Judge Denies Class Action Status In Tech Workers' Lawsuit

We've mentioned a few times the "gentleman's agreements" which some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley used to reduce the risk of employee poaching. walterbyrd writes "This comes from the same judge who awarded Apple $1 billion from Samsung. 'A federal judge on Friday struck down an effort to form a class action lawsuit to go after Apple, Google and five other technology companies for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to tamp down workers' wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers during a multiyear conspiracy broken up by government regulators.'" The lawsuit itself is ongoing (thanks to a ruling last year by the same judge); it's just that the plaintiff's claims cannot be combined.

Comments

Don't forgot

[rsilvergun]

Judges are part of the ruling class. Oh wait, America doesn't have class, right? And it's certainly not true that 95% of political donations come from .05% of Americans, right?

Re:Don't forgot

[PopeRatzo]

Because a judge cares how much money an unrelated CEO makes. The two persons are completely unrelated- if you're suggesting that the judge decided as he did merely to beat down the "peons", let me just say I find that a little hard to swallow.

Judges are politicians in robes. If they are of a certain ideological bent, they don't need any special reason to beat down the "peons" because they simply don't believe that workers have rights. Beating down the peons is part of their world-view, the same world-view that probably sees the CEOs and the ownership class as the "makers" and the people who are lucky enough to be employed by those companies as the "takers" because...free markets/em>! and because there's a world full of grateful third worlders who would jump at the chance to do those jobs for fifty cents an hour and all the rice they can eat.

Maybe you're underestimating just how far the corporatist/conservative/libertarian worldview has fallen to the dark side.

Re:Don't forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not lump libertarians in with them, the Libertarian Party of America may be not hing more than a ultra conservative branch of republicanism, but real libertarians views have nothing to do with them, and would certainly put the liberty of a person over the financial gain of a paper entity.

Re:Don't forgot

[hairyfeet]

They live in the same neighborhoods, play golf at the same clubs, you think if a judge is given a choice of some poor schmuck or that nice guy he's seen at the club he's gonna pick the schmuck? Get real.

Many studies have been done showing how easily juries are swayed by class and color, I'd love to see a similar study done about judges because I have ZERO doubt that if one worked up a spreadsheet those that make the same or above what the judge makes have a much better chance than those who make less. Like sticks with like, that is old as time.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway

[VAElynx]

The point of a class-action lawsuit isn't to earn a gob of cash, it's to facefist the company into changing their behaviour from whatever was it that they were doing to fuck people over. Any cash you get is just a bonus.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure that as soon as word got out, the companies changed their behavior. I'm in one of those companies. The CEO was a fucking idiot to put that in an email. I'm glad he's leaving.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The trouble is(that while class actions do generally pay the lawyers too much and the class too little) the alternative to a class action is generally inaction, which pays the class nothing and doesn't even cost the malefactor money.

The 'transaction costs', so to speak, of taking something to court are high. Doubly so(if you are lucky, could be substantially more than doubly) if you are going up against a deep-pocketed foe who really doesn't want adverse precedent or inconvenient discovery to take place. For anything outside of the most trivial cases, this means that your right to individual redress in civil court is mostly theoretical.

What I find most odd about the denial of 'class' status in this case is that an illegal cartel arrangement to push down wages is exactly the sort of situation where it would be very difficult for any specific employee(unless they are allowed to take their case to discovery and dig up a bunch of juicy internal documents mentioning them by name) to prove any specific salary delta between the competitive and noncompetitive situations; but it should be relatively simple(by economic modeling standards) to arrive at an approximate figure for overall savings on wages by the cartel members. And, while precisely allocating the unpaid hypothetical wages to the people who lost them would be gravy, just getting to the point where the malefactors are punished would at least have deterrent value, and hopefully make such agreements less common elsewhere and in the future.

Re:Don't Be Evil

[macbeth66]

Ah, I see someone beat me to it. Of course, you and/or I will be modded down for saying this.

I expect this sort of behavior from the Apples and Microsofts of the tech industry. And as a prospective employee, I know what to expect. But Google wants to put themselves up as morally superior to these companies. In my opinion, this makes them worse.

As for the case, okay, they can't call it a class action suit. But they can pool their money, hire the best legal team money can buy, hire a good PR company that will inundate the media with David and Goliath stories and find a candidate with the best case. Try this thing in the press. Cockroaches hate the light of day. Make then scurry.

No

[rsilvergun]

but they do tend to side with the property owners, because that's their sorta people. The 'class' if you will.

Poor Fractured Atlas

[PopeRatzo]

Google and five other technology companies for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to tamp down workers' wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers during a multiyear conspiracy

John Galt is a sociopath.

No Poach Agreements suck

[PhamNguyen]

No poach agreements are just another form of price fixing. While companies may be on friendly or less than friendly terms, as long as they are separate companies, they have no right to enter into price fixing agreements. These agreements keep wages below market rates. Someone who might earn $300,000 a year in a free market might only earn $250,000 because other companies won't make competing offers with their current offer.

While losing employees causes a lot of disruption to a company, potential loss of IP, etc. this is just part of the game. All monopolies and cartels can offer plausible sounding reasons why the "order" that they impose on the market is better than competition, but as a society we decided long ago that the free market works better. So it doesn't matter what other benefits these companies claim no-poach agreements have, they are still illegal price fixing.

The only exception I can think of is a prohibition on people who move from company A to company B, contacting their co-workers in company A, in their capacity as an employee of company B. This could be considered in improper use of that person's professional contacts at company A. However a recruiter using public information to contact an employee at another company should always be not only allowed, but encouraged.

Class action is the ONLY remedy

[tlambert]

Can Everyone just take them to small clams court? All IT workers from the companies in Small clames court = lots of money to be paid out and lot of lawyers if they want to defend all the law sues.

Class action is the ONLY remedy; permit me to illustrate my point.

Judge: So what are the damages you are asking for, sir?
Nerd: I want the difference between what I was making over the years I was employed at A and not B.
Judge: Based on the money B would have offer you, had they actually offered you a job?
Nerd: Yes.
Judge: Based on them wanting to hire you in the first place?
Nerd: Yes.
Judge: anything else I should know?
Nerd: I also want damages for emotional distress.
Judge: For all that time you spent at A instead of B?
Nerd: Yes.
Judge: Due to a practice which you were unaware of until just recently?
Nerd: I have retroactive emotional distress.
Judge: Dismissed. Next!