The problem is that "illegal" in the context of a corporation means a fine. If the fine is less than the extra revenue generated (and it often is), there's no reason not to engage in the illegal behavior.
From the bread pricing scandal, the amount of coordination that was going on between supposed competitors is crazy. The fact that it took "a decade and a half" to prosecute the case means that much more subtle collusion is probably very common.
> “Retail customers would call threatening to reject a price increase if another retailer was offside in terms of pricing alignment.”
> The coordination was particularly tough between discounters including Walmart, Giant Tiger, Loblaw’s No Frills, Sobeys’ FreshCo and Metro’s Food Basics, the document says.
> “None of them wanted to be the first to implement the price increase …There was always a negotiation process going back and forth between the four retailers where the supplier was trying to coordinate it, because somebody had to be the first to move.”
> According to redacted witnesses cited in the documents, the individual retailers involved were all in favour of taking price increases, and full-price grocers such as Loblaw tended to hike prices first, followed by discounters such as Walmart.
> The problem is that "illegal" in the context of a corporation means a fine. If the fine is less than the extra revenue generated (and it often is), there's no reason not to engage in the illegal behavior.
I think it's a bit worse than that.
Take a look at sports where plenty of teams will very willingly over-pay for players in terms of salary or even trade say 4 draft picks for a player when you'd expect at least 1 of those picks to draft somebody of a similar caliber.
In situations where the individual can personally gain (say from winning playoffs or a big bonus from extra sales) and the team (corporation) would be liable for the downside there's incentive to make a technically losing move. If the team doesn't do well you're fired anyways so it doesn't matter how much of a long-term bind you cause. Just like if the corporation takes a fine 5~10 years later like you've definitely gotten some fat bonuses in the interim that won't be clawed back.
I mean, I don't disagree, but this is still an enforcement issue. Society still isn't really sure how to easily prosecute these massive companies without also kicking open the doors to some concerning behavior.
From the bread pricing scandal, the amount of coordination that was going on between supposed competitors is crazy. The fact that it took "a decade and a half" to prosecute the case means that much more subtle collusion is probably very common.
> “Retail customers would call threatening to reject a price increase if another retailer was offside in terms of pricing alignment.”
> The coordination was particularly tough between discounters including Walmart, Giant Tiger, Loblaw’s No Frills, Sobeys’ FreshCo and Metro’s Food Basics, the document says.
> “None of them wanted to be the first to implement the price increase …There was always a negotiation process going back and forth between the four retailers where the supplier was trying to coordinate it, because somebody had to be the first to move.”
> According to redacted witnesses cited in the documents, the individual retailers involved were all in favour of taking price increases, and full-price grocers such as Loblaw tended to hike prices first, followed by discounters such as Walmart.