TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google

340 点作者 byoogle大约 11 年前

41 条评论

StefanKarpinski大约 11 年前
I recall wondering at the time why, if there was such a shortage of talented developers, newly minted lawyers were still making several times as much as good programmers. Now we know part of the reason why: Apple, Goole, Adobe and all the other big names in tech – except, apparently Facebook – were illegally colluding to pay talented devs less money. Since this was discovered, industry pay scales have gone up, while law salaries have dropped – now it&#x27;s much closer. The thing that bothers me the most is that this illegal collusion suppressed wages for the <i>entire</i> software industry, robbing us all of money that lined the pockets of these companies. The plaintiffs in this case are by far not the only ones who were affected – Apple, Google, et al. stole tens of thousands of dollars per year from each person who was working in the software industry for the better part of a decade and the vast majority of us aren&#x27;t going to get any of that back.
评论 #7465061 未加载
评论 #7464182 未加载
评论 #7463708 未加载
评论 #7465466 未加载
评论 #7463667 未加载
评论 #7463922 未加载
评论 #7464099 未加载
评论 #7463589 未加载
评论 #7463974 未加载
评论 #7465184 未加载
评论 #7465148 未加载
评论 #7466980 未加载
评论 #7464889 未加载
ryandrake大约 11 年前
I think we should stop using the word &quot;poach&quot; when describing these job changes. Use of this word suggests that we (technology workers) are the property of our employer, and that other employers are &quot;stealing&quot; that property away. I don&#x27;t consider myself akin to a cow owned by my previous employer, stolen by my current one. I hope you don&#x27;t either. My relationship with my employer is one of equals, freely and mutually entered into, and does not imply any ownership of my person.<p>Hate to be the PC police, but I personally feel offended by the use of this word, and I&#x27;m surprised that more people aren&#x27;t. I&#x27;d like to propose using a more neutral phrase, like &quot;hire away&quot; to describe this practice, instead of &quot;poach&quot;. I hope, upon reflection about their own role in the employer-employee relationship, others might come to this conclusion and stop using this word as well.
评论 #7463494 未加载
评论 #7463592 未加载
评论 #7463493 未加载
评论 #7463480 未加载
评论 #7464148 未加载
评论 #7463465 未加载
评论 #7466318 未加载
评论 #7463730 未加载
评论 #7463541 未加载
评论 #7463481 未加载
评论 #7464814 未加载
CoolGuySteve大约 11 年前
The worst thing about this oligopoly&#x2F;cartel is that during the period they were refusing to poach, they accrued billions cash reserves while spending only a little on R&amp;D (which I assume is mostly engineering salaries).<p>Even after the class action lawsuit is settled, it&#x27;s likely the penalty won&#x27;t be anywhere near the amount of profit that was illegally captured.<p>Furthermore, think about what these companies would have chosen to work on had engineers been more expensive. Would we have seen more useful products coming out of the valley if staff allocations had worked out differently?<p>When people are cheap, throwing them into doomed ventures like Google Buzz or Apple&#x27;s awful Samba clone isn&#x27;t nearly so devastating to whatever middle manager chain dreamed them up.
评论 #7463245 未加载
评论 #7463258 未加载
评论 #7463368 未加载
评论 #7463578 未加载
byoogle大约 11 年前
Money (literally) quote:<p><i>And what happens next is precisely what is supposed to happen when companies don’t collude to defraud their employees of fair-market wages: Google coughed up more money to improve its retention.</i>
评论 #7463201 未加载
评论 #7464481 未加载
bane大约 11 年前
Here&#x27;s what&#x27;s saddest to me about this. There isn&#x27;t really a labor shortage. These companies colluded for years on salary and poaching to make it possible to selectively hire from choice schools and people with a certain &quot;pedigree&quot; -- which artificially limited the pool of people they felt were &quot;acceptable&quot;...which drove up the salary of people from this pool which of course caused them to want to collude to keep wages down. <i>This</i> is why discriminatory hiring practices are bad for everybody.<p>Now years later Google, using the power of massive data, has figured out that it didn&#x27;t really matter all that much that they were hiring from this artificially limited pool. Which means it didn&#x27;t matter all that much to start with for any of these companies.<p>If they hadn&#x27;t colluded on pay and poaching, but stayed selective, they would have been eventually forced to either reach outside this selective pool and end the &quot;shortage&quot; or suck up the higher wages.<p>Basically the market would have resolved the issue of higher wages for them.
billyjobob大约 11 年前
What was that motto? Don&#x27;t be... ending? Don&#x27;t be evasive? ... Don&#x27;t be Evan? No, sorry, it&#x27;s gone. Can&#x27;t have been important anyway, or someone would have remembered it.
