4 ms·

AFAIK the companies involved agreed to not solicit each other's employees. While somewhat shady, it's not on the same level as an agreement to cap wages. Basica

AFAIK the companies involved agreed to not solicit each other's employees. While somewhat shady, it's not on the same level as an agreement to cap wages. Basically the damages are covering the crime of not affirmatively using your recruiters to go after people. The "solution" sounds preposterous- You are forced to attempt to poach another company's employees, without regard to any other aspect of the business, such as maintaining good relationships with your suppliers or partners.

billyhoffman 12y ago
"the companies involved agreed to not solicit each other's employees. While somewhat shady, it's not on the same level as an agreement to cap wages." It was more than an agreement not to solicit each others employees, it was an agreement not to hire each others employees. [1]. "Alan, We’d strongly prefer that you not hire these guys. Steve" [2] These companies created an agreement which prevented people from getting paid their market rate. John Siracusa does an excellent job discussing this at length on ATP [3] [1]- http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-... [2]- http://pando.com/2014/03/27/how-steve-jobs-forced-google-to-cancel-its-plan-to-open-a-paris-office/ http://pando.com/2014/03/27/how-steve-jobs-forced-google-to-... [3]- http://atp.fm/episodes/59-the-little-puck-that-could http://atp.fm/episodes/59-the-little-puck-that-could and http://atp.fm/episodes/76 http://atp.fm/episodes/76
brandonmenc 12y ago
The solution is not: "you're forced to poach" - the solution is: "you're not allowed to collude."