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

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 69
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post



    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.

     

    So the people who mow the lawns, serve food in the cafeteria and keep the place clean are on $100k?

     

    Can Google et al poach each others janitors?

     

    Have the wages these guys are earning remained commensurate with the rest of America's workforce?

     

    Why are Walmart workers running food drives for their colleagues who can't afford to eat?

     

    Now what is the inflation rate?

     

    How many American workers have seen their pay rise by 10% over this 4 year span?

  • Reply 62 of 69
    joshuarayerjoshuarayer Posts: 151member

    You're an idiot who is completely missing the point.

  • Reply 63 of 69
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spidy99 View Post

     

    Have you worked at Apple or Google ? 


     

    No.  Have you?  Why does it matter?  

     

    Quote:

    Have you been on Work visa and got exploited by your manager ?


     

    No.  Again, why does it matter?  

     

    Quote:

    If not then you don't know anything my friend.


     

    That's quite a leap, friend.  In fact, it seems someone is projecting his own personal problems instead of objectively analyzing the issue.  

     

    Quote:

     Everyone is calling Michael is greedy and blah blah isn't Apple, Google, Adobe greedy?  Stop calling names.


     

    I see.  So this guy isn't greedy, but Apple, Google and Adobe are.  Oh, and we're to stop calling names, unless it's you calling a large corporation "greedy."  Got it.  

     

    Quote:

     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.


     

    Conspiracy?  That's a little harsh.  It was a non-poaching agreement.  They were clearly trying to prevent their competitors from actively recruiting their employees.  That's not a new concept.  

     

    Quote:

    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.  


     

    Probably,  but that's not "foul play."  It's called "lawyers being lawyers."  

     

    Quote:

    Did the legal firm got the acceptance from majority of class members before settlement ? If so where is that document.


     

    Probably not, because that's not required in a class action suit, genius.  People can opt out, but the attorneys don't need to have a majority accept a settlement.  

    Quote:

    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.


     

    I love how people like you just throw around wild allegations.  You have absolutely zero evidence that the plaintiffs' legal team "colluded" with Apple et al.   And guess what?  You won't find any, because if it existed, the attorneys would be disbarred.  Stop making crap up.  

     

    Quote:

    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


     

    Thanks for sharing your opinion.  It's completely unqualified and based on anecdotal evidence, conjecture and raw emotion...but thanks anyway.  

     

    Quote:

    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. 


     

    Right, because she couldn't possibly "side with them" on the merits, right?  I mean, that would destroy your whole worldview.  If she does allow the settlement, she must be as corrupt as those attorneys, right?  And what in the hell does this have to do with "folks on Wall St." and "robbing" money?  Neither Apple, Google nor Adobe is accused of such behavior.  Many of the investment banks who did take TARP funds and other monies repaid said funds, and/or didn't want them to begin with.   

     

     

  • Reply 64 of 69
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post



    Shut it bud. You have or have had a good paying job. You have access to clean drinking water, food and health care. You're just a whiny, over privileged punk who needs a taste of reality.

    You people are amazing.

     

    It's true that $3 Billion is too much, and most of the workers wouldn't have been poached. But Apple, Google, etc. have clearly broken the law and are in the wrong. Some employees could have switched companies and been on a path to great success - not just money, but higher responsibilities and a better career path. Some of them won't get another chance - hopefully the good ones will. I don't see how you can have such hatred for people who don't deserve it.

     

    The main problem I have is with the lawyers getting $75 million of the $324 million settlement. They're only working for their own interests - they knew all along the case wasn't worth $3 billion (tripled to $9 B), but they also knew they'd make millions while pretty much wasting the time of their clients.

     

    The problem in a case like this is you can never know who might have been poached and offered a higher paying job, and who wouldn't have been. There are a lot of total employees to split the settlement, and it's impossible to do it fairly.

  • Reply 65 of 69
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

     

    Conspiracy?  That's a little harsh.  It was a non-poaching agreement.  They were clearly trying to prevent their competitors from actively recruiting their employees.  That's not a new concept. 

     


    Of course it's a conspiracy.

     

    Some of your other points are reasonable, if a bit bombastic, but it's not a conspiracy? The companies had a secret agreement in place that they knew was illegal (as Schmidt admitted in his emails).

     

    Definition of conspiracy:  a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

  • Reply 66 of 69
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,673member
    I said this about this case before. First and we do not know this as fact since it was never made public since no court hearing happen. Did the companies agree to not to interview people from each others respective companies, or did they agree not to actively reach out and try to recruit one another's employees. There is a difference here and it is subtle and it does make a lot of difference. 


     


    The first one, it mean even if you want to leave your company and interview for a posted position for at another company you could not since the other company would see your current companies name on your resume and not interview you. The second situation, you're not looking to leave your company so you not out interviewing and another company is not trying to convince you to leave. 


     


    If the first situation if it in fact happen then these people have a case. It may have happened in some of the cases but probably not all of them. Thus the reason to settle since some HR person/Hiring manager probably though they were not allow to interview people form other companies. When in fact they were told not to actively recruit specific individuals from other companies. Company can agree not to actively recruit, meaning call them up and trying to convince them to leave. Company can not agree not to interview people who wish to leave their current company.


