How Silicon Valley’CEOs conspired to drive down 100,000 tech engineers' wages

[Winehole23]

In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Google-blamed-for-jump-in-high-tech-pay-Rivals-2587880.php), Apple’s Steve Jobs sealed a secret and illegal pact with Google’s Eric Schmidt to artificially push their workers wages lower by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees, sharing wage scale information, and punishing violators. On February 27, 2005, Bill Campbell, a member of Apple’s board of directors and senior advisor (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/media-zelig-men-bill-campbell-and-vivi-nevo/) to Google, emailed Jobs to confirm that Eric Schmidt “got directly involved and firmly stopped all efforts to recruit anyone from Apple.”


Later that year, Schmidt instructed his Sr VP for Business Operation Shona Brown to keep the pact a secret and only share information “verbally, since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?”


These secret conversations and agreements between some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley were first exposed in a Department of Justice antitrust investigation (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html) launched by the Obama Administration in 2010. That DOJ suit became the basis of a class action lawsuit (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24916714/silicon-valley-poaching-case-draws-closer-trial) filed on behalf of over 100,000 tech employees whose wages were artificially lowered — an estimated $9 billion (http://thevarguy.com/computer-technology-hardware-solutions-and-news/011614/silicon-valley-workers-ok-d-class-action-lawsuit-aga) effectively stolen by the high-flying companies from their workers to pad company earnings — in the second half of the 2000s. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied attempts by Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe to have the lawsuit tossed, and gave final approval for the class action suit to go forward. A jury trial date has been set for May 27 in San Jose, before US District Court judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the Samsung-Apple patent suit.


In a related but separate investigation and ongoing suit, eBay and its former CEO Meg Whitman, now CEO of HP, are being sued by both the federal government (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-at-1376.html)and the state of California (http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/09/63583.htm) for arranging a similar, secret wage-theft agreement with Intuit (and possibly Google as well) during the same period.


http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know how true that is. Even in the 90's when I was in that industry, many business partners had such agreements.

[Winehole23]

it's illegal, WC. anti-competitive. anti-free market.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't know how true that is. Even in the 90's when I was in that industry, many business partners had such agreements.

:facepalm

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well at least WC knows his place. I cannot stand a kiss ass. It must be why I cannot stand him.

[Winehole23]

In his deposition, Schmidt made clear that Sheryl Sandberg’s defection from Google to Facebook in March 2008 posed a serious threat to Google:




“Sheryl had built our recruiting organization, was an excellent recruiter, and as she went over to Facebook, many people left Google to work for her in jobs which they perceived as promotions.




“There were also a number of engineering leaders who also went to Facebook, and it became — and it was pretty clear that Facebook’s management structure was being built out of executives coming out of Google, which is now a public company, Facebook was a private company.”


According to testimony from Sandberg, recently unsealed, almost as soon as she left Google for Facebook in March 2008, her former Google colleagues began discussing ways to bring her and Facebook into the illegal wage-suppression cartel.
For her part, Sandberg insists that she and Facebook rejected Google’s overtures, and the evidence (much still redacted) supports her position. People familiar with this case who have spoken off the record to PandoDaily back up Sandberg’s account as well.

http://pando.com/2014/03/30/court-docs-google-hiked-wages-to-combat-hot-young-facebook-after-sheryl-sandberg-refused-to-join-hiring-cartel/

[Wild Cobra]

it's illegal, WC. anti-competitive. anti-free market.
That doesn't mean agreements aren't uncommon.

[InRareForm]

interesting

[Winehole23]

That doesn't mean agreements aren't uncommon.if its customary for businesses to form illegal cartels to suppress wages, so much the worse for the so-called free market and for all of us.

[boutons_deux]

We'll see if any colluding companies get fined. Certainly no execs, who PERSONALLY colluded, will go to jail, if collusion on salary suppression is even a jail-able offense.

[Winehole23]

forbearing to predict the outcome? what happened to your crystal ball?

[boutons_deux]

more collusion crime from hyper-wealthy Apple

U.S. judge OKs class action in e-book suit against Apple

A federal judge in New York granted class certification on Friday to a group of consumers who sued Apple Inc for conspiring with five major publishers to fix e-book prices in violation of antitrust law.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said the plaintiffs had "more than met their burden" to allow them to sue as a group. She rejected Apple's contentions that the claims were too different from each other, or that some plaintiffs were not harmed because some e-book prices fell.

"This is a paradigmatic antitrust class action," wrote Cote, who has scheduled a trial later this year to determine damages, which could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

In July 2013, Cote found the technology company liable for colluding with the publishers after a separate non-jury trial in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. Cote found that Apple took part in a price-fixing conspiracy to fight online retailer Amazon.com Inc's dominance in the e-book market.

Apple is appealing that decision.

Thirty-three states and U.S. territories have separately sued on behalf of their consumers, while individual consumers in other states and territories filed the class action lawsuit that Cote addressed on Friday. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $800 million in damages.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-apple-ebooks-20140328,0,1618933.story

So Jobs was a criminal son of bitch

[Wild Cobra]

if its customary for businesses to form illegal cartels to suppress wages, so much the worse for the so-called free market and for all of us.
It's not for suppression of wages, but protection of propitiatory information. A no recruitment clause simply meant they could not try to take a valued employee. It did not mean the employee could not apply for the job, nor did it keep them from hiring them. I also had two employers that had me sign agreements that I could not work for the competition for two years after leaving them for the same reason. Proprietary knowledge. After that two year window, such information was less useful to competition. It did not exclude me from working for the customer, which I did do once. However, they were not allowed to ask me to work for them.

I don't think such scenarios are illegal. The no recruitment was at the workplace. That didn't keep an peer from another company after hours meeting for a beer from telling me I should apply, that I was guaranteed a job if I wanted it...

There are loop holes both ways.

[Winehole23]

apples and oranges. you limited yourself contractually; Apple, Intel and Google conspired to suppress wages and labor mobility.

[boutons_deux]

apples and oranges. you limited yourself contractually; Apple, Intel and Google conspired to suppress wages and labor mobility.

Jobs was a criminal conspirator in both cases.

[Winehole23]

Please pay attention, boutons. WC was comparing his no-compete clause with an unlawful cartel.

[Wild Cobra]

apples and oranges. you limited yourself contractually; Apple, Intel and Google conspired to suppress wages and labor mobility.
Maybe so. Do we really know the details? Too much misinformation in the media today.

[Winehole23]

did you read the emails posted above?

[Wild Cobra]

did you read the emails posted above?
No, I don't read all links. I have time now, I'll look at them.

[Wild Cobra]

I read over them quickly. It is an interesting exchange. From a certain perspective, it makes sense. One perspective is legitimate if the intent was not to have recruitment wars to retain valuable employees. I doubt this would affect very many employees, and there appears to be nothing that keeps the employee from applying elsewhere.

