Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Aug 2014 23:17 UTC
Legal

Four Silicon Valley companies including Apple and Google failed to persuade a U.S. judge to sign off on a $324.5 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit by tech workers, who accused the firms of conspiring to avoid poaching each other's employees.

In a ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, said the class action settlement was too low, given the strength of the case against the companies. Intel and Adobe were also part of the proposed deal.

Good on her.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the other criminals behind this crime belong in jail. If a poor member of a minority steals a wallet, he gets jail time. Rich CEOs steal hundreds of millions - and if you do the math, it actually comes down to billions - and they can get away with a paltry sum and walk free.

This is unfair and unjust. Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the others are criminals. They belong in jail.

Order by: Score:
That's thin ice
by Vanders on Fri 8th Aug 2014 23:41 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is unfair and unjust. Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the others are criminals. They belong in jail.

Thom, while I don't disagree with the stength of your argument, you might want to consider libel laws within the EU here.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That's thin ice
by themwagency on Fri 8th Aug 2014 23:58 UTC in reply to "That's thin ice"
themwagency Member since:
2013-03-06

good point. You can express agreement with the judge however your comment in this case is potentially libelous... and IMHO editorializing news too much.

I believe that simply adding an "IMHO" (as I did above) would alleviate both concerns.

Edited 2014-08-09 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's thin ice
by Morgan on Sat 9th Aug 2014 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: That's thin ice"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Until they've been arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced, yes it may be libelous to call them criminals, depending on one's local laws.

That said, if they are guilty of these acts, they are no better than the aforementioned street thief.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's thin ice
by RobG on Tue 12th Aug 2014 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's thin ice"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

"no better than the aforementioned street thief"

Or considerably worse, as their actions may well have depressed wages over an entire industry.

Reply Score: 1

RE: That's thin ice
by BeamishBoy on Sat 9th Aug 2014 04:28 UTC in reply to "That's thin ice"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

Thom, while I don't disagree with the stength of your argument, you might want to consider libel laws within the EU here.


The most hospitable environment in the EU for defamation claims is here in the UK. Even France's famously (and absurdly) draconian defamation law doesn't hold a candle to what we have here in England and Wales.

That said, Thom's assertion that the above named execs are "criminals" or, more precisely given the clear context of his claim, behaving in a "criminal manner", will clearly fall under the purview of the doctrine of Fair Comment in an English court. As a result he clearly doesn't need to give a rat's ass about defamation laws in the EU.

In addition, aren't you being a bit fucking precious asserting that the likes of Tim Cook are going to give two shits about a post on a (sorry Thom) two-bit blog have to say about him? Get over yourself.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: That's thin ice
by Vanders on Sat 9th Aug 2014 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE: That's thin ice"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

That said, Thom's assertion that the above named execs are "criminals" or, more precisely given the clear context of his claim, behaving in a "criminal manner", will clearly fall under the purview of the doctrine of Fair Comment in an English court. As a result he clearly doesn't need to give a rat's ass about defamation laws in the EU.


"I believe they are criminals" is Fair Comment. "They are criminals" is potentially libel.

In addition, aren't you being a bit fucking precious asserting that the likes of Tim Cook are going to give two shits about a post on a (sorry Thom) two-bit blog have to say about him? Get over yourself.


OSNews gets enough traffic that I'm suggesting that Thom should be a little more careful; people have sued over less. As for "getting over myself" the only reason I commented is that I like OSNews, and I like Thom (most of the time), and I'd fucking hate to see either of them get into trouble over something as silly as an ill-judged comment. So how about you get over your indignation?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: That's thin ice
by hackus on Sun 10th Aug 2014 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE: That's thin ice"
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

"That said, Thom's assertion that the above named execs are "criminals" or, more precisely given the clear context of his claim, behaving in a "criminal manner", will clearly fall under the purview of the doctrine of Fair Comment in an English court. As a result he clearly doesn't need to give a rat's ass about defamation laws in the EU."

