111–120 of 523 posts
It’s new so the government hasn’t caught on yet. They probably also need a larger market share to be considered fixing.
It seems like there would have to be an agreement or at least a collective incentive to lower wages.
While companies could use the data to ensure their offers are always below average (pushing wages down), they could also use the data to ensure their offers are above average, pushing wages up.
Think about it: prices are transparent in most markets and that doesn't seem to generally lead to anti-competitive prices. In fact, it seems to encourage companies to compete.
Wage fixing is when multiple companies agree to set wages at a certain amount. Sharing compensation data across companies doesn't necessarily mean wage fixing. Company A can use the compensation data from Company B to try and compete better for talent. Not saying thats what it will be used for, but it's technically not wage fixing.
I'm asking this as someone with 0 legal knowledge: doesn't the context matter? If every company takes this data and is like "we want to pay at the 95th percentile" (which is what they all do), that seems like wage fixing even if they're not all agreeing to it together.
I cannot comment on the legality of this kind of data sharing, but as I and others have pointed out, it has existed for a while. I do agree that it is concerning. You can freeze your Equifax The Work Number report at least, just like other credit reports.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
unless you collude with other companies, doesn't seem like it is.
That is the entire basis for the RealPage lawsuit. The point is that if the effect on pricing is indistinguishable from price fixing, it doesn't matter if the act of colluding is abstracted into and laundered through a 3rd party with an algorithmic system responsible for setting prices.
Sharing compensation ranges may not be enough to qualify as wage fixing. It seems like there would have to be an agreement or at least a collective incentive to lower wages. While companies could use the data to ensure their offers are always below average (pushing wages down), they could also use the data to ensure their offers are above average, pushing wages up. Think about it: prices are transparent in most marke…
???
In accordance with HN guidelines I am going to resist giving a snarky answer and will instead clearly articulate: Companies clearly have a strong collective incentive to lower wages.
"While companies could use the data to ensure their offers are always below average (pushing wages down), they could also use the data to ensure their offers are above average, pushing wages up."
They may do both. Collude to keep average wages low, so that when they offer outliers "above-average" it is still cheaper to cross that many standard deviations.
"Think about it: prices are transparent in most markets and that doesn't seem to generally lead to anti-competitive prices. In fact, it seems to encourage companies to compete."
The problem imo is less about transparency and more about information asymmetry. It's asymmetrical that companies have access to literally what every other company is offering, while the employee is sitting there trying to guess based on glassdoor (which is utter shit information) and levels.fyi (marginally less shit?).
That's why it's "legal tacit collusion" when one leading law firm announces salary increases and other law firms immediately match it: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/large-law-firms-...
That type of salary matching has been happening for decades.
What's illegal is competitors making agreements with each other to set wages -- via secret emails, etc.
This feels like one of those things where VCs (including YC and A16z) force this nonsense on their other startups in a circle-jerk sort of pyramid scheme fashion. There is no universe where this makes sense as a product.