Quote
Apple and Google wage fixing cartel
#1
Posted 22 March 2014 - 02:31 PM
#2
Posted 22 March 2014 - 07:22 PM
Quote
Shocking hyperventilation, check. Let's take a look at those court documents:

Notice where Ames sticks his thumb. He doesn't want you to read this too closely because you'll realize it's about restrictions on hiring managers, not ICs (individual contributors, non-managers in hiring jargon). And engineering candidate hiring was completely unrestricted by this agreement.
Why did they "collude"? Well part of this is the history of tech poaching. It goes back to the beginning, when companies moving up would poach high level people from competitors. One reason was to gain access to that person's skills, another was to get inside information about how competitors operated, and another, less talked about reason was simply to hamper competitors. Say you're one of the top Exchange guys at Microsoft. Not only do you know a ton about building an enterprise email system, but you have lots of knowledge about Microsoft's internal politics, institutional knowledge about the Exchange product, future plans for Exchange--and if Microsoft loses you it could cause considerable upset re: the current Exchange roadmap. Google might well hire this person away even if it has no real use for him, because the trouble it causes Microsoft can give them an opening.
So this didn't go on for too long in the early days before companies like Microsoft, Lotus, Borland made agreements not to poach certain levels of employees. Not because they were concerned with suppressing salaries, but because it caused a lot of chaos. It's a side effect of the way software scales--the key Exchange people are not that numerous, but their product is used everywhere because it's the standard in enterprise email and network effects apply in mature product categories like this.
There's a "do not cold call" list because recruiters would literally go down the internal phone directory of a competitor and cold call people to feel them out for positions. This is also disruptive so they agreed not to do that, but as the memo says, "do not cold call" does not mean they won't hire ICs who actively reach out to them, or if they get a reference from someone else (say a co-worker they've already poached) that the IC is unhappy.
Ames is painting this as wage suppression, but it's actually a peculiarity of the software business. There aren't many other professions where people might actually get cold called by competing businesses, and in software there's a constant churn of people and businesses that makes this even more likely.

This letter is more damning because Schmidt mentions Whitman's complaint that Google was driving up salaries. In fact, Google was--they were making very handsome poaching offers to high level people because a) they were making more money than they could possibly spend, b) they were very intentionally disrupting competitors like Microsoft. That's the reason Steve Ballmer threw a chair--Google had just poached Mark Lucovsky. This is what Lucovsky reported in a sworn statement:
Quote
Lucovsky had worked on Windows NT and some other important products. But note that in Lucovsky's version, Ballmer doesn't even care as long as it wasn't Google--that's because Google was intentionally poaching simply to f**k
Similarly, Steve Jobs' threat was obviously motivated by the same thing as Ballmer's tantrum. As Ames himself writes:
Quote
Was Steve Jobs going ballistic because he might have to pay his programmers more? It's a nonsensical claim (remember, we're talking about managers who are already well compensated). Jobs was telling Google he was on to Google's real motivations and had no intention of becoming a victim like Microsoft.
Now through all this Google never agreed to stop poaching from small companies, and that's why this wasn't true wage suppression. This was really about pissing off executives who could eventually decide to gang up on Google. After all, that's what really damaged Microsoft--all those OEMs and competitors got together and tarred it as a monopoly and aggressively pushed governments in the US and Europe to take action against it. The same could be done to Google, which has a virtual monopoly on search. So Google decided to play nice with key competitors.
Does this mean none of these companies are trying to suppress wages of the rank and file? No, I think all businesses above a certain size tend to aggressively negotiate salaries downward as a matter of course. Internal pressure on salaries, use of permatemps and offshoring, and pushing H-1Bs is a much more obvious route to suppressing industry wages. At the end of the day, Google really doesn't poach that many people, so these agreements (which again mainly concerned managers) didn't affect enough of the workforce to seriously impact wages. The main problem was that poaching was disrupting relationships with other companies that could hurt Google's future plans.
I read all of the Pando article and Ames just doesn't back up his claims with anything real. He's full of s**t
#3
Posted 22 March 2014 - 07:34 PM
As far as highjacking the roadmap, denying capability to your closest competitors is a great way to grow. Look at recent prestige firm partner laterals in PE, including real estate PE, and it's pretty obvious this is going on.
#4
Posted 22 March 2014 - 07:39 PM
#5
Posted 22 March 2014 - 07:58 PM
Quote
I'm sure this is partially tongue in cheek and was written while shaking off a heroin binge. The takeaway is its heavy atmosphere of shitthatdidnthappen.txt goonfiction about the time THE MAN gave you trouble because he found a baggie in your car after stopping you for a defective taillight at 3am.
#6
Posted 22 March 2014 - 11:52 PM
Quote
...
Check out the Mexican mom in the video who thinks she can get a job at Google. “Being Latina, a woman and bilingual, I have the opportunity to help them, be able to create programs and solve problems for that culture,” she chatters in Spanish. She can barely speak English, and her school-age child doesn’t do much better. Is this embarrassing example the best KQED can present for its diversity fairy tale?
