* More effectively preventing the transfer of trade secrets or other proprietary information; non-competes are widely unenforceable, so while no-poach doesn't necessarily stop it, it makes it less likely.
* Preventing major disruption to studios' projects as key players are poached any time a film goes into production. You could say they should have separate contracts binding the employee to stay for the duration if that's the concern, but that's not really practical, especially in an at-will employment state, where said contracts will be viewed with heavy skepticism by all parties. The more efficient way to achieve a similar effect is to just agree at the corporate level that you won't engage in this practice. This can have the side effect of limiting wages, but I don't think it necessarily has to.
* "Poaching" can be variously defined; the contract may make it legal for a competitor to process an applicant, but not legal to actively pursue staff that have not expressed direct interest. In such arrangements, employee mobility would be considerably less hampered.
I think those are good intentions. The business guy is trying to do right by the business, which is the sum of all of his employees. One could logically conclude that if films are constantly hindered by bidding wars, making 90% of the process recruitment, and secret information is constantly wrongly disseminated by that high rate of turnover, that his business may struggle and jeopardize the livelihoods of everyone involved. Some people may not believe it, but employee dependence does weigh heavily on good people in high-powered corporate positions.
One could also argue that the bidding wars just have to continue until the price for an animator stabilizes and that the companies just need to suck it up. These highly-editorialized articles definitely seem to make that case, and claim that the law backs up that perspective. That's fine if so. But it doesn't make Ed Catmull or the executives at every other firm involved in these pacts evil moustache-twirlers that exist only to steal from the middle-class, and we shouldn't be so quick to throw our own under the bus.
Why not negotiate a way to make the employee want to stay for the duration of the project? If the monthly salary isn't enough to ensure the duration of service you need, find a way to offer additional compensation.
Try back-loading the employee's contract with increasingly large incentives in the latter stages of the project. Any steps you take that limit the employee's career mobility and agency without employee agreement and compensation are suspect.
I do like this idea of a 'vesting'-like timeline. Especially in high-risk, high-turnover projects, tying final bonuses upfront to sticking till the project ends sounds like a rational solution.
But is simply refraining from one specific something – outbound targeted 'poaching' of your competitor's superstars – really 'trampling' on the employee?
If they never hired an applicant from a competitor, that'd be low. If they sabotaged their own employees' independent applications elsewhere, that'd be low.
But targeted outbound recruiting is a very specific activity – which is sometimes even viewed as harassment by the targets themselves. It's likely zero-sum for the industry, and possibly negative-sum – if it disrupts ongoing projects and deters investment in employee-specific enrichments.
A cutthroat bidding-war attitude – between competitors, and between employee short-term compensation and the enterprise's long-term value – isn't necessarily in the interest of all industries or even most of the employees. (It might, for example, reward superstars but at the expense of the bulk of employees seeking stability and meaning in their work. It's hard to say, and the rush-to-demonize crowd does not appear to have studied the tradeoffs as closely as Catmull and similar.)
Starting a cycle of incentivized poaching could be like starting a cycle of nasty-negative-advertising. A first-mover might get a temporary advantage, but once everyone responds, they're all worse off for having competed in that way. Even the stars who 'won' immediate compensation boosts might wind up losing, as projects fail and the industry underperforms.
I appreciate the grey area here and that probably calling Catmull a monster is taking things a bit far. But especially the email about Jill getting poached suggested that Pixar had zero interest in promoting her internally, while Sony was offering her a chance at career growth.
It's hard not to sound like an asshole while you tell someone they're not good enough to be promoted while also having a handshake agreement with your direct competitors to nod along and make it easier for you to manage your profit margins.
>But especially the email about Jill getting poached suggested that Pixar had zero interest in promoting her internally
The email seemed to reflect that Pixar had considered promoting the poached employee and hadn't done so for Good Reasons(TM). Catmull admitted she had potential and would probably grow into a promotion at Pixar, but stated she was lacking experience in a "major area" of the production cycle. That doesn't sound like an arbitrary "I hate employees, let's treat them like dirt" conclusion, it sounds reasonable to me. Sony was desperate enough to hire people that didn't have that experience, but Pixar wasn't, so she went to work for Sony. I don't see the problem.
> An employee really worth it will see their salary go up.
Maybe at some places but I'd bet not at the vast majority. An employee that is worth more than they are paid will sometimes be given a raise that was not asked for. The employee may also ask for a raise and either be denied or accepted. Lastly, the employee may look elsewhere and be recognised for the new value that they can bring.
Of the 3, the last option is what I've noticed much more often. This isn't (always) the "fault" of the employee, but of the employer unwilling to recognise or pay for the value being delivered.
I imagine the thought process goes "they are delivering X for value Y, why would we give away our profits for value Z?". But just like companies that need to demonstrate profit growth, the employees will want to see their own profits grow especially when their experience should lead to increased value delivered.
* Preventing major disruption to studios' projects as key players are poached any time a film goes into production. You could say they should have separate contracts binding the employee to stay for the duration if that's the concern, but that's not really practical, especially in an at-will employment state, where said contracts will be viewed with heavy skepticism by all parties. The more efficient way to achieve a similar effect is to just agree at the corporate level that you won't engage in this practice. This can have the side effect of limiting wages, but I don't think it necessarily has to.
* "Poaching" can be variously defined; the contract may make it legal for a competitor to process an applicant, but not legal to actively pursue staff that have not expressed direct interest. In such arrangements, employee mobility would be considerably less hampered.
I think those are good intentions. The business guy is trying to do right by the business, which is the sum of all of his employees. One could logically conclude that if films are constantly hindered by bidding wars, making 90% of the process recruitment, and secret information is constantly wrongly disseminated by that high rate of turnover, that his business may struggle and jeopardize the livelihoods of everyone involved. Some people may not believe it, but employee dependence does weigh heavily on good people in high-powered corporate positions.
One could also argue that the bidding wars just have to continue until the price for an animator stabilizes and that the companies just need to suck it up. These highly-editorialized articles definitely seem to make that case, and claim that the law backs up that perspective. That's fine if so. But it doesn't make Ed Catmull or the executives at every other firm involved in these pacts evil moustache-twirlers that exist only to steal from the middle-class, and we shouldn't be so quick to throw our own under the bus.