Judge: $324M Settlement In Silicon Valley Tech Worker Case Not Enough

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge: $324M Settlement In Silicon Valley Tech Worker Case Not Enough

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 20, 2014 @03:41AM from the good-news-for-the-lawyers dept.

itwbennett writes: "A proposed $324.5 million settlement of claims that Silicon Valley companies (Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel) suppressed worker wages by agreeing not to hire each others' employees may not be high enough, a judge signaled on Thursday. Judge Lucy Koh didn't say whether she would approve the settlement, but she did say in court that she was worried about whether that amount was fair to the roughly 64,000 technology workers represented in the case. Throughout Thursday's hearing, she questioned not just the amount but the logic behind the settlement as presented by lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defendants."

150 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Misleading summary by i+kan+reed · 2014-06-20 03:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

All the judge did, was ask whether historical fines to other companies are an appropriate precedent for Apple, Google, and the rest. This isn't "questioning the amount and logic" but regular old due diligence.
1. Re:Misleading summary by SpzToid · 2014-06-20 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't as if another version was already submitted earlier, perhaps with a better summary for the editors to use:
  http://slashdot.org/submission...
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
2. Re:Misleading summary by sexconker · 2014-06-20 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  All the judge did, was ask whether historical fines to other companies are an appropriate precedent for Apple, Google, and the rest. This isn't "questioning the amount and logic" but regular old due diligence.
  So the judge ASKED about the fine, and that's not QUESTIONING the fine?
  Apparently you can't read.
3. Re:Misleading summary by i+kan+reed · 2014-06-20 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Judge: $324M Settlement In Silicon Valley Tech Worker Case Not Enough"
  Overstatement.
4. Re:Misleading summary by Space+cowboy · 2014-06-20 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Questioning and asking are two completely different things, otherwise one wouldn't "ask a question", one would either ask or question.
  To question something is to doubt the premises that lead to a given statement. To ask something is to enquire about something. When one has doubts a conclusion (i.e.: questions), one normally asks to ascertain the veracity of the conclusion. This leads to the construct "to ask a question" as in "to resolve a doubt".
  Simon
  
  --
  Physicists get Hadrons!
5. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  otherwise one wouldn't "ask a question", one would either ask or question.
  That's not how language works. It's not always perfectly logic or to be taken literally, so your logic is not sound.
6. Re:Misleading summary by mjm1231 · 2014-06-20 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, due to the vagaries of the English language, you cannot ask something without it being a question. Therefore, anything asked is a question.
  
  --
  Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
7. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  I question your grasp of this use of the word question. Note that there are no question marks here. Also note that I have not requested you to provide any additional information regarding the use of the word question.
8. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If you're not aware of this, then know this:
  (like most media outlets) Slashdot is pretty fucking corrupt. I've seen countless cases where people submit great articles, then a friend of the editors submits the same thing but pure garbage by comparison and it flies up almost instantly.
  It makes some sense since knowing the submitter helps them do a quicker assessment of the value of the story, but in the end, it leads to a really shitty environment that discourages contributions.
  Factor in the stupid not-appropriate-for-Slashdot stories they run and you'll see why this place is turning to shit and losing relevance quickly.
9. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  To question something is to doubt the premises that lead to a given statement. To ask something is to enquire about something.
  You do realize that "to question" and "to enquire" are derived from exactly the same verb (quaerere) and that "to enquire" (inquirere) is the more probing version of the two?
10. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Its how language works in the courtroom which is all that matters inside a courtroom.
11. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  I question your grasp of this use of the word question.
  I question your reading comprehension. I never once said anything about whether his conclusions were right or wrong. Instead, I questioned the *logic* he used to come to his conclusions.
  Yes, there is a difference.
12. Re:Misleading summary by Grishnakh · 2014-06-20 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  An alternative
13. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  I question the relevance of this entire line of inquiry, and ask that you please leave it be. I'd query you about the use of enquire vs inquire, but quizzically, I don't care.
14. Re:Misleading summary by Walking+The+Walk · 2014-06-20 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It isn't as if another version was already submitted earlier, perhaps with a better summary for the editors to use:
  http://slashdot.org/submission...
  The accepted story was submitted by itwbennett, and links to a story on itworld.com. I think it's a fair assumption that it was submitted by Amy Bennett, ITworld's Managing Editor. According to her achievements, she's had 2^9 submissions accepted, from which we can conclude that Slashdot editors probably prioritize her submissions. I imagine her submissions are fairly well written, link to a somewhat reputable source, and have already been deemed interesting enough to the IT crowd for a story on ITworld. So they get fast-tracked, and other worthy submissions are reviewed later, deemed to be duplicates, and discarded.
  Would be nice if her submissions lead off with the fact that she was the managing editor for ITworld though, just to make it clear that she's just trying to feed traffic to her own site. (Which is a valid action if the story is original and interesting, but should require a disclaimer.)
  
