RIM sues Motorola for blocking hiring of workers: report

[Machjo]

RIM sues Motorola for blocking hiring of workers: report

Unbelieveable. I can understand for the purpose of protecting intellectual property that companies would have such an agreement. But certainly once a company either fires or lays off a worker, the deal is off for that worker at least. Imagine the audacity to lay a worker off and then prevent (yes, prevent) him from finding work elsewhere where his skills can be put to use! Certainly a precondition for any such agreement must be that that employee is always welcome back to the original company. Even if the employee himself quits, and the orginal company doesn't want him back, then from that point forward he should be free for the taking.

If I were an ex-employee, I'd take legal action against them myself. I'm not saying I'd never buy from Motorola in the future, but news like this certainly doesn't help their PR, especially in the midst of a recession.

 

[Machjo]

Though I lean in favour of capitalism over socialism in most cases, education is one area where I think government should re-imburse companies for any training they provide their employees, paid for out of our taxes. This way it would prevent one company from unfairly poaching from other companies while still giving workers the freedom to move from company to company. Since we would all be paying the tax, no one company would be more disavantaged than any other. And since companies would be re-imbursed for all training provided, it would be no loss to the company if an employee should then leave for another company. This would help the economy by granting more worker mobility while still ensuring a level playing ground for all.

 

[Machjo]

This would also make companies less hesitant about spending to upgrade their workers' skills, and so improve efficiency in all parts of the economy. Under the current system, an employer might be hesitant abour training an employee because of the risk involved. If the employee stays, it benefits the company. But if the employee leaves right after the training, it's not only a loss for the company, but might even end up benefitting a competitor.

I don't believe in government interfering with the free market when it works fine on its own. But we can't deny that some parts of the economy could best be regulated by govenrment, not the free market, and I believe this is one of those cases because of the worker mobility issue involved.

 

[Machjo]

If we go this route though, then we'd be moving in the same direction Japan had taken many decades ago, which involves co-operation between the governmetn, labour, and management of various companies that in a Western setting would be in competition with one another. Even Toyota and Honda have been known to work together with their employees and the japanese govenrment, oftwn with the government providing the funding for research and development, and in this way making the companies less competitive in protecting copyright from one another and more co-operative at least in some areas instead. By 'competitive' here, I'm not using it as a synonym for 'efficient' as we often do in North America. Sometimes companies can become more efficient through co-operation rather than competition.

If we went in the direction of government paying for job training, we might see something else with Canadian companies becoming less concerned about employees going over to competitors, thus reducing the competition and letting skilled labour go where the work is needed, thus making the companies less competitive but more efficient and maybe even a little more co-operative in the process.

 

[safeinsocal]

an alternative

Maybe RIM should hire these folks in California.
Here's why:

Per the California Supreme Court -

Californians have the right to move from one company to another or start their own business and can't be prohibited by their employer from working for a competitor in their next job, the state Supreme Court ruled. In a unanimous decision, the justices said state law since 1872 has forbidden what are called noncompete clauses that restrict management employees' options after they leave a company.