I worked there as well. The problem is that the kind of selective agreements are a form of market collusion that is enshrined as illegal in anti trust law. So

I worked there as well. The problem is that the kind of selective agreements are a form of market collusion that is enshrined as illegal in anti trust law. So even if it "makes sense" it also infers with market dynamics. Finally, the notion that this was an individual thing and there were no class impact is not so. The reason is that these companies have "brackets" for pay. If you are at a certain job title you make $X - $Y and corresponding amounts for options etc. These companies are also very interested in equity among the employees so if prices start rising they will have to draw up the low end affecting prices across the board. To the doubters, I point to the Facebook/google incident. Google was forced to give across the board 10% raises to every single employee because Facebook wasn't willing to sign anti poaching agreements. It's interesting that arguments essentially from das kapital are being raised here. Wages vs productivity. Intrinsic ideas of fairness are universal (and possible primate, studies showed). Google is in a weak position here.