I've hired Tomasz twice in the past to work on a Python/Django project, so I can vouch for him that he was proficient, reliable, and easy to work with.
13 karma · joined November 6, 2011
As someone who has hired contractors before, I can tell you what makes me feel comfortable. One is to hear specifics about how the contractor has experience with the specific technologies I use. If I am using Python/Django and the contractor mentions experience with that, then I know he or she read my specification and has the particular types of qualification that I need. I also like it when contractors have some open source work they can point to, since that gives me an example of their work and also makes me feel that they are active and interested in their field.
Not everyone on freelancing sites is choosing the cheapest bid. It might be worth it to you to give it a try even if you take a few less than ideal projects to begin with, just to build up a portfolio and a job history.
Also (and I know this view isn't super popular on HN), I like working with a new contractor on a fixed-price payment plan. If they are willing to do that, to me it indicates that they have confidence in their ability to complete the task promptly, and I don't risk that a bad contractor will drag the project out and cost me lots of money. Perhaps that would help you reassure clients that you are capable before they have had the chance to work with you, at least until you have a strong portfolio to demonstrate your skills. Good luck!
Believe me, class action plaintiff attorneys are not falling victim to any psychological quirk that makes them underestimate what the size of the verdict should be. They get paid based on the size of the verdict and are therefore fully adept at imagining every reason why the verdict should be very large. They make these arguments quite clear to the court, and as you say it's frequently by attempting to couch the verdict in terms of benefit per member of the class.
The real reason for small awards is that most of these large cases end in settlements, not verdicts. And plaintiffs have an incentive to settle for much less than the full value of their claim. This is because there is risk (usually quite a lot) in taking a case to trial, so you must discount your expected verdict by the risk you will lose at trial and get nothing.
In addition, it's very hard to prove damage in class actions. You need to show that all members of the class (or at least large groups) suffered very similar damage. If damages vary by individual, then individual proof is required (this makes sense, part of a case is proving your damages) and you will lose your right to proceed as a class action. If that happens, it's basically like coming away with no money, so plaintiff lawyers can't always claim every dollar that might be on the table. They stick to the claims that they can apply on a class-wide (or close) basis.
Ultimately settlements are about taking a sure deal for less money rather than taking a risk to try to get the full amount you believe you are entitled to. That's the way settlements work, and that's often a good deal for the class.
The judge also has to certify any class action settlement. And any member of the class may file an objection stating that the terms of the settlement are unfair. The judge reviews the objections (including to attorneys fees) and can reject them if the settlement is not reasonable for the class. On top of that, you do have to notify members of the class (by publication if they aren't individually known) of the terms of the settlement and give them instructions for filing objections before the settlement will be approved.
This isn't to say that no class action is ever settled on terms unfair to the class, but there are a lot of protections to prevent that, and overall class actions are a valuable tool to protect consumers. That's why companies are increasingly trying to remove your right to join class actions by hiding terms forbidding it in EULAs and other fine print agreements.