Apple-Google Anti-Poaching Lawsuit Nearing $415 Million Settlement

[MacRumors]

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in a San Jose, California courtroom on Monday raised no objections about a $415 million settlement that would end an ongoing anti-poaching class-action lawsuit involving Apple, Google and other large tech companies. Koh rejected a previous $324.5 million settlement last August after one of the plaintiffs in the case objected because the deal was too low, according to Reuters.

Tech workers filed the antitrust class-action lawsuit in 2011 against Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel, alleging that the four companies reached anti-poaching agreements that resulted in less job mobility and lower salaries. Apple and Google were accused of signing one of the earliest wage-fixing deals in 2005, although the anti-poaching agreements extended far beyond those companies. According to court documents, up to one million tech employees may have been affected by the agreements.

Update 11:05 AM PT: Koh has given preliminary approval to the $415 million settlement, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Article Link: Apple-Google Anti-Poaching Lawsuit Nearing $415 Million Settlement

 

[Donoban]

Ka Ching!

 

[d0minick]

should pay more

 

[iSee]

They've got to come down hard on companies that do this kind of thing.

Big employers hold all the power... *except* the employee can leave to get a better deal across the street.

When companies collude to take that option away, or even just reduce it, the employees are going to be seriously out of luck.

 

[AdonisSMU]

YAY! Maybe I will get a some settlement money!!!

 

[Donoban]

They've got to come down hard on companies that do this kind of thing.

Big employers hold all the power... *except* the employee can leave to get a better deal across the street.

When companies collude to take that option away, or even just reduce it, the employees are going to be seriously out of luck.

I can see both sides. If you have one companies IP in your knoggen, you wouldnt want that going to a competitor. But if the competitor is offering the employee a better deal that isn't being matched then why shouldn't they be able to move around. Ultimately the sharing of ideas should result in better products from all companies.

I think these anti poaching things are just a result of companies becoming large and successful.

 

[Mr Fusion]

They've got to come down hard on companies that do this kind of thing.

Big employers hold all the power... *except* the employee can leave to get a better deal across the street.

When companies collude to take that option away, or even just reduce it, the employees are going to be seriously out of luck.

Collusion between large companies is just one (illegal) trick of many they have to reduce labor costs across an industry.

Their long-term solution most likely involves ad campaigns targeting students and educational institutions to spread word of a "shortage" of qualified workers, in order to flood the market and drive wages down.

It's been done before in other sectors, tech is just new to it.

 

[Glassed Silver]

They've got to come down hard on companies that do this kind of thing.

Big employers hold all the power... *except* the employee can leave to get a better deal across the street.

When companies collude to take that option away, or even just reduce it, the employees are going to be seriously out of luck.

QFT

Can't wait for the small-govt replies to roll in. *grabs popcorn*

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[TMRJIJ]

(Sleep) zzz . . . Money money money money . . . . Zzz . . . Money money money money. . .

 

[sk1wbw]

Why is it called "poaching" when big tech companies hire each other, but when Kroger hires someone from Food Lion, it's not poaching?

 

[mac8867]

Why is it called "poaching" when big tech companies hire each other, but when Kroger hires someone from Food Lion, it's not poaching?

Uhmmm.... because you sell groceries. Not sure there is much intellectual property involved in that business. When tech companies steal engineers, it's for the innovation in their heads.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Wow 11 posts already and not one strong rebellion against a case that will cost Apple some money. Where's the "laws should be changed" or "I can see Intel, Adobe and Google being bad but Apple shouldn't be included in this" or "Once someone had a job at Apple why would they ever want to leave?" and so on?

By this point there should already be 2 or 3 attempts to twist the subject away from Apple being in the wrong (too) to how only those other players are evil. It seems we should have had a "99%..." or two by now AND a "...but who makes the most profitable smart phone".

 

[WrQth]

Is the act of poaching seeking out and hiring an employee from a competitor or is it just hiring from a competitor even though it is the employee that is seeking the competitor? If the later that would suck for the employee who may not be compensated properly but if it is the former then what is the big deal it's not like they are stopping the employee from seeking new employment just the competitor seeking them.

 

[ricci]

Haha! Two things here!!! Haha, outside of Knoxville, nobody's knows of Krogor or foodcity ( lion/piggly wiggly for Gods sake) and i would not call " being hired" and "paid" stealing !!! You have every right to leave and go where ever you want! Walmart pays better than Pigglywiggly( haha, that name just kills me) who wouldn't leave?? Same goes for any comp paying more for you to do the same thing !!All about that all mighty dollar Yo!!

 

[sk1wbw]

Uhmmm.... because you sell groceries. Not sure there is much intellectual property involved in that business. When tech companies steal engineers, it's for the innovation in their heads.

That was just an example dude.

 

[benzado]

Why is it called "poaching" when big tech companies hire each other, but when Kroger hires someone from Food Lion, it's not poaching?

It is called poaching. If you hire employees away from another business, you are poaching them. If Kroger and Food Lion had entered into an agreement not to hire each other's employees they could be sued, too. Doesn't matter what the work is.

It would be a smart move, too: Kroger could let Food Lion do all the work of finding qualified reliable people, then offer them more money, but save money on training and recruiting.

 

[sk1wbw]

It is called poaching. If you hire employees away from another business, you are poaching them. If Kroger and Food Lion had entered into an agreement not to hire each other's employees they could be sued, too. Doesn't matter what the work is.

