Tech Workers Oppose Settlement They Reached In Silicon Valley Hiring Case 54
itwbennett writes Tech workers have asked an appeals court not to approve a $324.5 million settlement in Silicon Valley's controversial employee hiring case, according to a document filed Tuesday. This move by the plaintiffs puts them in alignment with an earlier decision by Judge Lucy Koh of the federal district court in San Jose to throw out the settlement on the grounds that it wouldn't pay the workers enough. Attorneys for the defendants — Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel — subsequently appealed Koh's decision.
One way to sweeten the pot.... (Score:4, Funny)
How about $324M plus 1000 frozen eggs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Gaston can, given 17 days. 21 in his youth.
Except... (Score:3)
Except 640 frozen eggs should be enough for anyone...
Systemic abuse can only be handled one way (Score:5, Informative)
And that is to make sure that the companies in question get at most zero dollars and zero cents net profit from their scummy decisions.
Forming an employer trust is really really really scummy, and can make a lot of money. Throwing the book at them isn't enough. You need to drop the entire 16 volume set on them from terminal velocity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. That settlement (even if you don't subtract attorney's fees) works out to only $5000 per worker. I'm sure the workers lost out on a lot more than that because of these practices
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's an order of magnitude lower than the amount just google and apple are responsible for
Re: (Score:1)
... only $5000 per worker. I'm sure the workers lost out on a lot more than that because of these practices
Really? I think they lost far less than that. These employees had plenty of other choices in Silicon Valley, and were even free to go work for other companies in the trust. The collusion among the defendants was a "no-cold-call" agreement, not an absolute "do-not-hire" agreement. Anyone actively seeking other employment would not have been affected. They would have just had somewhat fewer unsolicited calls from recruiters. I doubt that would have caused salaries to be lower by $5000 across the board.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue was that because people weren't getting headhunted the companies didn't need to compete as heavily on wages.
They were still being headhunted, just not by other members of the trust. Since the members of the trust had limitations on their headhunting, that would make it harder for them to hire new employees, thus making them want to hold onto their existing employees, thus paying them more to retain them. So it cuts both ways. On balance, it likely hurt wages, but not by much.
Trusts are not all that beneficial to members unless they control a very big portion of the market (like Standard Oil once did) or if the
Re: (Score:2)
You contend that employees of the colluding companies were not harmed monetarily of a significant value.
No, I didn't say that. They were probably harmed somewhat, but no where near the ridiculous amounts in some of these posts.
So why again would very large corporations collude ILLEGALLY opening themselves up to litigation if it didn't save them a fist full of cash?
Because it DID save them a fist full of cash. But that cash doesn't have to come from the pockets of employees. By reducing turnover, they save on training costs, hiring costs, recruiting fees, and improved productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
"Neither is true in this case."
Know what is true, and more importantly what matters? It is against the law.
No where does it say the penalty has to be "fair" (which is relative by the way), just take a look at the multi-million dollar fines for "uploading" music.
There are companies that will argue that bankrupting a single mom is a suitable penalty for uploading a single song, but yet a multimillion dollar fine against them is suddenly "unfair"?
Re: (Score:2)
It is against the law.
Of course it is against the law, and of course they should be punished. But the punishment should be fair and proportionate. What if, instead of colluding, they had each publicly announced that they would unilaterally refrain from cold calling? That would have been perfectly legal, would have depressed wages even more, yet would have likely won them praise for ending annoying and distracting phone calls. So is it really fair for them to be fined $342M for doing almost the same thing, just because they c
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I think they lost far less than that.
They may have been amongst the highest paying in their discipline. I'm confident that $5k would have been a drop in the bucket for some of these guys.
This sort of thing needs to be punished as heavily as possible, if it is not, it will be seen as in the best fiduciary interests of shareholders TO do it, and risk being found out.
Re: (Score:1)
... only $5000 per worker. I'm sure the workers lost out on a lot more than that because of these practices
Really? I think they lost far less than that. These employees had plenty of other choices in Silicon Valley, and were even free to go work for other companies in the trust. The collusion among the defendants was a "no-cold-call" agreement, not an absolute "do-not-hire" agreement. Anyone actively seeking other employment would not have been affected. They would have just had somewhat fewer unsolicited calls from recruiters. I doubt that would have caused salaries to be lower by $5000 across the board.
I personally lost out on about $1.7M in straight payroll, which I can document by my difference in salary from being recruited by one of the companies involved from another of the companies involved, and the number of years I worked at the company I was being recruited from. My first years starting salary at the new company was ~$310K, not including bonuses and stock. I expect I lost out on [a lot] more than that in stock.
