5 ms·

Yeah hate to spoil the party, but this is not 'wage theft'. Wage theft is very specifically the act of withholding wages that an employee is entitled to accordi

Yeah hate to spoil the party, but this is not 'wage theft'. Wage theft is very specifically the act of withholding wages that an employee is entitled to according to the terms of his or her employment agreement. What happened here is not even 'price-fixing', it's a fairly weak attempt at 'collusion'. Yes, it seems improper at first blush and the email exchanges are almost comically incriminating, but my guess is that it didn't really have a substantial effect on the engineer salaries write large (or even executive salaries). Agreeing not to cold-call employees is not the same thing as refusing to hire them; that latter would have had a major depressing effect on wages (kind of like if all MLB teams had a handshake agreement to never sign another team's free agent) but that clearly isn't what happened here. It seems to me like the proof is in the pudding. If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. Anyway, I have no idea how this lawsuit will shake out, but I know that Pando Daily is doing a shit-ass job of reporting, and I regret clicking on the link and giving them the additional pageview.

coralreef 13y ago
If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. How do you conclude that they're failing?
- polyomino 13y ago
  Astroturfing
  - skj 13y ago
    I assume that the poster was being genuine, but is also suffering wage-shock - the wages that tech workers get are so much higher than what he/she was used to getting, and for far less (apparent) effort than people who make peanuts. It seems unfair, until you realize how much money the company is getting for these services.
zaidf 13y ago
If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. If crooks are trying to rob retailers, I don't see empty shelves at walmart so the crooks are obviously failing. (I don't think it matters if Jobs failed or succeeded. The appalling thing here is that Steve Jobs attempted an extremely scummy and potentially illegal move.)
rhizome 13y ago
it's a fairly weak attempt at 'collusion'. What form of success here qualifies as "weak?" If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. You're going to have to show your work here.
- rfnslyr 13y ago
  The fact that I'm a 21 year old drop out making nearly 100k because I sat in my mom's basement for a few years and studied software that interested me is pretty crazy.
  - MarkPNeyer 13y ago
    why? what makes you think you aren't worth 10 times that?
    - rfnslyr 13y ago
      How do I properly quantify exactly how much value I'm adding to the company I work for and the world to possibly determine how much I'm precisely worth?
      - jimbokun 13y ago
        You're almost there... Now apply this to the implication that these sv companies did not depress engineer wages.
        rfnslyr 13y ago
        You're absolutely right. I'm demanding a 500k bonus from my boss tomorrow or I'm GONE!
        MarkPNeyer 13y ago
        why does that make sense? you aren't paid in proportion to your worth; you are only paid in proportion to your negotiating power. if 50 other people can produce the same worth for your employer, you're going to be paid a lot less than if you are the only one who can produce the same amount of worth. don't take this as an argument that you are being paid "unfairly" - you're not. just see it this way - you are worth much more than that. set your career sights a lot higher because you deserve it.
cpprototypes 13y ago
From the article, "a) never cold call each other’s employees; b) notify each other if making an offer to an employee of the other company, even if that employee applied for the job on his or her own without being recruited; c) any offer made would be “final” so as to avoid a costly bidding war that would drive up not just the employee’s salary, but also drive up the pay scale of every other employee in the firm." I think it's clear how this would affect wages.
jobu 13y ago
"Wage-fixing" is probably more accurate than "wage theft", but it is most certainly illegal under antitrust law. The key issues I see in the case: 1) they agreed not to do counteroffers 2) some of them shared salary data 3) they agreed to disallow active recruiting (cold-calling) 4) they agreed notify each other when hiring from each other The third seems a little weak, but it definitely crosses the line when you combine it with the fourth (and emails between CEOs to stop hires that were already in the works).
Daishiman 13y ago
What an apologist for corporate theft. It is absolutely clear that the market price for engineers in a free market would be much higher if there wasn't collusion. And their efforts are evidently working, because otherwise Jobs wouldn't be threatening other CEOs with "going to war" over this. It's so important to them that they're willing to cut significant cooperative deals with each other. This is the exact proof that software needs unionization and is not in any exempt from the worldly issues of labor anywhere else.
ufmace 13y ago
I'd agree that using the term 'wage theft' roughly 500 times in the article seems way over the top, and makes the whole article sound like left-wing propaganda. Yeah, it's illegal, and I don't have much sympathy for them getting whatever happens as a result of the collusion investigation, but it does seem pretty weak. The best proof I can think of that they were or were not effective is to look at engineer wages at companies that were not subject to these agreements, like startups. Most of them are probably too small to benefit from tech giants agreeing not to try to recruit their people, or at least stand to gain much more from paying excessively high salaries to recruit from those tech giants. So are there a bunch of startups routinely paying much more than normal salaries to hire top talent quickly?

