7 ms·

Oracle latest to be sued for wage-fixing

82 points by luu 12y ago

gaius 12y ago
This is from 6 months ago; what happened next?
- fharper1961 12y ago
  My Google searches aren't showing anything after january 2015. And the WSJ article from that date doesn't add any new information. http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rejects-settlement-in-silicon-valley-wage-case-1407528633 http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rejects-settlement-in-sili...
  - arunabha 12y ago
    Exactly my thoughts. The near silence in the MSM and tech press is most... curious.
    - tzs 12y ago
      Nothing interesting is happening, so there isn't anything for any press to report. There were motions to seal things, and rulings on those. There have been meetings between the attorneys for both sides and the court to work out issues of case management, and rulings from the court on case management issues. Oracle filed a motion asking to dismiss on two grounds: (1) if everything the plaintiff alleges is true, it does not amount to the crimes Oracle is accused of committing, and (2) the plaintiff waited too long to file, and has run into a statute of limitations problem. A ruling on this issued 2015-04-22, and is probably the most interesting development since the case was files. Oracle lost on the first part of their motion. If all plaintiff allegations were proven true, they would constitute the crime plaintiff alleges, according to the court. Oracle won on the second part of their motion. The alleged acts in their filing were long enough ago that the statute of limitations applies. The court gave the plaintiff 30 days to amend the complaint to fix this. If plaintiff fails to do so, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. (Dismissal with prejudice means it ends. Dismissal without prejudice means you can try again). I don't know if this signals anything or not, but the court noted that the case management conference scheduled for the day after this ruling was to still go on. Maybe that means that the court thinks the plaintiffs have a good chance of amending the complaint to avoid the statute of limitations issue, and so expects the case will continue? I'd expect the next newsworthy event to be in late May if plaintiff cannot figure out a way to amend the complaint to avoid the statute of limitations issue. If plaintiff does amend the complaint successfully, that probably won't be newsworthy, and the case will continue. That continuation will still mostly just be motions by the parties maneuvering to try to get favorable evidence in, exclude unfavorable evidence, and get favorable interpretations of the law, and the judge's rulings on those motions. None of this stuff is interesting enough to most people, even most techies, to make the news.
vkjv 12y ago
> "...Silicon Valley wage-fixing sandal." That sounds way more interesting than a scandal. Too bad it's probably a typo. :)
fsk 12y ago
The whole aftermath of this wage-fixing scandal was just a slap on the wrist. The amount they paid in fines and settlements was less than the amount of money they saved by suppressing wages.
- fmela 12y ago
  Exactly. The punishment needs to fit the crime. This frankly won't do much to stop companies from engaging in this kind of behavior in the future.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  This seems to me to be a problem with the existing justice system. Businesses which are caught doing something dodgy pay - at most - the amount they would have had to pay to obey the law. And the chance of being caught is not exactly high.
  - fsk 12y ago
    When deciding whether to do the right thing or not, the formula is (amount you save from breaking the law) - (cost of getting caught) * (chance of getting caught)). If "cost of getting caught" is always less than "amount you save from breaking the law", then there's no reason to behave honestly. In fact, this causes the "market" to select against corporations run by honest people, because they're at a competitive disadvantage.
    - learnstats2 12y ago
      I mostly agree with your point, but not with the mathematics: Your formula gives you positive Expected Value but there are many situations that are +EV which you shouldn't choose to visit. Even if the penalty was more than you were saving (or if the penalty hit nominally responsible individuals), even if the chance were fairly low, that could act as a significant deterrant to unethical practices. Situation: "ooh should I talk to my actuary/lawyer/partner about this difficult unethical decision? Arg but that would leave a paper trail."
czep 12y ago
Interesting that this doesn't apply to engineers, only product, sales, and g&a. Why is that? I have heard arguments that engineering salaries are likewise kept low through collusion but this wouldn't provide any evidence for that unless there's another such agreement for engineers. Do product and sales typically make more money than devs? Or are they in shorter supply than engineers hence the desire to keep churn low for those positions?
- click170 12y ago
  In my experience, Sales folks make sometimes more than double what engineers make. Glassdoor has more information about salaries for different positions, do yourself a favor and check it out.
- _random_ 12y ago
  Engineers are not complaining as much as they should. And I am sure there are much more sales people and managers than engineers.
yuhong 12y ago
Personally, I am wishing for admission of wrongdoing with an apology letter, as I said before.
- damm 12y ago
  Too bad that will never happen. Remember a successful company must be a psychopath in order to succeed. You only see what they want you to see. Oh and they are always right; every lawsuit thrown against them is without merit ...
  - yuhong 12y ago
    Huh?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

