Anonymous Coward writes:
In a follow up to our story a few days ago, Newly unsealed documents from Google and Apple further prove their complicity in a secret illegal agreement to limit employees' careers and wages. Some background on this cartel is available in another article covering the US Department of Justice investigation into this matter earlier this week. When these companies were caught red-handed, blatantly breaking the law, the US government intervened on workers' behalf by asking the companies to, in effect, "please stop doing this," but the proposed settlement will only "be in effect" for the next five years.
Go justice!
Related Stories
Anonymous Coward writes:
PandoDaily is reporting an illegal agreement between seven tech giants, including Apple, Google, and Intel, to suppress wages for tens of thousands of tech employees. From the article:
According to multiple sources familiar with the case, several of these newly named companies were also subpoenaed by the DOJ for their investigation. A spokesperson for Ask.com confirmed that in 2009-10 the company was investigated by the DOJ, and agreed to cooperate fully with that investigation. Other companies confirmed off the record that they too had been subpoenaed around the same time.
Although the Department ultimately decided to focus its attention on just Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, the emails and memos clearly name dozens more companies which, at least as far as Google and Apple executives were concerned, formed part of their wage-fixing cartel."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @08:48AM
Unless it benefits google, then go right ahead and be as evil as you like?
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:04AM
Slogan needs an addendum:
"Don't be evil - it's someone else's job"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by people on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:57AM
Let's say that the companies involved in this illegal cartel saved $x by keeping wages down. Supposedly one would get away with this sort of thing at least 2/3 of the time. They would then have to be made to pay 3 * $x to get to the point where a rational sociopath is indifferent to committing the crime. To give an incentive not to cheat the penalty would have to be larger, say 2 * 3 * $x. Do the courts do anything like this kind of math when deciding damages/fines?
Also, I don't feel like buying a Tesla right now.
(Score: 4, Informative) by randmcnatt on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:34PM
Judges/juries can assess actual damages, treble damages, and punitive damages. So, yes.
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BradTheGeek on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:03AM
If I steal money, even a small amount, I am a felon. If I lie to keep money it is fraud and I am a a felon. I go to prison.
However, corporations can lie, steal, rape the commons, and face only small financial penalties. Why do not executives that make these decisions face the actual prison time?
(Score: 5, Funny) by That_Dude on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:19AM
You can't lock all of them up or perhaps you can't find enough prison guards trustworthy enough to watch them. Besides, imagine a prison full of former CEO's (people who specialize in getting away with whatever they can) - before you know it, the guards would be nothing more than a tax payer funded security force working on their behalf.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by monster on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:00PM
It's really funny (well, actually kinda sad) that in the country with the biggest share of its population in jail someone argues that you can't jail someone because there aren't enough appropiate jails.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:33AM
Because other executives don't demand it. Corporations want weak oversight because it costs less; complaining about the cost and restrictiveness of regulation is very much in vogue these days. This is narrow thinking. A fair labor market would benefit all companies. A rigged labor market benefits those who are able to rig it. If executives would realize that every time some other corporation gets away with something, that's money out of the pockets of their own shareholders, then they'd hold politicians' feet to the fire for better policing of the marketplace.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:39PM
>A rigged labor market benefits those who are able to rig it.
Not at all - if the dominant employers conspire to keep wages for job X at 50% below what they would otherwise be then *every* business benefits - they can hire top-quality X employees for 49% less than they otherwise would. In the long term the field may suffer from a lack of new talent as it specializes elsewhere for better wages, but that takes years or decades to manifest, and it's a rare company in this day and age that looks more than a few years out, if even that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:43AM
Corporations are only "people" when it benefits them. Otherwise "get in line pleb, you're not buying enough of our shit. It doesn't matter that we're screwing you out of wages."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:19PM
Because we live in a world where the governments are all of the Corporations, by the Corporations, and for the Corporations. Every nation under the dollar, divided, with liberty and justice only for them.
(Score: 4, Funny) by metamonkey on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:48PM
Worse, a sinner.
"You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin."