I would like to point out out that this is not only his opinion, that the case has found criminality in question, and a ruling has been issued.

These people who run these companies are INDEED criminals. You can't be considered CEO and expect the million dollar salary while at the same time claiming you know nothing about the responsibilities you exercised as CEO to defraud thousands of people.

If you know nothing about it, then you are not CEO and you do not deserve the benefits as such.

You can't have it both ways.

Reply Score: 7

v RE: That's thin ice
by tidux on Sat 9th Aug 2014 06:48 UTC in reply to "That's thin ice"
v Comment by Governa
by Governa on Sat 9th Aug 2014 00:19 UTC
RE: Comment by Governa
by Jbso on Sat 9th Aug 2014 00:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by Governa"
Jbso Member since:
2013-01-05

Surely you visit for his crazy outbursts; you could find the news that's posted here on a thousand other sites.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Governa
by Nelson on Sat 9th Aug 2014 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Governa"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, go somewhere else, great solution. Much better than toning down the sensational bullshit.

These types of responses might've sufficed when one or two people complained, but I think at this point there a decent few who tire of it. I usually just face palm and read something else, but it's sad that it has to be that way.

I'd even prefer if Thom kept whatever snark he felt like ruining his posts with in the comments with the rest of everyone else's snark.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Governa
by Jbso on Sat 9th Aug 2014 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Governa"
Jbso Member since:
2013-01-05

Occasionally this site has an interesting link I'd not have otherwise discovered, or a good original article, but the majority of the content is links to stuff that everyone's probably already seen. It's hard to see why you'd stick around if you don't care for the editorial slant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Governa
by Kochise on Sat 9th Aug 2014 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Governa"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Not "editorial slant", I'd rather say "putting things into perspective"

Kochise

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Governa
by RobG on Tue 12th Aug 2014 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Governa"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

Whereas Thom's editorial slant is probably the main reason I come here. So he's damned either way, and may as well carry on as he prefers.

(Edit: Seem to have replied to wrong post somehow)

Edited 2014-08-12 12:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

John Lennon
by kwan_e on Sat 9th Aug 2014 00:40 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Imagine if there were no regulations regarding wage fixing.

Reply Score: 4

jail?
by kristoph on Sat 9th Aug 2014 00:46 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Jail is never the answer with the exception of the most violent of offenses.

The punishment should fit the crime. In this case, the offenders should be barred from making hiring decision of any kind for a given period - say 10 years. Needless to say, that will disqualify the from running these companies, and that's perfectly ok ( if you can't run a company in a way that complies with the law, you don't belong at the helm of the company ).

Reply Score: 1

RE: jail?
by Morgan on Sat 9th Aug 2014 01:01 UTC in reply to "jail?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

In this case, the offenders should be barred from making hiring decision of any kind for a given period - say 10 years.


Yeah, that'll teach 'em. I'm sure it's their worst nightmare to face the possibility that they can't *gasp* hire someone!

I'm not saying that white-collar criminals need to go to PMITA maximum security prison, and I'm fully aware of and disgusted by the overflowing prison situation in the US. I worked in law enforcement for much of my adult life, and I saw a lot of people go to jail who would have been better served with getting mental or substance abuse help.

But these guys (again, if ever tried and convicted) broke laws that affected hundreds, maybe thousands of people, and effectively stole millions of dollars in the process. Prison is exactly where they need to be. Prison isn't just rehabilitation (though that should be a larger part of it than it is), it's also a deterrent. You take away someone else's livelihood, you risk losing yours if caught. The alternative, a judge telling them "Hey, you can break the law, wipe your ass with the public trust, and rub it in our faces and we'll just not let you hire someone for a while" is fundamentally no different than the same judge shaking the hand of a burglar and saying "Good show, you broke in without waking the neighbors! Unfortunately, we have to take away your lockpick set as punishment, but surely you've learned your lesson, right?"

Reply Score: 9

v RE[2]: jail?
by kristoph on Sun 10th Aug 2014 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: jail?"
RE[3]: jail?
by Morgan on Sun 10th Aug 2014 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: jail?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Sigh.

