Plaintiff in Silicon Valley anti-poaching suit protests settlement, wants 'day in court'

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post

     

     

     

    Well I am only an attorney, but whatever. 


    Isn't University of Phoenix great?

  • Reply 42 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

     

    Currently there is an economic crisis in the Valley in that those with higher salaries (those that work at these big companies) are squeezing out those at lower economic levels. What would happen if there was no order to this? I think we would see grossly more divergent economic classes which again, may be great for the rich, but may not be great for society on a whole.




    This is absolutely true, but completely irrelevant. Income inequality has been skyrocketing since the '70s in this country, and it's a different debate altogether. We can certainly have it, and I will probably be on your side, but penalizing engineers because in your opinion they're already making enough, while the difference was being turned into shareholder profits, record CEO salaries and executive bonuses, is not fair either.


     


     




    I think that Steve Jobs proposed a way for the companies to work together and they all, collectively, changed the world in which we live.  It's not a matter of siding with this company or that company, or with siding with the corporations versus the employees.. it's siding with common sense and an organized society.  While these companies agreed to not headhunt employees, they didn't preclude those employees from applying to the other companies and, unless the employee signed a contract, there was nothing keeping them from leaving.  The employee knew full well what the employment contract was.





     


    The great Steve Jobs, in his infinite kindness. Yeah right. Steve was a marketing genius, but by all accounts the betterment of mankind and the well being of his employees was not at the top of his list of concerns. He got pissed off that people were poaching employees and seducing them with better salaries and working conditions, and instead of countering the offers, colluded with other companies to create "a better environment". Great. But it's illegal. And he did cost money not only to these employees, but to all engineers in the valley by artificially keeping salaries down.



     




    I really believe these individuals are now looking at "what-ifs" now that they are unemployable, probably because they spent all their time trying to milk their employers instead of being passionate about what they do.




    What makes you say that they're unemployable? How dare you say they were not/are not passionate about what they do? For someone who knows nothing you sure make a lot of assumptions.

     





    Honestly, this guy deserves the ridicule from those who don't have what he has. He may have the right to ask for this money, but that doesn't mean hard-working people who don't have the opportunities he had can't call him on his demands.  That's the bed he made for himself so he should probably hire a PR firm with his future payout to deal with that.

     



    I think if anybody deserves ridicule here, it's you. Your envy blinds you to the fact that these people -- not just them, but by extension all Silicon Valley engineers -- have been slighted. These companies colluded illegally and unless they get severely punished, nothing will stop them from doing it again. And when you look at how much money they're making, a couple billion seems like a minimum for punitive damages that are not a simple slap on the wrist.


  • Reply 43 of 69
    ezhikezhik Posts: 101member
    I wonder what it would take for this place to admit that something Apple did was wrong?
  • Reply 44 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

     

    With due respect to your local bar association, claiming that the defendants were de facto partners strikes me as utterly implausible, and Steve Jobs' own email makes it very clear the motivation was to control wages. Your contention that finding for the plaintiff somehow mandates compulsory poaching seems like an example of reducto ad absurdum, except that you say it more than once and it sounds like you're really trying to convince people that such an outcome could actually occur, which is obviously… well, absurd.

     

    I really don't see how there's any ambiguity in this case at all.


     

     

    Google, Intel, Adobe, and Apple were not partners all working together? Come on! Please post the email you are referring to. One email at issue is not even from Jobs, but Schmitt. He claims Jobs is pissed off that one of Google's recruiters actively targeted an Apple employee. There is no mention of wages or anything to conclude that wages was the motivation. In fact, no evidence I have seen mentions wages as being the motivation. That motivation is being imputed by the plaintiffs because it serves their cause. Further, the email from Schmitt is hearsay. 

     

    Another email from Jobs to Palm shows why he really is pissed off. Palm was using inside knowledge gained from John Rubenstien to actively target Apple employees disrupting projects. To me it seems just as plausible that the companies who worked together didn't want to use knowledge gained from those dealings to undermine partnerships by actively targeting employees. How can you work together effectively with another company if that company tries to actively poach the employees you send to work with that company? 

     

    I generally am liberal when it comes to employee rights, but I see no evidence of collusion with the intent to suppress wages and I don't see how employees were damaged. The employees were free to apply for posted jobs and if the employees were valuable enough they were sure to be hired and compensated appropriately. For me, common sense dictates and the emails we see from Jobs suggest Apple was concerned about projects being effected by active poaching. 

     

    Employees don't have a right to be actively poached by competitors or partners. 

  • Reply 45 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ezhik View Post



    I wonder what it would take for this place to admit that something Apple did was wrong?

