Tech Workers Oppose Settlement They Reached In Silicon Valley Hiring Case

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Workers Oppose Settlement They Reached In Silicon Valley Hiring Case

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 15, 2014 @07:40AM from the on-second-thought dept.

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.

54 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

One way to sweeten the pot.... by Trailer+Trash · 2014-10-15 07:46 · Score: 3, Funny

How about $324M plus 1000 frozen eggs?

--
Do you have ESP?
1. Re:One way to sweeten the pot.... by HideyoshiJP · 2014-10-15 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I love eggs! I mean, who in their right mind throws away a perfectly good case of eggs in this day and age?
2. Re:One way to sweeten the pot.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  No one can eat 1000 frozen eggs!
3. Re:One way to sweeten the pot.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-16 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Gaston can, given 17 days. 21 in his youth.
Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-15 07:47 · 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.
1. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 07:52 · 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
2. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's an order of magnitude lower than the amount just google and apple are responsible for
3. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Charliemopps · 2014-10-15 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-15 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
5. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by hawguy · 2014-10-15 08:18 · 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...
  
  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.
6. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-15 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
7. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-15 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  ... 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.
8. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by lachlan76 · 2014-10-15 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  The issue was that because people weren't getting headhunted the companies didn't need to compete as heavily on wages. If I recall correctly, when one of the deals fell through, Google compensated with a substantial payrise, which was used to justify the scale of the loss.
9. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  What about the people working at other companies that offered less salary than otherwise because they didn't need to compete as hard with Apple and Google salaries? Everybody in the industry was harmed by this. And the workers at Apple and Google agreed to their salary, so rewarding them in particular makes no sense.
  The companies should be punished, but the employees shouldn't get a windfall from this.
10. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-15 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  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 trust's customers (employees in this case) are uninformed about true market values. Neither is true in this case.
11. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  From space - with heat shielding for maximum impact yield.
12. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  So let's just scratch the surface of what you are saying...
  You contend that employees of the colluding companies were not harmed monetarily of a significant value. 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? They all have lawyers on retainer who should be fired if they failed to mention that this could come back to bite them hard down the road. Maybe you're right, I just don't see why they would do it unless it kept their payroll a left-side digit lower.
13. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-15 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re: Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  What? They save the money lost to turnover by paying employees more! Stop defending them. The trust covered dozens of companies and covered the entire tech sector and beyond. They just only had gaming smoking gun type evidence against these few. But many others were clearly implicated
15. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by dk20 · 2014-10-15 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  "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"?
16. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by wisnoskij · 2014-10-15 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  And possibly more to the point, you can be sure they lost a lot more than that because they were involved in this suit. To me, it seems like if they have proven their case, they need to be given enough to retire comfortably (because no one is going to hire them in the tech industry ever again). $5000 is like one weeks wages for tech workers in these companies.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
17. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Austerity+Empowers · 2014-10-15 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Your.Master · 2014-10-15 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  The crime is that their employees' wages were artificially reduced. You want to respond by further reducing those wages to 0?
19. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-15 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  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 cooperated?
  
  There are companies that will argue ...
  Those were different companies. I don't see how that is relevant here.
  
  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"?
  This is a dumb argument. You cannot justify doing anything just by pointing out that we already do something else that is even stupider. Each action should be justified, or not, on its own merits.
20. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 17:26 · 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 at the second company in terms of talking about them coming to work for us. I was not in a management position in either company. This was not a "no cold call agreement", this was an "even if they're coming to you asking, don't talk to them about it".
  Yeah, I was not supposed to save those emails, they're technically company property, but due to another lawsuit involving a technology I was involved with implementing, I was under "delete nothing" order from the lawyers, so it's a grey area based on prioritizing orders from the legal department. Hence the AC.
21. Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by buddyglass · 2014-10-16 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like it should be roughly quantifiable. We know how many workers are in the class. So we'd need to estimate the difference between what they hypothetically would have been paid in the absence of the anti-competitive practices and what they were actually paid. Then multiply that by the number of years the companies engaged in those practices.
then it stands to reason by nimbius · 2014-10-15 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative

If you have the most draconian hiring policies that ensure only the top talent and smartest minds in a given field are hired by your corporation, and you think you can fuck them over, you've shot yourself in the face. The people litigating are your former employees. If they understand some of the most complex systems and technologies and lead in some cases as pioneers in their field, you're a fool to think they dont understand something as simple as employment. Regardless of how secret you were about it, pack your bags. You're going to the cleaners until they get satisfaction.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:then it stands to reason by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Former and experienced current employees. Why would anyone feel loyalty to a company that pissed on them and told them it was raining for ten years?
2. Re:then it stands to reason by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-10-15 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  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 reason there is an article here.
Why no jail? by Moof123 · 2014-10-15 08:35 · Score: 4, 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.
1. Re:Why no jail? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Companies don't go to jail. Neither do rich employees of said companies.
  I'm with you in spirit, and have suggested C**'s and Board members be taken to task, as it's they're company that's at fault, but until Corporate and employer law is changed, it's a crapshoot.
2. Re:Why no jail? by Moof123 · 2014-10-15 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:Why no jail? by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-10-15 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  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 honestly what you believe, then why ask questions? The rich get everything and you don't, right? So why did they lose this case? And why has a judge already taken a position against the judgement?
  Read up, answer your own question. And do it with an open mind. Because cognitive dissonance hurts.
Take the money and run by saccade.com · 2014-10-15 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Take the money and run by whoever57 · 2014-10-15 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  That's a very good arguement for why the lawyers don't want to argue this further. Not so much for their clients. $5000 is not very much money for each person affected by this, but the millions that the lawyers will get is a lot of money. Furthermore, the lawyers may have to put in 10x the effort to get 10x in damages, which means 10x the fees. As a lawyer, would you:
  1. Take the money now and find another lawsuit to work on, or
  2. Put in 10x the effort, for the chance of getting 10x the rewards?
  Obviously you choose the former.
  
