eBay hit with antitrust suit over hiring practices The US Department of Justice and the State of California both filed suit against eBay on Friday, alleging that the online marketplace entered into an illegal, anticompetitive hiring pact with tax and financial software maker Intuit. As reported by Bloomberg, the lawsuit charges eBay with developing an "evolving handshake" …
Collecting their cut on boxes of Twinkies going for $10-$20 a pop now that Hostess is going out of business.
Seriously, Twinkies are going for $10+ a box!! Maybe the Justice Department should look into that :)
"Won't someone think of the children!" icon, because future generations of American children will miss out on a dietary rite of passage....
This post has been deleted by its author
What on earth do the people who draw up these agreements think they're doing? They think they are our lords and masters, that's what. Do you think for a moment that we could tie CEOs to particular organisations the same way without a shitstorm about how the economy needs them to be free to move from company to company?
The fact that they realise how bad that would be for them, and indeed the very principles of free-market capitalism, means that the only explanation for them trying to bind us to our corporate masters is that they actually think they are a different class of people to us. Well, maybe they are, but probably not in the way they think they are.
So the consequences for the companies that have engaged in this practice is that they sure shouldn't do it again!
What the hell kind of message does that send? Go ahead and try to make these kinds of deals, you get a free pass on the first one.
The consequence should have been a forced bonus to all employees (who were not mentioned as participants in the making of this deal or can be reasonably held accountable for such a deal having taken place) of $X where X is somehow related to the pay received by the company CEO. Say CEO salary divided by number of employees?
Big fine for the company. Share holders sue the directors for malpractice, would be a nice start. No Idea how practical it would be in reality, but it would sure as hell be entertaining.
"No i'm not incompetent"
"So you entered into this agreement knowing it was illegal, unethical, and had the potential to cost your sharegholders millions?"
"Ummmm...What was that first option again?"
These practices are plain and simple a mechanism to keep salaries lower as people cannot hop between companies getting pay rises.
More and more permanent employees are realising that the only way to get a decent (and in some cases any) pay rise is move job. Anything that the corpocracy can do to prevent this they will do until they are caught out.
They dress it up as trying to prevent poaching (usually already high paid employees) but the real reason is to prevent "salary hopping" by lower level employees.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
