$415 Million Settlement Approved In Tech Worker Anti-Poaching Case 117
An anonymous reader writes: Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel have been embroiled in a high-profile court case accusing them of creating anti-poaching agreements in an attempt to keep tech industry salaries under control. Now, Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that the $415 million settlement against the tech giants is fair, and will stand. Koh also cut in half the amount awarded to the attorneys in the case. The lawsuit was a class-action originally joined by about 64,000 workers. Other companies were involved with the case, and reached settlements earlier, and a few members of the class action may opt out of any settlement. But the remaining members will only get something in the vicinity of $6,000 apiece for the damage done to their earnings.
Before you go off the deep end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, corps can do it and get away with it every day! But if caught they might land themselves a nice fine (see above), or even worse, some time in jail. The corps have quashed the second option for just about any crime they commit, so you are stuck with the first option.
One has got to imagine though, between these practices, H1Bs, 80 hour work weeks, and other wage-lowering standards in the tech field, how many Billions these corps have saved, reinvested, and reaped as untold wealth, while only having their feet held to the fire for about 100m each in this case. They are sure to invent some fascinating practices to hold wages down further in the coming years.
Enjoy your hot soup. cause that's all they serve. on the soup line.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before you go off the deep end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
how many Billions these corps have saved, reinvested, and reaped as untold wealth, while only having their feet held to the fire for about 100m each in this case. They are sure to invent some fascinating practices to hold wages down further in the coming years.
This is all there is to learn from this case; that the government willfully endorses this type of behavior. They hand out some minuscule fines every once in a while to placate citizens who cannot comprehend math, but ultimately let companies blatantly conspire to reduce wages.
This settlement is less than a tenth of the dollar amount necessary to actually punish these companies more than they benefited. And if you are a regular who doesn't punish someone more than they benefited, you are explicitly endorsing their behavior.
VERY good (mod him up)... apk (Score:1, Interesting)
What you describe is like what I've seen on industrial waste disposal fines - a big pharmaceutical concern in my area (who shall remain nameless here of course) I KNOW OF wantonly spew nasty chemicals into a nearby water source (a stream): They go to a nearby "how do I clean it up" firm who does a BIG WRITEUP for the courts on how they "WILL DO IT THAT WAY" but they never do, they pay the fine & just KEEP ON DUMPING!
Why?
* It's CHEAPER TO PAY THE FINES than to actually dispose of it properly is why!
This
Re: (Score:2)
This settlement is less than a tenth of the dollar amount necessary to actually punish these companies more than they benefited. And if you are a regular who doesn't punish someone more than they benefited, you are explicitly endorsing their behavior.
Also, companies often pass along the cost of fines to their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before you go off the deep end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No double standard. Unions are allowed and even protected in an attempt to protect people from rich greedy bastards. And anti-competitive behavior is forbidden in an attempt to protect people from rich greedy bastards.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the double-standard that he was referring to. And you even provided a rationalization for why the double-standard is a good idea.
Denying it makes you look dishonest. Owning it makes you look principled.
Because the standard is not to prevent cooperation, it is to protect people. Thus, cooperation among workers to negotiate better terms and conditions is a good thing as it protects them from being exploited. Whereas cooperation among businesses would allow them to exploit their employees or customers and thus is a bad thing.
In theory, things could go too far and union members could destroy a business if they refuse their demands -- however, if this happens it means both the union members and the business lo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Before you go off the deep end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an attempt to balance the scales. Add up all the capital each side has. The one with the most wins. Thousands of workers have to pool resources to add up to one CEO. What is unfortunate is the the workers 'CEO' (union boss) is just as corrupt as any corporate/government boss. Every institution falls into the same trap.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, that's right, it's because they are greedy bastards who continuously seek out any additional power they can get their hands on.
Re: (Score:3)
Employers already got together to improve their position. They called it a C-Corp. Or S-Corp, LLC, Delaware Corporation, or whatever else they did to create a single "front" entity with which everyone must deal.
Re:Before you go off the deep end.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations are already collective entities. Creating a union simply creates another one.
