Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google

Re:Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google by emcfarlane on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @06:12AM (#7464889)

This is the ultimate first world problem. How were you being robbed? Someone holding a gun against your head stealing all your time? Or did you agree to a salary and are now so upset you could have been paid more. These companies make billions. They could afford to give everyone a raise. Why would they if you accept a lower salary? Why would a company try to pay you as much as possible for your work. Get over yourself.

Illegally colluding. The only reason they hire people is to make money. If they think paying more for employees will raise salaries all round and cause them to loose profit, they won't do it. It was cost benefit analysis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google by rk17 on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:10AM (#7465316)

You're making ad hominem attacks. Yes comparatively it is ridiculous to portray this as a major issue, but just because other people are less-off doesn't mean you should let yourself get screwed over. It's also worth considering that is a discussion on a tech-oriented website, so here it is important.

And you're basically right, it was a cost-benefit analyses. And it was illegal to act upon it the way they did, which is the whole point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google by walshemj on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @01:34PM (#7467364)

Absolutely if your an "engineer" on 150k pa you are still just a worker you still will face issues at work OK maybe slightly slightly different ones to say a semiskilled car worker or a Navvy might face.

But those sort of jobs dont face a lot of the issues that come with professional ones - if your a docker you boss is not going to trick you out of your vested stock and cost you millions ala silver lake partners.

[ Parent | on HN ]