I wonder how the courts will rule.

[Winehole23]

One perspective is legitimate if the intent was not to have recruitment wars to retain valuable employees.facially illegal. not at all legitimate. the market isn't free if it's free only for the owners.

[Wild Cobra]

facially illegal. not at all legitimate. the market isn't free if it's free only for the owners.
But they are still free to apply.

Dismiss that perspective if you want. I understand not wanting to have such wars. The financial damage from wages is minor compared to consonantly having job movements. It takes a long time to teach new employees these skills. The lawsuit may fail, as reasons and more evidence comes out. The law might be challenged and deemed wrong as well.

People don't believe I made as much as I did and I can't speak for today, but before the semiconductor industry collapse, we were paid well for our skills and had first class benefits. This was to retain employees, mitigating the numbers who would seek other employers.

Again, it will be interesting to see how this lawsuit is ruled.

[Winehole23]

But they are still free to apply.had you read the OP, you'd see this wasn't really the case.

[Winehole23]

however, your compassion for the wage fixing cartel has been duly noted

[boutons_deux]

however, your compassion for the wage fixing cartel has been duly noted

I noted LONG AGO the WC ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS supports the organization over the individual, must be an vestigial authoritarian bias from his military years.

[Wild Cobra]

however, your compassion for the wage fixing cartel has been duly noted
I suggest that if you wish to proceed in an honest manner, that you try to understand both sides. Agree or not, at least understand what the truth may be instead of what your bias keeps you focus on.

[Wild Cobra]

I noted LONG AGO the WC ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS supports the organization over the individual, must be an vestigial authoritarian bias from his military years.
Not true. I just don't agree with most of your rants.

Since when is understanding a perspective siding with them? What did I say to make you believe I side with them?

[Winehole23]

I suggest that if you wish to proceed in an honest manner, that you try to understand both sides. Agree or not, at least understand what the truth may be instead of what your bias keeps you focus on.WC, you're so open-minded your brain occasionally falls out

[Wild Cobra]

WC, you're so open-minded your brain occasionally falls out
At least mine isn't in permanent bias like yours.

[Winehole23]

everyone's biased, WC. your conceit that you're not is laughable.

[boutons_deux]

WC hates the govt intervening in "free markets" but is fine with for-profit corps screwing individuals "freely" selling their skills to highest bidder.

the entire H1b visa expansion push by tech companies is to bring in Asians a LOT cheaper than US techies.

Remember that cash-flush MS also got caught using/screwing contractors (no benefits) doing exactly the same work as employees, and for years.

[Winehole23]

Try to keep an open mind, boutons. The freedom to screw over employees is a legitimate concern.

[Wild Cobra]

WC hates the govt intervening in "free markets" but is fine with for-profit corps screwing individuals "freely" selling their skills to highest bidder.

the entire H1b visa expansion push by tech companies is to bring in Asians a LOT cheaper than US techies.

Remeber that cash-flush MS also got caught using/screwing contractors (no benefits) doing exactly the same work as employees, and for years.

All the ones I have seen were more talented that the lesser talented US citizens they hired. I have seen and worked with several dozen engineers in the industry so I can say with certainty is is for their skills, not the lower wages.

Keep in mind, those lower wages are very good wages for them normally, and the Japanese foreigners worked with were similarly paid to us, and they have a higher living wage than India.

The wages go by country and skill.

[Wild Cobra]

Try to keep an open mind, boutons. The freedom to screw over employees is a legitimate concern.
Most people will do what others consider "screw other" as they do what is in their best interest.

Are you certain the lawsuit will stand for the plaintiffs?

Stupid question... Sorry...

You guys will claim it was rigged if the corporations win.

[Winehole23]

Are you certain the lawsuit will stand for the plaintiffs?absolutely not. but neither does a not guilty verdict amount to innocence.

[Winehole23]

the not guilty=innocent equation is defense lawyer talk

[boutons_deux]

those lower wages are very good wages for them normally

yes, yes, Kock Bros tell us the US poverty people are in the planet's top 1%, so we should quit bitching about inequality.

Americans tech companies love to pay Indian wages to Indians working in California, for sure. Or maybe in a floating city off the CA coast.

[Wild Cobra]

So...

Agreeing not to "cold call" other companies employees are a violation?

I do think it's a stretch to call that illegal. It does not keep employees from changing jobs on their own.

[Wild Cobra]

yes, yes, Kock Bros tell us the US poverty people are in the planet's top 1%, so we should quit bitching about inequality.

Americans tech companies love to pay Indian wages to Indians working in California, for sure. Or maybe in a floating city off the CA coast.
Now it's the Koch brothers again. No wonder nobody respects you. You are focused on hatred, not facts.

[Wild Cobra]

the not guilty=innocent equation is defense lawyer talk
That's not even what I meant. Is it unethical? Yes. Is it illegal... I don't think so.

Is it possible the justice department needs to change what the media focuses on?

[Winehole23]

like what? antitrust litigation is fairly rare.

[Wild Cobra]

like what? antitrust litigation is fairly rare.
Being the Obama administration, who knows. I do know I am very skeptical of anything his administrative offices do.

[Winehole23]

can't answer your own rhetorical question. why am I not surprised?

[scott]

I read over them quickly. It is an interesting exchange. From a certain perspective, it makes sense. One perspective is legitimate if the intent was not to have recruitment wars to retain valuable employees. I doubt this would affect very many employees, and there appears to be nothing that keeps the employee from applying elsewhere.

I wonder how the courts will rule.

You realize this is a text book case of collusion, in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act?

[scott]

I suggest that if you wish to proceed in an honest manner, that you try to understand both sides. Agree or not, at least understand what the truth may be instead of what your bias keeps you focus on.

The rationale for violating the law is irrelevant to whether or not it has been violated. The defendants can't say to the judge: "but you have to see our side of it! We were just trying to prevent a labor war that could raise wages and help our competition!" And expect Judge Fudge to say "OOOOOH why didn't you just say so!"

It's obvious there are incentives to violating the law, that's why people do in and that's why there are laws!

[Wild Cobra]

You realize this is a text book case of collusion, in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act?
It doesn't address individuals. It addresses trade and commerce, or are you saying people are property...

[ElNono]

lawyer cobra is a riot, per par :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

lawyer cobra is a riot, per par :lmao
OK, please show me the law.

[ElNono]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not even what I meant. Is it unethical? Yes. Is it illegal... I don't think so.

Is it possible the justice department needs to change what the media focuses on?

Colluding to not compete is the epitome of antitrust. They are the heads of their company.