  --
  A recursive sig
  Can impart wisdom and truth
  Call proc signature()
15. Re:Misleading summary by sexconker · 2014-06-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Que?
16. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  And yet you can ask somebody a question without questioning them.
17. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  to be fair, naming your account "itwbennet" is IMHO at least as much of a disclaimer as anybody can reasonably expect on Slashdot; if not positively honest when we assume that this really is her.
  (N.B. I had better declare that I'm Barack ; though this post has nothing to do with my day job, I'd like to just declare my interest as the person responsible for authorizing; or not; your next airstrike. Please do not disagree with this post. For your own sake)
18. Re: Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Time for am it union
  This bs needs to stop be for we get to h1b 2.0 where all the rules go away and your only doctor is er or the jail / prion system
19. Re:Misleading summary by genkernel · 2014-06-20 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Another alternative
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
20. Re: Misleading summary by i+kan+reed · 2014-06-21 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, as far as I can tell, the main point you're trying to express here was "I am crazy and can barely manage to turn words into sentences"
More by sycodon · 2014-06-20 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

The point of "punitive damages" is to punish the company...duh. But, how do you do that?
Just taking their money isn't enough, especially in the case of these companies. You can take astronomical amounts and it would be a drop in the bucket to them. What is $400 million to a company with billions in cash?
What you need to do is hurt them bad enough to affect their stock price. Then everyone takes notice. Board members have their positions threatened, when that happens, executives are fired, etc. THAT'S punishment.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:More by sexconker · 2014-06-20 03:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The point of "punitive damages" is to punish the company...duh. But, how do you do that?
  Just taking their money isn't enough, especially in the case of these companies. You can take astronomical amounts and it would be a drop in the bucket to them. What is $400 million to a company with billions in cash?
  What you need to do is hurt them bad enough to affect their stock price. Then everyone takes notice. Board members have their positions threatened, when that happens, executives are fired, etc. THAT'S punishment.
  Round up everyone in the company involved in the decision, freeze their assets, throw them in jail pending their criminal case, hold a trial, and imprison them further upon their inevitable conviction, then liquidate their assets and distribute to the affected parties. Oh wait, that would be justice.
2. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Multiply the amount by 1000. That should hurt.
3. Re:More by paiute · 2014-06-20 04:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Round up everyone in the company involved in the decision, freeze their assets, throw them in jail pending their criminal case, hold a trial, and imprison them further upon their inevitable conviction, then liquidate their assets and distribute to the affected parties. Oh wait, that would be justice.
  Put the Duke brothers' seats on the exchange up for sale at once. Seize all assets of Duke & Duke Commodities Brokers, as well as all personal holdings of Randolph and Mortimer Duke.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
4. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  The penalties for copyright infringement are often more than an individual will earn throughout the rest of his life. Do the same here. Make them pay... I don't know. Ten thousand billion dollars each. Basically liquidate all of them.
5. Re:More by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-06-20 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's going to go right over the heads of these young whippersnappers.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
6. Re:More by Hevel-Varik · 2014-06-20 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  It was the Dukes?
7. Re:More by Yebyen · 2014-06-20 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  I actually recognized this as Trading Places :D a movie that came out before I was born
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
8. Re:More by debatecoach · 2014-06-20 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  No. The point of punitive damages is to change the managers' behavior. What you suggest would hurt the stock holders and the customers (let's be real, the cost of a judgement gets passed on to them), neither of which were involved in the misdemeanor. How much money was "saved" by the illegal collusion? How often would companies expect to get away with such behavior? These two are critical in determining the correct fine. If they can't expect to get away with it, the penalty should be "a little" higher than the money they hoped to "save". If they expect to get away with it 80% of the time, then it needs to be 5X that amount, to ensure the costs outweigh the benefits. I understand the anger over such behavior, but letting that anger drive a legal response would have unintended consequences. We should carefully consider a punishment to only harm those deserving of that punishment.
9. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Great, now I'm picturing Randolph and Mortimer peeling out of town in the General Lee...
10. Re:More by Cabriel · 2014-06-20 04:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Given that $324 million for 64 000 employees means just a hair over $5000 per person, I'd have to say the judgement should have been closer to $3 Billion. Or, if you really want to talk punitive, $32 Billion.
11. Re:More by timeOday · 2014-06-20 04:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Too much money and power are in on the take. Apple is worth about 12% of the entire Nasdaq, so Apple + google is about 20% of the whole enchilada. In my Fidelity-managed 401K index fund, for example (that is, basically my life's savings), Apple is my #1 holding, right above Exxon, Google, and Microsoft. So 2 of those 4 would be directly impacted, and Microsoft would no doubt feel some fallout (through rising salaries for their talent).
  In a true democracy this argument should not bear much weight, since MOST (over 50%) of all stock is owned by only 1% of citizens. Most of us have a tiny slice, and I (for example) would benefit much more from higher wages in the tech sector than from a little more growth in my 401K. But in general, we small-potatoes shareholders (that is, almost all shareholders) are too short-sighted to take a hit now for the long-term economy.
  More ominously, real influence is proportional to the wealth of a group rather than how many people are in it. Even if you convinced the bottom 99% of voters, you would still only have a minority of shares.
  The reason I dwell on this is because I think the same logic, exactly, explains why the bank bailout occurred and the implosion of Wall Street had no real corrective result on the US economy or the distribution of wealth.
12. Re:More by SydShamino · 2014-06-20 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is nothing that civil law can do that is punitive to the managers. They didn't do anything; the company did things, and they are merely one of the louder of the company's schizophrenic voices. To get at them where it matters (their wallet), you'd have to go after company assets and hope it indirectly affects them as the parent suggests.
  Only criminal law could pierce that veil and go after them directly, and while that can be quite punitive, it's not bloody likely.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
13. Re:More by afidel · 2014-06-20 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Well, you have to figure the wage suppression was worth significantly more than $5,000 per worker, heck it was probably worth between 2 and 4 times that per year and the case involves at least a half decade of bad actions, so make it 10k per worker per year and that works out to ~3.2B. It's certainly not going to bankrupt these companies but it will affect their quarterly results which might be enough to get folks attention.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
14. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot to say you should waterboard them all. Not to find anything out. Just to waterboard them.
15. Re:More by swb · 2014-06-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think if you could get the managers somehow personally responsible, the ideal justice would be letting the court seize assets of its choosing from the managers.
  Don't just let them write a check to settle the matter, but let the court's special master come into their homes and choose things to sell on the open market at public auction to raise the cash. The defendant would be barred from bidding and the winning bidders must agree they may not give or sell the items to the defendant.
  There's a special humiliation in seeing your home stripped of valuable art works, your cars repossessed, your yacht impounded, your wife's jewelry collection sold. Even if you could go buy replacement items on the open market at will.
16. Re:More by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-06-20 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  The point of "punitive damages" is to punish the company...duh. But, how do you do that?
  Just taking their money isn't enough, especially in the case of these companies. You can take astronomical amounts and it would be a drop in the bucket to them. What is $400 million to a company with billions in cash?
  What you need to do is hurt them bad enough to affect their stock price. Then everyone takes notice. Board members have their positions threatened, when that happens, executives are fired, etc. THAT'S punishment.
  First of all, this a settlement proposal, not damages.
  Second, while punitive damages take into account the financial capability of the defendant they also have to have some reasonable relationships to the actual damages the defendants suffered as well. If we assume that the $325K represents actual damages, punitive damages of $1.3 billion might be considered legally acceptable. While that is a large number, divided by 4 defendants with very deep pockets it's still less than they pay for a few acquisitions.
  Personally, I think punitive damage awards should go to paying legal fees (if that isn't already done) and into a fund to pay awards to plaintiffs that win but can't collect, such as when a company subsequently declares bankruptcy rather than simply enrich palliatives beyond actual damage they suffered.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
17. Re:More by AnOnyxMouseCoward · 2014-06-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  How do you propose you'd affect the stock price? Given a stock price is a valuation on the financial prospects of a company, wouldn't punitive damages impact it? Now of course, 400M for 4 large tech firms is not going to significantly impact anything, which is exactly why the judge questioned the amount (and it is by no mean an astronomical amount). Up it to 4, or 8 billions, and see if they take notice. Then the stock price will be impacted, the board members will start asking questions (unless they're too cozy up there), and you get the result you want.
18. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Lol, don't be fucking retarded. Oh noes, they agreed not to poach from each other, quick execute somebody.
  You are a shrilly hysterical douchebag.
19. Re:More by rnturn · 2014-06-20 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  ``There's a special humiliation in seeing your home stripped...''
  
