Apple, Google to pay $324 million to settle conspiracy lawsuit
reuters.com
reuters.com
$0.03-0.10/dollar seems pretty cheap. were the odds really that low in court?
Anything can happen when it's put before a jury, including a deadlock from one recalcitrant juror followed by a retrial. Getting to that point would be insanely expensive, likely years of discovery battles, deposition taking and all that (and Jobs, the apparent ringleader, is of course beyond mortal questioning and judgement).
Then, as noted, an appellate judge (although not necessarily after all the above played out, it's going to be expensive for the companies and they'd pursue it ASAP) could declare this case isn't a proper class action. And there are ways the trial judge could screw up on matters of law and get slapped down by the appellate court ... and that's the infamous 9th Circuit....
Then we get to damages: sure, you can ask for 3 billion, and that it be trebled to 9, but you aren't necessarily going to get that much, and big awards are often substantially decreased upon appeal.
If the result was such a pittance for the people affected by the actions, why bother in the first place? If the result isn't going to be punitive to the companies then what's stopping them from doing it again in the future?
Even if they're not technically admitting guilt, paying that much money is taken as guilt by pretty much everyone. Don't know if Apple has taken reputational damage, but the damage to "Don't be evil" Google is severe for a lot of people where it can make a difference.
As for what's going to stop them, a recidivist is treated worse in the courts. They're now under the terms of a DOJ consent decree; violating those will in theory be bad for them (it gets political, of course). The path of another class action civil suit like this would likely be much worse. Etc.
But future increased damages does nothing for victims in the present.
There will be a hearing where a judge will have to approve the settlement, theoretically that is how the fundamental conflict of interest between class counsel and their nominal clients is assuaged, but in practice Federal District Court judges rarely reject settlements.
> Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel in 2010 settled a U.S. Department of Justice probe by agreeing not to enter into such no-hire deals in the future. The four companies had since been fighting the civil antitrust class action.
This I think is actually the worst part, and all but guaranteed this settlement. "You guys were caught robbing banks. Don't do that again, 'K? Now get outta here."
Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn't available to Aaron Swartz. "Never make those documents publicly available again, K?"
Unfortunately, it is all too familiar that large corporations get off with a hand slap and individuals are punished or threatened with the full extent of the law. Seems backwards to me, because the harm that a large corporation can do is almost unbounded.
This is just continuing proof that there is no difference between corporations and the government. One writes the laws and the other passes them. Meanwhile We The People are getting fucked with our pants on.
And lets further say that with all that cash I decide I need to get my own representation in government because its just not efficient to donate the max to my representatives in Congress. So I hire a lobbying firm and/or set up a PAC or two to pressure other representatives who otherwise wouldn't give me the time of day because I'm not a constituent.
Now I'm basically (and, in fact, outright) saying to them, "I gave you $x,xxx,xxx.xx in contributions[1] so I want you to pass these laws. I've written them for you so you don't really even need to spend time reading them. Aren't I a nice guy?" And so the representatives pass the laws because I gave them a lot of money and all they really want is the power anyway.
Then, because I'm so big, I inevitably do something stupid (at best) or criminal. So I call up the aforementioned paid-for representatives and tell them to get me out of the hot water. They put some pressure on the right people and, Bob's your uncle, I'm paying the equivalent to three or four hours revenue in "fines".
THIS. IS. WRONG!
If that's not clear enough lets look at it from my standpoint as a citizen (or, you know; and ACTUAL person):
I make an average of $45,000 a year and can only contribute $2600 per candidate[2]. In reality I'm only able to contribute a fraction of that and probably don't even do that much. But lets say I do something stupid and/or criminal. What happens to me then? I go to jail AND I pay an ACTUAL fine that is a significantly higher percentage of the income I just lost by going to jail.
The people you vote for in this next election need your vote. But they won't be representing you. Because you don't have enough money. Google does though. And so does Apple. And so does Hollywood, Big-Pharma, Oil & Gas... The list goes on of organizations who are more important to your government than you.
1: Bribes
As it is we have an imperial fuck-ton of entities looking out for their own selfish interest, both private and government. Doesn't really seem to me like things are improving for the people that pay the corporations and whom the government purports to serve.
I'm just extrapolating from my own emotions on the issue. I'd previously thought very positively about going to work for Apple. Not so anymore. To me, the fact that Tim Cook's voice isn't clearly heard, completely rejecting this sort of practice, issuing a public apology on behalf of Apple, and ensuring to compensate employees by more than a few thousand dollars each - Is just too big of a de-motivator.
We need the CEOs to clearly voice their accountability, and their plans to prevent this from happening again, the sooner the better.
"Bob make sure to budget in 300m for the anti-poaching agreements and get those out to the teams and companies. Run it by the senators + lobbyists so we can get that paid and proceed. We don't want anyone that helped us helping themselves or anyone else in the future." -- said the feudal kings stopping engineers and innovation.
Still, personally as a class member I would've pressed for more, and I bet it's because the firm has different incentives. They probably stand to get something on the order of $100M of that settlement. They're thinking, $100M in the hand is worth $1B in the bush. Especially since going to trial explodes their costs.
But at the ~$3K level most class members stand to gain (on average), I bet most would bet that for a chance at $30K. I would. Sucks that the class members don't have a say.
Class members can opt out of the settlement, and if enough do it (IANAL but one would probably know the magic number) the settlement doesn't hold.
There is heavy social pressure not to opt out, though. It would be very public. And actively participating in a lawsuit against an employer puts a black mark on your resume for any future employers. (Which as I pointed out elsewhere can be unfair: sometimes employees sue for bullshit reasons, and sometimes employees sue for incredibly legitimate reasons.)
As a general principle, I have serious concerns about the agency problems that exist in the class action system as currently structured. I think it's way too common for lead plaintiffs to settle for too little. However, in this case I think they and their lawyers did everyone a favor. Nobody would've pursued these cases individually, not even if they stood to get $30k. Every dollar the class plaintiffs recover above $0 is gravy.
Opting out individually is in no way, shape or form a substitute for negotiating a larger class action settlement. The whole point of class action is that there's strength in numbers. Even if you didn't care about "black marks", most individuals would not be able to bear the cost and risk of taking these guys to court.
Very cheap for the companies. But at least a good precedent to discourage such practices in the future.
These two sentences don't mix well with each other. Either it's cheap for companies and worth the expense or it's a good precedent that discourages these practices in the future.
Cheap doesn't discourage.
does not compute
Fuck them and fuck the entire legal team at Google!
Disclaimer: I work for Google.
If it's neither then I'm confused by your statement that you work for Google yet imply that working for Google is morally wrong.
Fixed. Non-public companies can sometimes be an appropriate structure. E.g. the Mozilla Corporation: as a for-profit entity it can do a lot of things that the non-profit Mozilla Foundation can't, but it's 100% owned and completely controlled by the Foundation, and reinvests all profits back into the Mozilla project.
Also, if in the future open source becomes the norm, not the exception, then this will become moot -- the fact that a company is based on open-source will be considered typical, not an outlier.
$324M ÷ 64,000 employees ÷ 3 comes out to $1,687.50 per employee, which seems very low. (The factor of 3 is to account for the treble damages alluded to in the Reuters article.)
I found out last March why my manager at Google was adverse to me. I knew someone was pulling strings on him and I had thought that he was taking orders related to my criticism of the G+ direction (in fact, the G+ executives were, as far as I know, innocent) but it was actually because an executive (who's since been disciplined) flagged me as a union risk. I said something to the effect of "decisions would be better if made on the floor" and that was taken to mean far more than I actually meant. (I was talking about G+ Games, not unionizing the Valley. Small difference.)
However, that ordeal and the career problems I've faced since then have convinced me that we need to unionize software development and the Valley ecosystem.
The Valley is fucking terrified of unions. So terrified that if you even seem like you might be leaning that way, executive-level people in major companies will go out of their way to fuck up your career. A lot of the back-channel reference checking that goes on in the Valley is to avoid taking on a potential unionist. No one cares if you were a mediocre performer 3 jobs ago. That stuff is there to black-list potential unionizers.
