Last week, the Washington Postreported that the US Department of Justice has begun an antitrust investigation into the hiring of practices of major technology and biotech companies including Google, Apple, Microsoft and Genentech. The reason for the investigation is to discover whether the informally followed "gentlemen's agreement" among tech companies not to poach one another's top talent has turned into active collusion between some companies.

According to a story in the San Jose Mercury News, a former Google recruiter claims that the company kept a "do not touch" list of top talent as a courtesy to other companies. A former recruiter for Yahoo, on the other hand, has said in the same story that it had no such restrictions and actively recruited personnel from other tech companies.

As noted in this story by the New York Times, "a group of oil geologists and petroleum engineers who sued Exxon and other oil companies for colluding in hiring decisions and thus suppressed wages" had their complaint upheld as recently as 2001, so it isn't like this practice is especially new or novel.

The Mercury News story notes that "California has especially tough rules barring companies from restricting their employees' job hunting. Many companies across the country require employees to sign so-called noncompete agreements, in which the worker agrees not to be hired by a competitor within a certain period of time." However, according to at least one labor lawyer, California law generally regards such noncompete agreements as unenforceable.

The Conversation (0)

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less