  Yep... how would you like to face your neighbors after they've watched the contents of your home carted away for auctioning off?
  Not having closely followed this case/trial (where's Groklaw when you need it) but surely there was an email trail that led to this decision/settlement. Either one that was revealed in court or one that would have named names that would have been revealed during the discovery phase. Extract all the names of those involved in those email threads and let the games begin!
  
  --
  CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
20. Re:More by whoever57 · 2014-06-20 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  Well, you have to figure the wage suppression was worth significantly more than $5,000 per worker, heck it was probably worth between 2 and 4 times that per year and the case involves at least a half decade of bad actions, so make it 10k per worker per year and that works out to ~3.2B.
  In this case, I believe that the lawyers are putting their interests above that of the clients. An average person in the class is making well over $100k. For that person, which is better: $5k guaranteed or a 25% chance of $50k? Obviously the latter. However, for the lawyers, the question is rather different. Get guaranteed $Millions now, or spend a lot more time and effort to get a $25% chance of $multi-millions? Most people would probably opt for the $Millions and that's what these lawyers are doing -- grab the easy guaranteed money and move on to the next class action.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
21. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, "oh noes, they copied our movies without paying! Let's destroy their lives!"
  Sorry, you can't deny that your justice system is completely broken. Might as well not care about it anymore.
22. Re:More by swb · 2014-06-20 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  What's missing from punishing the very rich isn't the taking of their money -- they have so much, they wouldn't miss it. It's not a punishment.
  What's missing is the humiliation of their possessions being taken from them against their will in public view.
23. Re:More by sycodon · 2014-06-20 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Who highers the middle managers?
  The Executives.
  Who hires the Executives?
  The Board (more or less)
  Who hires the Board?
  The Stockholders.
  You hurt the Stock holders, they in turn hurt the board, they in turn hurt the executives and they in turn hurt the middle managers.
  In order for shit to flow downhill, you have to top load it and technically, the stockholders are the top.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
24. Re:More by sycodon · 2014-06-20 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The fines should be high enough to adversely affect the bottom line of the company and subsequently, the stock price.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
25. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Apple is my #1 holding, right above Exxon, Google, and Microsoft.
  Yikes, man. You need to diversify your portfolio. Having your life savings all tied up (mostly) in a single industry is asking for trouble.
26. Re:More by Sarius64 · 2014-06-20 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  It would be very interesting to see the difference between American and H1B workers. Make sure they include an investigation to find out why people haven't showered in a week, too.
27. Re:More by omnichad · 2014-06-20 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  but it will affect their quarterly results
  I don't know about that - they can just bring back some of their off-shored profits tax-free to cover the loss.
28. Re:More by omnichad · 2014-06-20 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or at least actually make up for the lost wages. It would probably take closer to 4 billion to do it anyway.
29. Re:More by Livius · 2014-06-20 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  $640 000 should be enough for anyone.
30. Re:More by timeOday · 2014-06-20 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The fund is an S&P 500 index, not just a Nasdaq index. The top 10 holdings together form 17.8% of the fund. Still, the fact that 2 of the largest 3 companies in the S&P 500 are named in this lawsuit shows that a huge number of people would be affected (and likely to balk) if the companies were punished enough to have an actual impact.
31. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  What about the rest of us? I develop software in Nashville, but if Silicon Valley wages were depressed by this action then surely IT wages in the rest of the country were as well.
32. Re:More by david_thornley · 2014-06-20 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that this looks way short of compensatory damages. We're talking about 64K workers having their salaries artificially suppressed for quite a few years. I'd be astonished if the average impact was less than $10K/person, and $324 million is about $5K/person.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
33. Re:More by david_thornley · 2014-06-20 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  As far as stockholders and customers go, they benefited by having employees' compensation illegally reduced. It seems reasonable that they should bear some of the burden for redress.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
34. Re:More by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2014-06-20 10:26 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly my thinking also. The multimillion dollar legal fees are the driving force and as usual in class actions, the class members get peanuts (not to defame actual peanuts, they are quite nourishing).
  Or the plaintiffs' lawyers already received a "pre-settlement bonus" from the defendant companies' petty cash boxes.
  Either way, the plaintiffs got screwed.
35. Re:More by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2014-06-20 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't do anything; the company did things
  I agree -- the company did things. And the companies all seem to want to be seen as individuals with corresponding rights (Free speech, all that.) Fine, but as an individual I can be throw in jail (Habeas Corpus, literally in Latin "you have the body") while corporations cannot -- so they have more rights than I do.
  
