Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses

Samsung, LG Sued Over US Employee Recruiting Policies (reuters.com) 35

A former sales manager for LG has sued Samsung and LG in a California court, alleging that both the companies have poached each other's U.S. employees despite having signed an agreement to not do so. Reuters reports: The plaintiff, A. Frost, says in the lawsuit that a recruiter contacted Frost via LinkedIn in 2013, seeking to fill a position with Samsung. According to the lawsuit, the recruiter then informed Frost the same day: "I made a mistake! I'm not supposed to poach LG for Samsung!!! Sorry! The two companies have an agreement that they won't steal each other's employees." It is "implausible" that such a deal in the United States could have been reached without the consent of each company's corporate parent in South Korea, says the lawsuit, which does not state a specific damages amount.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung, LG Sued Over US Employee Recruiting Policies

Comments Filter:
  • by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @11:33AM (#52879185)

    The editors make this sound like what was wrong was that they were poaching each other's employees despite agreeing not to.

    Wrong.

    What is wrong, as clearly outlined in the article, if the editor took 10 seconds to RTFA, is that such a deal, agreeing not to poach one anothers employees, is against anti-trust laws.

    • the only resumes they are getting are from companies they are not allowed to call...
    • When I read the synopsis, I figured the lawsuit was filed AFTER the bonehead recruiter let slip to the potential candidate that there was an agreement in place. To which I'm sure the candidate thought, "wtf?". And thus the lawsuit was born.

      Didn't this happen to Apple and Google some time back too?
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @11:41AM (#52879259)

      Yeah, terrible fucking summary, Makes it sound like some asshole is suing them for not honoring their non-poaching agreements. The actual article makes it clear that they are actually being sued for HAVING those non-poaching agreements in the first place.

    • manishs.
    • by fubarrr ( 884157 )
      FIY: non-competes, and antipoaching agreements are illegal in South Korea
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      What is wrong, as clearly outlined in the article, if the editor took 10 seconds to RTFA, is that such a deal, agreeing not to poach one anothers employees, is against anti-trust laws.

      It's alleged that it's against anti-trust.

      Anti-poaching agreements are NOT anti-hiring agreements. If Apple and Google have an anti-poaching agreement, employees are actually freely able to move between Apple and Google. It's always been the case. All an anti-poaching agreement states is one will not cold-call the other.

      Of cou

    • Do you mean there actually are anti-trust laws that are being enforced?

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @11:40AM (#52879243)

    such a deal is not ok under CA labor laws as well other places.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:38PM (#52879623) Journal

    It appears the penalty for Apple/Google/Et-al's anti-poaching deal a few years ago was not strong enough to send a message to other companies thinking of the same.

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/... [fortune.com]

  • It's Samsung that we are talking about.

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne

Working...