There is one big upside to having an understanding between the big players: they save a ton of money on employee turnover and acquisitions that can go back into their bottom line or be spent recruiting from everyone else. The smaller startups end up being at a disadvantage.

One more case study that may be of interest to the constitutional scholars commenting here:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do the same thing. They’ve got formal rules about recruiting out of each other. The rules help out quite a bit because otherwise the Fannie and Freddie employees would get no work done because the local, national and global staffing industry would burn their phones up trying to push them to move.

And one more thing for executive search guy…stealing may not be the choice word for what gets done, poaching is better. A successful headhunter doesn’t just catching people falling out of the sky.

Bob
Jobmatchbox.com

PS-If anyone wants a change we’ve got a lot of startups in Washington, DC who are hiring now.

Clearly, smarter people than you disagree with your silly point of view and have launched the investigation anyway.

Consider kicking yourself in the balls. Or reading the business section of any newspaper in America.

Thanks Twit.

Umm, yes.

Stop Talking now.

The issue isn’t that a particular company chooses not to poach from a competitor.

This issue is when the primary competitors collectively agree to abide by the rule.

What else is being discussed among competitors?
Jobs? Wages? Product rollouts? Price Increases? Layoff?

THAT is anti-competitive behavior. And that is precisely why the DOJ is involved.

Nitwit.

I’m beginning to think that even Erik didn’t read the NYT article before writing his post….

In this case the government are trying to guarantee your freedom to wander where you will and ensure a free market for labor.

They are going after suspected collusion when companies agree to NOT poach from each other for certain jobs, which screws employees and the talent free market big time.

Court cases about anti-trust prosecutions is not economic evidence?

Ryan said…
Go read some Adam Smith and then come back with an informed opinion.

State exactly what Adam Smith said about the free markets and monopolies via voluntary actions of market agents (ie, consumers/producers) ?

Just watch.

Falafulu Fisi – if you’re looking for evidence, just ask the Supreme Court, there’s plenty. You obviously have no clue about macro-economics. Your view is over simplified because it never extends beyond the act of a single consumer transaction. Go read some Adam Smith and then come back with an informed opinion.

Shouldn’t the Justice Department be doing something useful, like prosecuting vote fraud (i.e. Black Panthers threatening voters with nightsticks) or possibly helping lock up terrorists.

BTW, when is agreeing not to screw over a competitor anti-trust, and not an indicator of integrity? That’s kind of anti-anti-trust (ie, you don’t steal your competitors good employees away, this keeping them in business,rather than putting them out of business and gaining more share of the market for yourself).

The more I read this, the more I am convinced bureaucrats became bureaucrats because they couldn’t succeed at anytihng else (like private business, or common sense)

How do you get to be one in the first place? Did any monopoly got there with the bless of the state? I mean the state stepped in there and helped Microsoft by banning any other competitors via law not to come in to its territory so that it becomes a monopoly? You don’t get there by holding a gun to consumers foreheads. Consumers voluntarily buy those products/services out of their own volition?

The other point is, does Microsoft or any other monopolies have rights to your money? Are they entitle to get your money via buying from them? If yes, what is this entitlement is based on? If no, then my point stands. Consumers don’t have rights to anyone’s products in the market. If they don’t like them, don’t buy them, simple as that. The properties/products/services belong to the owners and not the consumers. Statism argues the other way. The fruits of your work belongs (I mean anyone can have a claim to it) to the the society.