this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
238 points (98.4% liked)

Just Post

851 readers
8 users here now

Just post something ๐Ÿ’›

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 80 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (10 children)

I'll still gladly piss on his grave but that's pretty good. Can't you just picture that douchebag typing this aloud to himself like "and SEND! What a dick."

Edit: "I'm gonna use short simple sentences so this fuckin moron can get the point."

[โ€“] [email protected] 69 points 2 days ago (9 children)

it's perfect email composition. short and simple, right to the point, while still containing enough relevant information.

[โ€“] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Yeah, agreed. Say only what you need to, let the implications do their own work.

[โ€“] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

yeah, why be explicit about the illegal collusion.

[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is it illegal to agree not to recruit each other's workers? I'd be kinda surprised.

[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Very much illegal. It's a form of labor wage control

Imagine once you get a FAANG job you cant get another job offer from a different FAANG company, now your stuck, no price bidding, no ladder hopping, no finding a new job when your unhappy

[โ€“] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It is not illegal. Companies can agree to not recruit - an activity initiated by recruiters - from each other. Now, if they agreed to not hire each other's employees, that would be a violation of right-to-work.

He nowhere says he has a rule to not hire Adobe employees; he's saying he has a rule that his recruiters can't use Adobe's employee org chart as a shopping menu. That's completely legal.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah I'm with you

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think that is accurate. I am not a lawyer but I believe that it is collusion between competitors with the intent to manipulate the labor market.

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like that's the exact sort of loophole the U.S government would choose not to address for convenience, of course.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Oh! Enforcement is a joke, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it is legal, just makes the government work hard for it and since they were strapped (now scrapped), they don't pursue action against these fuckers.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)