     


    I would like to know if these 46K people actually responded to a posted job opening at one of these other companies and were refused an interview and were told they were not being interview because they worked for one of those companies. I willing to bet most of these people probably submitted their resume to a job and never got a call and now they are assuming it was because of this so called deal. Most likely they would have never been hired or interviewed in the first place. In the Silicon Valley is not unusually to get hundreds if not thousands of resumes for one position guess what most will never get their foot in the door.
  • Reply 67 of 69
    russellrussell Posts: 296member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     


    I said this about this case before. First and we do not know this as fact since it was never made public since no court hearing happen.


     

    You really need to stop getting your news from an Apple site, evidence has been made public years ago. The case wouldn't have gotten this far if there wasn't any solid evidence.

     

    In 2010 the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Adobe, Apple, Google, et al to stop their illegal no poach agreements. Due to the damning evidence, the companies agreed to stop their illegal activity.

     

    Using the same evidence, the 5 plaintiffs are suing for damages. Those of us with desirable, high tech skills appreciate what the plaintiffs are doing.

     


    Department of Justice


    Office of Public Affairs



    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                     Friday, September 24, 2010



    Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements


     


    Settlement Preserves Competition for High Tech Employees


     



    WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies – Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar – that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees.   The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

     

    The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.                

     

    According to the complaint, the six companies entered into agreements that restrained competition between them for highly skilled employees.   The agreements between Apple and Google, Apple and Adobe, Apple and Pixar and Google and Intel prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other’s employees.   An agreement between Google and Intuit prevented Google from directly soliciting Intuit employees.  

     

    “The agreements challenged here restrained competition for affected employees without any procompetitive justification and distorted the competitive process,” said Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.   “The proposed settlement resolves the department’s antitrust concerns with regard to these no solicitation agreements.”

     

    In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills, the department said.   One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as, “cold calling.”   This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities, the department said.

     

    According to the complaint, the companies engaged in a practice of agreeing not to cold call any employee at the other company.   The complaint indicates that the agreements were formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies.

               

    The complaint alleges that the companies’ actions reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees.   None of the agreements was limited by geography, job function, product group or time period.   Thus, they were broader than reasonably necessary for any collaboration between the companies, the department said.

     

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html

  • Reply 68 of 69
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,673member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

     

     

    You really need to stop getting your news from an Apple site, evidence has been made public years ago. The case wouldn't have gotten this far if there wasn't any solid evidence.

     

    In 2010 the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Adobe, Apple, Google, et al to stop their illegal no poach agreements. Due to the damning evidence, the companies agreed to stop their illegal activity.

     

    Using the same evidence, the 5 plaintiffs are suing for damages. Those of us with desirable, high tech skills appreciate what the plaintiffs are doing.

     


    Department of Justice


    Office of Public Affairs



    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                     Friday, September 24, 2010



    Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements


     


    Settlement Preserves Competition for High Tech Employees


     



    WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies – Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar – that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees.   The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

     

    The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.                

     

    According to the complaint, the six companies entered into agreements that restrained competition between them for highly skilled employees.   The agreements between Apple and Google, Apple and Adobe, Apple and Pixar and Google and Intel prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other’s employees.   An agreement between Google and Intuit prevented Google from directly soliciting Intuit employees.  

     

    “The agreements challenged here restrained competition for affected employees without any procompetitive justification and distorted the competitive process,” said Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.   “The proposed settlement resolves the department’s antitrust concerns with regard to these no solicitation agreements.”

     

    In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills, the department said.   One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as, “cold calling.”   This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities, the department said.

     

    According to the complaint, the companies engaged in a practice of agreeing not to cold call any employee at the other company.   The complaint indicates that the agreements were formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies.

               

    The complaint alleges that the companies’ actions reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees.   None of the agreements was limited by geography, job function, product group or time period.   Thus, they were broader than reasonably necessary for any collaboration between the companies, the department said.

     

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html


    And you believe government propaganda, just like the US AG sued apple over pricing fixing on ebooks and they attempting to us Apple as the poster child for Corporate income tax abuse when they were in fact following the laws the law makers put in place. Go take some government and public policy classes and see why the government does what they do.  

     

    This case is more about showing the public the government is pro worker verse pro-business. 

     

    Plus I am not reading anything form Apple side, I am basing my information on all the years I worked in the Fortune 500 as a employee as well a hiring manager and hired a significant number of people over the years and dealt with various EEOC and legal hiring issues.

  • Reply 69 of 69
    russellrussell Posts: 296member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     

    I am basing my information on all the years I worked in the Fortune 500 as a employee as well a hiring manager and hired a significant number of people over the years and dealt with various EEOC and legal hiring issues.


     

    And yet you still can't understand how No Poach Agreements are illegal.

     

    You must have been a good Yes Man,  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yes+man&defid=3209437

Sign In or Register to comment.