  To remedy that, I propose: monetary penalties (not $324,000,000, but how about 10-25% of your total (not income, but) assets? it's a penalty, after all) are paid for by the company, but the "one" person who can find out anything in the company is the CEO. They direct the company; they're em>responsible for the company. So THEIR BODY gets thrown in jail when the company gets a jail sentence. Or if they get lonesome, the xEOs all join him, depending on the particular crime.
  
  Oh, so that'll mean the corporation heads will become stooges, with "real control" behind the scenes. OK. So a company with 52 CEOs in 52 weeks might warrant an additional investigation. (Besides, it gives the stoopid people a job.)
  
  --
  If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
36. Re:More by sjames · 2014-06-20 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  What you suggest would hurt the stock holders
  You mean the negligent absentee owners who slept at the switch while all this happened under their noses? They SHOULD be hurt. Let that happen a few times and perhaps stockholders will wake up and start providing a moral compass to corporations again.
37. Re:More by davidshewitt · 2014-06-21 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think that fines should be a percentage of the company's total profit instead of a fixed dollar amount. That way, no matter how big or small the company is, if they commit a crime, they are punished in proportion to the severity of the crime. Any company being fined 20%-30% of their profit will think twice before pulling shit like this. The shareholders will make sure of it.
Surprise by hondo77 · 2014-06-20 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The proposed settlement mainly benefits the lawyers and not the people damaged. What a surprise.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
1. Re:Surprise by Uberbah · 2014-06-20 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Surprise, sheep trained to complain about lawyers will "ba" on command. A class action gets you some compensation with zero risk, financial investment, or loss of time from yourself.
  Don't like getting something for nothing? Hire your own damn lawyer and pay for his staff to rummage through thousands of documents to make your case.
2. Re:Surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Class action law suits ALWAYS benefit the law firm(s) involved while the plaintiffs receive a $5 discount coupon good on purchase from the defendant's store (and that would be $5 off the full MSRP, not $5 off the lower price retailers usually sell the defendant's merchandise for).
$507.03 by denis-The-menace · 2014-06-20 03:51 · Score: 0

$324.5 million / 64000 workers = $507.03
These tech workers are getting fuck either way.

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
1. Re:$507.03 by Etherwalk · 2014-06-20 03:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  $324.5 million / 64000 workers = $507.03
  These tech workers are getting fuck either way.
  $5070. It almost certainly isn't enough to make the engineers whole, but it is more than nothing and not completely unrespectable. (They didn't lose their entire salary, but did lose some money.)
  It is a *settlement* proposal, though. It's not supposed to be enough to make them whole--just more reasonable for both sides than fighting.
2. Re:$507.03 by Major+Ralph · 2014-06-20 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  Missed a decimal place there buddy, it's $5070.31
  
