your head when the reality is very different. Most slaves were indentured servants and still are.

                Even if I accepted that, it still isn't the case here. But even that is a stretch because the "Hollywood" version of slavery did exist. The agricultural industry of the Southern United States was based on it, and the issue resulted in a civil war.

                The

                • by geek (5680)

                  Even if I accepted that, it still isn't the case here. But even that is a stretch because the "Hollywood" version of slavery did exist. The agricultural industry of the Southern United States was based on it, and the issue resulted in a civil war.

                  The slavery angle is a stupid analogy by privileged and highly paid tech workers.

                  Now I know you're delusional. The civil war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln ran for re-election and realized he needed fresh blood to win the war. The slavery issue was after the war started, which was about states rights.

                  The agricultural industry was not based on it. Most people couldn't afford slaves and I don't mean buying them. I mean keeping them. Room and board as well as health care is expensive and unhealthy slaves are not productive. The majority weren't physically abused un

                  • Here are some excerpts from the Declaration of Causes of Secession. Its all about slavery.
                    The real question is, can you accept new factual data and change you view? That is something only a thinking person can accomplish, so I have my doubts.

                    Georgia:
                    " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

                    Mississippi: Note the sue of the term 'products'
                    "Our position is thoroughly identifie

        • by Anonymous Coward

          It would be WW3 if it were the government colluding to suppress earnings of investment bankers or shareholders, who by ANY measure do INCREDIBLY well. However when THEY are colluding...oh it's not slavery, they're just protecting their investments...

          I'm not sure it isn't a form of slavery to be honest. They are colluding to remove employment options, earnings and general freedom from their employees. I'd call it slavery, just as I do with H1Bs who are not free to become citizens, who are not free to shop th

        • by CBravo (35450)
          It is like employer-socialism ;-).
    • by SpzToid (869795) on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:37PM (#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]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:30PM (#46623045)

    Oh the humanity.

    Ultimate fanboi war!

  • by meta-monkey (321000) on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:42PM (#46623185) Journal

    When I was little, my daddy told me "never attribute to malice what might as well be ignorance." And I believed this. So I was a libertarian and was suspicious of regulations on business. Let companies compete in the free market! Leave them be, government busybodies!

    But then I grew up.

    It is not the purpose of government to serve the people. It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor. These corporations give massive amounts of money to both political parties, and they get what they pay for. Fat government contracts. Protection from competitors, foreign and domestic. You think they give a shit about unemployment? Hell no. They LOVE unemployment. Keeps the workers in line knowing there's 5 other people who would love to take their job if they get uppity. Student loan debt forgiveness? Hells no. Debt keeps the slaves tied to their wheels. And if our barristas have Ph.Ds, all the better. Damn tech workers think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle? Haha, bring in the H1-Bs! Secret backroom deals to cap salaries! The nerve thinking Americans should earn middle class wages...in America. Working at the most profitable companies in history. We need that money to maximize shareholder value! The Dow's through the roof with massive unemployment? Perfect!

    That is not ignorance. That is malice.

    So, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard. I am a socialist.

    • It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor

      Actually, many of this corporations didn't exist ten years ago and none of this guys weren't shit-load-millionairs. So there, the govermente sucks at preserving the status quo.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Phil Urich (841393)

        It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor

        Actually, many of this corporations didn't exist ten years ago and none of this guys weren't shit-load-millionairs. So there, the govermente sucks at preserving the status quo.

        What about the major shareholders and board members of "this corporations [sic]"? Were they "shit-load-millionairs [sic]"? Yeah, most of them probably were. And you do remember that for example Facebook was started by rich boys who w

    • by Cyberax (705495) on Monday March 31, 2014 @02:20PM (#46623665)
      A few years ago I read a financial magazine on an airplane (quick googling tells that it was WSJ, I can't find a direct link but this blog post describes it: http://blog.rongarret.info/201... [rongarret.info] ) about how companies should watch their stock options closely and do not allow 'unnecessary' employees like chefs to get them. Because if a company grows big then these peons might actually become members of the Rich! And little people totally do not deserve it.

      I wanted to break a window and throw this magazine out.
    • That does not really follow. You do not need an evil mastermind pulling strings to have a system that benefits the rich. You are saying that you actually believe that there is some league of evil rich people out there, that are not just looking out for their own best interests but actively undermining the poor so that they have cheap oppressed labour? And they are not just mistakenly undetermined poor out of ignorance, but purposely infantry to do so, all the while laughing maniacally as they order their ch

    • by dcollins (135727)

      Me too.

  • by MetalliQaZ (539913) on Monday March 31, 2014 @01:54PM (#46623323)

    As an engineer that could have been affected by these shenanigans, I hope that each of these companies gets spanked and spanked hard. A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.

    • As an engineer that could have been affected by these shenanigans, I hope that each of these companies gets spanked and spanked hard. A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.

      Ha, hahahaha, you still believe those people are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That's so quaint.