It never amazes me the depth of your willful stupidity. They will not even evaluate regarding rule of reason. It's a per se violation.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1
Does it make you feel good to offer information overload?

I had already visited that same site, and only found what I pointed out.

How about the paragraph that applies, or are you talking out your ass again?

[ElNono]

OK, please show me the law.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1

[Winehole23]

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.information overload

[ElNono]

presumptuous and lazy, bad combo

[Wild Cobra]

information overload

No, but have you seen how they define these terms? Legally, how do agreements of recruitment of people apply?

Are people to be traded like slaves?

Are people to be part of commerce like selling of slaves?

Post #46:

It doesn't address individuals. It addresses trade and commerce, or are you saying people are property...

[scott]

No, but have you seen how they define these terms? Legally, how do agreements of recruitment of people apply?

Are people to be traded like slaves?

Are people to be part of commerce like selling of slaves?

Post #46:

It doesn't address individuals. It addresses trade and commerce, or are you saying people are property...

No longer sure if serious

[Wild Cobra]

No longer sure if serious
Maybe you can tell be what legal paragraph covers agreements concerning recruitment.

Do you think people are a commodity or goods to be traded?

[pgardn]

Maybe you can tell be what legal paragraph covers agreements concerning recruitment.

Do you think people are a commodity or goods to be traded?

Uhhh... I think the people do the work that is sought, the work.
In other words they do the labor, competition for the labor.
How in Gods name are they considered property, goods, or a commodity?

[Wild Cobra]

Uhhh... I think the people do the work that is sought, the work.
In other words they do the labor, competition for the labor.
How in Gods name are they considered property?
That's my point.

People are not property or goods to be traded, and that's why that paragraph of the law does not apply.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I ask for what law makes it illegal, and that's the paragraph I get.

[pgardn]

That's my point.

People are not property or goods to be traded, and that's what that paragraph of the law does not apply.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I ask for what law makes it illegal, and that's the paragraph I get.

So you are asking why it is considered illegal for executives to collude to pay the SAME wage to their workers?

[Wild Cobra]

So you are asking why it is considered illegal for executives to collude to pay the SAME wage to their workers?
Effectively yes, I'm asking what law covers it.

[pgardn]

Effectively yes, I'm asking what law covers it.

I am not a lawyer. But the fact that these cases have happened before and have been settled tells me something is wrong with employers colluding to lower wages. I guess I will find out after this thing is over with.

[Wild Cobra]

I am not a lawyer. But the fact that these cases have happened before and have been settled tells me something is wrong with employers colluding to lower wages. I guess I will find out after this thing is over with.
The settled cases may have been a lower cost than taking it to court, or maybe those specific cases had something else going on. I read the October 24, 2013 Class Cert Order. The defendants do not deny the "collusion." They claim it was legal. I believe it is too. maybe unethical, but that was the environment when I was in the semiconductor industry. The Cert Order says it's been going on since the 80's, and I assume since the Class Action suit is only asking for compensation since... I think 2004... this is likely all the rather back they have emails that are sill available.

The industry wasn't trying to suppress wages as much as trying to maintain a stable workforce. All sides in agreement didn't want personnel constantly moving around. This is why I was paid so well, so I wouldn't try to leave to another company.

Can you show me the law that makes their agreement not to cold call recruit illegal?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Effectively yes, I'm asking what law covers it.

Sherman Antitrust Act and it is a per se violation because it is an agreement between two independent firms to limit trade from a third party.

Do you understand to agree to not to elicit trade is limiting trade? It's right at the core of what the law is about. I am not surprised you cannot see it though. Several tenants of indentured servitude seem okay with you.

[Wild Cobra]

Sherman Antitrust Act and it is a per se violation because it is an agreement between two independent firms to limit trade from a third party.

Do you understand to agree to not to elicit trade is limiting trade? It's right at the core of what the law is about. I am not surprised you cannot see it though. Several tenants of indentured servitude seem okay with you.
So you do see people as slaves then. As a commodity to be traded.

OK.

I understand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you do see people as slaves then. As a commodity to be traded.

OK.

I understand.

Well they pay them and they are allowed to go home. They do so willingly.

Do you really not get that by agreeing to not try and solicit them they are keeping them indentured to one man? The obvious extension of this would be to agree to not hire any of their workers at all. When you are stuck in your job because all the other firms agree to not hire you then that is slavery.

But please get mad because I understand that there is a labor market where people willingly participate. By all means continue trying to delude yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And your viewpoint has no self benefit to you whatsoever.

Let's say the Boeing plant down the road agrees with your boss to what these two guys did. That guy thinks that it doesn't matter that you don't have a degree, and is willing to hire you into an engineering position overseeing the maintenance of all their sheet metal lines. It pays twice as much as your current job. You are okay with your bosses agreeing to not make you the offer?

If you are okay with that then you are a fool.

[boutons_deux]

"The industry wasn't trying to suppress wages as much as trying to maintain a stable workforce"

:lol

Tech companies' multi-year, ongoing campaign to increase greatly the H1b visa quota for cheaper foreign engineers destroys your silly statement.

People get poached when the "free market" offers them higher wages elsewhere.

Tech mgmt's and their investors' overwhelming objective is money, not tech, so they deny that overwhelming objective to their employees.

Less money for employees, more money for mgmt, investors, aka, War On Employees.

[pgardn]

The industry wasn't trying to suppress wages as much as trying to maintain a stable workforce. All sides in agreement didn't want personnel constantly moving around. This is why I was paid so well, so I wouldn't try to leave to another company.



i have no idea what your situation was. But as fuzzy stated, if you could have been paid better because your labor was worth so much, then you screwed yourself. You were more important than you thought you were and your company was making a huge profit off of your labor. The guy standing next to you might not see it your way as he has debt and paid heavily for his degree. He put money into his skill and intellect so he could get the highest paying job. You don't care, he does.

[Wild Cobra]

i have no idea what your situation was. But as fuzzy stated, if you could have been paid better because your labor was worth so much, then you screwed yourself. You were more important than you thought you were and your company was making a huge profit off of your labor. The guy standing next to you might not see it your way as he has debt and paid heavily for his degree. He put money into his skill and intellect so he could get the highest paying job. You don't care, he does.
Mobility wasn't a problem. I could apply to other places and be hired. They just agreed they wouldn't try to poach each others workers. My base pay in 2000 was $72k, and my benefits were great. I usually racked up six figures each year. Always maxed out my 401k and SS before Xmas, which was then like a great Xmas bonus.

Again, my point is not if it is wright or wrong, but that nobody has been able to show me the law that makes the practice illegal. The statue/paragraph cited is about trade an commerce. It covers good. Not people. Now if their is something that covers people, nobody has come up with it yet.

You guys can argue that the practice is wrong all you want, and I will agree with it. Many legal practices are wrong.

Again, what paragraph of law makes it illegal to agree not to cold call recruit? They still use headhunter! I was approached several times in may career by headhunters, especially when I was an exhibitor at Semicon '97 in SF.

[scott]

Again, my point is not if it is wright or wrong, but that nobody has been able to show me the law that makes the practice illegal. The statue/paragraph cited is about trade an commerce. It covers good. Not people. Now if their is something that covers people, nobody has come up with it yet.


Put as simply as possible:

You are a supplier of labor. When you enter into an employment agreement with another entity, you are supplying your good (labor) in exchange for another good (money, hopefully). When one entity exchanges a good or service for another good, service or thing of monetary value, we call that trade. The labor market is where suppliers of labor (people) trade with those who demand labor (employers). "People" aren't the good, their labor is their good, "people" are the supplier of said good.

[Th'Pusher]

Put as simply as possible:

You are a supplier of labor. When you enter into an employment agreement with another entity, you are supplying your good (labor) in exchange for another good (money, hopefully). When one entity exchanges a good or service for another good, service or thing of monetary value, we call that trade. The labor market is where suppliers of labor (people) trade with those who demand labor (employers). "People" aren't the good, their labor is their good, "people" are the supplier of said good.

I'll bet that after this very basic and clear explanation the fucker still won't be able to wrap his mind around the concept.

[pgardn]

Mobility wasn't a problem. I could apply to other places and be hired. .

That was not my point.

I understand you are looking for the exact section of antitrust law this violates. I don't know. The point has been stated over and over and now you understand that your initial stance that it was good for you does not mean it is fair or good for others. When the case is over maybe you too can benefit from a class action suit. But you would turn the money down if you decided to participate to prove your point that it created a stable communist workplace.

I salute you comrade for your adherence to the creed that competition is bad for the State... errr.. Company.

[Wild Cobra]

Put as simply as possible:

You are a supplier of labor. When you enter into an employment agreement with another entity, you are supplying your good (labor) in exchange for another good (money, hopefully). When one entity exchanges a good or service for another good, service or thing of monetary value, we call that trade. The labor market is where suppliers of labor (people) trade with those who demand labor (employers). "People" aren't the good, their labor is their good, "people" are the supplier of said good.
Have to change the legal definition for that to fly.

link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-105

§ 2-105. Definitions: Transferability; "Goods"; "Future" Goods; "Lot"; "Commercial Unit".

(1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Article 8) and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (Section 2-107).

(2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell.

(3) There may be a sale of a part interest in existing identified goods.

(4) An undivided share in an identified bulk of fungible goods is sufficiently identified to be sold although the quantity of the bulk is not determined. Any agreed proportion of such a bulk or any quantity thereof agreed upon by number, weight or other measure may to the extent of the seller's interest in the bulk be sold to the buyer who then becomes an owner in common.

(5) "Lot" means a parcel or a single article which is the subject matter of a separate sale or delivery, whether or not it is sufficient to perform the contract.

(6) "Commercial unit" means such a unit of goods as by commercial usage is a single whole for purposes of sale and division of which materially impairs its character or value on the market or in use. A commercial unit may be a single article (as a machine) or a set of articles (as a suite of furniture or an assortment of sizes) or a quantity (as a bale, gross, or carload) or any other unit treated in use or in the relevant market as a single whole.

Here is another:

link: http://thelawdictionary.org/goods/

In contracts. The term “goods” is not so wide as “chattels,” for it applies to inanimate objects, and does not Include animals or chattels real, as a lease for years of house or land, which “chattels” does include. Co. Litt. 118; St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v.Wilson, 133 Ind. 405, 33 N. E. 113;Van Patten v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 520, S N. W. 334; Putnam v. Westcott, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 7G.In wills. In wills “goods” is nomen generalissimo, and, if there is nothing to limit it, will comprehend all the personal estate of the testator, as stocks, bonds, notes,money, plate, furniture, etc. Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. 370; Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 44 N. Y. 310, 4 Am. Rep. 081 ; Foxall v. McKenney, 9 Fed. Cas. 045; Raileyv. Duncan, 2 T. I!. Mon. (Ky.) 22; Keyser v. School Dist., 35 N. II. 483.

Law Dictionary: What is GOODS? definition of GOODS (Black's Law Dictionary)

[scott]

Have to change the legal definition for that to fly.

link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-105

§ 2-105. Definitions: Transferability; "Goods"; "Future" Goods; "Lot"; "Commercial Unit".

(1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Article 8) and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (Section 2-107).

(2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell.

(3) There may be a sale of a part interest in existing identified goods.

(4) An undivided share in an identified bulk of fungible goods is sufficiently identified to be sold although the quantity of the bulk is not determined. Any agreed proportion of such a bulk or any quantity thereof agreed upon by number, weight or other measure may to the extent of the seller's interest in the bulk be sold to the buyer who then becomes an owner in common.

(5) "Lot" means a parcel or a single article which is the subject matter of a separate sale or delivery, whether or not it is sufficient to perform the contract.

(6) "Commercial unit" means such a unit of goods as by commercial usage is a single whole for purposes of sale and division of which materially impairs its character or value on the market or in use. A commercial unit may be a single article (as a machine) or a set of articles (as a suite of furniture or an assortment of sizes) or a quantity (as a bale, gross, or carload) or any other unit treated in use or in the relevant market as a single whole.

Here is another:

link: http://thelawdictionary.org/goods/

In contracts. The term “goods” is not so wide as “chattels,” for it applies to inanimate objects, and does not Include animals or chattels real, as a lease for years of house or land, which “chattels” does include. Co. Litt. 118; St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v.Wilson, 133 Ind. 405, 33 N. E. 113;Van Patten v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 520, S N. W. 334; Putnam v. Westcott, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 7G.In wills. In wills “goods” is nomen generalissimo, and, if there is nothing to limit it, will comprehend all the personal estate of the testator, as stocks, bonds, notes,money, plate, furniture, etc. Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. 370; Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 44 N. Y. 310, 4 Am. Rep. 081 ; Foxall v. McKenney, 9 Fed. Cas. 045; Raileyv. Duncan, 2 T. I!. Mon. (Ky.) 22; Keyser v. School Dist., 35 N. II. 483.

Law Dictionary: What is GOODS? definition of GOODS (Black's Law Dictionary)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services

You. Are really dumb.

[scott]

In trying to make things so simple that even you could understand... you still couldn't understand.

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services

You. Are really dumb.

Do lawyers use Wikipedia?

And you call me dumb. I used legal definitions.

Scott, why are you so fast to call someone "dumb?" Is it because you are so fucking stupid you can't mount a coherent argument?

Fuck you.

