Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Justice Dept. Sues eBay For Anti-Competitive Hiring Practices

Posted by timothy on from the scratcha-my-back dept.

McGruber writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. Justice Department is suing eBay for allegedly agreeing with Intuit not to hire each other's employees. According to the article, 'eBay's agreement with Intuit hurt employees by lowering the salaries and benefits they might have received and deprived them of better job opportunities at the other company,' said acting Assistant Attorney General Joseph Wayland, who is in charge of the Justice Department's antitrust division. The division 'has consistently taken the position that these kinds of agreements are per se (on their face) unlawful under antitrust laws.'"

8 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Quickbooks User Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a software developer and QuickBooks user I can assure you that no one should hire the Intuit guys anyway.

    1. Re:Quickbooks User Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And as a former eBay employee, I can assure you that no one is deprived by not working for them.

  2. Is this the same for "contractor" companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM uses contract employee companies like CDI for disposable employees. CDI and IBM have agreements that limit CDI employee's ability to apply for other positions within CDI and IBM. Would these agreements be illegal as well?

    1. Re:Is this the same for "contractor" companies? by AaronLS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe not in the case of CDI/IBM, but otherwise contractors working for the government cost 2x what it would cost them for direct hire(including benefits). They just want the freedom to increase/decrease workforce as needed. It gets around alot of red tape as well in terms of both hiring/firing. If there is a hiring/pay freeze instituted at the state level, but your agency has enough money to hire needed employees, then pay for "services" of an agency. What's ironic is the blindly broad hiring/pay freeze results in agencies wasting money in this case.

    2. Re:Is this the same for "contractor" companies? by Chuckstar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The eBay/Intuit agreement (and the other similar agreements that were subject to a settlement a few years ago) were very broad in scope. It might be the breadth that is the issue.

      I know, for instance, that it is legal for a company to agree not to solicit employees of another company for a defined period of time. This is often done as part of M&A transactions, where a company is buying a subsidiary of another company, and doesn't want the seller to just turn around and hire back key personnel. But those are limited in time. Also, the ones I've seen do not limit the ability to hire those people, only the ability to solicit them. So if the employee makes the first contact, all bets are off.

      Another agreement I've seen often is as part of a M&A confidentiality agreement. Example: "You will provide us information about your company and access to key personnel in order to discuss a potential aquisition, in exchange, we agree not to solicit any of those employees for one year."

      The eBay/Intuit agreement, however, is that they will not hire each others' employees for as long as the agreement remains in effect AND that it doesn't matter whether the employee approaches them first.

  3. latin lessons by _peter · · Score: 4, Informative

    per se -- in itself
    prima facie -- on it's face

  4. Further reading... by guttentag · · Score: 5, Informative
    TFA is a little thin. For those of you just joining us (stares pointedly at Intuit and Ebay, with a glance at HP), it's called "collusion."

    Collusion
    Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.

    Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place.

    Also known as the opposite of competition, or incompatible with a competitive environment, or simply "anti-competitive."

  5. This makes no sense by dadioflex · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't even see how there could be a conflict. One is an internet company and the other mainly hunts seals and whales for meat.