This was exposed because the colluders were cheating on their agreements with each other. That's the perennial problem with colluding - there is no enforcement of it. That's why cartels are unstable.
> lowball
When you enter a negotiation, you are always going to get a lowball offer. That's why it's a negotiation. There are many resources on how to negotiate. It's worth your while (literally) to study them.
> So the overall health of a company has little to do with how much it necessarily values employees.
Employees are valued according to the value they contribute to the company. Not the profits or losses to the company.
Companies are not a jobs program, nor a social welfare organization, nor one's parents. The only thing a company owes you is what the terms of the contract you signed with them says they owe you.
A company exists to make money for its owners. The employees are hired because they produce value in excess of what they cost.
Maybe on an infinite timescale, but there are plenty of examples of cartels that have been stable for decades or longer.
Hell, even the SV wage collusion was stable long enough to affect plenty of salaries for years.
> There are many resources on how to negotiate. It's worth your while (literally) to study them.
I am not new to this game, and your perfunctory advice of “learn to negotiate” is neither helpful nor relevant to the issue of collusion-through-algorithm.
> Employees are valued according to the value they contribute to the company. Not the profits or losses to the company.
So we agree then the overall financial state of the company is almost completely irrelevant to a salary negotiation. Good.
Which means your equivocation of quarterly filings with past salary information is entirely disingenuous.
They are different, and the company is entering into negotiation with you with asymmetric information. That’s always been the case in a general sense; it’s more so if they know your detailed salary info.
> Companies are not a jobs program, nor a social welfare organization, nor one's parents.
I’m not sure you could be more patronizing if you tried.
We’re all adults here. I don’t think pointing out the disconnect between employer financial status and layoffs / salary negotiation at all implied that I thought anyone was owed a job.
It sure does put perspective on the lie that “a rising tide will raise all ships” though.
This was exposed because the colluders were cheating on their agreements with each other. That's the perennial problem with colluding - there is no enforcement of it. That's why cartels are unstable.
> lowball
When you enter a negotiation, you are always going to get a lowball offer. That's why it's a negotiation. There are many resources on how to negotiate. It's worth your while (literally) to study them.
> So the overall health of a company has little to do with how much it necessarily values employees.
Employees are valued according to the value they contribute to the company. Not the profits or losses to the company.
Companies are not a jobs program, nor a social welfare organization, nor one's parents. The only thing a company owes you is what the terms of the contract you signed with them says they owe you.
A company exists to make money for its owners. The employees are hired because they produce value in excess of what they cost.