Slashdot Mirror


Silicon Valley Fights Order To Pay Bigger Settlement In Tech Talent Hiring Case

The Washington Post carries a story from the Associated Press that says the big companies hit hardest by Judge Lucy Koh's ruling in the "No Poaching" case have not suprisingly appealed that ruling, which found that a proposed settlement of $324.5 million to a class-action lawsuit was too low. The suit, filed on behalf of 60,000 high-tech workers allegedlly harmed by anti-competitive hiring practices, will probably enter its next phase next January or March. (Judge Koh is probably not very popular at Apple in particular.) If you're one of those workers (or in an analogous situation), what kind of compensation or punitive action do you think is fair?

18 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Punitive Damages? by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about the amount of money they didn't have to pay their employees times 2 or 3?

    1. Re:Punitive Damages? by jonsmirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a class action. The only person that is really winning here is the lawyer that is getting $150,000,000 for bringing the suit.

    2. Re:Punitive Damages? by jonsmirl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have to wonder how much the employees were really hurt by this. It was a 'no poaching' agreement. That meant that recruiters from those companies weren't going to call down the entire Rolodex of the competing firms and try to recruit. But.... there are nothing stopping external recruiters from doing that. And there was nothing stopping individuals from switching on their own.

      There's some logic to an agreement like that. Each of these firm's recruiters could waste huge amounts of employee time in their competitors by making thousand of recruiting calls.

    3. Re:Punitive Damages? by quetwo · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was an "agreement" between the companies that said they weren't supposed to hire workers from the other companies. It was more than poaching, it was to keep workers where they were. Sure, some people moved between companies, but a majority of us didn't make it past the filters...

    4. Re:Punitive Damages? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, they absolutely were. The only way to get raises these days is to find a new job, no this is not restricted to Silicon Valley. If you sit in the same job you will be lucky to get a wage increase close to the cost of living increase each year. This particular illegal activity restricted people from getting new higher paying jobs, for years. Even if they were qualified for the jobs (which these same companies claim don't exist and lobby for increases in H1B people).

      The 60,000 people that were impacted by this particular crime will see maybe 1,000.00, so the punishment is not severe enough. The judge should cap the attorney fees on this and quadruple the fine to ensure fair compensation for the people harmed by these criminal acts.

      If this sounds harsh, consider that some of the executives responsible are making 100 times the wage of the employees harmed by their crimes. Perhaps they should get fired and face personal liability to their previous employers for their criminal activities.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Punitive Damages? by beakerMeep · · Score: 5, Informative

      You dont need to wonder, you need to read:

      http://pando.com/2014/03/22/re...

      http://pando.com/2014/01/23/th...

      Some estimates put it as high as $9 billion.

      This wasn't just about cold calling. The chilling effects were far more reaching. It's just that the documented evidence only referred specifically to cold calling, so that is what can be proved. In reality this was much more of a "gentleman's agreement" and it had the effect of driving down wages at dozens of large companies possibly affecting ~1 million workers. If you think it stopped with just poaching and had no other effect, you are being naive. Google actually had to raise some salaries due to Facebook not participating.

      Here are just some of the companies involved:
        Google
        Apple, Inc
        Comcast Corporation
        DoubleClick
        Genentech
        IBM Corporation (Junior hires okay—also applies to subsidiaries)
        Illumita
        Intel Corporation
        Intuit
        Microsoft
        Oglivy
        WPP
        AOL, Inc.
        Ask.com
        Clear Channel Communications, Inc.
        Dell, Inc.
        Earthlink, Inc
        Virgin Media, Inc. (Formerly NTL, Inc.)

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/2136...

      http://pando.com/tag/techtopus...

      --
      meep
  2. Fair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fair? Cancel all of their H1B visas.

    1. Re:Fair? by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair? Cancel all of their H1B visas.

      Your suggestion has some implicit assumptions which I don't think are valid in this case. At the level of Apple, Google, et al., they don't hire H1-Bs to suppress wages. At Google, at least, I know that salary is a non-issue in the hiring process. Salary requirements aren't even considered until after the hire/no-hire decision is made, and even then they have little impact on the offer... Google offers what it considers reasonable based on your experience, etc. And, actually, Google offers such good money that it's uncommon for candidates who receive offers to turn them down. So Google is paying enough to attract American talent. Google also hires people on H1-Bs, but only because Google hires anyone who is legally hire-able and can make it through the interview process and hiring committee. I strongly suspect that Apple is the same.

      I'm not denying that there are segments of the industry who hire H1-Bs in preference to Americans in order to keep wages down, but I really don't think that's the case at the companies involved in this case.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Re:Who cares if they pay $0 by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

    WTF are you talking about? The amount is for a class action lawsuit not a government fine.

  4. Re:good plan by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are there any laws we shouldn't gut in order to be 'competitive'?

  5. Let's do some math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there were 60,000 impacted workers and the no-poaching agreement lowered the average salary for them by $10,000 each/year than that would translate into $600,000,000/year that the agreement was in place. If we tap it out at 10 years that would be 6 Billion dollars in actual damages. Let's add on punitive damages as well because if the only costs associated with breaking the law is that if you get caught you have to pay what you would have paid in the first place there is no motivation to not illegally screw your workers. So we double that and have a possible jury verdict of 12 Billion Dollars

    However to be fair too the companies in question this is a settlement where to avoid the pain of lawyers and dragging it out they pay upfront. So let's reduce the total payout to 25% of what their potential liability would be. I think 3 Billion Dollars or 10X what they are currently offering might be a reasonable starting point for discussions

  6. Re:good plan by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't a government action. It's a class action lawsuit by former employees.