coralreef 13y ago

If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. How do you conclude that they're failing?

polyomino 13y ago
Astroturfing
- skj 13y ago
  I assume that the poster was being genuine, but is also suffering wage-shock - the wages that tech workers get are so much higher than what he/she was used to getting, and for far less (apparent) effort than people who make peanuts. It seems unfair, until you realize how much money the company is getting for these services.

zaidf 13y ago

If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. If crooks are trying to rob retailers, I don't see empty shelves at walmart so the crooks are obviously failing. (I don't think it matters if Jobs failed or succeeded. The appalling thing here is that Steve Jobs attempted an extremely scummy and potentially illegal move.)

rhizome 13y ago

it's a fairly weak attempt at 'collusion'. What form of success here qualifies as "weak?" If big tech companies are colluding to depress engineer wages, they're pretty obviously failing. You're going to have to show your work here.

rfnslyr 13y ago
The fact that I'm a 21 year old drop out making nearly 100k because I sat in my mom's basement for a few years and studied software that interested me is pretty crazy.
- MarkPNeyer 13y ago
  why? what makes you think you aren't worth 10 times that?
  - rfnslyr 13y ago
    How do I properly quantify exactly how much value I'm adding to the company I work for and the world to possibly determine how much I'm precisely worth?
    - jimbokun 13y ago
      You're almost there... Now apply this to the implication that these sv companies did not depress engineer wages.
      - rfnslyr 13y ago
        You're absolutely right. I'm demanding a 500k bonus from my boss tomorrow or I'm GONE!
        MarkPNeyer 13y ago
        why does that make sense? you aren't paid in proportion to your worth; you are only paid in proportion to your negotiating power. if 50 other people can produce the same worth for your employer, you're going to be paid a lot less than if you are the only one who can produce the same amount of worth. don't take this as an argument that you are being paid "unfairly" - you're not. just see it this way - you are worth much more than that. set your career sights a lot higher because you deserve it.

cpprototypes 13y ago

From the article, "a) never cold call each other’s employees; b) notify each other if making an offer to an employee of the other company, even if that employee applied for the job on his or her own without being recruited; c) any offer made would be “final” so as to avoid a costly bidding war that would drive up not just the employee’s salary, but also drive up the pay scale of every other employee in the firm." I think it's clear how this would affect wages.

jobu 13y ago

"Wage-fixing" is probably more accurate than "wage theft", but it is most certainly illegal under antitrust law. The key issues I see in the case: 1) they agreed not to do counteroffers 2) some of them shared salary data 3) they agreed to disallow active recruiting (cold-calling) 4) they agreed notify each other when hiring from each other The third seems a little weak, but it definitely crosses the line when you combine it with the fourth (and emails between CEOs to stop hires that were already in the works).

Daishiman 13y ago

What an apologist for corporate theft. It is absolutely clear that the market price for engineers in a free market would be much higher if there wasn't collusion. And their efforts are evidently working, because otherwise Jobs wouldn't be threatening other CEOs with "going to war" over this. It's so important to them that they're willing to cut significant cooperative deals with each other. This is the exact proof that software needs unionization and is not in any exempt from the worldly issues of labor anywhere else.

ufmace 13y ago

I'd agree that using the term 'wage theft' roughly 500 times in the article seems way over the top, and makes the whole article sound like left-wing propaganda. Yeah, it's illegal, and I don't have much sympathy for them getting whatever happens as a result of the collusion investigation, but it does seem pretty weak. The best proof I can think of that they were or were not effective is to look at engineer wages at companies that were not subject to these agreements, like startups. Most of them are probably too small to benefit from tech giants agreeing not to try to recruit their people, or at least stand to gain much more from paying excessively high salaries to recruit from those tech giants. So are there a bunch of startups routinely paying much more than normal salaries to hire top talent quickly?