Tech industry wage suppression scandal is *WAY* worse than initially thought

[glenn1]

If the gov't would enforce current law, none of that would matter insofar as the OP topic.

But they don't. And instead of people asking why not, we get stupid right vs left red herring threads. The 0.1%ers own all of your dumb asses, because.. you're dumb.


Here's what it's supposed to be like :

http://www.payscale.com/compensation-today/2012/02/sherman-antitrust-act
...

"“Can you make sure that I only get data from ALL OF MY COMPETITORS in this report?”

“Why can’t I see which companies pay what in this report?”

The short answer is: collusion. It’s a big no-no.

The longer answer starts with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. "
...
Federal Trade Commission issued some guidelines commonly referred to as the Survey Safe Harbor Guidelines
...
1. Data should be collected and provided by a neutral third party;
2. Data cannot reflect the identity or any other factor that may allow someone to identify a participating organization; and
3. Data results can only be shown in aggregate form. "


How's that figure in with this very long list of companies ?

Or this?

"
Jobs threatened Brin and Google on February 17, 2005; nine days later, Apple’s VP for Human Resources sent out an internal email to Apple recruiting,

All,

Please add Google to your “hands-off” list. We recently agreed not to recruit from one another so if you hear of any recruiting they are doing against us, please be sure to let me know.

Please also be sure to honor our side of the deal."


If companies can do this to their employees, they can pay them whatever they want to pay. Once you go to work for someone - you're done.


Frankly though, the main issue here is that of accountability. The people who ordered it and those that followed those orders (HR, recruiters, legal teams) should be jailed / disbarred / decertified. Personal accountability is what's missing all over our legal system.

Instead, of course, the stock holders will get punished.

Did you ever think there might just be another reason apart from collusion why Google would refrain from hiring sales executives from other companies but not other positions? I don't suppose you know about what a "cease and desist" lawsuit is or that sales contacts/leads are property of the company, not the employee? Why should Google hire Joe Blow the sales executive from Apple when he won't be allowed to bring his book of business / customer list with him?

 

[Newell Steamer]

This is pretty underhanded.

And, I would not want to work for companies that have already stacked the deck against me in such a manner.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Did you ever think there might just be another reason apart from collusion why Google would refrain from hiring sales executives from other companies but not other positions? I don't suppose you know about what a "cease and desist" lawsuit is or that sales contacts/leads are property of the company, not the employee? Why should Google hire Joe Blow the sales executive from Apple when he won't be allowed to bring his book of business / customer list with him?

Because he's a damn good sales person and has proven himself in the tech industry already?

 

[emperus]

Did you ever think there might just be another reason apart from collusion why Google would refrain from hiring sales executives from other companies but not other positions? I don't suppose you know about what a "cease and desist" lawsuit is or that sales contacts/leads are property of the company, not the employee? Why should Google hire Joe Blow the sales executive from Apple when he won't be allowed to bring his book of business / customer list with him?

Maybe because of the same reason he was a successful sales executive at Apple when he didn't initially have his book of business/customer list with him.

Wow. Stockholm syndrome.

 

[lotus503]

While I think there are issues with these agreements I dont think for a minute wage suppresion was at the top of the list of reasons why they wanted to engage in it.

Its very expensive to lose a management level tech employee to another company, it can derail or delay projects or products. Frankly I think being on a do not recruit list is ok, where I think it goes south is the refusal to look at applicants.

I dont agree with activly recruiting another firmss Top level product manager, but if he/she applies because he/she is looking to leave he should be considered.

But this isnt about wage fixing, its about not losing tribal knowledge on products/projects.

 

[dank69]

While I think there are issues with these agreements I dont think for a minute wage suppresion was at the top of the list of reasons why they wanted to engage in it.

Its very expensive to lose a management level tech employee to another company, it can derail or delay projects or products. Frankly I think being on a do not recruit list is ok, where I think it goes south is the refusal to look at applicants.

I dont agree with activly recruiting another firmss Top level product manager, but if he/she applies because he/she is looking to leave he should be considered.

But this isnt about wage fixing, its about not losing tribal knowledge on products/projects.

Tough shit. If they want to keep talent they should think about making sure their talent is happy and well compensated.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Tough shit. If they want to keep talent they should think about making sure their talent is happy and well compensated.

Nah, once you accept a job somewhere you should be considered their property and have the rights of a slave (but only during working hours, because otherwise that would be bad).