> The bleeding hasn’t stopped in recent years as Apple’s work culture simply isn’t the best and other firms, namely the hyperscalers such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta, are paying more than Apple was to poach talent.
I really hate that word “poach”. Using “attract” works much better in that sentence.
I find it appalling how entering into a free contract with someone to give them more money for their work is called “poaching”.
Words matter, and how we describe something has an impact in how it is viewed (“piracy” is another example).
> A group of big tech companies, including Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel, recently settled a lawsuit over their "no poach" agreement for $324 million. The CEOs of those companies had agreed not to do "cold call" recruiting of each others' engineers until they were busted by the Department of Justice, which saw the deal as an antitrust violation. The government action was followed up by a class-action lawsuit from the affected workers, who claimed the deal suppressed their wages.
It’s corporate America. “Performance improvement plans” and “at will states” are also part of the same lexicon. (Judge that as you will.)
On poaching though, Apple could choose to respond to the market signal by improving their work culture and policies to retain talent. I do wonder about the supply for these highly skilled hardware engineers though.
I really hate that word “poach”. Using “attract” works much better in that sentence.
I find it appalling how entering into a free contract with someone to give them more money for their work is called “poaching”.
Words matter, and how we describe something has an impact in how it is viewed (“piracy” is another example).