Tech Workers Oppose Settlement They Reached In Silicon Valley Hiring Case

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.

Comments

One way to sweeten the pot....

[Trailer Trash]

How about $324M plus 1000 frozen eggs?

Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[i kan reed]

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.

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an order of magnitude lower than the amount just google and apple are responsible for

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[i kan reed]

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.

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[BarbaraHudson]

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?

Re:Systemic abuse can only be handled one way

[lachlan76]

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.

then it stands to reason

[nimbius]

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.

Why no jail?

[Moof123]

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.

Re:Why no jail?

[Moof123]

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.

Take the money and run

[saccade.com]

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.

Re:Take the money and run

[whoever57]

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.

Re:Take the money and run

[minstrelmike]

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.

Re:Take the money and run

[larryjoe]

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.

And systematic tax evasion

[lamer01]

It's disgusting really.

Except...

[tlambert]

Except 640 frozen eggs should be enough for anyone...