6 ms·

Judge OKs class-action suit against Apple, Intel, Google, Adobe

92 points by mempko 13y ago

001sky 13y ago
Title of the article is "Judge OKs class-action suit against Apple, Intel, Google, Adobe", indicating this matter has not even yet been brought to trial. Just a quick heads up. The posted HN title, "Steve Jobs conspired with Tech companies to limit wages" seems to be declaring a conviction in the case.
- gilgoomesh 13y ago
  Actually, the companies involved have already admitted wrongdoing and settled with the DOJ. > The allegations prompted an investigation in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if the companies had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. A year later, the agency announced a settlement in which the companies acknowledged having had agreements to not "cold-call" employees at certain firms. They agreed to refrain from such no-poaching-pacts for five years, but the deal provided no compensation for their employees. This new case is a civil class action on the same issue.
  - rurounijones 13y ago
    Hang on, how can they agree not to break the law for a period "5 years" instead of... never again? If they did the usual "we are not admitting we broke the law but will settle anyway to make this go away" then the DoJ had a duty to make it clear that they did break the law. Otherwise after 5 years some other shmuck is going to have to go after them again when they start doing it again. It is like the DoJ just washed their hands of the whole thing. (Let the proles deal with it.)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - gcb0 13y ago
      agreeing to not hire from the group of companies in the deal is not 'not breaking the law' it is the crime in question.
      - rurounijones 13y ago
        I think you misunderstood me, the "agreeing" I was referring to was them agreeing with the DoJ to not break the law instead of the DoJ doing their job.
TheBiv 13y ago
"Judith Zahid, a San Francisco lawyer specializing in antitrust matters, said the sued companies face an additional problem if the case goes to trial because, under antitrust law, any damage award against them would be automatically tripled." Automatically tripled?! Wow. Good on the legal system, and you would think this knowledge would've prevented this sort of scheme, but they either didn't know or didn't care.
thinkcomp 13y ago
The actual lawsuit docket is available here: http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1860459 http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1860459
crbnw00ts 13y ago
This seems like a really big deal. If Silicon Valley companies are colluding to suppress programmer salaries, perhaps it is time for programmers to team up to fight back, using a union or a guild. Now, before the usual tropes about the software industry's meritocracy and rugged individualism lead everyone to laugh at the idea of a labor movement for software engineers, let's all just take a moment and have a look at what happened to the Hollywood visual effects industry. It is one of the very few parts of the movie production process that is not unionized. Because of this lack of protection, studio execs openly brag about putting them out of business as a normal part of making movies (see the quote "If I don’t put a visual effects shop out of business (on my movie), I’m not doing my job." in the first link below): http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174703202/visual-effects-firms-miss-out-on-a-films-success http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174703202/visual-effects-firms... http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/node/2425 http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/node/2425 Something similar could quite easily happen to the software industry. Now is a perfect time to start a labor movement, as the settlement and pending class action suit clearly show the need for such a thing. EDIT: Just to be clear, the reason for the comparison with the VFX industry is that it is a solid example of a bunch of technocrats who had a chance to unionize but didn't, and now they are being ground into the dust. The exact same thing could easily happen to the typical Silicon Valley programmer. This case with Apple, Intel, Google, and Adobe shows that they are already trying.
- capisce 13y ago
  Isn't killing jobs through automation a good thing?
  - crbnw00ts 13y ago
    Uh, it has nothing to do with automation. It has to do with illegal collusion on salaries. Wrong thread?
- pandaman 13y ago
  NPR article (and many articles you did not link) mentions the real problem - foreign tax subsidies steal contracts from the American VFX firms. How are unions going to help here? The American VFX firms, being squeezed between unions and foreign competition suddenly will start winning contracts that they could not get because their costs were too high even without union? Notice the quote you mentioned is not about putting some artist out of job, it's putting an entire shop out of business. How is a union going to prevent this? In my dilettante view (I work in games and we rely on VFX even more than films) - if American VFX shops had unionized staff there had not been any American VFX shops by now.
rayiner 13y ago
This ruling grants class status to the employees, allowing them to sue as a class instead of individually. While class actions usually have the deck stacked against them, in this case the DOJ already got a settlement out of the companies, which tends to have a halo affect on any corresponding civil suit.
yiedyie 13y ago
Who?! Jobs, the saint, this is impossible!
microcolonel 13y ago
Hmm? This is basic practice, and if it's in the contract, what's so bad? They /agreed/ to these terms in advance as far as I'm aware, who are you to tell the other employees(who didn't complain) that their contract should've been avoided?
- talmand 13y ago
  Most non-compete clauses are invalid in California. This "agreement" was an attempt to get around that law. Also, the reason it's a federal case, this "agreement" was done amongst the employers without the consent of the employees. If it were not California, and there actually was a non-compete in their contracts then you may have had a point. There's a major difference between you agreeing to not compete and your employer actively preventing you from obtaining alternative employment.
mempko 13y ago
Interesting, the story isn't at the top of programming subreddit anymore. I guess the moderators got to it.
brudgers 13y ago
In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer. Basically, this means that it was profitable for the companies to collude. 8% of 64,000 is about 5000 employees. $20 million is $4000 per employee. That's in all probability significantly less than the annual salary bump that a typical employee in the class would be likely to negotiate. So the companies not only reduced their costs in the first year, they reduced it in subsequent years and avoided compounding the costs via raises and via subsequent negotiations with employees whose salaries would have been higher due to previous negotiations and compounding with raises. But on the bright side, at least the attorneys got paid.
- Osiris 13y ago
  > But on the bright side, at least the attorneys got paid. The attorneys probably took 40% of the $20 million, so the actual employees affected only got $2,400, which is a really bad deal. I'm surprised the class voted to accept that settlement.