[scott]

The funniest part of Wild Cobra's idiocy is that there isn't even an outstanding question as to whether these arrangements were in violation of Section 1 (the first fucking section!) of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The only questions that remain are whether the employees can obtain class certification (District Court already say they can) and whether they are entitled to damages. The arrangements themselves are so facially anti-competitive that it's not even a question anymore.

Of course, Wild Cobra has been becoming increasing anti-competitive lately, as evidenced by this gem:


I would like to see all short tern stock trading made illegal. Have a minimum number of hold days once purchased. Perhaps 30 days.

What's next in your authoritarian state, Comrade Cobra?

[scott]

Do lawyers use Wikipedia?

And you call me dumb. I used legal definitions.

Scott, why are you so fast to call someone "dumb?" Is it because you are so fucking stupid you can't mount a coherent argument?

Fuck you.

No, people who need to explain BASIC FUCKING CONCEPTS TO MORONS use Wikipedia.

[Wild Cobra]

No, people who need to explain BASIC FUCKING CONCEPTS TO MORONS use Wikipedia.
No.

Fucking morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the fucking moron.

Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.

Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.

The law does not cover what all you libtards want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.

Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?

[pgardn]

No.

Fucking morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the fucking moron.

Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.

Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.

The law does not cover what all you libtards want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.

Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?

So it is again all down to your partisan nature. You and Boots are the true brothers. Except he has a bit of a clue.

Jesus...

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet that after this very basic and clear explanation the fucker still won't be able to wrap his mind around the concept.
I understand exactly what Scott is misunderstanding.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, my point is not if it is wright or wrong, but that nobody has been able to show me the law that makes the practice illegal. The statue/paragraph cited is about trade an commerce. It covers good. Not people. Now if their is something that covers people, nobody has come up with it yet.

You right here say that they agree to not compete. This should not be hard.

The Sherman antitrust law as was pointed out to you.



Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every
person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or
conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of
a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine
not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other
person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.


Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or
combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize
any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with
foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on
conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or
by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said
punishments, in the discretion of the court.

As I pointed out before it is a per se violation because it is two independent firms who are conspiring to limit trade in the labor market. Don't repeat that you hav enot been told. You have been multiple times.

[Wild Cobra]

So it is again all down to your partisan nature. You and Boots are the true brothers. Except he has a bit of a clue.

Jesus...
So you are going to join the idiot club too?

I have said I don't like what has happened. Debating the law is not the same as saying I agree with what it does.

People are not goods. If such a precinct is made, at some point someone will think of a way to make closer, the possibility to enslave us with the new legal President.

If you want to make the action this lawsuit is addressing, then change the law. Look at how many other things made precedent by judges have damaged our freedoms.

[Wild Cobra]

As I pointed out before it is a per se violation because it is two independent firms who are conspiring to limit trade in the labor market. Don't repeat that you hav enot been told. You have been multiple times.
And repeating an idea over and over again does not make it fact.

I read that before I asked for the law that applies.

[Bito Corleone]

The law that applies has been laid out in front of you over and over again in this thread...

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

Commerce is the whole system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business. The system includes legal, economic, political, social, cultural and technological systems that are in operation in any country. Thus, commerce is a system or an environment that affects the business prospects of an economy or a nation-state. It can also be defined as a component of business which includes all activities, functions and institutions involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers.
WC, if the clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust act is not apparent to you, will you settle for simple collusion?

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties"
Do you really not see that the action taken by the firms in question is illegal?

[Wild Cobra]

The law that applies has been laid out in front of you over and over again in this thread...


WC, if the clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust act is not apparent to you, will you settle for simple collusion?

Do you really not see that the action taken by the firms in question is illegal?
From the first wiki link:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

The second:

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.

How intelligent is it to use bad references? you have not proven anything yet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No.

Fucking morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the fucking moron.

Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.

Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.

The law does not cover what all you libtards want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.

Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?

First of all using law definitions from your law dictionary is not binding. Different terms have different meanings. If you want to make a case about what we are talking about then cite some court cases.

I can name one huge area of litigation that is along these same lines. Sports law. Team control of players. Prior to the free agency era, teams agreed to not compete for the services of other teams players. It's pretty obvious what the SCOTUS ruled because such collusion is now illegal.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conspiracy/

It is also a civil matter and can be pursued by an individual as well. There is a long history of law regarding trusts and employees. That the practice that seemed extinct for the past 100 years is now back and dipshits like you think its okay for them to do is a sad state of affairs. Your servility makes it near impossible to respect you.

[baseline bum]

Why do people here argue with the teabagger equivalent to mouse?

[Bito Corleone]

From that wiki link:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

The second:

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.

How intelligent is it to use bad references? you have not proven anything yet.
The excerpt from the Sherman Antitrust Law is from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act

The other two were simple definitions. Would you prefer me to quote them from a dictionary? Pick your favorite...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do people here argue with the teabagger equivalent to mouse?

Yeah. I am starting to get that. Intentional stupidity is wearing. How much do you think is feigned?

[baseline bum]

Yeah. I am starting to get that. Intentional stupidity is wearing. How much do you think is feigned?

WC is surely a dittohead, but the nigga trolls almost exactly like robdiaz does in The Club.

[Wild Cobra]

The excerpt from the Sherman Antitrust Law is from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act

The other two were simple definitions. Would you prefer me to quote them from a dictionary? Pick your favorite...
No shit Sherlock.

I have already read all that. we interpret it's meaning differently.

It may be broad, except it clarifies it speaks of "in restraint of trade or commerce"

So, you believe a person is to be "chattle?"

[Bito Corleone]

No shit Sherlock.

I have already read all that. we interpret it's meaning differently.

It may be broad, except it clarifies it speaks of "in restraint of trade or commerce"

So, you believe a person is to be "chattle?"
Which is why I went ahead and gave you a definition for commerce...

No, I don't believe that people are chattel, but I do believe that labor clearly qualifies as "a component of business which includes all activities...involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers."

[pgardn]

No.

Fucking morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the fucking moron.

Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.

Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.

The law does not cover what all you libtards want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.

Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?

I am joining the idiots... .?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC is surely a dittohead, but the nigga trolls almost exactly like robdiaz does in The Club.

I can see it. Rob actually gets a good one in for himself though. WC just seems to like to take abuse.

[Wild Cobra]

Which is why I went ahead and gave you a definition for commerce...

No, I don't believe that people are chattel, but I do believe that labor clearly qualifies as "a component of business which includes all activities...involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers."
My God man.

That definition came out of an unsourced wiki article. Is that what the legal definition says, if so, where?

[Bito Corleone]

My God man.

That definition came out of an unsourced wiki article. Is that what the legal definition says, if so, where?
My God man. I told you it was a simple definition. Again, would you prefer I quote that definition directly from a dictionary? Pick your favorite...

