Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the political-economy dept.

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?

9 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. 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
  3. 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.