92 points by mempko 13y ago

Title of the article is "Judge OKs class-action suit against Apple, Intel, Google, Adobe", indicating this matter has not even yet been brought to trial. Just a quick heads up. The posted HN title, "Steve Jobs conspired with Tech companies to limit wages" seems to be declaring a conviction in the case.

gilgoomesh 13y ago
Actually, the companies involved have already admitted wrongdoing and settled with the DOJ. > The allegations prompted an investigation in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if the companies had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. A year later, the agency announced a settlement in which the companies acknowledged having had agreements to not "cold-call" employees at certain firms. They agreed to refrain from such no-poaching-pacts for five years, but the deal provided no compensation for their employees. This new case is a civil class action on the same issue.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  Hang on, how can they agree not to break the law for a period "5 years" instead of... never again? If they did the usual "we are not admitting we broke the law but will settle anyway to make this go away" then the DoJ had a duty to make it clear that they did break the law. Otherwise after 5 years some other shmuck is going to have to go after them again when they start doing it again. It is like the DoJ just washed their hands of the whole thing. (Let the proles deal with it.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - gcb0 13y ago
    agreeing to not hire from the group of companies in the deal is not 'not breaking the law' it is the crime in question.
    - rurounijones 13y ago
      I think you misunderstood me, the "agreeing" I was referring to was them agreeing with the DoJ to not break the law instead of the DoJ doing their job.

TheBiv 13y ago

"Judith Zahid, a San Francisco lawyer specializing in antitrust matters, said the sued companies face an additional problem if the case goes to trial because, under antitrust law, any damage award against them would be automatically tripled." Automatically tripled?! Wow. Good on the legal system, and you would think this knowledge would've prevented this sort of scheme, but they either didn't know or didn't care.

thinkcomp 13y ago

The actual lawsuit docket is available here: http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1860459 http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1860459

crbnw00ts 13y ago

This seems like a really big deal. If Silicon Valley companies are colluding to suppress programmer salaries, perhaps it is time for programmers to team up to fight back, using a union or a guild. Now, before the usual tropes about the software industry's meritocracy and rugged individualism lead everyone to laugh at the idea of a labor movement for software engineers, let's all just take a moment and have a look at what happened to the Hollywood visual effects industry. It is one of the very few parts of the movie production process that is not unionized. Because of this lack of protection, studio execs openly brag about putting them out of business as a normal part of making movies (see the quote "If I don’t put a visual effects shop out of business (on my movie), I’m not doing my job." in the first link below): http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174703202/visual-effects-firms-miss-out-on-a-films-success http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174703202/visual-effects-firms... http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/node/2425 http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/node/2425 Something similar could quite easily happen to the software industry. Now is a perfect time to start a labor movement, as the settlement and pending class action suit clearly show the need for such a thing. EDIT: Just to be clear, the reason for the comparison with the VFX industry is that it is a solid example of a bunch of technocrats who had a chance to unionize but didn't, and now they are being ground into the dust. The exact same thing could easily happen to the typical Silicon Valley programmer. This case with Apple, Intel, Google, and Adobe shows that they are already trying.

capisce 13y ago
Isn't killing jobs through automation a good thing?
- crbnw00ts 13y ago
  Uh, it has nothing to do with automation. It has to do with illegal collusion on salaries. Wrong thread?
pandaman 13y ago
NPR article (and many articles you did not link) mentions the real problem - foreign tax subsidies steal contracts from the American VFX firms. How are unions going to help here? The American VFX firms, being squeezed between unions and foreign competition suddenly will start winning contracts that they could not get because their costs were too high even without union? Notice the quote you mentioned is not about putting some artist out of job, it's putting an entire shop out of business. How is a union going to prevent this? In my dilettante view (I work in games and we rely on VFX even more than films) - if American VFX shops had unionized staff there had not been any American VFX shops by now.

rayiner 13y ago

This ruling grants class status to the employees, allowing them to sue as a class instead of individually. While class actions usually have the deck stacked against them, in this case the DOJ already got a settlement out of the companies, which tends to have a halo affect on any corresponding civil suit.

yiedyie 13y ago

Who?! Jobs, the saint, this is impossible!

microcolonel 13y ago

Hmm? This is basic practice, and if it's in the contract, what's so bad? They /agreed/ to these terms in advance as far as I'm aware, who are you to tell the other employees(who didn't complain) that their contract should've been avoided?

talmand 13y ago
Most non-compete clauses are invalid in California. This "agreement" was an attempt to get around that law. Also, the reason it's a federal case, this "agreement" was done amongst the employers without the consent of the employees. If it were not California, and there actually was a non-compete in their contracts then you may have had a point. There's a major difference between you agreeing to not compete and your employer actively preventing you from obtaining alternative employment.

mempko 13y ago

Interesting, the story isn't at the top of programming subreddit anymore. I guess the moderators got to it.

brudgers 13y ago

In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer. Basically, this means that it was profitable for the companies to collude. 8% of 64,000 is about 5000 employees. $20 million is $4000 per employee. That's in all probability significantly less than the annual salary bump that a typical employee in the class would be likely to negotiate. So the companies not only reduced their costs in the first year, they reduced it in subsequent years and avoided compounding the costs via raises and via subsequent negotiations with employees whose salaries would have been higher due to previous negotiations and compounding with raises. But on the bright side, at least the attorneys got paid.

Osiris 13y ago
> But on the bright side, at least the attorneys got paid. The attorneys probably took 40% of the $20 million, so the actual employees affected only got $2,400, which is a really bad deal. I'm surprised the class voted to accept that settlement.