News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Emails From Schmidt And Sergey Brin Show Agreements Not To Hire Apple Workers. Parent comment

Re:Emails From Schmidt And Sergey Brin Show Agreements Not T... by jkldotio on Sunday March 23, 2014 @08:32PM (#7455943)
You are comparing a legal practice that demonstrates real market value to an employer - i.e. here is a document that shows another participant in this market is willing to pay me $X for what I can do - in a salary negotiation to an illegal practice which distorts the market by decreasing competition.

A legal practice which increases competition and increases the allocation of resources to productive individuals can't be compared to an illegal practice which decreases competition.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Emails From Schmidt And Sergey Brin Show Agreements Not T... by mike_hearn on Monday March 24, 2014 @06:14AM (#7457469)
Are you suggesting US law requires companies to aggressively try and poach each others staff? That would be remarkable and amazing if so. What if you aren't particularly interested in staffing a large recruiting division, and don't cold-call anyone? What if you think cold-calling is like spam and just feel it's not something your company should do? Do you get in trouble for holding down wages?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Emails From Schmidt And Sergey Brin Show Agreements Not T... by vidarh on Monday March 24, 2014 @08:53AM (#7457895)
No, he is suggesting that making a mutual agreement not to do so is illegal, just like a whole range of other actions that have price setting effects are legal when a company does it in isolation but illegal when multiple companies collude to affect the pricing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Emails From Schmidt And Sergey Brin Show Agreements Not T... by vacri on Sunday March 23, 2014 @11:21PM (#7456501)
Ah, counter ethics with legality? It's legal in some jurisdictions to confiscate the property of a person and sell it before that person has seen the inside of a court. There was an article recently on HN about that, but Jello Biafra spoke of the problem as far back as the 1980s. Using your litmus test, this activity must be ethical because it's legal.

I do not think it's ethical to scare the other party by threatening actions that you have zero intention of carrying out.

[ Parent | on HN ]