Debate Magazine

Staff Poaching and Anti-competitive Practices: The Bizarre Inconsistencies of the US Legal System

Posted on the 14 January 2015 by Markwadsworth @Mark_Wadsworth

From CNN, April 2014:
The lawsuit, filed in 2011, accused tech companies of agreeing not to recruit employees from one another as a way to keep wages down, a scheme allegedly hatched by deceased former Apple CEO Steve Jobs...
The lawsuit was originally filed against seven companies. Lucasfilm and Pixar, both owned now by Disney, agreed last year to pay $9 million to settle their portion of the case, while Intuit agreed to pay $11 million.
Separately, Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar agreed in 2010 to settle a similar Justice Department lawsuit over what regulators said were anti-competitive hiring practices.
The companies had been accused of violating antitrust law by agreeing not to poach each other's employees but did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement.

Fair enough, you might think. This boosts wages at the expense of corporate profits.
But how does that tie in with this apparently equal and opposite decision:
From City AM, January 2015:
One of business’s longest running disputes over staff poaching finally ended yesterday after British inter-dealer broker Tullett Prebon came out on top in its bitter five-year legal battle with US rival BGC Partners.
Shares in the UK broker jumped eight per cent following news that the New York-based broker will pay Tullett $100m (£66m) to settle a litigation suit in the New Jersey Superior Court.
The case concerned BGC’s alleged pinching of more than 80 brokers from Tullett’s US affiliates in 2009, which the UK firm claimed cost it $387m in market value...
The deal also includes a clause that prevents either party from hiring the other’s desk heads and senior management for a year.

This clearly boosts corporate profits at the expense of wages.


Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog