SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Wednesday, US District Judge Lucy Koh granted preliminary approval for a settlement between four top tech companies—Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel—and their former employees. The employees launched a class action suit against the companies after the Justice Department sued the top tech firms for anti-competitive labor practices in 2010.
The Justice Department had accused Apple, Google, and other top tech firms of agreeing not to approach each others’ engineers with better employment offers. The employees estimated that they collectively lost out on $3 billion in wages because competing companies would not give them better offers.
Employees of Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel pursued a larger settlement [...]. Originally, lawyers for the two sides agreed to a $324.5 million settlement for the employees. But with 64,000 former employees looking to reclaim lost wages, that amounted to a paltry $5,000 per person. Freelance programmer and representative plaintiff Michael Devine protested the agreement his side’s lawyers agreed to, and Judge Koh agreed with him, calling the settlement "below the range of reasonableness.”
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:33PM
I mean, on the one hand, $400 megabucks is more than a bit of money, even for apple and google. On the other hand, paying employees what they're worth is expensive.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:41PM
I have to assume that if they continue to form these kinds of agreements, the next case will be more expensive, and contempt citations may be in play as well. Courts do not tend to look favorably on people and organizations caught committing the same bad act multiple times, meaning the second case is both easier to prove and leads to higher damages.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:06PM
> I have to assume that if they continue to form these kinds of agreements, the next case will be more expensive
Yeah, this particular door is now closed. But the underlying goal of minimizing the cost of human 'resources' is still alive and strong. They will just seek out another path to the same place. Now that Jobs is dead they will have to rely on someone else's genius to figure out what that path will be. Perhaps Zuckerberg's pro-H1B super-pac will do it. [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:28PM
Will you please stop repeating that fallacy about H1B's... Have you been through the H1B process? No? I have... yes I have... And it's nothing like what you people make it out to be...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:57PM
> Have you been through the H1B process? No? I have
Hey AC, congratulations on being the exception.
Don't be the fool who thinks that because they are lucky everyone else is too.
The top ten employers of H1B visa holders, [npr.org] accounting for roughly half the visas, use them in the process of off-shoring.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday March 06 2015, @08:37AM
You aren't from India right? ;)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:06PM
If the calculated loss in wages is $3000M, than $415M settlement isn't even a slap on the wrist. Maybe you're right and next time it will be easier to prove and add some contempt citations.
But the companies now have 1 data point: Screw over your employees, breaking the law doing it, earn $2585M.
Even if they have to pay 4 x as much next time, they'll still earn loads of money from doing it.
Question ofcourse, the claimed $3000M in lost wages, is that calculated, speculated or mpaa style fabricated?
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Friday March 06 2015, @01:50AM
further (IANAL-TG), but don't they write those fines off as bidness expenses ? ? ?
in essence, aren't WE peons taxed more to make up for this little bit of profitable immorality ? ? ?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:15PM
Yeah, but all they have to do to avoid that is have good deniability. No written records of the plan. No accidentally telling applicants "we don't hire people from [other company]"
Oh shit. I'm the nutty conspiracist.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:51PM
Anyone know if this qualifies for treble damages? It seems pretty clear that the violation of the law was willful. None of the execs in question are/were idiots.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:07PM
Of course not. I mean they only came out $2.6 billion ahead instead of the $3 billion they were aiming for - that kind of disappointment should sour them on such abuses forever...