I am not a big fan of unions, or at least, how unions have been in the US, but let's not pretend that forming a union means that now the workers are the big bad wolf. They are simply evening the odds by forming their own organization that now has bargaining power because it controls a critical part of the corporation's production capacity: the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of business, at least in the US. Starting a business means you will defraud investors, sexually harass secretaries, engage in human trafficking, and dump toxic waste in the river.
What some businesses have done, all businesses will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Small difference being unions are normally public in their associations and are a known entity when entering into negotiations, while agreements between businesses are private.
If any business wants to make it known to prospective employees they have agreements with other businesses to hold the cost on wages, fine.
Otherwise what you are describing is fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Employers DO collectively bargain. A corporation is a collective. Managers in the corporation hire, in some cases, tens of thousands of workers for the company. If that is not collective hiring I do not know what is. Corporations are not people. Acting as if Adobe, Apple, and Google are only 3 people is flat out wrong. Your analogy has no merit.
Re: (Score:2)
Employees are allowed to form unions to collectively bargain, but when employers get together to improve their bargaining position you think it should be illegal? This smacks of a double standard. $6k is peanuts to keep runaway salaries down and I expect this will be standard practice moving forward.
One employee = one person with virtually no power. One employer = one multi-billion company with massive power. Complaining about double standards here is truly idiotic.
the new way (Score:2, Insightful)
They have created the fairy tale of the STEM shortage. In a few years, kids will be coming out of school with their STEM degree and there will be few jobs that pay shit.
It happened with nurses. Years ago, kids wanted a guaranteed job and flocked into nursing schools because of the so called shortage. Today, we have the worst job market for nurses EVER.
Tech companies are all bullshitters when it comes to their employment practices and all of them are guilty and should be fined.
Re: (Score:1)
In all industries, whenever the wages are getting higher than the corporations want they will start a propaganda campaign to make people believe that there is a massive shortage of workers in that sector and tell them how much the wages are about to rise in order to create a flood into that se
Re: (Score:2)
One has got to imagine though, between these practices, H1Bs, 80 hour work weeks, and other wage-lowering standards in the tech field, how many Billions these corps have saved, reinvested, and reaped as untold wealth, while only having their feet held to the fire for about 100m each in this case. They are sure to invent some fascinating practices to hold wages down further in the coming years. Enjoy your hot soup. cause that's all they serve. on the soup line.
You've just discovered the appeal of Trump.
Even Ted Cruz, formerly thought of as the immigration hawk before Trump showed up, thinks that we need more H1Bs. Lots of 'em.
Sure, Trump may well turn out to be full of it. But we know all the rest of them are. May as well roll the dice on the "clown", since all the rest are in red wigs and baggy pants themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
But, I guess it is your right to take a gamble on the known psychopath who you already know has several screws loose and no moral objections to lying to you for your vote, but you know, there may be a small chance that psychopath doesn't have your interests in mind when he enriches himself.
Re:Before you go off the deep end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like asking where is the law that keeps preschoolers from beating up heavyweight boxers.
So the attorneys only get . . . (Score:1)
"Only" (Score:1, Troll)
"Only $6000"
Maybe this is because I'm not an Apple/Google/Intel employee, but if I got $6k handed to me, I'd be psyched.
Re:"Only" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Only $6000" Maybe this is because I'm not an Apple/Google/Intel employee, but if I got $6k handed to me, I'd be psyched.
Would you be psyched if that's the settlement you received because your employer negotiated behind your back to keep a competitor from offering you a job that pays $20k more a year?
Re:"Only" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The settlement is peanuts. It should be three times as high, along with substantial punitive damages.
Re:"Only" (Score:4, Insightful)
Also.... the class that damages are awarded to should include All workers of a similar calibre in the industry: not just those that the anti-poaching applied to.
Due to the economics involved. IF such and such position was poached, then I could have applied to it, Or the economic effects across the country might be such that my salary at another company would be higher than it was.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you a glass half full person or a glass half empty person?
Re: "Only" (Score:2)
Re:"Only" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Only $6000"
Maybe this is because I'm not an Apple/Google/Intel employee, but if I got $6k handed to me, I'd be psyched.
You need to take stock of your life if $6k is considered a financial windfall. This is basically a single paycheck to many of the professionals being affected by these illegal practices. They have likely missed out on tens of thousands of dollars in wages and are being given a big F-U by the government as well as the companies that conspired against them.