Now, do I think we want or need a factory-style union where promotions and pay are based on seniority? Hell no. That's a terrible idea. Engineers who work their asses off to become the best they can be, and to advance their respective fields, should be rewarded. I think that the top engineers would make more with a properly-designed union structure than they do now (since, currently, they top out at 1.5 times the pay of mediocre ones). I think our model needs to be more like the Hollywood unions (writers' and actors' guilds). Those do not curtail the financial upside for their members (there are still actors making millions per year) nor do they produce mediocrity. (Say what you want about Hollywood's product, but it's immensely commercially successful and the envy of the pop-culture world.)
Specific union protections we need include:
* readily available legal support when faced with non-paying clients or bad-faith
employers.
* recourse against clients and employers who use reputation threats to justify
nonpayment or bad behavior (i.e. "if you don't accept our unfunded scope creep,
we'll call other clients.")
* (for employees) representation when in trouble with management. The right to
have a representative *in the room* (mostly, because if you negotiate on your
own behalf, you're at risk of getting emotional and saying something
stupid) when dealing with management or HR.
* defense against negative references and back-channel reference checks in
general.
* transparency in compensation.
* protection against "no-poach" lists and blacklists. A union tip line
can help with that.
* protection against sharing of individual HR data (salaries,
performance reviews) among companies, often used to keep pay down.
* negotiation of terms that are embarrassing for an individual to
formally address, such as severance, health accommodations
and workplace privacy.
Hope I don't get in career trouble later for saying this (it is under pseudonym though), but I think that a suitable form of organization would be beneficial for software people. Lawsuits like this one are an excellent case in point. We just have to make sure we don't make the same mistakes that the traditional (and especially automotive) unions did.
What stuff?
This is a very old game, and the original reason for employers to share all that data was to blacklist "troublemakers" who might unionize the workforce. Now, it's more often used to verify compensation (lest people lie and big themselves up) and enforce no-poach pacts, but it's every bit as unethical.
That being said, as an employee, I'm so afraid of unions screwing up that I can't make my mind between having an union vs. these periodic lawsuits/settlements in order to keep the balance. It seems every example of a union being a good thing (like the Norway example mentioned here) feels like a bug in the matrix.
Almost every time you comment, there's immediately a comment from an active Googler telling everyone how you see things in a completely different way.
For example, you casually mention here how you must be black listed because you have seen career problems since. Yet this is nothing to do with unions, and all about anti poaching agreements. I don't intend to slander you here, I just find it extremely hard to believe anything you say isn't delivered with an agenda.
Google has almost 50,000 employees. Not all of them are intelligent, well-adjusted people.
For example, you casually mention here how you must be black listed because you have seen career problems since.
I don't think I'm "blacklisted". I've definitely caught inappropriate communications behind my back, to the point that I've had to pursue litigation and have collected a couple of (small) tortious interference settlements. "Blacklisted" implies inability to get jobs, and it hasn't been nearly that bad for me because I'm ostensibly good at what I do. I've just had to deal with annoyances, like inappropriate questions on job interviews.
Yet this is nothing to do with unions, and all about anti poaching agreements.
The original purpose of shared blacklists was to shut out union risks ("troublemakers"). No-poach agreements are a similar, illegal, collusion among employers who are supposed to be competing. There are also HR departments in tech companies who share salary and performance reviews down to the level of the individual, and that's also (if not illegal) extremely immoral. Three heads of the same beast (no-poach lists, blacklists, salary databases) but the infrastructure of collusion is the same.
I just find it extremely hard to believe anything you say isn't delivered with an agenda.
I'd like to fix technology. That's an agenda. What's wrong with having "an agenda"? The alternative would be not having one. I wouldn't post on this forum if I didn't care about the future of this industry.
Their responses to you that I have seen show no indication of underlying issues. Indeed they almost all seem to indict you as being overly obsessed with showing your infallibility with regards to you leaving Google. This conversation has started off in a similar manner.
> "Blacklisted" implies inability to get jobs, and it hasn't been nearly that bad for me because I'm ostensibly good at what I do. I've just had to deal with annoyances, like inappropriate questions on job interviews.
This is incredibly vague and you use it to imply that Google employees have emailed potential employers of yours and 'poisoned the well'. Lets make this clear. Have you collected any tortious intereference settlements against Google relating to potential employers you have interviewed for?
> The original purpose of shared blacklists was to shut out union risks
That is utterly irrelevant. This is not about union problems in any way, this is about a different illegal agreement.