  • Adam Smith (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Adam Smith wrote eloquently about this vary topic in 1776! He wrote "Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this [natural] rate". Smith means the natural rate as determined by market supply and demand. Apparently this is precisely what occurred. Those who feel compelled to pen remarks would be well advised to read Adam Smith instead.

  • Shaka, when the walls fell! Gorbachev and Regan, at Geneva. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!

    Google, when the being wasn't evil. Zuckerberg, his fucks dumb. Eric Schmidt, with nothing to hide. Dathon and Picard at El Adrel.

    Custer, his last stand. Murphey, his law unbroken. Snowden, his PRISM wide open.

    • by Rogue974 (657982)

      I just don't know what to say about this comment. The awesomeness of it is unbelievable. You just blew my mind!

  • by kasperd (592156) on Monday March 31, 2014 @02:26PM (#46623713) Homepage Journal
    There is a major difference between agreeing not to hire from each other, and just not actively going after each other's employees. I have worked at Google in the past, and while I was working there I was actively being approach by facebook recruiters. I was not the only person being approach like that. I heard from multiple colleagues that they too were being contacted by facebook recruiters. I am aware of multiple of my former colleagues who actually did get jobs at facebook.

    To me facebook felt too aggressive in their pursuit of Google engineers. There was a real practice among facebook recruiters to search through linkedin and any other source, where they could identify Google engineers and contact them. I saw enough evidence pointing towards those people being contacted simply because they were currently working for Google. Personally I had zero interest in switching from Google to facebook, I don't think I even bother answering, when I was approached by facebook.

    If Google and facebook had reached an agreement under which facebook would be a little less aggressive in their pursuit of Google engineers, I would not have feared this would have a negative impact on my salary. And it would have felt a bit more reasonable to me. The recruiters could still look for talented employees, and if by chance they end up finding Google employees, they could still approach them just like they would have, if they had not been Google employees. As long as they weren't directly picking candidates based on them working for Google, I would call it an improvement.

    Some people have argued those companies shouldn't even actively be contacting candidates. Instead they should wait for interested candidates to submit a resume on their own. Even that would not even get close to not hiring each other's employees.

    Employees could still move from Google to facebook, they just had to take initiative to submit a resume. I would only consider there to be a real problem, if facebook would reject resumes submitted by candidates, just because they happened to work for Google. I have seen no evidence of such a practice existing.
    • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Monday March 31, 2014 @03:08PM (#46624071) Homepage

      Hey Kasper,

      It's Mike H, remember me? We used to work together in SRE ;) How is the startup going? I have also recently moved on from the big G.

      Now. When this thing first started to bubble up, I didn't feel very concerned either. OK, so I got fewer emails from recruiters than otherwise would. No big deal, not like there was exactly a shortage of those.

      However, I just want to point out one thing:

      I would only consider there to be a real problem, if facebook would reject resumes submitted by candidates, just because they happened to work for Google. I have seen no evidence of such a practice existing.

      Did you read the article? It seems that the only reason such a situation did not occur is because Sandberg told Google to pound sand. During the time in question, these emails clearly show that a very senior Google executive was directly asking Facebook not to hire Google employees, even if they employees in question wanted to go work there and what's more, good corporate relations were being pegged to that demand.

      I must admit, I never knew much about Rosenberg and don't have many memories of him (can't even recall what he looks like). But regardless, this paints Google in a very negative light indeed. Rosenberg was willing to threaten other companies in order to make them stop not just pursuing but actually hiring "his" people. Facebook refused, but who knows what other companies didn't? Was that really the only time he took that approach? Was this a Rosenberg-specific moment of madness/idiocy or does it run deeper? I await further discovery with great interest. Even if this was a brief failure on the behalf of just one executive, that's still completely unacceptable and Rosenberg needs to be fired, now. Employees are not assets whose freedom of employment can be traded for corporate deals and to treat them that way is completely unacceptable.

      • by kasperd (592156)

        Did you read the article? It seems that the only reason such a situation did not occur is because Sandberg told Google to pound sand. During the time in question, these emails clearly show that a very senior Google executive was directly asking Facebook not to hire Google employees, even if they employees in question wanted to go work there and what's more, good corporate relations were being pegged to that demand.

        The article didn't come across as entirely clear to me. That particular point I missed on th

    • by synx (29979) on Monday March 31, 2014 @04:14PM (#46624823)

      I encourage anyone with skin in the game to read the court documents, they are easy to read and really lay out the case for how anti-recruitment agreements (whereby Google agreed not to directly recruit from Apple and vice versa) directly affect overall pay scale. It is laid out clearly, concretely, and isn't just a wishful case. There are a few solid narratives which I think will put google under severe pressure at trial (eg: giving EVERY employee a 10% raise because of Facebook's aggressive recruiting).

      First off, it's a FACT that Google's (and other companies) agreements are illegal. That isn't even what this case is about - the DOJ came to a settlement and Google is no longer allowed to make such agreements. This case is about wage impact and class impact. Now that the class action was certified by a judge, there is good chance that in a trial a connection between the illegal activities the companies in question were conducting and class-impact and wages were affected.