82 points by luu 12y ago

gaius 12y ago

This is from 6 months ago; what happened next?

fharper1961 12y ago
My Google searches aren't showing anything after january 2015. And the WSJ article from that date doesn't add any new information. http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rejects-settlement-in-silicon-valley-wage-case-1407528633 http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rejects-settlement-in-sili...
- arunabha 12y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. The near silence in the MSM and tech press is most... curious.
  - tzs 12y ago
    Nothing interesting is happening, so there isn't anything for any press to report. There were motions to seal things, and rulings on those. There have been meetings between the attorneys for both sides and the court to work out issues of case management, and rulings from the court on case management issues. Oracle filed a motion asking to dismiss on two grounds: (1) if everything the plaintiff alleges is true, it does not amount to the crimes Oracle is accused of committing, and (2) the plaintiff waited too long to file, and has run into a statute of limitations problem. A ruling on this issued 2015-04-22, and is probably the most interesting development since the case was files. Oracle lost on the first part of their motion. If all plaintiff allegations were proven true, they would constitute the crime plaintiff alleges, according to the court. Oracle won on the second part of their motion. The alleged acts in their filing were long enough ago that the statute of limitations applies. The court gave the plaintiff 30 days to amend the complaint to fix this. If plaintiff fails to do so, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. (Dismissal with prejudice means it ends. Dismissal without prejudice means you can try again). I don't know if this signals anything or not, but the court noted that the case management conference scheduled for the day after this ruling was to still go on. Maybe that means that the court thinks the plaintiffs have a good chance of amending the complaint to avoid the statute of limitations issue, and so expects the case will continue? I'd expect the next newsworthy event to be in late May if plaintiff cannot figure out a way to amend the complaint to avoid the statute of limitations issue. If plaintiff does amend the complaint successfully, that probably won't be newsworthy, and the case will continue. That continuation will still mostly just be motions by the parties maneuvering to try to get favorable evidence in, exclude unfavorable evidence, and get favorable interpretations of the law, and the judge's rulings on those motions. None of this stuff is interesting enough to most people, even most techies, to make the news.

vkjv 12y ago

> "...Silicon Valley wage-fixing sandal." That sounds way more interesting than a scandal. Too bad it's probably a typo. :)

fsk 12y ago

The whole aftermath of this wage-fixing scandal was just a slap on the wrist. The amount they paid in fines and settlements was less than the amount of money they saved by suppressing wages.

fmela 12y ago
Exactly. The punishment needs to fit the crime. This frankly won't do much to stop companies from engaging in this kind of behavior in the future.
learnstats2 12y ago
This seems to me to be a problem with the existing justice system. Businesses which are caught doing something dodgy pay - at most - the amount they would have had to pay to obey the law. And the chance of being caught is not exactly high.
- fsk 12y ago
  When deciding whether to do the right thing or not, the formula is (amount you save from breaking the law) - (cost of getting caught) * (chance of getting caught)). If "cost of getting caught" is always less than "amount you save from breaking the law", then there's no reason to behave honestly. In fact, this causes the "market" to select against corporations run by honest people, because they're at a competitive disadvantage.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    I mostly agree with your point, but not with the mathematics: Your formula gives you positive Expected Value but there are many situations that are +EV which you shouldn't choose to visit. Even if the penalty was more than you were saving (or if the penalty hit nominally responsible individuals), even if the chance were fairly low, that could act as a significant deterrant to unethical practices. Situation: "ooh should I talk to my actuary/lawyer/partner about this difficult unethical decision? Arg but that would leave a paper trail."

czep 12y ago

Interesting that this doesn't apply to engineers, only product, sales, and g&a. Why is that? I have heard arguments that engineering salaries are likewise kept low through collusion but this wouldn't provide any evidence for that unless there's another such agreement for engineers. Do product and sales typically make more money than devs? Or are they in shorter supply than engineers hence the desire to keep churn low for those positions?

click170 12y ago
In my experience, Sales folks make sometimes more than double what engineers make. Glassdoor has more information about salaries for different positions, do yourself a favor and check it out.
_random_ 12y ago
Engineers are not complaining as much as they should. And I am sure there are much more sales people and managers than engineers.

yuhong 12y ago

Personally, I am wishing for admission of wrongdoing with an apology letter, as I said before.

damm 12y ago
Too bad that will never happen. Remember a successful company must be a psychopath in order to succeed. You only see what they want you to see. Oh and they are always right; every lawsuit thrown against them is without merit ...
- yuhong 12y ago
  Huh?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]