评论 #7463082 未加载
评论 #7463091 未加载
评论 #7463136 未加载
jjallen大约 11 年前
Of course Facebook refused! They were hiring many more employees than Google was as a percentage of the starting employee base because of the insane growth they were undergoing. They were building a business, they had to keep poaching.<p>I don&#x27;t think Facebook should get much credit for not participating, when they couldn&#x27;t have.<p>Also, from a more game theoretical approach, they were a free rider on the collusion - they could have outed the collusion if they were that benevolent, since they clearly knew what was happening. Why didn&#x27;t they publicize the blatantly wrong agreements at the time?
评论 #7464720 未加载
ski大约 11 年前
<i>It’s worth noting that Facebook was hotter than the sun back in 2008, so for it to continue to recruit from other firms could could have been a reflection of its market position; if you are doing the poaching, why would you disarm?</i><p>Facebook was much smaller then, and likely had a lot more to gain from poaching than they had to lose.
chippy大约 11 年前
Sheryl Sandberg only spoke for herself. She did not mention her knowledge of what other people in Facebook did. She only said that she, personally, didn&#x27;t agree to the agreement on behalf of the company. She did not say that Facebook didn&#x27;t have an agreement, only that she did not ever agree to one.<p>This is an important fact when looking at the evidence. She is only going to say enough of what she needs to say in terms of the lawsuit. The burden of proof of the law suit has to prove that Facebook had one - she could only speak about her own involvement. There was nothing about the other people at the top of the company - and in Law - nothing equals nothing.
评论 #7467007 未加载
ryguytilidie大约 11 年前
To be fair, Sandberg saying &quot;we didn&#x27;t do this&quot; about an illegal thing doesn&#x27;t necessarily mean that they didn&#x27;t do this. Also, why would a company much smaller than the others agree to this?
评论 #7465013 未加载
评论 #7463198 未加载
mik3y大约 11 年前
In late 2008, Facebook seemed to ramping up hiring (and recruiting aggressively, with good reason, from Google). Any &quot;truce&quot; would have been severely one-sided for Facebook.<p>I&#x27;m sure they weren&#x27;t worried about bleeding employees to Google if they said no, especially when you remember $GOOG was near a 3-year low and FB growth was exploding..
ojbyrne大约 11 年前
The most offensive thing about these stories is that those same people who conspire to drive down employee salaries then go to their executive compensation committees where they conspire to drive up executive salaries.
eyeareque大约 11 年前
I remember my friend At Google telling me that he just got a big raise and that the raises were happening across the company. I wondered what cause googled to do this, but quickly assumed it was because Facebook was sucking talent away from google. At the time googlers were paid less than other companies too.<p>Facebook might look good in this instance but remember they were growing really fast at this time so it would have seriously hurt them to agree to any hiring pacts.
danielweber大约 11 年前
Well, I have something positive to say about Facebook.
评论 #7463055 未加载
debt大约 11 年前
Facebook maintains a no-poaching agreement with companies which share the same board members. Is this common enough for it not be a big deal?
评论 #7463098 未加载
PythonicAlpha大约 11 年前
&gt;The pervasive attempt by large tech companies to suppress wages by diminishing their employees’ rights to choose where they work is not merely selfish in the extreme, but is counter to the very market principles that made these companies so successful to begin with.<p>The &quot;free market&quot; system is just an illusion. When you are on the side of those with the lowest power (e.g. the workforce), the system does not work.<p>So much about the notion, that the &quot;free market&quot; system will correct itself.
drawkbox大约 11 年前
Platforms are getting a little bit like mini kingdoms these days, feudal in nature, from the castles of the Altos.<p>5-10 years before we have a moat around a campus, a technological one though that blocks all non-essential communication while you are Under the Dome, then, apartments, pretty soon &quot;bring out your dead&quot; (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs</a>).
diskerror大约 11 年前
This is a great precedent set by Facebook against a not so great one.I feel that this current trend is quite scary to think about.<p>Taking away someone&#x27;s opportunity to be employed elsewhere oversteps the line between the employer and the employee&#x27;s personal life.
