The Pando article itself is spin. It wasn't a 'wage fixing cartel'. It was a non-poaching agreement, which may or may not have resulted in lower wages as a side-effect. I'm not sure it's even accurate to call it a 'cartel'. A cartel agrees to fix prices, which didn't happen in this case. They didn't even agree to fix wages, so the article is essentially bullshit in my opinion.
While they didn't agree to "fix" wages. They did this for two purposes. One was to keep down employee churn , and so they can keep the salary lower. How do you hire someone away? One way is to offer them more money. How to keep the employee, one way is to offer them more money.
A cartel are competitors who privately agree to essentially not compete, and this can include on the production side (which in this case are tech workers). The unavoidable, and intentional impact of that is wage suppression. This isn't a "maybe", this is absolute certainty: A rising Google upset the apple cart by offering more than those other companies were, and everyone else was sour that they'd have to start paying more to keep their employees. This agreement, without any doubt at all, took money out of the pockets of tech workers.
I'm generally a fan of Google, but I have a negative opinion of Eric Schmidt. So many times he says and does things that seem so fundamentally detached from real life.
Because it is illegal. No need to be a dbag and downvote me because you didnt read my comment properly. Its illegal but not wage fixing and not a cartel.
Colluding to not recruit between those players sounds like an intent to limit (to some extent) employees options, which would reduce upward pressure on wages.
Sorry, I assumed 3 comments = 3 downvotes. Anyway, I was just pointing out that it doesn't match any definition of 'cartel' that I can see. However it's still illegal (but not because it's a cartel).
Comments
The Pando article itself is spin. It wasn't a 'wage fixing cartel'. It was a non-poaching agreement, which may or may not have resulted in lower wages as a side-effect. I'm not sure it's even accurate to call it a 'cartel'. A cartel agrees to fix prices, which didn't happen in this case. They didn't even agree to fix wages, so the article is essentially bullshit in my opinion.
While they didn't agree to "fix" wages. They did this for two purposes. One was to keep down employee churn , and so they can keep the salary lower. How do you hire someone away? One way is to offer them more money. How to keep the employee, one way is to offer them more money.
A cartel are competitors who privately agree to essentially not compete, and this can include on the production side (which in this case are tech workers). The unavoidable, and intentional impact of that is wage suppression. This isn't a "maybe", this is absolute certainty: A rising Google upset the apple cart by offering more than those other companies were, and everyone else was sour that they'd have to start paying more to keep their employees. This agreement, without any doubt at all, took money out of the pockets of tech workers.
I'm generally a fan of Google, but I have a negative opinion of Eric Schmidt. So many times he says and does things that seem so fundamentally detached from real life.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that the hero of this story -- the only one who actually saw that it was wrong and probably illegal, was Edward Colligan, then the CEO of Palm - http://pando.com/2014/02/19/court-documents-reveal-steve-job...
Not according to any defn i can see. All defns say a cartel regulates production and output.
Then why the investigations by DOJ and Cal AG?
Because it is illegal. No need to be a dbag and downvote me because you didnt read my comment properly. Its illegal but not wage fixing and not a cartel.
Actually, I've never down-voted anybody.
Colluding to not recruit between those players sounds like an intent to limit (to some extent) employees options, which would reduce upward pressure on wages.
What would you call that?
Sorry, I assumed 3 comments = 3 downvotes. Anyway, I was just pointing out that it doesn't match any definition of 'cartel' that I can see. However it's still illegal (but not because it's a cartel).