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

101–110 of 180 posts

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

#101

Post by Retric »

gress wrote: post #94
Retric wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's common for lawsuits to be for damages * X where X is a distinctive. IMO 10B is about the limit for any kind of reasonable penalty though.

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

#102

Post by peterb »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #92
8154730 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, plus the executives involved should be personally punished through financial loss and imprisonment.

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

#103

Post by dustingetz »

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…

if maintaining a positive relationship with another company is more valuable than the hire, (and when is this not the case?), obviously you will clear it with the other CEO first. I haven't read the book but you haven't quoted enough context to label this disgusting.

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

#104

Post by electromagnetic »

dustingetz wrote: post #103
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…

if maintaining a positive relationship with another company is more valuable than the hire, (and when is this not the case?), obviously you will clear it with the other CEO first. I haven't read the book but you haven't quoted enough context to label this disgusting.

There's a difference between 'do not poach' and 'do not hire'. A 'do not hire' list is in essence a Blacklist, which if employed between companies with overlapping skill sets (IE trying to block an engineer moving between Apple and Microsoft) then this is certainly disgusting.

Poaching is the active targeting of employees of other companies, which when done in the umbrella of an investors holdings is bad form (don't bite the hand that feeds you). When done to another company is generally a bad idea if you expect to have to have amicable dealings with them (license patents, buy parts, etc). However, if they're a direct rival and there's no foreseeable reason to be on good terms with them, there is no reason to not poach their employees other than the reason you know you're not acquiring a loyal employee, but one loyal to the money.

A 'do not hire' list is an attempt to blacklist anyone who essentially leaves whatever the umbrella is of its reach, which is an attempt to place a monetary cost on anyone trying to leave the corporate fold. It would be like a bartender breaking the legs of anyone trying to leave. Anyone else who was planning on leaving isn't going to, but they're certainly not going to be buying drinks and that's really going to drive down profits when the bar is at capacity and no one is drinking. There's a reason companies are employing "quitting" incentives, and that's for the very reason that happy employees are productive employees and the notion of one bad apple spoils the bushel.

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

#105

Post by dmix »

olefoo wrote: post #76

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." -Santayana This is yet another iteration of American labor politics. That it involves workers with greater skills than in previous iterations is not germane. The reason that labor unions arose in the first place was that capitalists actively exploited workers. And, guess what? Capitalists still exploit workers, even when the workers tools are laptops and VM…

This is the market reacting to malicious behaviour by large organizations. As far as I can tell, in this situation it seems to be working. The court system nor the market isn't putting up with their shit.

I'd much prefer courts handle this than solving the problem by creating a second problem. Which in your example, the unions themselves eventually become too powerful or negatively effecting the job market and upward mobility of smaller players. We would see benefits in the early days then eventually reach by a stasis where everything starts moving extremely slowly and consumed by bureaucratic process.

Then only those embedded within the union system benefit, while competing global markets without constraints operate more efficiently. While smaller players in the job market start hiring less due to the high bar needed to hire union workers.

I've witnessed this first hand as an electrician in my family ran a successful business, until the workers organized into a union and he had to shut it down because their demands made it completely unprofitable (they demanded expensive benefits programs and high wages, keep in mind we live in Canada with public healthcare). The workers lost their jobs and most ended up working for another much larger company. Unions create bigger companies and bigger unions.

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

#106

Post by balls187 »

sgustard wrote: post #99
balls187 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a great point, but seems like the CEO (or whatever principal is shattering the relationship) isn't being mature, nor thinking objectively.

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

#107

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

mooted1 wrote: post #29
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…

It's frustrating that this perspective doesn't get more attention. HN and tech in general pays lip service to addressing social problems, but it's primarily concerned with congratulating its own success and getting defensive against the concerns of the rest of the economy. No, it's not our fault that others aren't as well off. But that doesn't make mean we can't do anything to help; it does mean we should complain ab…

It is disappointing that you got downvoted. Hopefully it was an accidental downvote due to HN's poor mobile browsing support, as opposed to someone being unwilling or unable to explain why they disagree with you.

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

#108

Post by cscurmudgeon »

exstudent wrote: post #74
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask your politicians to remove artificial building restrictions which are helping only the landlords.

I agree that's a good idea but in the context of this story... Who lives in this ultra expensive real estate? The execs stiffing the developers on pay while making bank on their work.

My point is that it is not the execs fault for it being expensive. There is an artificial limit on supply. If supply is kept low, the producers (the landlords) usually benefit at the expense of poorer consumers.

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

#109

Post by rando289 »

adevine wrote: post #96
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,…

IANAL, but this makes a lot of sense. Lawyer's motivations are really really important.
Post reply on HN