back to article Adobe, Apple, Google hit by wage-fixing case

Six of Silicon Valley's largest companies have been named in a class action suit seeking compensation for anti-competitive employment practices to which the companies have already admitted. Late last year the Department of Justice reached a settlement with Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar to stop them continuing …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. lglethal Silver badge


    Whilst i can see people wanting to join this class action lawsuit and get some money back which they may have been rightly deserving (paychecks kept artificially low by the non-poaching clause!). Arent you pretty much guaranteeing you will never work in Silicon valley again?

  2. DZ-Jay

    I'm confused

    How does this affect the employee? It seems to me that they're just preventing each other from cold-calling employees and poach them. It does not seem to apply to employees wanting to move from one to the other, or does it?


    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It does. Even worse

      Read the article.

      1. The company you work for is made aware that you are looking for a job.

      2. You are not given a job with the other company

      3. Even if you are, your salary is set at the same level you are now so you are guaranteed that a job move cannot become a career progression.

      Don't you love people who talk about workforce agility, award themselves golden handshakes and treat non-unionised tech personel like dirt.

    2. adam.c

      "I'm confused" - try reading the article again

      "Secondly, if someone from Pixar applied for a job at LucasFilm, then LucasFilm would inform Pixar. And thirdly if either firm made a job offer, the rival company would not try to better that offer."

      Gee - let me think how this could play out badly for the peon.

      The second point could make things more difficult for the employee if they decide to stay and their manager has decided they're no longer worth rewarding or investing in due a perceived lack of loyalty.

      The third point would seem to be a restraint on an employee finding their true market value by preventing an open auction for their talents to occur.

      I'm sure others can describe further scenarios...

    3. SImon Hobson Silver badge

      Err ...

      >> It does not seem to apply to employees wanting to move from one to the other, or does it?

      Yes it does.

      You work for A, but think the grass is greener over at B. You approach B, and may even be applying for a specific advertised job.

      Normal practice would be that B would look at your experience etc, and if you meet the criteria for the job, are better than the other candidates, etc then they may make an offer based on what they a) think you are worth to them, and b) what they think you'll go to them for. If there is a demand for people with your skills then pay goes up - laws of supply and demand. Even if you don't move, the fact that other employers are prepared to offer more pay means that your current employer (A) may well increase your pay so at to avoid you leaving.

      With this illegal agreement in place, something different happens.

      When you apply for job at B, B has agreed with A that :

      a) they will tell A that you've applied for a job with B, so your current employer knows what job(s) you are applying for.

      b) they won't offer you any more than you are on now, so you can't change jobs to get more money. Suddenly the laws of supply and demand no longer apply, and only people from outside "the group" can benefit from having in demand skills that result in higher pay.

      So two of the three agreement points DO directly affect someone attempting to apply for another job in the industry. The only point that wouldn't apply in this case would be the one that says B won't contact employees of A and try to entice them away.

      The direct and foreseeable result of this agreement is to artificially hold down pay to the detriment of employees and benefit of the employers - that's why the big 6 entered into it, and when they were found out, have been hit hard for it. It's also why, having been found guilty, the employers are now facing claims from employees wanting to make up some of the lost earnings.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shock horror

    ......Six of Silicon Valley's largest companies proven to be corrupt.

    Hardly surprising tho.

  4. Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, like UK is any different

    Anonymous for obvious reasons.

    I have seen that one done by a number of UK technology/telecoms blue chips.

    Nothing new here, move along. Most countries outside continental EU do that. Some openly (India), some less so (UK and USA).

  5. Anonymous Coward

    Darn it

    I knew I should have for a higher salary...

    (very happy with it, actually)

  6. Wang N Staines

    a slap on the wrist...

    and everyone moves on. Rinse & repeat!

  7. mike panero

    Reminds me of the 70's

    In the 70's everyone agreed wage inflation was killing the economy and the main reason was Unions (spit, curse)

    Once the Unions were killed no one ever said anything about wage inflation except to say massive top brass "renumeration packages" reflected their market value

    Perhaps they can make apply for a job when you have one the same as kiddie fiddling / drink driving, you will feel the guilt instead of them, that's how I would do it, seeing as you twats all vote that way

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022