      Since you used to work at Google, presumably you're a smart person, I hope you can see how your own personal feelings about how recruiters from other companies should or should not behave have little bearing on the actual illegal activities that Google was undertaking.

      Now, as a Google employee, you certainly know about the pay bands, right? That your pay is not at the sole discretion of your hiring manager or your manager, but set in a company wide policy that employees of job title X get paid between $A - $B with GSU/RSU/option grants in a specific range as well. There are pay bands for every single title in the company (except maybe executives). Google (and Intel, and many companies) make it a high priority to keep internal equity between employees at given titles (eg: SRE II), so if too many employees were being recruited away and retained they would have to adjust pay, either by giving promotions or adjusting pay bands.

      As we know, Google had to elect to do the latter. In response to Facebook recruiting, Google gave across the board 10% raises, and specific raises to SRE titles as well. This is all laid out in court discovery, and is a fact, even Google's lawyers dont deny that.

      The class filing has a lot of discovery, a strong narrative, and statistical modeling to demonstrate there was "class wide impact" (aka YOU were affected by your coworkers inability to discover their true worth via getting unsolicited job offers).

      Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is ... why is this justified? Where's the legal basis for such a strict restriction? Also how does it affect overall market dynamics? Maybe if there was an country-wide law for this, but what purpose would it serve? In a market based economy wages are set by companies bidding for employees. Since a lot of people in this field have jobs nearly all the time, the only way to find out they are unpaid is to be offered a job with a higher pay. There are only 2 ways for this to happen, one is for the employee to seek, the other is for companies to reach out. Why restrict companies?

      I think a lot of your arguments are around the notion of definitions of "aggressive", polite or decorum. Legally speaking there isnt any distinction here, and I am not sure the common good is benefited by restricting the function of the market of jobs and employees.

      • by kasperd (592156)

        Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is ... why is this justified?

        I don't know if it is justified. But enough people have taken that position, that we need to at least acknowledge, that there is a group of people with that opinion.

        It is not hard to understand why some people have that opinion. Nobody want to see their own inbox filled up with offers from loads of companies they'd never want to work for. But of course a few u

        • by Zenth (3592427)
          Erm why would no one want to see an inbox filled with offers from companies they don't want to work for? I may not want to work for them, but lots of offers means being in demand. It means never worrying about being laid off and being able to push for raises. That's a win for an employee.
        • by Arker (91948)
          "I don't know if it is justified. But enough people have taken that position, that we need to at least acknowledge, that there is a group of people with that opinion."

          The top managers at a lot of these companies think this way, because they would rather not have to compete to retain employees, but there is no coherent reason anyone else would take this view other than simple brown-nosing the boss.
    • If you're being annoyed by Facebook recruiters, it's fairly easy to tell them to GTFO. It's something between you and Facebook, not between Google and Facebook, so there's no reason why Google should intercede on your behalf and negotiate a blanket restriction - especially when that other guy who's in the office next door to you might actually appreciate those offers.

      Amazon seems to be similarly active at trying to recruit people from MS. I don't find it any difficult to tell them that I'm not interested in

    • There was a real practice among facebook recruiters to search through linkedin and any other source, where they could identify Google engineers and contact them. I saw enough evidence pointing towards those people being contacted simply because they were currently working for Google. Personally I had zero interest in switching from Google to facebook, I don't think I even bother answering, when I was approached by facebook..

      For what other purpose would you put your employer in your linkedin profile?

    • by Mabhatter (126906)

      I agree with your premise, I think. These agreements are about companies agreeing not to send recruiters INTO THE OFFICES of other companies... that's just crappy business. In fact, at the peak of these booms, companies get into departmental "retaliation" where one person leaves then gets back at their former boss by hiring away co-workers and causing projects to be delayed. That's what was going on at the time and these companies wanted it stopped.

      I think that companies were just agreeing to stop accepti

  • There's always going to be a struggle on hiring and retaining the best employees. They have a hard time of making sure intellectual property stays put as it is...but should this spill over to limit talented people's opportunities? Who will the law sway in favor of? This reminds me of a similar post from Ben Horowitz's blog (portraying the situation on a smaller scale) - Is it Okay to Hire People from your Friend's Company? http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it... [bhorowitz.com]
  • Google and Facebook with their little pissing matches?

    Come to work in the government contracting world. Where the players decide who will win which contracts and which employees each will need. And if you don't play ball, you might have a career as a barista at Starbucks. But they'll make any other companies life hell if they try and hire key people away.

  • a war between Germany and Japan in 1939--nothing good will come from it. Both of them need to focus on their customers as opposed to the profitability of their plutocratic shareholders.
  • Given the quality of life that Facebook and Google create, this battle over available talent is funny indeed. Both companies should be flushed down the toilet for degrading their customers and the quality of computer science applications, that they give computing a big black eye. I laugh at both of them and wish that they and all the engineers they employ would just go away. And I know something about this having followed python as an important application language at Google and experienced the failings of

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...