I also have saved emails where they explicitly told us to *not* engage our friends a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds great and all... but court decisions that bankrupt companies result in pretty much the same thing every time. The company goes bankrupt and, at best, the lawyers get paid. Then the company reopens with all the same people that made the decision in charge but under new ownership and the debt gets written off. The old owners would be all those same employees that had their retirement in stock which is now worthless. The people in charge are long retired and don't care.
I agree that it's not fair, b
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even about the companies. It's about how hurting others for your own gain can't ever be profitable after the law has gotten involved. If it is, then the perverse incentives that leaves will poison every choice made.
Yeah, I don't really want to see Google or Apple or MS go bankrupt because of court fees, but if the economic benefits from forming a trust is the only thing keeping you in business, you've already failed and abusive behavior is just hiding that for a while.
Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds great and all... but court decisions that bankrupt companies result in pretty much the same thing every time. The company goes bankrupt and, at best, the lawyers get paid. Then the company reopens with all the same people that made the decision in charge but under new ownership and the debt gets written off. The old owners would be all those same employees that had their retirement in stock which is now worthless. The people in charge are long retired and don't care.
I agree that it's not fair, but there simply doesn't exist the legal mechanisms to make managers that made these decisions over a decade ago pay. The primary culprit seemed to be Steve Jobs and God took care of him.
Somehow I don't think a multibillion dollar settlement is going to force Google or Apple into bankruptcy:
http://www.bizjournals.com/san... [bizjournals.com]
Apple Inc.'s $158.8 billion cash stockpile more than triples the $48.5 billion currently in the coffers of the U.S. government, according to a new report.
Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc. also have also posted cash and cash equivalents worth more than the total U.S. Treasury at roughly $84 billion and $58 billion, respectively, according to U.S. Trust data cited by British newspaper the Telegraph.
Part of the reason they have these multi billion dollar cash reserves is by illegally colluding to keep employee turnover down and reduce wages.
And systematic tax evasion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds great and all... but court decisions that bankrupt companies result in pretty much the same thing every time. The company goes bankrupt and, at best, the lawyers get paid. Then the company reopens with all the same people that made the decision in charge but under new ownership and the debt gets written off. The old owners would be all those same employees that had their retirement in stock which is now worthless. The people in charge are long retired and don't care.
The plaintiffs can afford to pay 10x what the original judgment was ($324.5 million), and they'd STILL be way ahead financially because even $50k a head doesn't account for the years of depressed wages that this had on everyone in the tech sector for years. Or do you believe that, between them, Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel can't scrape up less than $5 billion without going bankrupt?
Systemic abuse can only be handled one way (Score:1)
Corporate death penalty.
You do this shit, your corporation is dissolved and it's assets sold to the highest bidder.
Re: (Score:2)
The crime is that their employees' wages were artificially reduced. You want to respond by further reducing those wages to 0?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Systems and technologies are not the same as employment contracts. In this case it was fairly obvious, but you're an idiot.
Smart people can understand they got screwed. But winning a legal case is a whole lot more than understanding that you got screwed.
Employees would feel that you are right, but you are spewing nonsense. The legal system is not something that most employees study. Going to the cleaners is not guaranteed.
And, even if you lose, you may not visit the cleaners at all. Which is kinda the r
Why no jail? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like there is plenty of documented collusion that could be used to indict some of these scumbags. Too many offenses are being handled by writing paltry checks out of the company coffers. It is hard to see that future CEO's and HR departments will walk away from this with anything but an emboldened attitude towards screwing over workers.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... When the mob colludes it falls under RICO statutes and people go to jail, when CEO's collude the shareholders get to pay a small sum to settle the whole thing. I guess I am getting tired of being beat up by slaps from their invisible hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you didn't take all of the plenty of evidence that seems to you, and ask the DA of the relevant jurisdiction(s) to either file a RICO Act lawsuit or explain why.
Also, even if you did, you probably don't have standing.
So "because you don't understand how the legal system works" is the best answer. The system is not intended to watch everything that goes on and try to nail everyone for everything they can get nailed for. And it's not all about the rich getting off cos they are rich. If that's hones
Take the money and run (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a very good arguement for why the lawyers don't want to argue this further. Not so much for their clients. $5000 i
Re:Take the money and run (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as a Realtor has _any_ reasonable offer for your $300,000 house, even if it is 30K less than what you want, the Realtor is looking at a decent 6% commission. S/he isn't too concerned with trying to get 6% of an additional $10-$30,000 AT THE RISK of losing 6% of the $270,000 already in hand. S/he'll honestly tell you it's a good deal because for her, it is a good deal.
For you, maybe not so much.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want a new TV now, or a very(!) small chance to get a new car 5-10 years from now? That's what it comes down to.
Good question. If it were me, I would definitely go for the 1-in-a-million chance for $100k versus a guaranteed $2k now. The $2k is noise and makes no difference in my life. If I lose it, I lose nothing of significance. The significant harm has already been inflicted, so the additional $2k is lost compensation is irrelevant. The $100k can actually affect my life. So, this decision from the point of the victims is a no-brainer.
That's just the personal economic decision. Not even the larger $100k (or w
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. If it were me, I would definitely go for the 1-in-a-million chance for $100k versus a guaranteed $2k now.
I would love to play any game of chance with you. 1 in a million chance of $100k (expected value of $0.10) is preferable to a 100% chance of $2000?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. If it were me, I would definitely go for the 1-in-a-million chance for $100k versus a guaranteed $2k now.
I would love to play any game of chance with you. 1 in a million chance of $100k (expected value of $0.10) is preferable to a 100% chance of $2000?
Well, I wouldn't choose to play the $100k vs. $2k game at all, but these folks didn't have the choice to be mistreated by their employers. But given that these folks by the nature of their lawsuit class (i.e., "prized" hi-tech employees) are not poor, $2k should not be that significant to them.
Assuming that the $2k (or whatever the lower value is) is indeed noise and that I don't really need it now, absolutely I would take the chance for the higher payout. The choice is between an improbable, significant
Re: (Score:2)
What significant harm? The allegation is that they agreed not to recruit one another's employees. We were still free to apply where we wanted, they just wouldn't call us. Frankly, it bothers me not at all that I got less spam from douche bag recruiters.
For you and me, there was only indirect harm in that the high end of the salary spectrum was depressed for some workers, which in turn might have had some effect on the entire salary distribution. There was no direct harm because you and I (well, definitely me and probably you) were not in the select set of workers that were directly harmed by the collusion. So, our harm is minimal. However, for those who were affected, they either didn't get a promised job (like the guy in France) or didn't get the rais
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a plaintiff? Do you have to take time from work to testify, talk with lawyers, sign things, video deposition, or do any number of things that these people have had to do?
After a while, "Fuck this, gimme the 2 grand" also means "I can't fight for the moral side anymore"
If it were you, you would have given in a long time ago, statistically speaking. If you are 1 in 100, you would have given in before this appeal started. You would have to be 1 in 1000 at least to get this far. Basic stats means I
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a plaintiff? Do you have to take time from work to testify, talk with lawyers, sign things, video deposition, or do any number of things that these people have had to do?
After a while, "Fuck this, gimme the 2 grand" also means "I can't fight for the moral side anymore"
If it were you, you would have given in a long time ago, statistically speaking. If you are 1 in 100, you would have given in before this appeal started. You would have to be 1 in 1000 at least to get this far. Basic stats means I don't believe you. And you shouldn't believe you until you have been through this.
Fighting for the right side takes more effort than most people have. It seems like once a year we get the odd "I lost $25k or more even though I won the lawsuit" story. One per year, in my unscientific anecdote, which might sound like a lot. But it's not enough to win any ground.
Do you want to bankroll the losers? You already are, so that's a trick question. But if it were you, you would really appreciate someone kicking in a few bucks so you and your unemployed ass could take time to fight the good fight. And when the donations don't add up, you give in and live your life.
Hence the legal concept of a class action lawsuit where a small set of named plaintiffs represent the rest of the class and taken on the time and resource burdens of presenting the case to the court. I'm not part of the certified class, but if I were, I'm not sure if I'd be willing to be one of the named plaintiffs, but I'm pretty sure I'd be willing to participate as part of the class. Yes, I know, very selfish of me.
Of course, despite your protestations, the only motivational consideration is whether th
Re: (Score:1)
And employers wonder why I leave for the next best thing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
When the settlement was first announced (works out to $1-2K/defendant) I sent a complaint about the small amount to the generic email address at the plaintiff's law firm. Much to my surprise, one of the lawyers on the case contacted me back. He pointed out the defendant's legal budgets are essentially infinite, and they are more than willing to fight the case to the supreme court. Once you get there, a victory by the plaintiffs are not assured. Remember, these are the guys who handed down Citizen's United.
Do you want a new TV now, or a very(!) small chance to get a new car 5-10 years from now? That's what it comes down to.
As someone who works in Silicon Valley and is paid one of the insane salaries earned by tech workers here, $1K or even $5K ($600 - $3K after taxes?) of "found money" is just not that much money. I'd gladly gamble it on continued litigation just to make sure that the companies involved actually felt some pain, even if there wasn't the prospect of a 10X higher settlement in the future. $300M is barely a slap on the risk to a company that has billions in the bank.
Though I can see why the lawyers were happy to