AaronFriel大约 11 年前
There&#x27;s a flip side to this no poaching agreement, evidenced by Facebook&#x27;s position:<p>Is there a benefit to this agreement depressing wages in that, for startups, obtaining competent developers was cheaper than it would have been otherwise?
评论 #7465293 未加载
iamshariq大约 11 年前
How did people come to the conclusion that these companies had the agreement to reduce wages?<p>It seems like they had this agreement - only because they hated their employees being poached on.<p>It&#x27;s not price fixing.<p>It&#x27;s self preservation.<p>Sure it had a side effect of keeping wages low - but that was not their goal. None of them are short on money.<p>I&#x27;m not saying what they did was right - but lets not frame it in a context that makes it look like they did this to not let employees have more money.<p>When in reality - they did it to stop others from stealing their employees.
评论 #7463374 未加载
评论 #7463323 未加载
评论 #7463357 未加载
评论 #7463535 未加载
kchoudhu大约 11 年前
Does anyone know how much money we&#x27;re talking about here? How much do, say, Google SRE people make after a few years on the job?
评论 #7463122 未加载
评论 #7463131 未加载
mavdi大约 11 年前
Yet another reason for every semi-talented programmer to become a consultant. They rob you of less money that way.<p>I&#x27;m certainly going to write to my MP about this. I think you should too. In fact I think every programmer out there should be involved in bringing a class action case against them.
adventured大约 11 年前
&quot;You can’t just free market part of the time. Good on Facebook for not being party to the shenanigans.&quot;<p>I&#x27;m always fascinated by what people don&#x27;t understand about free markets. The author appears to think &quot;free market&quot; means lots of government enforced market controls (which would be an obvious contradiction in terms).<p>In an actual free market, it&#x27;s not illegal to collude to suppress wages, just like it&#x27;s not illegal for employees to form unions, leave for other better jobs, or start their own companies to compete and pay superior wages to steal talent.<p>In intentionally overly simplified terms, &quot;free market&quot; means a lack of, or severe limitation of, government controls. How is it possible the author doesn&#x27;t know that?
评论 #7463322 未加载
评论 #7463241 未加载
kagali大约 11 年前
Proof positive that there is no shortage of people - just companies paying a living wage.
outside1234大约 11 年前
i mean, come of, of course they did. it was going to be like 99:1 in Facebook&#x27;s direction.<p>this isn&#x27;t any shining beacon of ethics.
1010011010大约 11 年前
So Google refused to hire Apple employees, but presumably didn&#x27;t refuse to hire Microsoft employees. What a bad move for their culture.
j_m_b大约 11 年前
Could this have more to do with the fact that PHP&#x2F;Javascript is the primary language used at Facebook whereas it is pretty much language-spaghetti at Google? Perhaps Zuckerberg figured that his technical culture didn&#x27;t leave much for Google to poach yet he wanted to soak up some talent from the likes of Google. I kid, I kid!
friendzis大约 11 年前
You all keep trashing companies for no-poaching agreements because it lowers your wages. Let&#x27;s look at this from perspective of employer. There are costs associated with obtaining well performing employee: * Hiring: people spend their hours filtering prospective employees. Usually HR does that, but bigger companies have separate hiring department. Expensive. * Idling: newly recruited employee rarely has intimate knowledge of all technologies, systems used inside a company and surely has no idea how they are tied together. This takes some months to grasp. Recruits often wreak havoc and as a result produce very little net worth. And you greedy recruits want your 6 figure salary for your havoc. * Training: employees are trained. Be it actual courses, conferences or just unsuccessful internal startup its still training. And having a team work on a doomed to be killed project for a year is again expensive. In order to compensate for these no-worth-generating expenses employers are left with 2 choices: lower the salary or invent a way to keep the employee. Lower salaries are usually not an option because, well, who you will hire then in the first place when rivals often much better packages? Companies are left with an option to try and keep the employees.<p>In intimate atmosphere of Silicon Valey it is hard to keep employee salaries&#x2F;benefits and skills a secret, therefore it is much easier and cheaper to contact employee of a rivaling company and offer a better mutually agreed package. You either agree not to poach and let prospective employees go through your normal hiring process or chain employees with timed contracts.<p>So just think that no-poaching agreements might be the thing keeping your salaries that high.