Deuteronomy 24:14-15
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday March 28 2014, @02:51AM
the moral of the story is that if you're putting together a crew to commit a crime, make sure you incorporate before the crime itself. then you wont have to worry about getting any jail time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:54AM
It's not clear to me that these agreements are necessarily bad. From scanning the articles (STFA?) it seems to be mostly about unsolicited offers and "cold calling". Having hungry head-hunters out cold-calling everybody's employees all the time - what a flipping nuisance. If I want a new job, I'll either look myself or contact a head-hunter. I don't particularly want them calling me.
Was this really a cartel to hold down salaries, or was it just a gentlemen's agreement not to be stupid?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:35PM
Stop scanning and start reading. Your conclusion is incorrect.
This illegal agreement would ensure you can look all you want, but if you worked for one of the myriad companies engaged in this illegal practice, you would not only never get hired by one of the other companies, your current wages at your current company would never grow beyond a secret, agreed-upon amount.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Covalent on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:35PM
This is correct, and it is both immoral and illegal, particularly when it is tied to not giving raises in wages (which it was).
Essentially these corporations want a "free market" unfettered by restriction and regulation, but only for the brass. The employees have government protection from wage restriction, so these companies instituted their own.
Don't be evil my eye.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by metamonkey on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:20PM
When I was little, my daddy told me "never attribute to malice what might as well be ignorance." And I believed this. So I was a libertarian and was suspicious of regulations on business. Let companies compete in the free market! Leave them be, government busybodies!
But then I grew up.
It is not the purpose of government to serve the people. It is the purpose of government to preserve the status quo. To keep the rich rich and the poor poor. These corporations give massive amounts of money to both political parties, and they get what they pay for. Fat government contracts. Protection from competitors, foreign and domestic. You think they give a shit about unemployment? Hell no. They LOVE unemployment. Keeps the workers in line knowing there's 5 other people who would love to take their job if they get uppity. Student loan debt forgiveness? Hells no. Debt keeps the slaves in line. And if our barristas have Ph.Ds, all the better. Damn tech workers think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle? Haha, bring in the H1-Bs! Secret backroom deals to cap salaries! The nerve thinking Americans should earn middle class wages...in America. Working at the most profitable companies in history. We need that money to maximize shareholder value! The Dow's through the roof with massive unemployment? Perfect!
That is not ignorance. That is malice.
So, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard. I am a liberal.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:25PM
Obama and his blatant support of these corporations should have cured you of your liberalism. You can't even vote liberal any more, because you'll just get pro-corporate policies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @04:16PM
The democrats are not the only option for the liberals, just like the republicans aren't the only option for the conservatives.
Vote your conscience, not for a team. It is the only way democracy can stand up to power even if it looks like a loss in the short term.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by metamonkey on Thursday March 27 2014, @04:54PM
Obama? I said I'm a liberal. Why would I vote for a right-of-center party like the Democrats?
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:54PM
Because in America, "Democrat" == "liberal", like it or not.
Your views basically place you into the "leftist" category. Remember, these political terms have different meanings from place to place. In America, "liberal" means "agrees with the Democrat Party platform".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @08:18PM
What juvenile bullshit.
Liberals plug their noses and vote Democrat because the alternative is so much worse... organized insanity and theocracy (as long as it benefits the 1%)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 28 2014, @01:27PM
Voting Democrat benefits the 1% too. The policies of the two parties are mostly identical if you ignore the wedge issues.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:38PM
So much for foolishly thinking that your qualifications are valued better as an independent actor. Hey, even the companies are effectively unionizing.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 27 2014, @06:35PM
I seem to be playing devil's advocate a lot today. But, I have to say that if copyright infringement is not theft then this collusion is not theft either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:27PM
Hmmm, I don't quite follow that rationale.
Price fixing is illegal, whether it's a loaf of bread or a software developer.
(Score: 1) by Adrian Harvey on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:25PM
The point being that not everything that is illegal is theft.
Copyright infringement is not theft, it's Copyright infringement. Still illegal, but does not deprive the owner of possession, so cannot meet the usual legal definition of theft (your jurisdiction may vary, etc) in spite of it being equated to such in those annoying unskipable ads as the start of DVDs that just scream 'pirate me so you don't have to watch this bit'
By the same token, Price Fixing is not theft, it's Price Fixing. If we generally oppose the broadening of the term in one area and not in the other we do not help the argument.