Live data from Hacker News

Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

reuters.com

151–160 of 180 posts

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

#151
This is still worrying.

>In her ruling, Koh repeatedly referred to a related settlement last year involving Disney and Intuit. Apple and Google workers got proportionally less in the latest deal compared to the one involving Disney, Koh wrote, even though plaintiff lawyers have "much more leverage" now than they did a year ago.

>To match the earlier settlement, the latest deal "would need to total at least $380 million," Koh wrote.

$380 million??!!?!?! That's not really any better when they're suing for $3B, and having it come from a judge's mouth is NOT helping. I'm glad she turned down $324m, but the new number is still insulting.

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So lets pretend I am a tech lead at a AcmeCo, I quit and start a startup, and an old teammate wants me to hire him. But he is an important employee at AcmeCo and my old CTO will be unable to replace him & his knowledge. I care about my relationship with AcmeCo & the CTO in particular, he is a potential client, we share ownership of some open source offerings, he still mentors me.

How could I possibly take any action that damages this relationship?

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

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you distinguish force and fraud arbitrarily from collusion? Me bashing you over the head and taking your stuff is the ultimate freedom of action.

It's not arbitrary. Hiring agreements (collusion) do not involve force or fraud. Do you truly not distinguish between bashing someone over the head for my stuff from agreeing to exchange something for it? The latter is voluntary and the former is forced.

[deleted]

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

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is nothing preventing you from engaging other employers if you wish to improve your compensation level. We saw this with Facebook ultimately being responsible for the breaking up of the downward pressure on salaries.

That's because Facebook had no part in the agreement. Their policy was to hire from anywhere they could, and they've poached plenty of Google employees. If every company was colluding to fix wages, where would you go?

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? I think this should be obvious, but burning a factory down is fundamentally different from hiring agreements, in that it is destruction of someone elses property. A hiring agreement does not involve the destruction or restriction of property, but laws against such agreements do. > To collude to deny others the right of free association an…

Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach? What about on child labor? Minimum Wage? What about colluding on prices? Aren't these all the same infringement? The truth is sometimes society has to take away the rights of the few for the sake of the many. While I agree we tend to do it too often, you will be hard pressed to find many who agree with you…

> you will be hard pressed to find many who agree with you on this matter.

Has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong.

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

#156

This is still worrying. >In her ruling, Koh repeatedly referred to a related settlement last year involving Disney and Intuit. Apple and Google workers got proportionally less in the latest deal compared to the one involving Disney, Koh wrote, even though plaintiff lawyers have "much more leverage" now than they did a year ago. >To match the earlier settlement, the latest deal "would need to total at least $380 milli…

Leverage = $380 million.

Now the judge tells them "you have much more leverage". So tey have to work out how much more leverage they have. 5 times the leverage would be $1.9 billion.

That's at least how I understand the text, and I find it very honest of the judge. I guess she can't give them the exact sum she thinks is appropriate.

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collusion leads to artificially suppressed wages, which makes the labor market inefficient, to the detriment of the employees. In general, completely unregulated free markets lead to monopolies and price manipulation, among other problems. So no, collusion is wrong.

What's artificial about wages or prices determined through agreement (the market)? What constitutes an agreement's artificiality?

What's artificial is that it's based on an agreement between two producer not on market discovery of price by the consumer. Do you understand how markets work?

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

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this productive for the economy as a whole. This was done to keep salaries low, so a handful of people could make more money. How does that benefit the economy as a whole?

> How does that benefit the economy as a whole? By allowing those firms to make more money. They are the economy too. The economy does not exist for one persons or class of persons benefit. > This was done to keep salaries low, so a handful of people could make more money. People cooperated to reduce their expenses without restricting the right of anyone else to cooperate. Just because people make money doesn't make…

You seem to think that the "economy" in its (mostly or completely) unregulated form is some kind of ideal. Why? Such an economy is dependent on rational actors and perfect information, neither of which are present in human society.

It seems more reasonable that each human in a group will try to maximize their own economic outcomes as well as to assist the other humans that they personally care about in maximizing their economic outcomes. In the modern world, it's often expected that humans are able to extrapolate that the people that they don't know are similarly worthwhile human beings. So while it's generally considered acceptable to try to maximize things for themselves, doing so while knowingly making other humans worse off is seen as morally detestable.

It's important to remember that humans generally care much less about abstract ideals than they do about themselves, the people they care about, and their social standing. The "economy" as it exists in reality does in fact exist for the benefit of one class of persons: those persons who are willing to tolerate it and have the power to change it. When this real-life economy is no longer tolerated, it is changed, in ways like antitrust legislation, class action lawsuits against companies that participate in wage collusion schemes, and the French Revolution.

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Your definition of a "free labor market" is a contradiction in terms. A free labor market is one where people are free to exchange their labor (collusion), not one where a third party decides who gets to exchange what labor and for how much. Laws against hiring and pricing agreements are interventions in the market. Laws against hiring agreements are not consistent with a free market. There's nothing wrong with peopl…

@dreamdu5t in your view, it is acceptable to person to freely agree to be enslaved?

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

#160
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get your facts mixed up. 325 million is quite close to what Adobe makes per month. Google and Apple are 10x-20x50x bigger.

Adobe made $290m last year https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ADBE&annual

Ok, so my math was off, too, my point was that for Adobe that's actually a lot of cash, unlike for Apple.
Post reply on HN