Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#91

Post by [deleted] »

balls187 wrote: post #84
undata wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

Yes, my comment favors investors, by way of favoring companies (and the potential return on investment), but it does not (in my opinion) hinder employees. I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment: > Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from se…

[deleted]

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#92

Post by AnthonyMouse »

8154730 wrote: post #35
peterb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Even 3 decimal places wouldn't do justice to what they have done to us. Fuck those greedy bastards. If we were smart we would unionize ... err, sorry, I mean form a professional association to represent our interests. Like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.

So you think $324 billion dollars is appropriate? Wouldn't that essentially bankrupt all the companies involved? Who needs to worry about jobs when some of the biggest tech firms on the planet are wiped out! Not to mention that $324 billion spread across 64000 plaintiffs is $5 million each... You wouldn't be looking for that easy windfall, now would you?

> Wouldn't that essentially bankrupt all the companies involved?

The sensible thing to do in these types of circumstances is to pay the settlement using newly issued shares in the company. That dilutes the interest of all the existing shareholders (effectively the money comes out of their pockets because the price per share goes down) but it causes no damage to the company's operations.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#93

Post by codezero »

argonaut wrote: post #90
bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

I did not find it especially disgusting. The specific approach Ben advocates is asking candidates at the interview stage whether they would be okay if you checked with their company. It is your choice whether to say yes or no. You have total latitude to walk away.

Ok, you can walk away, but that's not the point. The point is that if I want to get a better offer, and I seek that at another company, it's not fair to ask my current employer if they're willing to let me take that offer, because they may also not be willing to improve your compensation, so you end up stuck where you are just because your company wants you and you are skilled enough for other companies to want you too.

All you are saying is that you are free from reprisal in that situation, OK, great, but that doesn't improve your compensation situation.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#94

Post by gress »

Retric wrote: post #87
gress wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an amount that is greater than the cash of the two combined companies not bankrupt them?

It need not be instantly due and there cash flow positive. 15b each per year and there done in 10 years and still profitable. Also, free cash is hardly their only capital. Google could for example sell YouTube. They could also sell bonds or stock etc. PS: Not that I think 300B is the right penalty, but there needs to be some real risks to prevent such behaviors or the penalties simply become yet another cost of doing…

True but it seems hard to argue that the amount can reasonably be more than all of the cash on hand, since the companies wouldn't have been able to pay the employees anything like that amount, so it can't reflect the market value of the lost salaries.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#95

Post by gress »

alexqgb wrote: post #83
Zigurd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Across the industry, the number of employees affected is easily in the high hundreds of thousands, at a direct cost to them of tens of thousands of dollars per year. So billions to maybe low tens of billions is not an unreasonable range. And would that get trebled under California employment law?

As of April, Apple had cash reserves of about $160 billion. Just saying.

Just saying what? If you fine Apple $160B, then you have to fine Google a similar amount, since they are co-conspirators.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#96

Post by adevine »

suprgeek wrote: post #50

I had two concerns when this was made public: that this was a laughably low amount considering the scope of the collusion and the time-scale over which it happened. that it looks like a good deal to all the companies concerned on two fronts - 325 Million is a pittance compared to what Apple, Google or Adobe make in a month. and the perception of the non-tech folks that this is about the rich whining about not getting…

The fact that this settlement was rejected by the judge should be an embarrassment for the plaintiffs' lawyers, and IMO is a great example of the problems with the incentives in class action settlements. Basically, the judge is saying there is substantial evidence that the plaintiffs would win considerably more if the case went to trial. From the lawyers' perspective though, if they settle they get a sure thing, and, importantly, they don't have to do any more work.

So in other words, if this settlement had been approved, the employees would have gotten a raw deal, while their attorneys would have gotten tens of millions for poor work on a pretty clear cut case.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#97

Post by click170 »

mindcrime wrote: post #80
bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

It really disgusted me when I read it. Such smart people doing such dumb things, and encouraging would-be CEOs to do the same. Wow, just wow. I'm reading that same book, but haven't gotten to that part yet. All I can say is... we (Fogbeam Labs) would never, ever, ever do something like this. When the day comes that we have money to hire employees, we are going with a strict policy of "We will poach anyone, anytime, f…

Please be sure to post on the HN Hiring page when you do start hiring.

Your startup sounds like the kind that won't have trouble attracting people, myself included.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#98

Post by bkeroack »

codezero wrote: post #93
argonaut wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not find it especially disgusting. The specific approach Ben advocates is asking candidates at the interview stage whether they would be okay if you checked with their company. It is your choice whether to say yes or no. You have total latitude to walk away.

Ok, you can walk away, but that's not the point. The point is that if I want to get a better offer, and I seek that at another company, it's not fair to ask my current employer if they're willing to let me take that offer, because they may also not be willing to improve your compensation, so you end up stuck where you are just because your company wants you and you are skilled enough for other companies to want you t…

It's not just that, though.

There is a really profound, fundamental mismatch in power between employers and employees: an employee depends upon the employer for the means of basic existence, while the employer does not have the same dependence on any given single employee.

That disparity in power means that there must be very strong legal and social constraints on employers to make the labor market reasonably fair and equitable. Since essentially the only means the employee has at their disposal to better their situation is leaving or seeking better offers elsewhere, this fundamental right must be strongly protected.

Employers can't have it both ways: laws that allow them to fire for any reason or no reason, set any level of compensation they choose (including cutting pay at any time for any reason) all in the name of the free labor market, but at the same time making secret backroom deals to limit compensation or employee attrition. It's either a free labor market or it isn't.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#99

Post by sgustard »

balls187 wrote: post #84
undata wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

Yes, my comment favors investors, by way of favoring companies (and the potential return on investment), but it does not (in my opinion) hinder employees. I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment: > Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from se…

There's no practical difference. If I hire Ben away from you, then protest "he came to us! we didn't poach him!" it matters not one bit to our now shattered relationship.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#100

Post by MarkSweep »

cwal37 wrote: post #38
smtddr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I deleted the comment you've replied to because of the rapid downvotes... but screw it... I'm putting it back here. Who needs karma anyway... To the rest of the public, we probably look like complaining oil or Walmart execs. While the rest of the general public is dealing with insane commutes and thankless/soul-crushing jobs, we got things like "The Social Network" movie, San Francisco gentrification issues, fancy ca…

Why are you drinking expensive water from halfway around the world? As someone who subsists on lowly tap water, I had to google it, and my mind is absolutely boggled. Not exactly doing yourself any favors with that whole perception issue. A glass bottle too! Despite the ease with which you might think glass would be recycled, its place in the waste stream actually makes it much more difficult (sorting difficulty and…

Especially when San Fransico has some of the nicest tap water in the country, delivered by an empressivly engineered system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy

I was walking around lake Elisabeth in Fremont just this afternoon marveling at the massive water pipes. There are two continuous strips of undeveloped land that go through Fremont and the South Bay that mark the travel of San Franscico's water supply.

Post reply on HN