Re: (Score:1)
I make $10,000, after taxes, and I live in Wisconsin.
If you are making less than $72,000 a year as an engineer (i.e. $6K/month), and you've been in the field at least 5 years, you're getting ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
This actually depends on how often they get paid. Based on $6000 (gross):
Basically, If they're getting paid monthly, like government people, or bi-weekly like most companies, it's not impossible for them to have a salary of $6k per pay period.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are these people making 6000$ every paycheck? What city? Doing what? For who? Where?
They are mostly engineers and programmers in Silicon Valley. I live in San Jose. $6000 every two weeks is about $150k annually, which is a pretty normal salary here.
I keep hearing about these mythical salaries, but I've never had one like that, and no one I know has either.
Get on the bus gus. Tech unemployment in the Valley is less than 3%. Everyone is hiring. If you are good, you can make good money here. But even on $150k, you may struggle to find an affordable place to live. When I first moved here, I lived out of my van for the first few years, and took showers at the gym.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess...you're also one of those people who dismiss the student loan burdens of today's graduates, because you got your degree back in '95 while working part time at Home Depot?
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't know anyone that'd be happy to get $6k, you need to step out of your tech bubble and meet somebody at the median level of income.
Re:"Only" (Score:5, Insightful)
For most companies, your annual salary increases are considered in percentage terms from your current salary.
Let's say the anti-poaching arrangement drove the market down so that an employee who could have made $100k/year in on open market instead took a job for $95k (by the way, this is likely a SEVERE underestimate of the market distortion of ~six of the largest market participants refusing to bid on each other's employees).
That's not a one-time $5k loss. That's a $5k loss every year for life, because it decreases the base on which future raises will be given. More than that, actually.
Assuming you're worth a 5% raise every year, the "open market" employee makes:
$100,000
$105,000
$110,250
$115,762.50
$121,550.63
--------
$552,563.13 over 5 years
With the "$5k" loss, the employee instead gets:
$95,000
$99,750
$104,737.50
$109,974.38
$115,473.09
----
$524,934.97 over 5 years
Which is a loss of $27,629.
The settlement doesn't fix the "perpetual" nature of this problem - it doesn't increase the base salary to what it would have been. It's a one time payout. Even if $6k is a fair estimate on the amount lost in base salary AT THE TIME they took the job, it's a pittance on the real loss.
Even changing jobs doesn't necessarily "restore" this lost base salary - quite a lot of employers ask for a salary history, and will base an offer on what you made previously. Or, they'll base it on the "average" they pay for that job today (which itself will be artificially suppressed because of the past collusion).
This is a HUGE giveaway to the employers involved. They saved many times over what they're paying out here. If they could do the same thing tomorrow anticipating this penalty, they would.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not for life - it's just until your next job change and ability to negotiate. I've almost never had a meaningful raise working at the same company (after my first year, and once in the 20 years following). IME, you get meaningful raises when someone really needs what you already know.
There's a trap there though - it's important to alternate between jobs that pay a lot better for your current skills, and jobs that force you to learn more modern, in-demand skills. Otherwise you'll suddenly find yourse
Re: (Score:2)
By definition it depressed the labor pool. What does depressing a labor pool do, whether it's noncompete clauses or trucking in H1-B workers? It depresses prevailing wages, by design. /remedialeconomics
Attorneys' fee reduction - A Good Thing (Score:5, Informative)
From the article in the 2nd link:
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs had requested around $81 million in fees. But Koh nixed that amount, saying it would be a "windfall" for the lawyers and instead awarded them $40 million.
Way to go judge!
On the other hand, even $40M is probably too high for the amount of work done and risk taken.
Still too low for victims and too high for lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless if the proposed settlement amount is fair, the lawyer payment reduction basically would have no effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless if the proposed settlement amount is fair, the lawyer payment reduction basically would have no effect.
I think the effect would be to make the parent feel better because he does not care much for lawyers.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I want a pony, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Make the settlement $100k for each victim, and maybe $2 million for the lawyers.
Well now. That's practically un-American suggesting such a thing. Our legal system would collapse if lawyers had to starve like that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, shut down the businesses involved, sell off their assets to the highest bidders, and jail all high-level management for at least a decade.