     

     

    I think Apple does messed up things occasionally. For example, occasionally it ships a defective product and refuses to acknowledge the defect. There was an iBook that had a defective logic board whereby the flexing in the plastic case would cause the graphic chip to become dislodged from the board and the monitor would go out.  Many people, including myself, had to have their Macs shipped in and have logic boards replaced on numerous occasions. This, however, doesn't appear to be one of the occasions. Had Apple encouraged its partners from not hiring each others employees who sought out the other companies, that would be a differnet thing, but that is not what happened. 

     

    Moreover, as far as companies go, Apple is pretty progressive. It donated money to support gay marriages, pays same sex employee benefits, pays to have factories monitored for human rights abuses, pays to have its products recycled, and the list goes on.

  • Reply 46 of 69
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    nagromme wrote: »
    People who say that all the affected employees (not just this one representative) should just accept this because they are lucky to be alive and working at all... Why shouldn't the same logic apply to Apple, Google and the other companies who did wrong? Why automatically side with the corporations? Shouldn't they "just be grateful" they were able to have talented employees and mess with those employees' lives for so many years while profiting from their labors?

    The amount IS a meaningless slap on the wrist, clearly.

    Because all of those people got together and chose to be part of the class. Now they should all act like adults and live with their decision. No one forced any of those 64,000 people to be part of the class. Did any of them truly believed this would end in a 9 billion dollar payout they would share? If they did, they were delusional. If they did, they were never going to be poached anyway.
  • Reply 47 of 69
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,678member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NotTylerDurden View Post



    To the previous commenters, your understanding of the situation is juvenile. You think that just because he has, or could earn more money than you he has less rights? Companies love people like you. You allow them to treat us the way they do.

    Actually, as I tell everyone who ever worked for me or worked with, do not complain about how much you make compared to others, if they making more means they just did a better job of negotiating a better pay for themselves. When people find out they are making less or could have made more its not the companies fault, if the individual fault for not negotiating a better package for themselves. I am personally on my 6th company and had no problem finding a company willing to give me what I want. This guys and probably the other 46K of people claiming they were somehow hurt by this better start looking at themselves first. If they really think they are worth more did they do everything they could have to get a higher pay. Oh there is no guaranty you will work for your dream company to get that pay either. There are companies I would have like to work for who would not even interview me, should I sue them since maybe they had a deal not to hire people with my background. 

     

    As i said before, these folks had a uphill battery of proving they lost incoming and could have made more at another company. This assumes they could have negotiated a much higher pays and it does not always work that way. I hire plenty of people in my career and one thing I found interesting is how much people under value what they are worth and no company will over pay someone if they are willing to accept a lessor pay. If you want a guaranty pay go join a union and you'll make as much as the next person and the only way someone will make more is if they have more years and you do not have to worry about some younger person with higher skills and ability getting paid more since the union will not allow that. Trust me I know this first hand since I grew up in a union family.

  • Reply 48 of 69
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NotTylerDurden View Post



    To the previous commenters, your understanding of the situation is juvenile. You think that just because he has, or could earn more money than you he has less rights? Companies love people like you. You allow them to treat us the way they do.

     

    What else would you expect from most users of this site? If Apple wasn't involved and it was Adobe, Google, Intel and Microsoft they would be screaming for criminal charges to be filed and that even 9B wouldn't be enough. But since it is Apple...well, you know the drill.

     

    -kpluck

  • Reply 49 of 69
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post



    I like Apple's products, but nothing from this case supports such a low cost settlement. The lawyers got a $75 million payday for minimal work and possibly promise of access to the corporate work of these large companies. If the suit had actually involved just ending head hunting of each others employees it would have been at least less sleazy. The final result of this was a freeze on hiring each others employees. That is much less acceptable and should be punished.

     

    Are you an attorney?  Are you in the business of quantifying settlements and awards?  Because if not, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  We, the general public, have no idea what a "fair" settlement is.  All we know is what the plaintiff's are presenting.  Speaking of which, why do you think the class attorney's agreed to a settlement that was 10% of asking price?  I'll tell you why...because they knew they probably weren't going to win at all, much less get 3 billion in damages.   That's what attorneys do.  