But these guys (again, if ever tried and convicted)

But these guys (again, if ever tried and convicted)

But these guys (again, if ever tried and convicted)


I put as much emphasis as I could so you could comprehend that I haven't said they are guilty. I simply put forth what I believe should happen, should they ever be put on trial and convicted. One more time, in case it isn't clear enough for you: I'm not saying they are guilty, as you are accusing me of. I'm saying that if they are guilty, the punishment should be more than a slap on the wrist.

Reply Score: 3

RE: jail?
by RobG on Tue 12th Aug 2014 12:15 UTC in reply to "jail?"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

While generally I agree, in cases like this there is a strong need for a deterrent effect - almost no corporate criminal is ever convicted, the fines are paltry in comparison to their assets and this all results in this kind of behaviour carrying on, to the expense of their employees and society as a whole (having their wages frozen will have acted to keep IT wages generally restrained).

If these folks were actually afraid of having to face 6 months time, along with full recompense and a hefty (proportionate to income) fine, others may think twice.

Reply Score: 1

Crime is a Crime
by Lorin on Sat 9th Aug 2014 03:43 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

It doesn't matter if you wear a white collar or a blue collar or nothing at all, a crime is still a crime. Customarily upon conviction or plea deal, you must make the injured party whole, that means they have their assets seized to pay any judgement, if its not enough then we are talking jail time equal to some per diem until the debt is paid.

Money talks and that hits the scum where it hurts most

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Sat 9th Aug 2014 06:37 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

It is a criminal behavior.

Let me tell you a story, some time ago I was fired from a job because I refused to be treated like a slave, not a big deal for me becuase I'm a talented developer and architect and I was confident to get a another job easy. Wrong!, my ex-boss made the same kind of agrement with all the software bussines in my town, all of those refused to hired me, even if I was more than qualified for the job, they didn't care If was a a human with needs, my-ex boss new that I had 3 mouths to feed, my wife, my three years old daughter and my one month child, actually, he fired me after I took vacations to take care of my wife because she needed help with the my new born son, actually, he was pissed that I took my well deserved vacations.

So there I was, unemployed and w/o the possibility to get a job in my home town becuase the agrement this criminal had with his colleagues. I had to do the obvious, take a job out of town, thanks God the job is alot better and I'm making more money, but what they did to me and to my family has no name.

That's why I feel sympathy for those employees, they are humans with family to support, they deserve better jobs and have the right to figh for it.

Reply Score: 8

RE: ...
by kwan_e on Sat 9th Aug 2014 08:37 UTC in reply to "..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Was your ex-boss Mitt Romney?

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by sgtrock on Mon 11th Aug 2014 16:46 UTC in reply to "..."
sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

Big whoop. I've been out of work twice in my career for as long as 8 months. I didn't whine, I just kept sending out resumes. I also kept looking for new ways to make my resume and cover letter stand out. (These days, you need to be doing the same thing on Dice, Monster.Com, etc.) Eventually I got good paying jobs in the fields that I wanted to be in.

Your rant is full of grammatical errors, spelling errors, and run on sentences. Yet you call yourself a talented architect and developer and can't understand why you can't get hired. Worse, you blame it on collusion amongst the local owners to keep you from getting a job in your current place of residence.

My advice? Quit blaming everyone else and take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Then, learn how to put together and express a coherent thought. Revisit your resume. I'll bet it's just as bad as this post unless you paid someone to build it for you. It's probably being thrown in the trash before they get much past the header.

Don't go in with a chip on your shoulder once you get an interview. You're there to sell yourself, not make imaginary points by whining about how hard life is.

Finally, don't be afraid to look at jobs outside your local area. If you're any good at all, there is a job out there for you, somewhere. It may not be within walking or driving distance, though.

Edited 2014-08-11 16:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 11th Aug 2014 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I've been out of work twice in my career for as long as 8 months. I didn't whine

Are you single?, I wasn't.

