3 ms·

Yeah, this seems silly to me. Judges very rarely reject settlement offers, so if 324.5 million was deemed so low as to reject the settlement, bumping it up a bi

by adevine 12y ago

Yeah, this seems silly to me. Judges very rarely reject settlement offers, so if 324.5 million was deemed so low as to reject the settlement, bumping it up a bit to 415 doesn't make much of a difference.

EC1 12y ago
What planet do you live on where $100m is chump change?
- _broody 12y ago
  The settlement offer is off by an order of magnitude or more from where it should be, that's what the OP means. The tech companies screwed their employees out of a lot more money than this, and this being a class-action lawsuit $100m means a pitiful amount of money being distributed among the plaintiffs. Oh, and have you seen Apple's and Google's quartely revenue reports? This definitely is chump change to them.
- tomp 12y ago
  Well, if the size of the class is 50000 workers, that amounts to about 2000 per worker... about a weeks wage?
  - wyldfire 12y ago
    Who's eligible for the class? Only employees of those corporations? Or the tech/engineering marketplace at large?
    - Timothee 12y ago
      My understanding is that it's only people who were employees of these companies at the time, though it's easy to argue that anybody in the tech industry was indirectly affected. I.e. the salary paid to these employees influences the salary expected to be paid to people doing the same at a different company. Especially considering the size and importance of the companies involved. Strangely, I haven't seen this discussed much in articles about this scandal. (of course I say that as someone who did not work at any of the involved companies)
- colechristensen 12y ago
  The planet where $100m divided over 64,000 employees affected comes to ~$1500 per employee i.e. chump change. The planet where Google's yearly revenue is over $50bn and Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  Same planet, just a country with semi just justice system where penalty for stealing $3 Billion is more than 10% and keep the rest.
smackfu 12y ago
When Judge Koh rejected the original settlement, she suggested that she expected a minimum settlement amount of $380 million, based on the previous settlements that had been done by other companies in this case. So the new amount probably does make a difference.
nksdnkvdnkdokmo 12y ago
The lesson for large companies to learn here is that you can get away with this kind of thing for a song. In order for this behavior not to happen again, the outcome needed to have been penalties around 3x what each company "saved" by depressing wages.
bradleyjg 12y ago
It seems fairly likely the judge will approve the settlement. First, one of the reasons the judge gave for rejecting the prior settlement was that it was lower per plaintiff than the class lawyers had negotiated with the defendants it had already settled with (Adobe et. al). That objection is now answered. Second, as you mention, judges very rarely reject settlement offers. That's in no small part because when they do, they are often overruled by appellate courts, and judges hate being overruled. As much as class actions lawsuits look like they create massive principle-agent problems to the rest of us, the federal courts are quite comfortable with them, and they have repeatedly applied the maxim that the law favors settlement in the class context. If there is to be class action reform it will have to come from Congress (the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was a tiny step in that direction).

by adevine 12y ago

EC1 12y ago

What planet do you live on where $100m is chump change?

_broody 12y ago
The settlement offer is off by an order of magnitude or more from where it should be, that's what the OP means. The tech companies screwed their employees out of a lot more money than this, and this being a class-action lawsuit $100m means a pitiful amount of money being distributed among the plaintiffs. Oh, and have you seen Apple's and Google's quartely revenue reports? This definitely is chump change to them.
tomp 12y ago
Well, if the size of the class is 50000 workers, that amounts to about 2000 per worker... about a weeks wage?
- wyldfire 12y ago
  Who's eligible for the class? Only employees of those corporations? Or the tech/engineering marketplace at large?
  - Timothee 12y ago
    My understanding is that it's only people who were employees of these companies at the time, though it's easy to argue that anybody in the tech industry was indirectly affected. I.e. the salary paid to these employees influences the salary expected to be paid to people doing the same at a different company. Especially considering the size and importance of the companies involved. Strangely, I haven't seen this discussed much in articles about this scandal. (of course I say that as someone who did not work at any of the involved companies)
colechristensen 12y ago
The planet where $100m divided over 64,000 employees affected comes to ~$1500 per employee i.e. chump change. The planet where Google's yearly revenue is over $50bn and Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
rasz_pl 12y ago
Same planet, just a country with semi just justice system where penalty for stealing $3 Billion is more than 10% and keep the rest.

smackfu 12y ago

When Judge Koh rejected the original settlement, she suggested that she expected a minimum settlement amount of $380 million, based on the previous settlements that had been done by other companies in this case. So the new amount probably does make a difference.

nksdnkvdnkdokmo 12y ago

The lesson for large companies to learn here is that you can get away with this kind of thing for a song. In order for this behavior not to happen again, the outcome needed to have been penalties around 3x what each company "saved" by depressing wages.

bradleyjg 12y ago

It seems fairly likely the judge will approve the settlement. First, one of the reasons the judge gave for rejecting the prior settlement was that it was lower per plaintiff than the class lawyers had negotiated with the defendants it had already settled with (Adobe et. al). That objection is now answered. Second, as you mention, judges very rarely reject settlement offers. That's in no small part because when they do, they are often overruled by appellate courts, and judges hate being overruled. As much as class actions lawsuits look like they create massive principle-agent problems to the rest of us, the federal courts are quite comfortable with them, and they have repeatedly applied the maxim that the law favors settlement in the class context. If there is to be class action reform it will have to come from Congress (the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was a tiny step in that direction).