xiaoma大约 11 年前
Even without facebook, there would likely have been another mega-successful startup springing up and ruining the hiring collusion. As long as incumbents can&#x27;t create a regulatory or legal moat (e.g. patents), I don&#x27;t think these kinds of salary depressing tactics will work for more than a few years at a time.
dclowd9901大约 11 年前
When I talk to other developers about this stuff and H1B exploitation, we all seem categorically not in favor of collusion. These companies were started by software developers. What the hell happens in the process of running a company where you justify this kind of morality shift?
评论 #7467868 未加载
评论 #7466194 未加载
pyrrhotech大约 11 年前
Engineers are still paid way too low for the massive value they add to these companies.
weixiyen大约 11 年前
so basically every company did the most logical thing for their own best interests.
the_watcher大约 11 年前
Looks like Facebook identified a market inefficiency, and chose to bet on their ability to attract&#x2F;acquire&#x2F;retain talent over taking the defensive stance that Google and Apple did. Bravo to Facebook.
higherpurpose大约 11 年前
Is this a surprise? Facebook has been hiring Google employees for a while...
s3r3nity大约 11 年前
Where are the calls for boycotting Google for doing something blatantly &quot;evil&quot; and illegal?<p>Kudos for Facebook for doing the right thing here.<p>I&#x27;m just curious what ramifications this has, if any.
diminoten大约 11 年前
I still don&#x27;t get why this is news now, and not like 3 or 4 years ago. I knew about this back then, and I&#x27;m some random nobody.<p>Is it because there&#x27;s proof now?
drivingmenuts大约 11 年前
&quot;Don&#x27;t be evil.&quot;<p>More like &quot;Don&#x27;t get caught.&quot;
hemantv大约 11 年前
The one person I admire the most is Mark for being a rebel in the valley.
评论 #7463286 未加载
评论 #7463543 未加载
outside1234大约 11 年前
Ten things we know to be true...<p>...make that nine things we know to be true...
0800899g大约 11 年前
Pay fixing and chomski
mantrax3大约 11 年前
Programming is not like being a cash register attendant at the supermarket (no offense to these workers intended).<p>For programmers, getting into the workflow of a company, their existing codebase, becoming efficient, it may take months.<p>Shipping a product may (and typically does) take over a year. The lifetime of a product may be over a decade.<p>And if a developer quits mid-way through a project, they may derail the entire project, while someone else has to spend the time, step into their shoes and continue their work.<p>I honestly can&#x27;t imagine the morality of someone who would just abandon their project, their baby, so to speak, and go work somewhere else at the first call from another company offering more money. Did they take the first job out of desperation? We&#x27;re talking top-of-the-top companies here. I doubt so.<p>Poaching employees like this is also very unfair to every company spending a lot of resources to find the right employees, to build the right teams from other channels, only to have the competition cold call them and take them away after the former company has done the hard work.<p>There&#x27;s also the problem of trade secrets. An employee who has spent some time at, say, Apple, learns a lot about their product plans, processes, methods, and so on. Getting those employees means that one way or another you get access to these carefully kept trade secrets implicitly, if not explicitly.<p>Keeping wages down is bad, but employees who keep shifting jobs, leaving a trail of destruction behind them is also bad.<p>How do we resolve both sides of the issue so everyone is happy?
评论 #7463895 未加载
评论 #7463836 未加载
评论 #7463933 未加载
评论 #7463641 未加载
评论 #7463666 未加载
评论 #7465062 未加载
评论 #7464566 未加载