Your rant is full of grammatical errors, spelling errors, and run on sentences

Becuase english is not my native language, and wans't even a rant, it was a personal anecdote.

Quit blaming everyone else and take a long, hard look in the mirror.

That's what I did, and now I have a better job.

Finally, don't be afraid to look at jobs outside your local area

Did you read my whole post? I don't think so.

Edited 2014-08-11 21:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by kwan_e on Tue 12th Aug 2014 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Your rant is full of grammatical errors, spelling errors, and run on sentences. Yet you call yourself a talented architect and developer and can't understand why you can't get hired.


If you have the gall to make this stupid logically fallacious argument, then you do not get to display the arrogance you have in the rest of your rant.

Worse, you blame it on collusion amongst the local owners to keep you from getting a job in your current place of residence.


Doesn't make it false. This kind of collusion does happen.

My advice? Quit blaming everyone else and take a long, hard look in the mirror.


My advice? Stop watching Dr Phil. You're not a fucking self help guru.

Then, learn how to put together and express a coherent thought.


Then, learn not to be a dick.

Reply Score: 2

v Whoa ! What a stupid noob !!!
by Alexey Technologov on Sat 9th Aug 2014 08:12 UTC
it is easy Thom
by Janvl on Sat 9th Aug 2014 08:23 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

Do not buy/use stuff from these people.

Reply Score: 3

RE: it is easy Thom
by Sauron on Sat 9th Aug 2014 08:31 UTC in reply to "it is easy Thom"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

I don't. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: it is easy Thom
by shotsman on Sat 9th Aug 2014 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE: it is easy Thom"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

So,
No Android or iPhone phone?
no Android or iPad Tablets?
No Google for searching?
no Gmail/G+ for stuff?
No Intel CPU's used in anything you own or use?
etc
etc
etc

IMHO, (and I'd like to be proved wrong) it would be very difficult to have a presence on the internet without using at least some of the technology provided by the defendants in this case.

for example, what servers power OSNews? Are the CPU's made by Intel?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: it is easy Thom
by M.Onty on Sat 9th Aug 2014 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: it is easy Thom"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23


for example, what servers power OSNews? Are the CPU's made by Intel?


Pure Tandy baby: http://www.humanclock.com/webserver.php

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: it is easy Thom
by shotsman on Sat 9th Aug 2014 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: it is easy Thom"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Ha-ha

I would have thought they would have been a DEC PDP-11/05 with 4Kw of RAM and a 1.2Mb HDD.
:) ;)
{I have a PDP 11/83 in my garage}

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: it is easy Thom
by Sauron on Sat 9th Aug 2014 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: it is easy Thom"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

So,
No Android or iPhone phone?
no Android or iPad Tablets?
No Google for searching?
no Gmail/G+ for stuff?
No Intel CPU's used in anything you own or use?
etc
etc
etc

IMHO, (and I'd like to be proved wrong) it would be very difficult to have a presence on the internet without using at least some of the technology provided by the defendants in this case.

for example, what servers power OSNews? Are the CPU's made by Intel?


Nope, no Android or iPhone or even a smartphone. I don't want or need one.
No tablet, nor would I have one because they're the most stupid thing ever invented.
I don't use Google or Gmail or Google anything.
I do use Intel CPU's though so there you go, you got me. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: it is easy Thom
by BluenoseJake on Mon 11th Aug 2014 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: it is easy Thom"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You forgot "Get off my Lawn!"

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: it is easy Thom
by Sauron on Mon 11th Aug 2014 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: it is easy Thom"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

I don't have a lawn either. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: it is easy Thom
by WereCatf on Sat 9th Aug 2014 12:41 UTC in reply to "it is easy Thom"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Do not buy/use stuff from these people.


That's not really a solution, it does in no way or form punish the people behind stuff like this, only their employees. And guess what? It's not the employees who are in need of punishing.

