http://bit.ly/j4Qr6A
Our world is going crazy! An agreement to not 'cold call' is called an antitrust violation? What?
First, on the merits themselves. The original suit argued that it artificially limited workers wages. Huh? Couldn't the workers make phone calls themselves? Couldn't Microsoft *still* poach people? I'm not sure of the wording of the contract, but I'm sure either party party could end the contract if they wished. And that is assuming that it was a contract and not just a simple handshake agreement.
Business wise, it makes sense *beyond* stabilizing each employers employment pool. It helps each company work with the other company in *intimate* ways. Apple could send a coder to Google, and Adobe could send a salesman for training to Apple. Imagine if Apple were to consider every contact with google not only a collaboration (is this antitrust? Not!), but also a chance to recruit people away and do damage to a competitor. Microsoft employed this strategy with a wonderful company called Borland. It basically destroyed Borland.
Not that I'm against Microsoft being able to do this. But it does affect how companies collaborate.
But again, the point overall is moot, simply because each employee can inquire about jobs themselves.
This is in addition to the fact that it didn't prevent a company from attempting to get an employee from another company. All it did was make the interested company notify the 'victim' company about their interest, and to limit the amount of offers to one. So presumably the offer would be the market rate, or slightly above the market rate.
Second, on the so called 'damages'. Huh? How are you going to prove that an employee was worth more than what he is getting paid right now? In fact, since a single offer is allowed, presumably your reasonable first offer was at least a market rate offer. The victim company, in order to retain you, probably matched the offer. Is the plaintiff going to offer proof that if he could have played one company off of the other company that he would have been paid more? If so, how much? An arbitrary 10% higher?
Did he ask a competitor like Microsoft if his wage could be higher? Did Microsoft hire him?
This had better be tossed out of court. Unfortunately, the companies didn't stand their ground in the initial Anti-Trust investigation. Sucks to be a company who hypocritically believes in a high degree of anti-trust action, and still wants the flexibility to make money. Microsoft was a victim of this also. In addition they probably believe in a high tax rate for rich people, and then promptly do over seas profit manipulation to lower their personal tax burdens.
Can one of these companies show what it means to exist in a capitalist country?
Recent Comments