4 ms·

(studied competition law in law school). Everyone having the same starting salary can be arrived at by non-illegal means, such as seeing what the others are off

(studied competition law in law school). Everyone having the same starting salary can be arrived at by non-illegal means, such as seeing what the others are offering and matching. To successfully prosecute for price fixing you need actual evidence of collusion. That is usually obtained by whistleblowing, as the first person usually gets a reduced sentence (example: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/cartel-immunity-policy-strengthened-whistleblowing-tool-launched https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/cartel-immunity-policy...). Price fixing in buying/hiring is not monopoly btw, it's monopsony.

aerhardt 3y ago
Sorry to nitpick on this tangential detail, but what does “reduced sentence” entail? On paper it sounds like many people would rather take the secret to their graves.
- killingtime74 3y ago
  It's not tangential at all. Depends on jurisdiction and policy by prosecuting authorities. Could be smaller fine, to complete immunity. I'm not familiar with American case law but I remember seeing that Matt Damon film "The Informant" that is based on a true story. The whistleblower (Matt Damon) was going to get complete immunity as he was the first to tell the FBI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy. He ended up having his immunity rescinded for other reasons.
IshKebab 3y ago
What counts as collusion? Would those services that privately share salary information between companies count? Doesn't seem too different.
- killingtime74 3y ago
  May need to read more for your jurisdiction (depends on your case law in your country). Usually it's explicit communication between the parties to price fix. If you were using those services that share salary information to communicate to your competitors, it probably does. If your employees/ex-employees do it without you telling them to (with evidence that you did), probably not.

aerhardt 3y ago

Sorry to nitpick on this tangential detail, but what does “reduced sentence” entail? On paper it sounds like many people would rather take the secret to their graves.

killingtime74 3y ago
It's not tangential at all. Depends on jurisdiction and policy by prosecuting authorities. Could be smaller fine, to complete immunity. I'm not familiar with American case law but I remember seeing that Matt Damon film "The Informant" that is based on a true story. The whistleblower (Matt Damon) was going to get complete immunity as he was the first to tell the FBI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy. He ended up having his immunity rescinded for other reasons.

IshKebab 3y ago

What counts as collusion? Would those services that privately share salary information between companies count? Doesn't seem too different.

killingtime74 3y ago
May need to read more for your jurisdiction (depends on your case law in your country). Usually it's explicit communication between the parties to price fix. If you were using those services that share salary information to communicate to your competitors, it probably does. If your employees/ex-employees do it without you telling them to (with evidence that you did), probably not.