  7. Unseal the documentation too by beakerMeep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The thing we really need here is public justice. If the world does not know how these ultra rich are conspiring against them, then there is no justice. They need to unseal all of the evidence, no exceptions.

    Also I think it's important to note one of the plaintiffs (Michael Devine) who pushed the judge into ruling against this, the lawyers wanted to walk away with their check.

    From a May 2014 CNET article

    Plaintiff fights Apple, Google settlement in wage-fixing suit

    A programmer who is part of the class action lawsuit against several tech giants says $324 million isn't enough.
    -----

    "As an analogy," Devine wrote to Koh, according to the Times, "if a shoplifter is caught on video stealing a $400 iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and just resolution be for the shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the iPad, and walk away with no record or admission of wrongdoing? Of course not."

    Had the case gone to trial as planned at the end of May, court filings indicate, the tech employees would have sought $3 billion. Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Intuit agreed to settle last year for a combined $20 million, covering 8 percent of the employees named in the suit.

    --
    meep
    1. Re:Unseal the documentation too by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think a different analogy is appropriate. Say a group of activist threatened to block access to stores in a neighborhood who charged more than $1 a pound for any fruit. The stores have a choice between taking a loss on fruit, not selling fruit, or having their customers harassed. In such a case we can be sure the police would be called and the activist arrested. The stores could probably sue for lost sales as well.

      The problem we have in the US is that firms are given a great deal of leeway to insure that they can charge as high as price as the market will bear, but labor is severely restricted in doing the same. For instance firms are free to form collectives that lobby congress and produce promotional campaigns, even to the point of forcing companies to pay for such promotions, but unions have to bill lobbying efforts separate and members can opt out. Likewise firms are allowed to use some pretty significant tools to prevent labor from organizing, though firms are free to do the same with few restrictions.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  8. Re:there is nothing 'fair' about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is government meddling with people's private property (businesses) nothing else.

    Yes, sometimes I wish the government would cease its meddling, like all the laws that allow corporations to become "legal entities" and shield the owners of these corporations from financial losses. The concept of limited liability is evil government meddling.

  9. The math on this one is basically simple by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They could look where companies didn't participate in this crime. Look at the top salaries(over the time period), subtract the salaries that people affected did get, multiply that by 60,000, multiply that by some punitive number, tag on a hefty percentage to make up for the lawyer's fees, and Bob's your uncle.

    So let's say the top competitive salaries were $150,000 and that people got $100,000 (probably a much larger spread), and that this all went on for an average of 5 years. So:

    5*50,000*1.5*1.3*60,000 which works out to around 29,250,000,000 or basically 30 billion dollars.

    Considering the amount of money these companies make from each employee this is actually a fairly reasonable number. Considering that this is 60,000 top tech people who then often lived in very expensive parts of the US their losses from these illegal actions were not insubstantial.

    My above numbers also assume a $50,000 dollar gap. Often with stocks and bonuses companies that weren't part of this cartel paid much higher, I know one top tier school math grad who is earning solidly in the $300,000 plus lots of perks and bonuses right out of school working for a large SF tech company.

    To put the $324.5 in perspective, a top employee who comes up with a cool feature or new product line could easily have generated that much profit for any one of the larger tech companies. An interesting example of this was in the history of GTA (which I recently read) where the original game had you playing the cops. It was apparently boring as hell. But some enterprising employee swapped it around and it was instant fun. That one guy effectively put the company on the map. The other game might have sent the company into the dusty shelves of mediocre game history.

    It is not that all 60,000 of the people in the lawsuit would generate that much money but that I suspect at least one of them did.

  10. Re:good plan by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have yet to meet a unionized engineer.
    When I worked for Bloomberg in New York City, they were constantly firing international employees for theft of intellectual property. Not sure where that charge came from.
    Sounds to me that your whole point is that some VC told you how to think. H-1B visa holders are only popular with people like CEOs and VC who really have no experience in the field. Working engineers know that they are wildly overrated. That's why so many companies have abandoned the use of H-1B visa holders. It is a practice valued by people who really don't have any experience in the field. They think it's a good value but in fact it's a myth. Tata produces terrible engineers. They pretend they're going to send experienced engineers here but the people that companies actually get are unexperienced and come here expecting to be trained by US engineers. Then, they produce terrible work and US engineers have to silently rewrite it. I say "silently" because management doesn't want to hear that fact because they want to push the fiction that they're saving money. So, then, the cycle continues where management believes it's saving money while domestic engineers have to actually rewrite the crappy code produced by Tata. I have seen this play out in several companies, especially ones located in NYC.

  11. jail by Yakasha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what kind of compensation or punitive action do you think is fair?

    Jail.

    Continuing the analogy given by the plaintiff, if you steal a $400 iPad, you're going to jail. So, send the fuckers to jail. There are emails, from individuals. Those individuals committed crimes. Put them in jail.

    Rich people & corporations have money, lots of it. And they can always get more. ANY financial penalty is "only money".

    We all have a limited amount of time on this planet. 10 years in prison should convince other CEOs to not be dumb again.