Are you really so hell-bent on slurping any and all corporations that you nitpick a simple definition in order to deny the point?

[Wild Cobra]

My God man. I told you it was a simple definition. Again, would you prefer I quote that definition directly from a dictionary? Pick your favorite...

Are you really so hell-bent on slurping any and all corporations that you nitpick a simple definition in order to deny the point?
So source it with a legal definition or precedent, or be labeled as unfit to debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No shit Sherlock.

I have already read all that. we interpret it's meaning differently.

It may be broad, except it clarifies it speaks of "in restraint of trade or commerce"

So, you believe a person is to be "chattle?"

What he believes is besides the point and you are avoiding the point. Try a different tactic.

This is the first sentence of the Sherman Act. It is very to the point


Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

I wrote this:


As I pointed out before it is a per se violation because it is two independent firms who are conspiring to limit trade in the labor market.

Do you need more help?

[Bito Corleone]

So source it with a legal definition or precedent, or be labeled as unfit to debate.
Be labeled unfit to debate... :rolleyes

http://thelawdictionary.org/commerce/

Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on
Wasted effort I'm sure... You'll predictably say you don't agree with labor qualifying as "the means and appliances by which it is carried on"

[TeyshaBlue]

lol WildObfuscator.

Ive never seen anyone more willfully ignorant outside of boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

Be labeled unfit to debate... :rolleyes

Wasted effort I'm sure... You'll predictably say you don't agree with labor qualifying as "the means and appliances by which it is carried on"
Really? How does: "the means and appliances by which it is carried on" of removing a recruitment method affect the trade of commodities?

[Winehole23]

labor is a commodity sold by workers. it's exchanged for a cash equivalent.

[Winehole23]

Scott already walked you through this...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

labor is a commodity sold by workers. it's exchanged for a cash equivalent.

Do you think he understands what people are talking about when they say 'labor market' or 'service industry?'

[Winehole23]

No. The rational self-interest of owners to retain and hold the labor force clearly trumps individual laborers, who are after all free to seek employment wherever owners do not conspire to limit them.

[Winehole23]

WC upholds the freedom of owners to combine against free labor, to restrict the compensation and mobility of putatively free individuals in a putatively free market.

[Winehole23]

It would be to their disadvantage not to. To respect the freedom of individuals would tend to attenuate the freedom and profitability of corporations.

[TDMVPDPOY]

cracking down on illegals or cheap labour hire

why not crack down on the big boys at the higher end of town who shift all money to tax havens

[scott]

No.

Fucking morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the fucking moron.

Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.

Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.

Your failure to see lots of things is self-evident, and provides insight as to why you're just an angry old man who thinks it is okay to stalk young women on the internet.


The law does not cover what all you libtards want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.

LOL, anti-trust law and competitiveness are "libtard" ideas now? No wonder you've gone Comrade Cobra on us... you are just fighting the Liberal Free Market Agenda :lol


Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?

Why not just use the same one that's been in place for 124 years?

[Winehole23]

lol Comrade Cobra

[Wild Cobra]

WC upholds the freedom of owners to combine against free labor, to restrict the compensation and mobility of putatively free individuals in a putatively free market.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote to assume that.

[Wild Cobra]

Your failure to see lots of things is self-evident, and provides insight as to why you're just an angry old man who thinks it is okay to stalk young women on the internet.



LOL, anti-trust law and competitiveness are "libtard" ideas now? No wonder you've gone Comrade Cobra on us... you are just fighting the Liberal Free Market Agenda :lol



Why not just use the same one that's been in place for 124 years?

No Scott. I see you don't to understand what I am saying. You're like talking to a parrot.

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't you guys see that I am only disagreeing that the unethical practice being sued over isn't covered by that first part of section 1 of the law cited? I am not saying I agree corporations should be ably to, i am saying I don't see the law keeping them from doing so.

I consider those of you accusing me of standing up for the corporations to be morons. If you refuse to accept the distinctions I am making, then why should I consider you guys to have any intelligence. It is one thing to disagree on point, but to paint a picture of me that doesn't apply. Fuck you all who are so fucking unethical to do so.

[Winehole23]

Pearls before swine. Counselor Cobra's sharp legal mind is obviously wasted here.

[Winehole23]

it's too bad the judge in the case disagrees; not dismissing the lawsuit means she saw issues of fact worth trying in court.

[Winehole23]

clearly, Counselor Cobra parses Antitrust law, which he was alerted to yesterday by other ST posters, with greater fidelity than a Federal judge.

[pgardn]

It's not for suppression of wages, but protection of propitiatory information. A no recruitment clause simply meant they could not try to take a valued employee. It did not mean the employee could not apply for the job, nor did it keep them from hiring them. I also had two employers that had me sign agreements that I could not work for the competition for two years after leaving them for the same reason. Proprietary knowledge. After that two year window, such information was less useful to competition. It did not exclude me from working for the customer, which I did do once. However, they were not allowed to ask me to work for them.

I don't think such scenarios are illegal. The no recruitment was at the workplace. That didn't keep an peer from another company after hours meeting for a beer from telling me I should apply, that I was guaranteed a job if I wanted it...

There are loop holes both ways.

Well it appears you are saying here that this is not a wage suppression move.
You have a notion from your work. Others say it's clearly to suppress wages.

So you don't just think there is an absence of a narrow law that covers the argument, right or wrong. You have sided with the companies based on your situation. This seems obvious by your own posts and by calling people libtards because they don't agree.

And I really don't like to dog pile people. But honestly you and Boots have so much in common and it's amazing to me that you both miss such blatant ideology.

[boutons_deux]

But honestly you and Boots have so much in common and it's amazing to me that you both miss such blatant ideology.

:lol

[Winehole23]

ideological blinkers, incoherence, irascibility, obfuscation, grandiosity...the similarities are striking

[pgardn]

ideological blinkers, incoherence, irascibility, obfuscation, grandiosity...the similarities are striking

What is frightening is people like these two get into a position power in government. And you are with them or you are not. No middle ground for a zealot.

[boutons_deux]

ideological blinkers, incoherence, irascibility, obfuscation, grandiosity...the similarities are striking

:lol

[Bito Corleone]

Why can't you guys see that I am only disagreeing that the unethical practice being sued over isn't covered by that first part of section 1 of the law cited? I am not saying I agree corporations should be ably to, i am saying I don't see the law keeping them from doing so.
People understand that's what you're disagreeing with. It's just that in order to reach the view point you have as to why it's not covered by antitrust laws, you are relying on the (incorrect) assumption that labor is not part of commerce. It's been clearly explained (both in legal, and very simplistic terms) by multiple people why it is, but rather than accept or refute the point of those people, you seem to either outright ignore the reasoning, or move back to latching onto just the part about recruitment.

If the way you are viewing this situation was accurate, I'd actually agree with some (maybe even most) of what you're saying, but the simple fact is you're so focused on your own experience with non-recruit/non-compete employment contracts that it's blinding you from seeing what happened in this particular situation. The issue here isn't that the employers agreed to not recruit each other's employees - because you're right about that being unethical, but not illegal. The issue is that the reason for the non-recruitment agreements, and sharing of wage scales, and punishment of the violators of this agreement, was to artificially lower all of their employees' wages by making sure that there weren't competing firms that could/would offer them a more competitive salary if they were to apply elsewhere on their own.

That's wage-fixing through collusion, and it is illegal.

[Th'Pusher]

People understand that's what you're disagreeing with. It's just that in order to reach the view point you have as to why it's not covered by antitrust laws, you are relying on the (incorrect) assumption that labor is not part of commerce. It's been clearly explained (both in legal, and very simplistic terms) by multiple people why it is, but rather than accept or refute the point of those people, you seem to either outright ignore the reasoning, or move back to latching onto just the part about recruitment.

If the way you are viewing this situation was accurate, I'd actually agree with some (maybe even most) of what you're saying, but the simple fact is you're so focused on your own experience with non-recruit/non-compete employment contracts that it's blinding you from seeing what happened in this particular situation. The issue here isn't that the employers agreed to not recruit each other's employees - because you're right about that being unethical, but not illegal. The issue is that the reason for the non-recruitment agreements, and sharing of wage scales, and punishment of the violators of this agreement, was to artificially lower all of their employees' wages by making sure that there weren't competing firms that could/would offer them a more competitive salary if they were to apply elsewhere on their own.

That's wage-fixing through collusion, and it is illegal.

I appreciate this attempt at civil discourse, but you gotta know that WC is one of, if not the stupidist motherfucker that posts in this forum. I mean a real imbecile incapable of grade school level logic and reason. He also displays extremely poor reading comprehension skills. All around, he's a dimwitted man.

[Bito Corleone]

I try to maintain hope that all people are capable of using reason when presented with information that has the slightest possibility of being understood by the person to whom it is directed. It often leads to disappointment, but I'll never give up on this optimism.

[Th'Pusher]

I try to maintain hope that all people are capable of using reason when presented with information that has the slightest possibility of being understood by the person to whom it is directed. It often leads to disappointment, but I'll never give up on this optimism.
:tu

[TeyshaBlue]

I try to maintain hope that all people are capable of using reason when presented with information that has the slightest possibility of being understood by the person to whom it is directed. It often leads to disappointment, but I'll never give up on this optimism.

That's the only reason I continue to read Pusher's posts.:p:

[TeyshaBlue]

Ok, Push. I'll gfmyself now.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the companies being sued think they have a case. We will see how the courts rule.

[ElNono]

Well, the companies being sued think they have a case. We will see how the courts rule.

:lmao almost made me spill my drink

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao almost made me spill my drink

Please elaborate.

[ElNono]

The plaintiffs have a case. The defendant has a defense.

[Wild Cobra]

The plaintiffs have a case. The defendant has a defense.
Whatever. If it makes you feel good to find such errors, then be my guest.

[TeyshaBlue]

Whatever. If it makes you feel good to find such errors, then be my guest.

Thanks. You lay out a nice buffet if them.

[ElNono]

somebody shared this video today... reminded me of this thread for some reason :lol

BKorP55Aqvg

[Wild Cobra]

somebody shared this video today... reminded me of this thread for some reason :lol

BKorP55Aqvg
Are you saying you want a red line with green ink?

[Wild Cobra]

somebody shared this video today... reminded me of this thread for some reason :lol

BKorP55Aqvg
Reminds me of a group of engineers I once worked with.

Notice the H1B guy is the only one that gets it?

[scott]

Reminds me of a group of engineers I once worked with.

Notice the H1B guy is the only one that gets it?

Notice how in a video of 5 non-Americans, you jumped to the conclusion that the Asian one needs an H1B visa for some reason?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the trial starts 5/27/14.

May the force be with them.

[Wild Cobra]

Notice how in a video of 5 non-Americans, you jumped to the conclusion that the Asian one needs an H1B visa for some reason?
I didn't jump to that conclusion, especially with his accent. I just thought it would be funny to say because of the H1B visa argument.

[Wild Cobra]

I am not a lawyer. But the fact that these cases have happened before and have been settled tells me something is wrong with employers colluding to lower wages. I guess I will find out after this thing is over with.
LOL...

One of the settlements was agreeing not to stick with the no cold call agreement for 5 years. no money involved. I will assume this was an agreement to see the outcome of legal precedings.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

One of the settlements was agreeing not to stick with the no cold call agreement for 5 years. no money involved. I will assume this was an agreement to see the outcome of legal precedings.

They were agreeing not to make calls in an attempt to do what? Deliberate stupidity is a hell of a thing.

[pgardn]

LOL...

One of the settlements was agreeing not to stick with the no cold call agreement for 5 years. no money involved. I will assume this was an agreement to see the outcome of legal precedings.

One of the settlements ...

Uhhh... which case did I mention?

Yes I'm feeling like the Asian guy with WC in the room.

[ElNono]

Yes I'm feeling like the Asian guy with WC in the room.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

"no money involved"

... other than the money of criminal colluders that should have been paid to their employees.

[Winehole23]

Back in January, I wrote about “The Techtopus (http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/)” — an illegal agreement between seven tech giants, including Apple, Google, and Intel, to suppress wages for tens of thousands of tech employees. The agreement prompted a Department of Justice investigation, resulting in a settlement (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2010/262648.htm) in which the companies agreed to curb their restricting hiring deals. The same companies were then hit with a civil suit by employees affected by the agreements.


This week, as the final summary judgement for the resulting class action suit (http://scrible.com/s/g2IAg) looms, and several of the companies mentioned (Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm) scramble to settle (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/technology/engineers-allege-hiring-collusion-in-silicon-valley.html?_r=0) out of court, Pando has obtained court documents (embedded below) which show shocking evidence of a much larger conspiracy, reaching far beyond Silicon Valley.


Confidential internal Google and Apple memos, buried within piles of court dockets and reviewed by PandoDaily, clearly show that what began as a secret cartel agreement between Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s Eric Schmidt to illegally fix the labor market for hi-tech workers, expanded within a few years to include companies ranging from Dell, IBM, eBay and Microsoft, to Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, and London-based public relations behemoth WPP. All told, the combined workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million employees.

http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/

[Winehole23]

For now, it’s enough to try to absorb what all of these cross-company, cross-industry secret labor-fixing agreements mean. Most labor stories about wage theft and corporate abuse tend to focus on low-wage earners and the most disadvantaged. Certainly it strains one’s sensibilities to compare an exploited low-wage worker in the fast food or retail industry to tech engineers and programmers, who are far better compensated, live more comfortably, and rarely worry about putting food in their children’s mouths.