It probably is, Brenda. It probably is.
#7
Posted 23 March 2014 - 09:05 AM
#8
Posted 24 March 2014 - 04:56 AM
I agree that Mark Ames, whose name I could vaguely recall but not link to Exile, seems to choose his words for effect. The other articles on that Pando website also seem to be clickbait. The latest is about how eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, who financed a media outlet for the journalists to whom Snowden leaked the documents, made some White House visits and donated to some pozzed NGOs pushing American foreign policy (Pando says "co-invested with the US government"
).I did not buy his (or USDOJ's) argument about wage suppression... it's likely that the tech companies involved cared more about disruptions to their projects--or, as you explain it in Google's case, not being ganged up and routed.
However, I can see how bilateral CEO-to-CEO agreements regarding cold calls or poaching key employees could look like (and be) antitrust violations, and indeed several tech companies had to settle with the DoJ.
I'm curious about your thoughts on what the legal environment ought to be, given that currently such sidedeals are apparently illegal. E.g. Should exemptions be granted regarding entering into such agreements for software/tech companies? If not, should they be allowed tailor their hiring-from-others policies based on the size (financial and otherwise) of the competitor but otherwise with no (documented) sidedeals? Or should the hiring practice be enforced across the board: e.g. cold call everyone or don't cold call.
My impression is that the agreements are problematic because smalltech have what they deem to be key people too, but zero bargaining power in terms of striking such deals.
As an aside, here is a PDF (86pp) of a court order concluding that a class-action lawsuit (to start in May) is valid. The relevant pages are probably 25-51 & 75-78. http://www.lieffcabr...der.pdf#page=25 On 29-30 there's a claim from the Palm CEO that Jobs had threatened to sue him for patent infringement if he does not enter into an agreement that neither company would hire the other's employees even if they request it.
#9
Posted 24 March 2014 - 06:29 AM
#10
Posted 24 March 2014 - 06:39 AM
#11
Posted 24 March 2014 - 06:59 AM
#12
Posted 24 March 2014 - 07:02 AM
Shrill Kiners, on 24 March 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:
FWIW, I don't know Ohio law but I know a lot of people force people here (Texas) to sign noncompetes that aren't really enforceable. The burden is on the person looking to enforce a noncompete to prove that it's reasonable in quite a few different ways, and judges have a lot of discretion in refusing to enforce them. But of course if nobody tries it...
#13
Posted 24 March 2014 - 12:29 PM
Robert Gostfson, on 24 March 2014 - 04:56 AM, said:
My impression is that the agreements are problematic because smalltech have what they deem to be key people too, but zero bargaining power in terms of striking such deals.
These are good points. It tells you a lot about Ames that none of them end up in his article, which is zero calorie clickrage.
My gut feeling is that this is a side effect of industries which experience massive growth and/or fluctuation. New entrants behave like a bull in a china shop and do cutthroat deals and then as the market settles everyone tries to form a more stable consensus of practices. It could probably be ameliorated by more monopoly protection. Once Google has an obvious monopoly position in search, force it to break apart into smaller companies or regulate its behavior if a quasi-monopoly is desired (but in this case there's no real benefit to a search monopoly).
I'm not that concerned that poaching (which as BB has pointed out is practiced in other special cases) is really that big a deal. In tech it tends to reflect a certain enthusiasm and hype about new entrants--gold rush mentality where people want to get in on the ground floor at Google or Facebook so they become millionaires when the company goes public. So apart from my natural inclination to make sure companies don't get too big as to become destabilizing, I think you can just leave it alone as with non-tech businesses. There's a case to be made for regulating tech so that it does not experience explosive growth.
#14
Posted 24 March 2014 - 12:33 PM
#15
Posted 24 March 2014 - 04:18 PM
What I mean by this, is how we've moved away from promoting from within, and building the employee, and instead have created a culture where management is trained to be interchangeable, which fosters a need to move out to move up.
#16
Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:49 AM
#17
Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:12 PM
He seems to have fallen for Mark Ames' argument, although in his defense he got it at the end of a telephone game involving two other blogs in the middle, so he maybe didn't diligently click through every link. Not that it matters, as one blog just copies and pastes Ames' gibberish and Cowen links to the first one without forming any conclusions (although he adds some stupid thoughts of his own).
iSteve readers, of course, are gullibly enraged and splutter a bunch.
Yes, it's all about Indian Democrats:
Quote
If I were Holder I would have settled this deal differently.
Instead of seeing it as a good way to (1) drive down white wages and (2) bring in loyal Indian Democrats to replace white people, I would have told Silicon Valley that they couldn't hire any H1B's for the next five (5) years until white wages got jacked back up to where they would have been without white wage suppression.
Yes, it's all about Obama:
Quote
Yes, it's all about proper spelling and grammar:
Quote
Looks like you weren't up THERE at the top of the spelling/grammar/punctuation class either
A level-headed group of people.



