61–70 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Staggering? I'd call it a pittance. The companies should've been fined much more to make an example out of them so no tech firm attempts something like this again.
It's like getting caught stealing and you only have to payback the money you stole. Zero incentive to stop stealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cartels are dynamically unstable. That doesn't mean they can't cause a net social loss during the period in which they are effective.
I looked at some of the articles on this particular cartel. I didn't see evidence presented that employees of the cartel were compensated less than employees at other tech companies. While there is no doubt there was an illegal cartel, I'm skeptical that it was an effective cartel.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487035236045756052...
Nov 10 2010
Moving to plug the defection of staff to competitors, Google Inc. is giving
a 10% raise to all of its 23,000 employees, according to people familiar
with the matter.Earlier quoted context omitted.
25% is a rather "normal" attorney fee award. You can argue they shouldn't get that much but remember that they have to eat the cost of prosecuting the case for a long time before seeing a dime. EDIT: I don't get the harsh downvoting. I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the case but remember that not all class-actions end favourably for the lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action
How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have? Their only excuse is that most businesses do the same thing. Payment processors, freelance agencies, telecoms providers etc, all taking extortionate cuts in relation to the costs incurred providing a service, which comes from our paychecks.
Depositions from two of us, the landlord, his partner, a property inspector (and his inspection and report fee), a real estate valuation expert (including his fee to value the rental in the first place), and you'd be surprised how quickly this stuff adds up.
Now imagine suing billion dollar corporations with huge internal counsel with incentives to run the clock every step of the way to make it maximally expensive to sue them. And those companies have dozens of involved internal parties, many of whom may not even work there anymore, or who have travel costs, etc. And that's before you get to multiple $500+/hour expert economic valuation experts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Philosophy aside, after your living is secure all the rest is imaginary points. It has to mean less than risk-of-death or living in poverty. Maybe not to a 20-something idealist; but definitely to a parent.
I agree. Let's take these imaginary points away from corporations. They're imaginary, they shouldn't care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked at some of the articles on this particular cartel. I didn't see evidence presented that employees of the cartel were compensated less than employees at other tech companies. While there is no doubt there was an illegal cartel, I'm skeptical that it was an effective cartel.
When this scheme came to light, google ended up giving their employees a 10% across the board raise. Further, google is often used as a compensation benchmark. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487035236045756052... Nov 10 2010 Moving to plug the defection of staff to competitors, Google Inc. is giving a 10% raise to all of its 23,000 employees, according to people familiar with the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When this scheme came to light, google ended up giving their employees a 10% across the board raise. Further, google is often used as a compensation benchmark. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487035236045756052... Nov 10 2010 Moving to plug the defection of staff to competitors, Google Inc. is giving a 10% raise to all of its 23,000 employees, according to people familiar with the matter.
That's strong evidence the cartel was a failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's strong evidence the cartel was a failure.
The opposite. When they had to stop constraining wages, they were forced to give raises to their employees. That is the definition of success: from 2005 to most of 2010, they successfully underpaid.
Microsoft went through a similar transition.
Creating a cartel is one thing, but making it work is quite another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite. When they had to stop constraining wages, they were forced to give raises to their employees. That is the definition of success: from 2005 to most of 2010, they successfully underpaid.
Not successfully, because other companies paid more and were draining away Google's talent. I would also suspect that Google paid less not because of the cartel, but because of the stock options. Once the stock stopped rising dramatically, engineers would not have settled for less salary. Microsoft went through a similar transition. Creating a cartel is one thing, but making it work is quite another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not successfully, because other companies paid more and were draining away Google's talent. I would also suspect that Google paid less not because of the cartel, but because of the stock options. Once the stock stopped rising dramatically, engineers would not have settled for less salary. Microsoft went through a similar transition. Creating a cartel is one thing, but making it work is quite another.
On termination of cartel agreement, they had to immediately boost wages. A cartel doesn't have to be 100% effective to be, nonetheless, effective. And they had just re-priced options in early 2009.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
25% is a rather "normal" attorney fee award. You can argue they shouldn't get that much but remember that they have to eat the cost of prosecuting the case for a long time before seeing a dime. EDIT: I don't get the harsh downvoting. I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the case but remember that not all class-actions end favourably for the lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action
Lot's of "good" cases go sideways. This case could have easily gone that way. To prove causation and damages, you need economic models. The defense has their own experts with their own models showing that the attempted collusion as ineffective at actually suppressing salaries. If your jury buys that, you get $0, even if you have a notarized affidavit from a CEO saying he tried to suppress wages.
"Sure, we tried to be evil, but we're incompetent at this one particular thing. We're totally competent at everything else we try, though, so certainly deserve our tremendous compensation!"