  • Reply 50 of 69
    spidy99spidy99 Posts: 6member

    Have you worked at Apple or Google ? Have you been on Work visa and got exploited by your manager ? If not then you don't know anything my friend.  Everyone is calling Michael is greedy and blah blah isn't Apple, Google, Adobe greedy?  Stop calling names.  Yes employees had the choice to leave to other jobs but many people wanted to go to google/Apple vice versa. Because the companies were offering a better pay package but this conspiracy has killed that option for employees.  More over i see a foul play by companies and the plaintiff's lawyers.Plaintiff's lawyers wanted a quick money $75M and settled the case in their own interest instead of class.  Did the legal firm got the acceptance from majority of class members before settlement ? If so where is that document. The truth of the matter is plaintiff's legal team colluded with Apple, Google and Adobe and did a pathetic settlement that would benefit only them.  With all said and done US justice system is only for rich not for the common man, its designed by the rich for the rich its not for the poor and our justice system has showed this time and again. I am positive Lucy Koh will take the side of these companies.  "Guys who steals from a pantry station gets 5 year prison time while the folks on wall street who robbed billions of tax payers money" gets an award. Thats US Justice 101 for you. 

  • Reply 51 of 69
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post



    Oh, shut the **** up you fucking whiner. 

     

    OK, I'll bite, what word do the asterisks represent?

  • Reply 52 of 69
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post

     
    Please post the email you are referring to.


     

    I now can't find what I thought I'd seen, so either I misunderstood or misread something. I apologize.

     

    I withdraw my comment about an email indicating that Steve Jobs was trying to suppress wages. That may or may not have been his intention. I have no evidence one way or the other.

  • Reply 53 of 69
    spidy99spidy99 Posts: 6member

    how do you know he is a gold digger ? Did you work in Apple or Google in the 2005-2010 time frame? Do you know the salaries paid to employees in that time frame and how employees have been exploited. If not don't comment for the sake of commenting. He is fighting for his and  others rights. Why this was not made public to employees at Apple, Google and Adobe if this so called partnership was done with good intention?The very fact these companies conspired it shows "CRIMINAL INTENT".  Instead of calling names write something logical 

  • Reply 54 of 69
    spidy99spidy99 Posts: 6member

    Seriously, You kidding me? The recruiter getting fired for contacting an Apple employee what was that? Apple, Google and Adobe conspired and there is plenty of proof if the companies were confident that they didn't do any mistake then why did they settle? 

  • Reply 55 of 69
    spidy99spidy99 Posts: 6member

    you are not the judge so why don't you keep your judgement to yourself. You are jealous because no one poached you and you are not part of the settlement. I am sure you will sing a different tune if you were part of the deal. 

  • Reply 56 of 69
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,304member

    A person's education and skills are their property.   I don't think companies should be colluding together for ANY matter that involves employment.  There's just too much opportunity for stray from what is legal. 

     

    If we are to truly believe that Capitalism is a viable economic system then we're going to have situation where employees will benefit through the capitalizing on their skill set.  I'm not for it becoming open season on employees that know trade secrets but honestly those situations are quite rare. 

     

    I believe that in addition to recruiters being told they'd be fired for recruiting from companies in the agreement there was also evidence of some companies contacting their "partner"  to let them know their employee was shopping themselves. 

     

    324 million was such a slap in the face.  Is there any wonder that the income disparity is at levels not seen in 70 years?   I suppose when the world eventually distills down to corporate monoliths we'll all reminisce about the days we could shop our talents around on our own little corporate Gold Rush.   Now all we have is the Buy-N-Large 

  • Reply 57 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,293member
    tbell wrote: »

    Google, Intel, Adobe, and Apple were not partners all working together? Come on! Please post the email you are referring to. One email at issue is not even from Jobs, but Schmitt. He claims Jobs is pissed off that one of Google's recruiters actively targeted an Apple employee. There is no mention of wages or anything to conclude that wages was the motivation. In fact, no evidence I have seen mentions wages as being the motivation. That motivation is being imputed by the plaintiffs because it serves their cause. Further, the email from Schmitt is hearsay. 

    I'm not aware there's a copy of an Apple email citing wages but I do recall reading one from HP sent to Schmidt commenting that Google was causing wage issues for everyone and "the valley" didn't like it.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    analogjack wrote: »
    OK, I'll bite, what word do the asterisks represent?

    Type '****' and post it and then you'll see, ****, it's automatic.
  • Reply 59 of 69
    No I am not an attorney, and I relying own my own fallible memory of second hand accounts of this case. Still it sounds like you got angry and all I did was give a simple opinion.
    Believe what you want, but this case is not going to end this easily. $300 million split between 5 plaintiffs isn't enough to even mitigate this kind of behavior. Apple alone could have saved more then $300 million over the span of this agreement. 4 year times 30,000 employees earning an average of $100,000 per year. 10% wage suppression over the 4 year period would easily top 300 m. Everybody's wages were held down by this and the executives knew this.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    Type '****' and post it and then you'll see, ****, it's automatic.

     

    OK, I got confused because there's obvious something wrong with the fucking blasphemy algorithms.

Sign In or Register to comment.