> I'd like to fix technology. That's an agenda. What's wrong with having "an agenda"
This is pretty deliberately obtuse, you know exactly what I am stating, that you appear to have an anti-Google agenda in your comments, regardless of the actual topic of discussion.
I just think the whole 'Google fired me' angle Michael always brings to the discussion irrelevant.
These anti poaching agreements were seriously immoral and they have literally nothing to do with Unions.
However, I can't see how at all this is relevant and why it's taken into account in evaluating michaelochurch's comment.
For example, one of his statements is:
> The Valley is fucking terrified of unions. So terrified that if you even seem like you might be leaning that way, executive-level people in major companies will go out of their way to fuck up your career. A lot of the back-channel reference checking that goes on in the Valley is to avoid taking on a potential unionist. No one cares if you were a mediocre performer 3 jobs ago.
We surely could question the anecdotal nature of OP's experience and call for more evidence, yet commenters start implying that the person is writing this out of mental instability or evil agenda.
> you appear to have an anti-Google agenda in your comments
IMHO it seems natural that pro-Google comments from other employees of the company, which you mention as answering to OP elsewhere, too might likely have an agenda of their own.
This is much much bigger issue to any employer than any union-forming issue. An employee who sues is a giant nightmare. (Which I will say right now can be unfair, because it's hard for an outsider to distinguish between the bogus lawsuit and the legit lawsuit, and there are plenty of both in the workplace.)
Lawsuits are just about as bad as comments about how you would declare war on your employer if they cross a line you have set. I've seen you make that comment at least twice.
A union agitator would need to get a critical mass of coworkers to go along with him to cause real trouble. A guy who sues or self-describes as declaring war can cause real trouble all by himself.
EDIT: I have some specific posts I could refer to, but I don't think linking to them follow the "Please add comments that make things better" rule. I'm not 100% positive that this comment so far follows the rule, so I'm quitting before I get too far behind.
However, even without deliberately asking, a company could learn, and it's not hard to imagine why an employer would be very wary of hiring someone who has sued a former employer. Being sued is an extremely stressful thing and lots of people go to great, even possibly irrational, lengths to avoid it.
Ask how you would feel working for a company that had sued former employees.
There are no good answers.
In contrast all the active Google employees who follow him around are anon posters. Anon posters who never worked with Michael and are only repeating office gossip or pointing out differences in perspective.
Edit: Anon people sign up to hn simply to try and discredit MichaelOChurch by attacking his (admittedly a little rough around the edges) reputation. See shanterer's post below for evidence in this thread.
Without taking any side here, this isn't indicative of much. One has to work very hard to be able to actually lose a libel or slander lawsuit in the US. And while it would be very easy for Google to start a lawsuit it knows it can't win just to pressure some guy to shut up, Google probably understands the Streisand effect very well.
I think it does up the ante. If a Google employee (or anyone who doesn't like him really) could catch him in a lie his reputation would be damaged as he is a "public figure".
On the other hand if you caught me in a lie... well only around 5-6 people know who I am and I copied this nick off another bloke on a different forum because I thought it was cool. So it wouldn't really bother me.
IANAL.
Naturally, if working in our field yields pretty good money to most of us—regardless of how fairly we are treated—then why unionize? surely that must be just some weirdo's twisted communist ideals or some competitor's money behind.
wikipedia sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_...
blatant sockpuppetry on quora: http://qr.ae/rPxvn http://qr.ae/rPxCq
his obsessive anti-google and anti-startup posting on hackernews speaks for itself.
Anti-unionism is often as much about the authority as it is about saving money; the desire to retain arbitrary power over your employees and know you've given them the bad end of the deal, even if they're on a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar salary.
Food and shelter should only be supplied to the worker as condition of employment. Food should only be available through an FSO (food supply organization).
Also:
* transparency in compensation.
* protection against sharing of individual HR data (salaries, performance reviews) among companies, often used to keep pay down.
For example, Tekna, the Norwegian Technical and scientific professionals' society, publishes annual (anonymized) salary surveys which are categorized by percentile, length of work experience and public vs. private sector. A software developers' "union" could easily provide similar statistics, perhaps organized by specialty. What you need to publish for transparency is enough information to ensure that new employees don't get a raw deal, not individualized information.