  --
  I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
3. Re:$507.03 by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-06-20 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well...saying people with salaries approaching or exceeding six figures are "getting fucked" is a bit of an exaggeration.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:$507.03 by bluefoxlucid · 2014-06-20 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  That assumes there'd be enough sniping to up the wages of 64,000 workers. I doubt there's that much exchange; most of these people have standing because they could have been affected, even if they in reality would never have been impacted.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
5. Re:$507.03 by mikael · 2014-06-20 03:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Something significant would be a decades worth of pay-rises for each employee affected.
  That would be $10,000 x 10 x 64000 = $6.4 billion
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
6. Re:$507.03 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Please tell me you're not an accountant.
  Literally off by an order of magnitude.
7. Re:$507.03 by sexconker · 2014-06-20 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  $324.5 million / 64000 workers = $507.03
  These tech workers are getting fuck either way.
  I think you need to multiply that number by 10.
  Then divide it by 10 again since the lawyers will take 90% of it.
8. Re:$507.03 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Except that it's Silicon Valley. Just look at your expenses and move the decimal point to right one place and you'll get a good enough estimate of the costs they have to deal with.
9. Re:$507.03 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  Michael Bolton: I don't know what happened, I must have missed a decimal point or something...
10. Re:$507.03 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  These workers are losing potentially tens of thousands of dollars per year due to the collusion of these companies. It doesn't matter that their salaries are over $100,000. $100,000/annum in Silicon Valley is a pittance, especially if these workers are the most productive. Furthermore, $100,000 is nothing if you consider that this collusion has been going on for multiple years.
  The financial penalty to these companies should be on the order of $6bln or more: enough to pay out $100,000 per affected worker. To that, tack on an extra 33% to the fine to cover legal expenses.
11. Re:$507.03 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not even close reasonable; the lawyers are going to take half.
  Then the government is going to take 33%.
  That leaves the engineers with about a week of salary--probably actually less.
  6 months salary for the ones who didn't loose their jobs+ 1 year of compensation for any who lost their job because of this + lawyers fees would be reasonable.
12. Re:$507.03 by Etherwalk · 2014-06-20 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not even close reasonable; the lawyers are going to take half.
  Then the government is going to take 33%.
  That leaves the engineers with about a week of salary--probably actually less.
  6 months salary for the ones who didn't loose their jobs+ 1 year of compensation for any who lost their job because of this + lawyers fees would be reasonable.
  Lawyer's fees generally come out of the pocket of the side hiring the lawyers--it doesn't go into the calculation, unless we change that rule on a systemic level.
  Six months *may* be reasonable, but it's a math problem, and a very speculative one--what would their salaries have been *without* the anti-competitive practices?
13. Re:$507.03 by tomhath · 2014-06-20 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Lawyer's fees generally come out of the pocket of the side hiring the lawyers
  This is a class action lawsuit. The plaintiff's lawyers will get the biggest share of the settlement.
14. Re:$507.03 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's more reasonable than a week.
15. Re:$507.03 by gnupun · 2014-06-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  According to this article, lawyers take more or less 25% of the total award. So the lawyers make $81 million, whereas the plaintiffs make $324M x 0.75 / 64,000 = $3800 each, roughly.
16. Re:$507.03 by Sarius64 · 2014-06-20 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously this is why H1Bs must be expanded immediately!
17. Re:$507.03 by omnichad · 2014-06-20 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just sniping. It's knowing that employees can't leave for better money and not that you don't have to bother giving raises.
18. Re:$507.03 by david_thornley · 2014-06-20 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  By that logic, we should take all corporate officers making over $1M/year, and dump 90% of their assets into the settlement fund. Since they're ten times as well off as the people you mentioned, obviously calling that "getting fucked" is a bit of an exaggeration.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
19. Re:$507.03 by sjames · 2014-06-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Lets say me and my friends decide to harass you, so I grab your iPhone and spike it on the pavement. You threaten to sue so I peel off a couple 20s and a 10, stuff it in your shirt pocket and say get lost. Do you feel compensated or insulted further?
20. Re:$507.03 by bluefoxlucid · 2014-06-22 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  My raise each year amounts to $100/month or so, after taxes.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
21. Re:$507.03 by Etherwalk · 2014-06-23 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Lets say me and my friends decide to harass you, so I grab your iPhone and spike it on the pavement. You threaten to sue so I peel off a couple 20s and a 10, stuff it in your shirt pocket and say get lost. Do you feel compensated or insulted further?
  Class actions are usually more about incentivizing the company not to do it again than they are about paying people a few bucks.
22. Re:$507.03 by sjames · 2014-06-23 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  As I walk away do you think to yourself "He'll never do THAT to anyone again!"?
  How about when you hear someone paid me $200 to smash your phone in the first place?
Accurate summary by Piata · 2014-06-20 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

She questioned the amount, the logic behind the amount and why the plaintiff's lawyers didn't feel a jury would find the emails a convincing argument for collusion. Not sure how you didn't find the summary accurate. I know it's a rarity on slashdot but this one is pretty spot on.
1. Re:Accurate summary by i+kan+reed · 2014-06-20 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  "Would X convince jurors" isn't actually a particularly applicable concern for approving a settlement. It reads a lot more like the judge having thoughts about the details of the case.
$5070! by fxsoap · 2014-06-20 03:52 · Score: 1

My my! All that trouble, wages screwed with and people's lives treated like they were, you get $5070 and some change. Good day. HAHA. Glad they rejected the settlement.
That settlement figure is a scam... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 03:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's about $5000 per employee, much less than the costs to the businesses otherwise.
Try $6.5 billion...then they will think twice about this crap.
1. Re:That settlement figure is a scam... by gnupun · 2014-06-20 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  $10,000 to 20,000 per employee per year of collusion + lawyer expenses + fines. The collusion began in 2005 and the class action suit was filed in 2011 -- 7 years of abuse. So the settlement should be at least:
  
  7 x 10,000 x 64,000 = $4.48 billion to $9 billion.
2. Re:That settlement figure is a scam... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Remember that this is in some of the most high cost of living areas in the country in one of the best paying industries. Ten-thousand per year per person may be a fair loss from a general population but not this one. Double that would be more accurate for these coastal tech workers. Even twenty-thousand per year does not come close to punitive measures either. Generally for punitive damages it is between three and ten times the amount stolen. For it to be fair $27 billion should be the low end. Hell, just trading a couple hundred copywritten albums would get any one of us into the $300 million fine range. Why are companies allowed to get away with so much more?
3. Re:That settlement figure is a scam... by afidel · 2014-06-20 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Then figure treble damages as a punitive fine (obviously not if they settle, but if they're found criminally liable) and it starts to add up to real money, even to companies of this size.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
4. Re:That settlement figure is a scam... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget to add the 25-30% "tip" for lawyers' fees.
It can never be fair by ChrisKnight · 2014-06-20 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The actions of this cabal of companies has had a lasting effect on everyone working the tech sector. The normal cycle of hiring employees out of their existing position with an offer of more money helps to drive the average salary for a position up. Years of refusing do to that caused average salaries to stagnate. When I was offered a position at Apple in 2007 I scoffed at the rate I was offered, and I was told that Apple prided themselves in paying industry median salaries. What they neglected to mention was that they were actively working to keep the industry median down. I never took the position at Apple, and am not eligible in the suit; but that doesn't mean I wasn't affected. Many companies gauge offer salaries and raises against industry salary reports like those generated by Glass Door and other wage survey groups. Because some of the biggest employers in tech were working to keep wages down, and their rates significantly contributed to those salary reports, they effectively kept an entire employment sector's wages low.
How do you compensate for that? You can't. No court settlement will make up for the damage caused by this.

