
U.S. Steps Up Probe of Tech Hiring - iamelgringo
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304703104575174293867620832.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
======
tbrownaw
> Skilled computer scientists with some management responsibilities, for
> instance, often make base salaries of $180,000 to $210,000.

Huh. I guess I need to go find some management responsibilities somewhere,
dealing with people issues instead of computer issues for part of the day
can't be _that_ bad...

> Behind the scenes, technology companies are making the case that agreements
> among companies are not anticompetitive and don't affect employees' salaries
> or the availability of jobs. They say such agreements are commonplace, used
> by companies to maintain good relationships with business partners.

> The technology industry makes the case that it would be harder to enter into
> collaborative ventures with other companies if they fear losing valuable
> employees.

That seems rather contradictory; if there's no effect on the employee's
opportunities, what are the companies afraid of?

> Policing the labor markets hasn't been a central focus of antitrust
> enforcers in recent years. But the Justice Department did act against what
> it saw as efforts to manipulate the labor market. It brought a civil case
> against a group of hospitals in Utah in 1994, alleging that they had
> illegally conspired to hold down nurses' wages by exchanging information
> about their pay.

Maybe this could be an argument for not keeping salaries a secret; get rid of
the information asymmetry.

------
abossy
This is the first I hear about a DoJ investigation, but this article largely
comes off as FUD. It dances around a few weak claims, none with real evidence
to back them up.

First, there's a shortage of computer scientists [1], which has led to an
increase in salaries and fierce competition among companies to hire good
employees. It's no accident that Google has had better perks than any U.S.
company in history in order to attract top talent. They're already spending a
lot per employee, and that they would fix employees salaries is ludicrous,
considering they would lose out on great talent.

I don't even know what to make of, "skilled computer scientists with some
management responsibilities, for instance, often make base salaries of
$180,000 to $210,000" -- in Silicon Valley, at least, this is the top tier
salary range reserved for only a privileged few. It would also seem strange
that the DoJ would be helping these salaries stay at this high level. The
government doesn't have a great track record of publicly trying to make the
rich richer.

Somebody please enlighten us with the real facts.

[1] <http://www.cis.udel.edu/jobs/market/>

~~~
WildUtah
/First, there's a shortage of computer scientists/

That doesn't sound like the experience of anyone who works in the field.
Remember that CS is one of the few professions where workers really do have to
compete with Chinese, Russian, and Indian salaries.

/often make base salaries of $180,000 to $210,000/

Sounds like a statistic invented by the same people who are suggesting a
shortage of computer programmers to hire.

------
bdr
Here's something I've been thinking about. Imagine Google or FB acquires of a
small startup. The startup's product is either unwanted or incorporated into
their parent company within a year. That means that for the next couple years
of the payout period, a founder could be making $1M/year. Are they _that_ much
more valuable than the rest of the company's devs (who make a lot less)?
(That's definitely possible.) Or, are the rest of the devs paid a lot less
than what the value they provide? If the latter, why don't Google and FB raise
salaries more? Could acquisitions be a kind of backdoor to avoid having to
raise everyone's salaries?

~~~
dnaquin
I'm not convinced the difference is that pronounced.

