2 ms·

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. My point is that sharing salary band info is orthogonal to wage fixing (which you seem to agree with) >

by tqi 4y ago

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. My point is that sharing salary band info is orthogonal to wage fixing (which you seem to agree with) > If everyone brings their salary info to a secret meeting and writes it in a chalkboard and then uses that chalkboard to set their salaries it’s obviously collusion, and cases like that have plenty of legal precedent. The how of "set their salaries" is the difference between wage fixing or not. ie a company sharing / receiving of salary info (aka getting market reference points) and deciding that it wants to be at the Nth percentile is not wage-fixing. Wage-fixing would be if that company got together with another company (or companies) and agreed to stay at the Nth percentile.

CPLX 4y ago
> sharing salary band info is orthogonal to wage fixing No it’s not. Privately communicating with direct competitors about pricing is invariably the first step of an illegal price fixing conspiracy.
- tqi 4y ago
  > Privately communicating with direct competitors about pricing is invariably the first step of an illegal price fixing conspiracy. Sure, and having a drink is invariably the first step to drunk driving. That doesn't make having a drink = drunk driving. To be clear, I'm not defending the practice or saying it's never illegal. I'm saying sharing is not sufficient in and of itself. This article may be more convincing than an internet rando: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/wage-fixing-or-flexing-pay-transparency-laws-create-challenges https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/wage-fixing... > While wage fixing is easy to spot, a more subtle and related antitrust problem springs from wage disclosure: the mere agreement among employers to exchange wage information, even if they don’t agree on the actual wage itself, CAN lead to liability IF the information exchange negatively effects wages. > Antitrust can be complex, but even a simple agreement on wages is a violation. Proof can come by the agreement itself without proof of competitive effects. > An agreement between or among employers to exchange wage information, even if employers do not agree on the amount, can be illegal if that exchange resulted in lower wages.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    > Sure, and having a drink is invariably the first step to drunk driving. That doesn't make having a drink = drunk driving. Well yeah, but it sure as hell ain't orthogonal. If you see a bunch of people sitting around drinking heavily at a bar with their cars parked outside and someone says hey what does any of this have to do with drunk driving you might raise an eyebrow. Kind of like when you see a bunch of people who are supposed to be in direct ruthless competition with each other sharing lots of detailed price information. The link you posted just reinforces my point that this is also how the law tends to look at these things.
    - tqi 4y ago
      It's orthogonal because as the article clearly states, you can have wage fixing with or without sharing wage info. The agreement (ie collusion) and or competitive harm is the crux.

by tqi 4y ago

CPLX 4y ago

> sharing salary band info is orthogonal to wage fixing No it’s not. Privately communicating with direct competitors about pricing is invariably the first step of an illegal price fixing conspiracy.

tqi 4y ago
> Privately communicating with direct competitors about pricing is invariably the first step of an illegal price fixing conspiracy. Sure, and having a drink is invariably the first step to drunk driving. That doesn't make having a drink = drunk driving. To be clear, I'm not defending the practice or saying it's never illegal. I'm saying sharing is not sufficient in and of itself. This article may be more convincing than an internet rando: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/wage-fixing-or-flexing-pay-transparency-laws-create-challenges https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/wage-fixing... > While wage fixing is easy to spot, a more subtle and related antitrust problem springs from wage disclosure: the mere agreement among employers to exchange wage information, even if they don’t agree on the actual wage itself, CAN lead to liability IF the information exchange negatively effects wages. > Antitrust can be complex, but even a simple agreement on wages is a violation. Proof can come by the agreement itself without proof of competitive effects. > An agreement between or among employers to exchange wage information, even if employers do not agree on the amount, can be illegal if that exchange resulted in lower wages.
- CPLX 4y ago
  > Sure, and having a drink is invariably the first step to drunk driving. That doesn't make having a drink = drunk driving. Well yeah, but it sure as hell ain't orthogonal. If you see a bunch of people sitting around drinking heavily at a bar with their cars parked outside and someone says hey what does any of this have to do with drunk driving you might raise an eyebrow. Kind of like when you see a bunch of people who are supposed to be in direct ruthless competition with each other sharing lots of detailed price information. The link you posted just reinforces my point that this is also how the law tends to look at these things.
  - tqi 4y ago
    It's orthogonal because as the article clearly states, you can have wage fixing with or without sharing wage info. The agreement (ie collusion) and or competitive harm is the crux.