Reply Score: 6

Tom you are taking it too far
by Mr. Dee on Sat 9th Aug 2014 12:56 UTC
Mr. Dee
Member since:
2005-11-13

I notice you don't put any focus on the same employees who are making it expensive for non-tech workers to live in California because of gentrification.

I think your problem is, you are star struck by many of these tech leaders to the point you have become an obsessed delusional fanatic saying negative things about them. Trust me, those same tech workers are making way more than your average nurse, police man, fire fighter or office worker in a 9 to 5 job. What about the person cleaning the streets and don't have no where to live because they can't afford it anymore?

Why are you not crying out about that injustice caused by the municipality in those cities?

Stop calling people criminals who have never met.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Tom you are taking it too far
by kristoph on Sat 9th Aug 2014 13:23 UTC in reply to "Tom you are taking it too far"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

His name is Thom. I'm halfway convinced you're misspelling his name on purpose.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Tom you are taking it too far
by kwan_e on Sat 9th Aug 2014 15:57 UTC in reply to "Tom you are taking it too far"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Stop calling people criminals who have never met.


What is with you people and redefining the meaning of the word criminal?

Criminal does not mean someone you dislike (because you met them).
Criminal does not only mean inflicting bodily violence on other people.
Basically, criminals aren't only just the kind of villain that appear in CSI: X or Law and Order: Y.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Tom you are taking it too far
by WereCatf on Sat 9th Aug 2014 16:25 UTC in reply to "Tom you are taking it too far"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think your problem is, you are star struck by many of these tech leaders to the point you have become an obsessed delusional fanatic saying negative things about them. Trust me, those same tech workers are making way more than your average nurse, police man, fire fighter or office worker in a 9 to 5 job. What about the person cleaning the streets and don't have no where to live because they can't afford it anymore?

Why are you not crying out about that injustice caused by the municipality in those cities?


A bad thing happening to one person doesn't make a bad thing to another person disappear. That is to say, even though there are lots of folks living on minimum wages with no roof upon their heads it doesn't mean people shouldn't also be allowed to complain about other things happening to other people.

Now, that aside, did the municipalities do something illegal to cause this? Are there clearly-defined people who are responsible for this and are these people celebrities of sorts?

You see, just calling out something as intangible as a municipality is a lot like trying to punch a cloud -- you're swinging and tussling and using lots of energy, but you're never hitting anything in particular or getting your point across. Targeting specific people, on the other hand, is much more effective. Similarly, these people did criminal acts whereas we don't know -- or, at least I do not know -- if the people you mention are living on minimum wages because of illegalities or just plain incompetence, nor do we know if these illegalities or incompetence stems from the municipality itself or from the federal government.

You should also take into account that Thom isn't from the U.S. and probably isn't all that well acquainted with your local municipalities and their policies in the first place.

Stop calling people criminals who have never met.


The definition of a criminal does not include the ones calling criminals out having to know them in person.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Janvl
by Janvl on Sat 9th Aug 2014 16:16 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

No Android or iPhone phone?
I can phone with an old nokia

no Android or iPad Tablets?
you can have a tablet with android and without google

No Google for searching?
use ixquick or duckduckgo

no Gmail/G+ for stuff?
useless, run you own mailserver and forget asocial media

No Intel CPU's used in anything you own or use?
use AMD

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Panthros
by Panthros on Sat 9th Aug 2014 19:29 UTC
Panthros
Member since:
2014-04-22

"Good on her.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the other criminals behind this crime belong in jail. If a poor member of a minority steals a wallet, he gets jail time. Rich CEOs steal hundreds of millions - and if you do the math, it actually comes down to billions - and they can get away with a paltry sum and walk free.

This is unfair and unjust. Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the others are criminals. They belong in jail."

I would prefer to you continue to report the news and little less feeling. Create an editorial section if you want to express your views. Long time OSNews reader and very disappointed in the expression. Let me me decide on the facts.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Panthros
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 9th Aug 2014 23:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by Panthros"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let me me decide on the facts.


You can still decide on the facts. What's stopping you?