--
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
1. Re:It can never be fair by joe_frisch · 2014-06-20 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  Shouldn't this be a case of criminal collusion? At the very least it seems punitive damages are appropriate, and those could far exceed the nominal damage done.
2. Re:It can never be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Two words: Prove it.
3. Re:It can never be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  I am 53 years old in Kansas -
  I too had this impact me. As a result I have likely lost $100,000 to $200,000 over the last XX years. It would have been 1/3 of my current retirement monies.
  It still continues to impact me as when I go for new positions they are based on my current, not my "what it should have been" rate.
  How do I get my money ? And no chance I am using my real name.
4. Re:It can never be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  two words: NSA Records
5. Re:It can never be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Oh bullshit. Bunch of whining, and I'm actually one of the affected employees who will get money supposedly.
  Unions do the exact same thing, why isn't that collusion? I see no issue with a bunch of companies agreeing not to engage in a poaching war.
6. Re:It can never be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck proving criminal intent.
7. Re:It can never be fair by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2014-06-20 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Unions do the exact same thing, why isn't that collusion? I see no issue with a bunch of companies agreeing not to engage in a poaching war.
  The rules for Unions are different. Would you have the same attitude with your 5 year old drinking and out til 3AM than a 22 year old? The rules for the companies is that it's collusion. They did something they weren't supposed to.
  As to why, it's like the offside rule in soccer/hockey. The rule itself doesn't make much sense if you think about it by itself (why not let people charge on breakaways) but it has side effects (fewer forwards up, more guys back on defense, even FEWER goals, if that is possible with the top tier teams).
  One company/corporation has a lot more power than an individual. A union does some work to make the power a bit more equal. But if you get corporations colluding, the power goes back to the corporation. Side effects? No growth in wages. No increased purchasing power (remember that the US economy is 70% consumer based, the bulk of that money comes from wages). People doing odd borrowing to maintain a standard of living (thinking of your home as a piggy bank is due to stagnant wages, and was a part of a great Economic Collapse). Squelching of wage increases has a lot of negative consequences, at least you can trim the illegal parts out.
8. Re:It can never be fair by Uberbah · 2014-06-20 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Unions do the exact same thing, why isn't that collusion?
  Because that's the worst false equivalency of all time?
Holy shit, seriously? by bluefoxlucid · 2014-06-20 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lucy Koh is still a judge?! My god, our legal system is a shithole.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
1. Re:Holy shit, seriously? by iggymanz · 2014-06-20 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  oh come on, she made awesome statement that 'Apple attorneys must be "smoking crack" ' , that's worth a lot
2. Re:Holy shit, seriously? by bluefoxlucid · 2014-06-20 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I remember her consistently applying judiciary favoritism, e.g. allowing a plaintiff to introduce late evidence all the damn time but denying defense evidence because it wasn't declared in discovery.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
3. Re:Holy shit, seriously? by iggymanz · 2014-06-20 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  or possibly, you know nothing of jurisprudence and your uninformed opinion of certain situation might have no bearing on reasons for those determinations
Not after the lawyers get their cut! by Irate+Engineer · 2014-06-20 04:00 · Score: 2

You're assuming that entire settlement goes to the plaintiffs. The lawyers will get several 10s of millions of that first.

--
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
1. Re:Not after the lawyers get their cut! by jratcliffe · 2014-06-20 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Typically, about 1/3, so call it $100M.
$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by sjbe · 2014-06-20 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

So that settlement works out to roughly $5000 per worker before lawyer's fees, which are sure to be substantial. Sounds a bit light to me, especially given the amount of cash the relevant companies have in the bank.
1. Re:$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  The money those companies have in the bank probably is not a consideration nor should it be.
2. Re:$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by Charliemopps · 2014-06-20 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  So that settlement works out to roughly $5000 per worker before lawyer's fees, which are sure to be substantial. Sounds a bit light to me, especially given the amount of cash the relevant companies have in the bank.
  Agreed. I'd say the minimum amount those workers were hurt by this would be in the $10k range each. Probably more like $20k. Companies don't violate anti-trust law to save a couple of grand...
  Does anyone know if if the settlement is supposed to in any way be punitive? If the workers are just supposed to get back what they lost, then I'd say something in the $1billion range would make sense. But if this is meant to be punitive, it should be doubled at least.
3. Re:$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by Yebyen · 2014-06-20 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Then I would wager that you are not a member of the affected class of workers. I promise you they didn't collude to keep our salaries low because they just don't care about profits and their shareholders told them not to worry because they already had enough money in the bank for dividends.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
4. Re:$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by SecurityGuy · 2014-06-20 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's true. What should be a consideration is how much the affected parties were harmed. Did wage suppression really only cost them $5000 each? Not even per year, but each, over the entire time it was happening. That's where damages should start. Then you should multiply it, because you want getting caught doing the bad thing not to simply result in having to pay for it, because then hey, why not do the bad thing? We only have to pay for it if we get caught, and we might not.
  Basically, make a rational analysis of the "should I do evil" calculus come out "No."
5. Re:$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  While growing up in Philadelphia my dad drove a dump truck in college.
  They would exceed the weight limits and make twice the money than if they followed the load law.
  They know that getting stopped and checked was remote so they just considered the tickets a cost of doing business - which got passed onto the customer anyway.
  Same thing here. They got away with it for 5 to 10 years with tens of thousands of employees impacted.
  $5,000 is woefully inadequate.
6. Re:$5000 per worker before lawyers fees? by omnichad · 2014-06-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  And of course road wear increases exponentially with weight, so their little fines are far from the actual increased cost in road maintenance.
not when you can't afford to live on it by schlachter · 2014-06-20 04:17 · Score: 1

and besides, if someone steals your money from you, to give it to their shareholders or bosses, you're getting fucked...even if you can handle the loss better than others.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Reason for fines as a % of net worth by Fallen+Kell · 2014-06-20 04:22 · Score: 1

Again, more reason for fines to be based as a % of net worth and not simply hard cap values. A fine of a year of the company's average income or 10% of their net worth will actually hurt a company and force it to pay heed to the laws. As it stands, these companies have saved more and thus made more by breaking the law than they will ever be hurt by fines....