  for the clients, though, the question is rather different: Would you
  1. Take a small amount of money now, or
  2. Gamble on getting 10x the money, just by being prepared to wait for the money?
  That's a very different equation.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
2. Re:Take the money and run by minstrelmike · 2014-10-15 09:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The lawyers have the same disincentive for getting the best price that a Realtor does.
  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.
3. Re:Take the money and run by larryjoe · 2014-10-15 10:08 · 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 whatever it turns out to be) will adequately compensate for the past economic harm, but the satisfaction of a legal penalty may be more rewarding.
4. Re:Take the money and run by The+Technomancer · 2014-10-15 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Same goes for the third-party recruiter as well. They are not on your side when it comes to getting you the highest pay possible, despite what they tell you, for the same exact reason. They (or their firm) get payment based on a percentage of your first year's salary, and while you might want to negotiate for that extra $10k, they will try to talk you out of it because that only gets them chump change and threatens to blow up the deal.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  -- Arthur C. Clarke
5. Re:Take the money and run by jratcliffe · 2014-10-15 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  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?
6. Re:Take the money and run by The+Technomancer · 2014-10-15 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  All I know is that if I were amoral and running a corporation in the US of A, I'd be cheating every damn way possible. It's fairly obvious to even the most casual observer that as long as I don't fuck with the stock market, I can fuck with anything and anyone else and get a comparative slap on the wrist for a fine and pocket the rest of the illegally acquired scratch.
  
  And employers wonder why I leave for the next best thing all the time.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  -- Arthur C. Clarke
7. Re:Take the money and run by hawguy · 2014-10-15 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  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 settle and get their cut of a $300M payout rather than risk years of litigation with no payout.
8. Re:Take the money and run by larryjoe · 2014-10-15 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  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 payout versus a guaranteed, insignificant payout. Another way of looking at this is that I would consider a $100 million powerball ticket to be much more worthwhile than a $50 scratch-off lottery ticket. One has a chance to affect my life, and the other doesn't help me that much even if I win.
9. Re:Take the money and run by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  How about $60k less on a $160k house?
  Some housing markets really do suck that bad.
10. Re:Take the money and run by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yes,
  Yes it is. I don't know your income but I make $2000 in 2 days. Losing it is no big deal. $100K and I am going to Europe for a month and having a blast.
  And the odds are not 1 in 1 Million ...
11. Re:Take the money and run by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  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.
12. Re:Take the money and run by larryjoe · 2014-10-15 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  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 raises or increased benefits due to decreased employer competition. The harm for each affected worker can be monetarily quantified and is likely in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
13. Re:Take the money and run by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-10-15 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:Take the money and run by larryjoe · 2014-10-15 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  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 the lawyers are willing to bankroll the lawsuit and that depends on their assessment of the payout. It has very little to do with how much any of the plaintiffs expect as payment or how justified their case is. And, no, I don't feel any pity for the majority of the class (almost no effort expended), the lawyers (no explanation needed), or the named plaintiffs (usually have emotional stakes in the process if not the outcome).
  But that's all generalized mumbo-jumbo. The pertinent particulars of this specific case are (1) most of the class would benefit only marginally from the $1-2k settlement since they are as a class highly paid hi-tech workers that were sought out by successful tech companies (e.g., a $1-2k bonus for these workers would be a cause for complaint) and (2) the plaintiffs' case is strong, as has been mentioned by the judge when she rejected the settlement.
And systematic tax evasion by lamer01 · 2014-10-15 08:56 · Score: 2

It's disgusting really.
Systemic abuse can only be handled one way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 09:27 · Score: 1

Corporate death penalty.
You do this shit, your corporation is dissolved and it's assets sold to the highest bidder.
Why no jail? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 13:18 · Score: 0

To get the main culprit we would need to hold a cadaver synod
Except... by tlambert · 2014-10-15 17:15 · Score: 2

Except 640 frozen eggs should be enough for anyone...
RICO by AutodidactLabrat · 2014-10-16 04:58 · Score: 0

This is a coordinated conspiracy by several agencies acting in common to violate antitrust law
Why is anyone talking anything but how many years imprisonment for all of senior management for all companies involved?
Seriously, you want honest companies obeying the law, ENFORCE THE LAW with maximum penalties for all involved. ALL.
If Larry Ellison really did conspire, he belongs in prison, 100% of his income for the last 18 years seized, 300% of corporate gains attributed to lost wages seized and all HR and accountants involved imprisoned or flipped.
The evidence will be relinquished by the small fry and the bosses will burn and THEN this kind of criminal conspiracy will not happen again
Too little law applied to too many too big 1% is how America crashed in 2001 and 2007. Let's not repeat stupid