> I can see why you feel the outrage over this is overblown. I personally think there isn't enough outrage.

Agreed. Apple and Google were actively colluding against their workers.

The point of the comment to which you're replying is to be outraged at the right thing. Be outraged at the no-compete policy (it's illegal)! Don't be outraged at the efficient enforcement of the policy.

Would it be better if the recruiter had just been given a PIP instead of being terminated? And Eric Schmidt had e-mailed to Steve Jobs, "Sorry, won't happen again, the employee is on probation and I personally lectured them." No, because the policy would still be in effect.

The swift response from the top of both companies does tell us something, though. It tells us, for one thing, how much this had to do with a person-to-person deal between Schmidt and Jobs. It also shows how Google was anxious to demonstrate its faith to the agreement. The trust must have been pretty fragile if Google was so anxious to demonstrate it was not misplaced.

The problem with the OP is that it focuses anger on the efficient enforcement aspect. That's a side issue.

''Be outraged at the no-compete policy (it's illegal)! Don't be outraged at the efficient enforcement of the policy.''

It's reasonable to think that both things are not at all unrelated. In a mindset that considers "terminating an employee's career within the hour with no recourse" an efficient enforcement of policy, "colluding to ensure low wages" can be seen as achieving the same kind of efficiency for the company.

I think I'm fine with feeling outrage at the efficient enforcement of policy. Doing something bad efficiently doesn't suddenly make it good.