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
1. Re:Reason for fines as a % of net worth by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  And how long do you think it would take Microsoft, Google, and Apple to hire a lobby group to have such a law quashed? After all, it is unfair to expect a company to adhere to the law. Just ask my boss, who steals hours from us every few weeks and then tells us that if we don't like it, we can always work in a supermarket.
Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 04:24 · Score: 0

Thank you your honor.
We are very sorry that you got us red handed.
But if only this is the price for keeping down the wages, we will meet next month to explorer further secret deals.
Sign Google, Apple Adobe and Intel
$2500 apiece after the lawyers? by Chas · 2014-06-20 05:02 · Score: 2

Basically 324.5 mil, divided by 64,000 people comes out to $5070.31.
The lawyers involved will probably get at least half. So these tech workers' compensation works out to a measly $2500 or so?
These companies made BILLIONS. And these workers were denied opportunities to advance their careers that could have worked out to SIGNIFICANTLY more than $2500. Hell, that's a fricking Christmas bonus.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re:$2500 apiece after the lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  $2500 Christmas bonus my ass. I once got a $25 gift card as a Christmas bonus.
$5,000 per employee by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:08 · Score: 0

That works out to about $5,000 per employee, at least if they were going for actual damages (not punitive) it seems pretty low for some, reasonable for most & a bit high for a few but overall its probably not too far off. That assumes though that the legal fees aren't going to take a big chunk of the settlement, which they probably will.
What about the rest of us? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:13 · Score: 0

What about all the rest of us tech workers whose companies set our salaries based on a "survey" of salaries at the "industry-leading companies" such as Apple, Adobe, etc...
They fucked us over too, often by roughly the same amount of dollars.
Justice? by Moof123 · 2014-06-20 05:14 · Score: 2

The settlement is weak. Nobody responsible is going to jail. The theme just repeats itself. Those in power can either drag things out so long, or be claimed to be too "big to prosecute" by Eric Placeholder's DOJ (bought and paid for by corporate sponsors, funny that...) and never have any real punishment brought on them of consequence.
If the precedent goes on too long where too many angry screwed peons do not have any sense of justice, you may see vigilantism kick in. Screwed workers who feel they have little left to lose might start going postal after realizing that their American Dream is just such a farce.
1. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Civil suits aren't the same as criminal, FYI.
Punishment? What punishment? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 05:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Let's play with financial data for a moment, shall we?
Revenue in FY2013:
Google: $59.8B
Apple: $170.9B
Intel: $52.7B
Adobe: $4B
Total: $287.4B
Settlement: $0.324B (0.11% of yearly revenue)
Median US household income: ~$52K
0.11% of that: ~$57
So, this is the equivalent of a regular Joe breaking the law for 7 years and, when caught, being fined $57.
Is this a deterrent or an encouragement?
What would Justice look like? by asylumx · 2014-06-20 05:35 · Score: 1

Justice in this case might look simple -- take a bunch of money from the companies and give it to the employees that would have earned it (and penalties, of course). The problem is, this affects a bunch of innocent bystanders. These are top stocks in this country. Lots of retirement funds are wrapped up in these stocks. If you penalize the companies the "rightful" amount, you will definitely harm their stocks, which means members of the police retirement fund in Maine (across the country) stand to lose their asses through no fault of their own.

It's easy to throw around ideas of vengeance & justice on these kinds of situations, but the world is a complicated place, and sometimes what appears obvious and "common sense" is actually the most harmful thing you can do.
1. Re:What would Justice look like? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is, this affects a bunch of innocent bystanders. These are top stocks in this country. Lots of retirement funds are wrapped up in these stocks
  These people aren't innocent bystanders; The are the owners of the company, the people who chose (either directly or indirectly) to invest their money in the board that made these decisions. At best, we're all guilty of complicity, at worse we're guilty of much more.
2. Re:What would Justice look like? by RavenLrD20k · 2014-06-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Them's the breaks. When shit like this starts sending quakes through the portfolios of the general population *MAYBE* it'll be enough to wake up the collective to say "Hey! What the Fuck?!" and break apart some of this complacency iceberg we have going on.
3. Re:What would Justice look like? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure the honorable members of the Maine police retirement fund wouldn't want to share in the profits of illegal collusion, and would agree that something stolen should be returned to the victim, even though the current owner bought it in good faith.
4. Re:What would Justice look like? by omnichad · 2014-06-20 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  So you're a "too big to fail" supporter? In other words, the key to avoid punishment for anything is to also be an 800lb gorilla?
  Multiplying damages by 10 is barely over 1% of these companies' combined annual income. Apple has piles and piles of cash they aren't even doing anything with. I'm sure the others aren't hoarding to the same degree, but they won't be bankrupted by this. And their stock value doesn't crash from this.
5. Re:What would Justice look like? by njahnke · 2014-06-20 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  what changes do you propose?
6. Re:What would Justice look like? by asylumx · 2014-06-23 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about me or what I support & don't support, it's about finding the best solution to problems. If people would get over this "you vs. me" mentality perhaps we could stop squabbling over these false dichotomies and actually come up with solutions.
  
