If you were arguing that Google was hiring all those people in a way that was short term and unsustainable, you might have a point. But unlike the US steel example [1], you haven't made such an argument. You've just argued that competition can damage companies, which of course is part of the point.

One way to look at anti-competitive rules is that the point isn't to protect companies at all. In the steel case, the point is that dumping will destroy the American industry and then--this is the crucial part--China can hike up its prices way above current levels because there's no competition. If China couldn't do that for whatever reason, then that would be great for American consumers, who would benefit from cheaper steel, and--in principle at least--the competition rules would do nothing about it. In other words, in theory, the law doesn't care about the American steel industry; it only cares about the long-term well-being of steel consumers, which requires sane pricing. That industries have co-opted that in all sorts of ways to ironically entrench their positions in anti-competitive ways should not distract you from the core purpose of the rules.

So applying that here, since the rules in question are meant to protect the workers, the problem would be if Google were hiring all these people to destroy Apple and then be able to slash salaries, since no one would have anywhere else to go. Since that strikes me as implausible, and at the very least not established, I can't see how we can think of Google's poaching as anti-competitive.

[1] I'm not sure I buy the US steel argument either, but that's a separate discussion.