Those rich fucks are huge flight risks and people within the companies will be scrambling to shred and burn evidence and cover up hidden assets, so time your sentencing announcement with the arrival time of a tank battalion at their offices.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get them to employ fair employment practices and no one has to get hurt here.
When tank battalions start rolling, *everyone* gets fucked. Let's not call for that. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones who get fucked are the ones the tanks roll toward.
Fact: Every major conflict in human history has been solved through violence.
Re: (Score:1)
Fact: Every major conflict in human history has been solved through violence.
Well then, how about :
- The Cold War
- South African Apartheid
- The British occupation of India
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union fell after being drawn into the violent quagmire of Afghanistan. The United States would be in the same position, if it actually gave a fuck to it's stated goals of making a stable government and protecting human rights, rather than just protecting access to natural resources.
Only ended with the threat of violence. Brutal colonialist occupiers DGAF about your non-violent protests - just ask the Israelis who bomb Gaza when th
Re: (Score:3)
Not only is this a slap on the wrist, it's actually encouragement for continuing the practice. A company can pay $5000/employee to save many times that amount. The ROI on this practice must have the CFOs drooling.
Also, I wonder if the $41 million not going to the lawyers ends up with the plaintiffs or the companies.
Of course, this entire decision is a laughable farce. The judge considered $4000/person unfair but $5000/person fair. I never went to law school, but that type of judgment is baffling to me.
S
Re: (Score:2)
You sound pretty stupid and have apparently never heard of the smell test.
Tell me does your idea that our salaries would be e.g. $30k higher now if only these companies had actively poached back then pass the smell test? No. It does not.
Ahh, yes, the smell test, that bastion of truth. Why don't we use the smell test to settle arguments more often? Well, proponents of this technique implicitly mean only their noses are accurate.
Well, my inaccurate nose says that contrary to your wishes, the ghosts of Adam Smith and his pesky supply and demand ideas resulted in lost wages for the affected plaintiffs. That Jobs et al. may have actually cared more about avoiding turnover in their organizations and about the thrill of pulling marionette stri
Re: (Score:2)
For software engineers heading large projects, it could have been far higher than $30k per year.
But lets go ahead and say it was just a $5k per year difference. Notice the emphasis? This wasn't something that Apple and Google tried for a fiscal year, this went on for some time. Which means a $5k payout isn't close to being compensatory, much less punitive.
Too much bellyaching about lawyers (Score:2)
With class action lawsuits, the lawyers bear all of the costs and all of the risks if the lawsuit fails. Yes, $5k for each worker is a pittance based on what the companies kept from their paychecks, but they got something for nothing.
Don't like it - higher your own damn lawyer, and shoulder your own damn risk. Which in a case like this would involve tens of thousands in legal fees, and if you won your payout would come out of AppFaGoogle's penny jar without them even n
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the case and see if you are a member of the Class. Actually, you will probably be contacted if you are a member of the Class and given the option to accept the settlement and extinguish your right to sue yourself, or you can refuse the settlement and keep your right to sue independently. So make sure Intel knows where to find you.
If it is as much as $6k, I'd join the class unless you have the savings to hire a high powered legal team. The Intel corporate lawyers will own you otherwise.
So if the settlement is 415 million, (Score:5, Insightful)
... we can assume that the company's ill-gotten gains are at least in the five billion range.
Just "Being Evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, Sergei and Larry have learned that being evil can fatten their billions oh so sweetly. The fine is only a light tax on the takings.
But, hey! It was cool slogan when they were just breaking into the market.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to petition while the case is in court. In order to get paid you must show you have been damaged, which is what the lawyers did. The usually send out mail and tv and radio ads to try to reach people but not everyone can be found or chooses to participate.
Re: (Score:1)
so the next time around, we won't be able to sue. The Republicans hate technology therefore they hate us. Never vote for one of their kind.
Will you go away with your republican bashing? You have to make every story into a political debate and it is always the republicans fault according to you.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit. If you were a Republican, by definition you would be shitty at any tech job because you're illogical and stupid. That proves you a liar. A liar. You Republicans lie constantly. You hate the truth. Hate it. You are not paid well, and you know damn well you are not. Republicans are stupid so they end-up in very high positions in corporations. They get promoted for being stupid. Your kind rules us because you are stupid.