  So, yes, sometimes it's possible that an entity exists that is so big and important that losing it would harm far more people than its existence harms. Perhaps it *is* OK to keep that entity there, at least until some support is built around it so that the rest of the structure doesn't collapse when you finally do remove it. Recklessness is generally not a good answer to a complicated problem.
It's a compromise. Not punitive. by sjbe · 2014-06-20 05:38 · Score: 2

Does anyone know if if the settlement is supposed to in any way be punitive?
Settlements are almost by definition not punitive. It's an agreement between the two parties. The defendant gives less than what might happen if there was an actual ruling by a judge/jury. The plaintiff takes a certain but lesser amount rather than taking an all or nothing risk with a ruling.
the same companies by poached · 2014-06-20 05:42 · Score: 2

are also heavy users of H1-B visas which also depress wages. I say fuck them all. But I don't know how to actually go about fucking them over.
Different things [Re:Misleading summary] by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-06-20 05:49 · Score: 1

It isn't as if another version was already submitted earlier, perhaps with a better summary for the editors to use:
http://slashdot.org/submission...
This is a different thing. The link you give is about the proposed settlement. The article here is about the judge questioning the current settlement offer.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 06:00 · Score: 0

Unless she makes it billions and billions, I know 64000 tech workers who will be blacklisted....
Oh please, they own the courts by gelfling · 2014-06-20 06:32 · Score: 1

This will get turned over on appeal. We're talking about the courts in Silicon Valley which aren't real courts.
1. Re:Oh please, they own the courts by david_thornley · 2014-06-20 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You can't appeal a settlement. You can appeal a verdict, but a settlement is an agreement to drop the case and not have a verdict.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's not to late to drop out of the class by rahvin112 · 2014-06-20 06:41 · Score: 1

It's not to late to file letters with the court dropping out of the class to pursue your own case because the settlement doesn't fit what you think is fair.
If enough people protest the settlement and drop out they will be forced to redo it.
Wonder just how many voted to except by Stan92057 · 2014-06-20 07:05 · Score: 1

Wonder just how many voted to except this so called settlement. Yet another FU to the workers of America by Cooperate America and the corrupt law system we have. Lawyers taking care of Lawyers And liberty and justice for all. Who can afforded it. IMO

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
Strangely enough by overshoot · 2014-06-20 09:35 · Score: 1

$320 million will just about cover the plaintiffs' legal expenses.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
1. Re:Strangely enough by Uberbah · 2014-06-20 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely enough, if you don't like getting something for free via a lawsuit that you don't have to pay for nor spend any time on, you can always hire your own attorney and file your own case.
2. Re:Strangely enough by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, that is quite hard. I'm joined the class action only after multiple "large" firms turned me down for taking my case (which has substantial documentation of huge and direct impact). Even the big law firms aren't interested in a protracted legal battle with Tech Giants with war chests in the hundreds of millions of dollars, even when the case is practically a slam dunk.
3. Re:Strangely enough by overshoot · 2014-06-20 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  How much does a plaintiff "get for free" if the settlement just covers legal expenses?
  Not my first rodeo, Chief. I've seen some of those class-action settlement checks, and the bank charged more than the face value of the check to cash them.
  
  --
  Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
4. Re:Strangely enough by Uberbah · 2014-06-22 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not my first rodeo, Chief.
  Not mine either, Junior. The wolves wouldn't spend so much time telling the sheep what's good for them if a good chunk of them weren't rubes willing to fight against their own interests....in this case bleating about how much lawyers make instead of the company that ripped people off.
  Give the money to the lawyers, burn it in the street, line it with birdcages, give it to a Colombian drug lord - it's money out of the hands of the entity that screwed over their employees, customers, etc, in the absence of any other action. The other alternatives are government prosecutors willing to step in with a heavy hand - don't hold your breath when the top prosecutor in the country says crap like this - or doing nothing. Of course, the sheep clutching their pearls about the compensation of the legal team have also been trained to grab the fainting couch at the sight of "big government", leading to the second alternative: doing nothing. Which was the real goal all along.
  Or, once again, you could always hire your own damn lawyer to file your own damn case on your own damn dime.
5. Re:Strangely enough by overshoot · 2014-06-23 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Give the money to the lawyers, burn it in the street, line it with birdcages, give it to a Colombian drug lord - it's money out of the hands of the entity that screwed over their employees, customers, etc, in the absence of any other action.
  If all you want from the case is to punish the conspirators (presumably to discourage them from doing it again) then it would be a good ideat to hit them for at least what they got from screwing the employees. Which, apparently, was something like an order of magnitude larger. $324 million is, like the drug lords put it, just the cost of doing business.
  If, on the other hand, there is some remote notion of compensating the people who actually got screwed, a settlement that got them, like, some money might be better. And as other commenters have pointed out, hiring your own lawyer to play Don Quixote against multiple giant corporations is not a winning proposition.
  And "Junior" is so cute. I'll have to show that to the grandkids.
  
  --
  Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
6. Re:Strangely enough by Uberbah · 2014-07-02 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  If all you want from the case is to punish the conspirators (presumably to discourage them from doing it again) then it would be a good ideat to hit them for at least what they got from screwing the employees. Which, apparently, was something like an order of magnitude larger. $324 million is, like the drug lords put it, just the cost of doing business.
  Of course it would. But $324 millions is a hell of a lot more than zero, which is what the state was asking for. But that's the point of whining about tort reform or class action lawsuits - bringing that number down to zero.
  
  And "Junior" is so cute. I'll have to show that to the grandkids.
  After extolling the benefits of lead paint but before telling them that arsenic tastes great in drinking water?
Reminds me of Oracle Corporation. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-20 13:35 · Score: 0

http://web.archive.org/web/20041009113103/http://www.orafraud.org/Oracle/terminator.html
CAPTCHA: 'moses'
In Globalization by NewYork · 2014-06-22 02:19 · Score: 1

MNC = Pyramid scandal.

--
Casteism