It would be a smart move, too: Kroger could let Food Lion do all the work of finding qualified reliable people, then offer them more money, but save money on training and recruiting.

And since when is it legal to to prevent people from working for other companies?

 

[yg17]

Uhmmm.... because you sell groceries. Not sure there is much intellectual property involved in that business. When tech companies steal engineers, it's for the innovation in their heads.

Skill has nothing to do with it. Jimmy John's makes their employees sign noncompete contracts. So if you worked at Jimmy John's, you can't work at a Subway for 2 years. Food Lion and Kroger just haven't entered into an anti-poaching agreement or make their employees sign noncompete contracts.

And it's not stealing. If companies don't want to lose good employees to their competitors, maybe they should up the ante and offer better pay and other incentives to keep them there. Because ultimately, people are going to do what's best for them - and usually that means chasing a bigger paycheck.

 

[KazKam]

The other side of the coin

I'm not saying these companies are saints or didn't collude, but there's another side to this problem.

Isn't the opposite problem an industry where employees with highly sought-after skills and insider knowledge can essentially extort and blackmail employers? Yes, I'm serious.

 

[Poisonivy326]

Wow 11 posts already and not one strong rebellion against a case that will cost Apple some money. Where's the "laws should be changed" or "I can see Intel, Adobe and Google being bad but Apple shouldn't be included in this" or "Once someone had a job at Apple why would they ever want to leave?" and so on?

By this point there should already be 2 or 3 attempts to twist the subject away from Apple being in the wrong (too) to how only those other players are evil. It seems we should have had a "99%..." or two by now AND a "...but who makes the most profitable smart phone".

You need to go to Appleinsider for that. And also the whole lawsuit will be blamed on Obama, ISIS, South Koreans, atheists, human rights activists ...

 

[dmunz]

Ka Ching???

Ka Ching!

"...a $415 million settlement...

<snip>

According to court documents, up to one million tech employees may have been affected by the agreements."

So everyone gets four hundred bucks. (Minus legal fees of course.)

Ka Ching indeed.

FWIW
DLM

 

[martygras9]

And since when is it legal to to prevent people from working for other companies?

I would imagine that it's all dependent on the agreement between employer and employee. For instance, I have a contract that says should I leave my company, I'm not permitted to work with similar clients, or at similar companies, etc. for two years.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I would imagine that it's all dependent on the agreement between employer and employee. For instance, I have a contract that says should I leave my company, I'm not permitted to work with similar clients, or at similar companies, etc. for two years.

So think about the ramifications of that. That company fires you. Your skills happen to be specialized enough that your qualifications can only land you a job with one of those "similar" companies. You are legally obligated to sit on the sidelines for 2 years. Trying to live on unemployment or any low-paying job you can get that isn't with a "similar" may be tough.

So how is the firing party affected? They don't have to wait 2 years before replacing you, so they can do so quickly (probably already have your replacement lined up before firing you) and carry on making money. So they suffer no great loss but you potentially feel meaningful pain for 2 years.

How should this work? If a company requires you to sit out of a skilled job for which you are qualified, PAY you for sitting out. In other words: in exchange for preventing you from replacing your skilled job for 2 years, pay you for those 2 years. As is, there's tremendous disadvantage to the skilled employee who must take on this obligation without compensation beyond the point at which they lose the job.

Imagine the scenario of taking on such a job and obligation for a few weeks, then losing the job (firing, downsizing, etc). No time to set aside savings from compensation from that job, yet you have a 2-year obligation to not take a "similar" job. Company loss: little-to-nothing. Employee loss: job + 2 years of getting a similar job.

Compensation-limiting requirements should be purchased, not mandated for nothing. The lone employee is at tremendous disadvantage in such situations.

 

[hpe]

I would imagine that it's all dependent on the agreement between employer and employee. For instance, I have a contract that says should I leave my company, I'm not permitted to work with similar clients, or at similar companies, etc. for two years.

That is in the US. A lot of people have those clauses over here in Europe too. The difference is that here, those clauses are not valid, or rather they are only semi-valid. If my employer wanted to enforce it, there would be a way, but then the employer would have to pay me for not working for the competitor. I work for company A, which competes with B. I get a job at B. A say I can't work for B. I say, sure, I will not work for B for a full year, during which A will pay my salary for not working... you can imagine that in practise this means that those clauses are only ever being enforced in cases such as "head of sales".... America is a fantastic place, but your legal system scares me. Just because it is in the contract it shouldn't always be valid. And the only way to get the clauses tossed is to go to court and spend everything you will ever earn in a lifetime...

How can you dare go into business when employee nr 1, 2 and 3 you hire all have to be lawyers... at least that is how it comes across from outside.

I love Apple, their products and the stocks. But if this case has merits, they should pay.

Cheers
/Peter

 

[brianvictor7]

"...a $415 million settlement...

<snip>

According to court documents, up to one million tech employees may have been affected by the agreements."

So everyone gets four hundred bucks. (Minus legal fees of course.)

Ka Ching indeed.

FWIW
DLM

I noticed that too. Sounds like this was a very "good" business move by Apple if it meant keeping the workers they needed to make tens of billions in profit each year.

This is one of those thorny moral situations that I really haven't thought through. On the one hand, I can see why a company would want to protect against losing talent. What constitutes fair competition in this regard? Do the employees win if companies are fighting over them. What impact does this have on consumers? I suspect keeping talent in one place helped long-term projects come to fruition so the consumer benefited but the employee clearly did not. Thoughts?