Reply Score: 5

v I am done with OS news
by cryptech on Sat 9th Aug 2014 20:33 UTC
RE: I am done with OS news
by M.Onty on Sun 10th Aug 2014 11:44 UTC in reply to "I am done with OS news"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

I am done with OS news

Member since: 2014-07-09

Truly the end of an era. You will be missed.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: I am done with OS news
by RobG on Tue 12th Aug 2014 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: I am done with OS news"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

Wonderful.

Reply Score: 1

hackus has a point
by TechGeek on Sun 10th Aug 2014 18:28 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Lets give Thom a little bit of a break. In any other country Thom would be correct in calling the CEOs criminals. Here in the US though, we allow corporations to plead out criminal cases with the clause that they are not admitting to a crime. Which is total BS if you think about it. Why would you pay if you were innocent? So while these companie will admit no wrong doing, they will change their ways, pay a fine, and keep on doing business. Most countires AFAIK don't have plea deals though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: hackus has a point
by RobG on Tue 12th Aug 2014 13:08 UTC in reply to "hackus has a point"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

Bernie Ecclestone just copped one in Bavaria (Germany), so at least one more does. I'm pretty sure they happen in the UK too.

Reply Score: 1

Make the punishment fit the crime
by Darkmage on Sun 10th Aug 2014 21:37 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

Violating laws like this should come with a ten year ban on being the CEO/director of a company. Similar to the bans faced by bankrupt individuals here in Australia. The corporate executive and their immediate family's assets should be completely open for scrutiny/seizure as proceeds of crime similar to the laws we've passed here for the property of drug lords.

People arguing for leniency in these cases have no idea. Everything you've ever had or will have is because of the struggle of millions of people worldwide against an elite top percentage class that has been holding everyone back. Just because new people have made it into that top class, doesn't mean they should be given a free pass to lock other people from joining.

That extra $10,000 or $20,000/year might not seem like much, but where someone might buy a super yacht, it could instead go to an employee leaving their job and starting their own studio. Disney stopping employee wages could have stopped the next Don Bluth (ex disney, The Land Before Time, Anastasia, Dragon's Lair) from starting his own studio. Similarly in tech companies, it could be stopping someone from going it alone and spinning up the next multi billion dollar idea that employs thousands of people.

Stopping workers from properly earned wage rises hurts the entire economy.

Edited 2014-08-10 21:42 UTC

Reply Score: 5

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Yeah, that's chump change compared to the amount of money that is at stake in this case.

Reply Score: 3

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Exactly my point. If you can already go to jail for 2 years for a "measly" 200.000 of a "harmless" crime AND get a judgement like "it is important that you serve as a public example." it should be entirely possible that the people behind this billion dollars crime that are being sued by 40.000 people ARE going to get jailtime.

Of course we all know that they won't because they will settle this case before anything like jailtime is even discussed. Money can buy you freedom and that is just wrong

Reply Score: 3

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14


Of course we all know that they won't because they will settle this case before anything like jailtime is even discussed. Money can buy you freedom and that is just wrong


In this particular instance, I don't believe jail is an option, since this is a civil class action law suit. While I admit I'm not a lawyer, and as such can't be certain, to my knowledge jail is exclusively the domain of criminal cases (i.e. the government is the one pressing charges). Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken on that.

Reply Score: 3

I wish they could impose systemic solutions
by Yamin on Wed 13th Aug 2014 16:37 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

I am by far from a legal expert, but there are times I wish courts could help push systemic solutions.

Yes, wage fixing is wrong and those involved should be punished. However, It related labor issues be it OT, H1B, outsourcing... are all going to still exist.

In addition to this case, I wish the courts could instruct the government to help address these systemic issues.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Wed 13th Aug 2014 21:36 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

Four Silicon Valley companies including Apple and Google failed to persuade a U.S. judge to sign off on a $324.5 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit by tech workers, who accused the firms of conspiring to avoid poaching each other's employees.


Does this apply to all to employees then. For example, if Apple poached a receptionist from Google.

Reply Score: 2