In terms of pathos, there is no comparison; minimum wage earners are struggling to survive, and nearly all of the well-educated, privileged-born people in the media world agree that tech industry workers are all a bunch of overpaid misogynist libertarian bros, a caricature (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/08/silicon_valley_s_richest_people_why_they_re_the_ta rget_of_gawker_media_s.html) that makes it perfectly fine to hate the entire class, and impossible to consider them as political comrades stuck in the same predicament as the rest of the non-multimillionaires in this country.


What’s more important is the political predicament that low-paid fast food workers share with well-paid hi-tech workers: the loss of power over their lives and their futures to the growing mass of concentrated power in Silicon Valley, whose tentacles are so strong now and so great, that hundreds of thousands of workers around the globe—public relations and cable company employees in the British Isles, programmers and tech engineers in Russia and China (according to other documents which I’ll write about soon)—have their lives controlled and their wages and opportunities stolen from them without ever knowing about it, all the while being bombarded with cultural cant about the wisdom of the free market, about the efficiency of free knowledge, about the need to take personal responsibility and to blame no one but yourself for everything that happens in your life and your career.

same

[pgardn]

Ahhhh...

The free market that can solve so many problems.
The all knowing, infallible free market.
Thank God for the press again, the 4th branch allowed a bit more freedom.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess this illegal arrangement that paid me a base $72k annual in 2000 just wasn't enough, huh?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess this illegal arrangement that paid me a base $72k annual in 2000 just wasn't enough, huh?

You are in a union shop. wtf are you talking about?

what do collective bargaining mean?

[pgardn]

I guess this illegal arrangement that paid me a base $72k annual in 2000 just wasn't enough, huh?

You got shanked.

What with all your skills you should have at least tripled that number. They bled you.

[Winehole23]

nm

[Wild Cobra]

You got shanked.

What with all your skills you should have at least tripled that number. They bled you.
They sure did. I feel so shafted because it was nonunion and I wasn't as good as others in my wage negotiations. I could have had more if my debating skills were better.

Let's remember, this was in 2000. In the span from 1998 to 2002 that I worked for them, I had two years of six figures when counting overtime and bonuses. If I recall, it was $112 k and $118 k.

Now if this practice was suppressing my wages, just how much more do you think I should have been getting?

I'm just a parts changer... Not an engineer... They made more than I did.

[boutons_deux]

Wage Theft Across the Board

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/04/22/opinion/22wage-theft/22wage-theft-articleLarge.png


When labor advocates and law enforcement officials talk about wage theft, they are usually referring to situations in which low-wage service-sector employees are forced to work off the clock, paid subminimum wages, cheated out of overtime pay or denied their tips. It is a huge and underpoliced problem. It is also, it turns out, not confined to low-wage workers.

In the days ahead, a settlement (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/business/in-silicon-valley-thriller-a-settlement-may-preclude-the-finale.html) is expected in the antitrust lawsuit pitting 64,613 software engineers against Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe. The engineers say they lost up to $3 billion in wages from 2005-9, when the companies colluded in a scheme not to solicit one another’s employees. The collusion, according to the engineers, kept their pay lower than it would have been had the companies actually competed for talent.

The suit, brought after the Justice Department investigated the anti-recruiting scheme in 2010, has many riveting aspects, including emails and other documents that tarnish the reputation of Silicon Valley as competitive and of technology executives as a new breed of “don’t-be-evil” bosses, to cite Google’s informal motto.

The case essentially alleges white-collar wage theft. The engineers were not victimized by the usual violations of labor law, but by improper hiring practices against their interests. The result, however, was the same: Money that would have flowed to workers in the form of wages went instead into corporate coffers and from there to executives and shareholders.

When wage theft against low-wage workers is combined with that against highly paid workers, a bad problem becomes much worse. Data compiled by the Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-theft-protect/) show that in 2012, the Department of Labor helped 308,000 workers recover $280 million in back pay for wage-theft violations — nearly double the amount stolen that year in robberies on the street, at banks, gas stations and convenience stores.

Moreover, the recovered wages are surely only a fraction of the wage theft nationwide because the Labor Department has only about 1,100 wage-and-hour investigators to monitor seven million employers and several states have ended or curtailed wage enforcement efforts.

New York, however, has been a notable exception. Last month, investigations by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman yielded settlements with nearly two dozen Domino’s Pizza restaurants in New York and one McDonald’s franchise that recovered nearly $1 million in stolen wages for 1,450 fast-food employees.

Those sums, vitally important redress for the low-wage victims, are small in comparison to the billions of dollars sought by the software engineers, or the hundreds of millions that would likely result from a settlement of the engineers’ case.

Still, as important as the recoveries is the evidence that wage theft afflicts both low- and high-wage jobs. To fight the theft from low-wage workers requires more Labor Department resources, as President Obama called for in his recent budget, and immigration reform, which would help to both stanch widespread wage theft from undocumented immigrants and improve low-wage working conditions.

To fight white-collar wage theft requires a re-energized Justice Department, to pursue tough cases and settlements against industry collusion, discrimination and other illegal practices that allow employers to deny employees their rightful pay.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/opinion/wage-theft-across-the-board.html

aka, the Corporate War on Employees.

[Winehole23]

I guess this illegal arrangement that paid me a base $72k annual in 2000 just wasn't enough, huh?as long as they pay you enough to live comfortably, you'd be ungrateful to complain if they underpay you and screw you out of opportunities for advancement and more pay.

[Wild Cobra]

as long as they pay you enough to live comfortably, you'd be ungrateful to complain if they underpay you and screw you out of opportunities for advancement and more pay.
There was no "screwing me out of advancement" or "screwing me out of working for a different employer."

Please note that the bad email listed early on was about one CEO trying to stop another company from hiring his employees. Now this is actionable. The lawsuit doesn't limit itself to this, but includes the no cold call agreement. I was approached by head hunters for recruitment rather than by a company. The no cold calling agreement didn't hinder employees from moving around. It is no more than a gentleman's agreement because there was no way to prove it happened if it was denied. I moved into another corporation this way. The maintenance manager said he wanted me to work for him, but I had to go thorough the normal process and not use him as a referral. He said from there, he would guarantee me a position once I was in the HR register.

Yes, I got a nice pay raise in the process.

[pgardn]

They sure did. I feel so shafted because it was nonunion and I wasn't as good as others in my wage negotiations. I could have had more if my debating skills were better.

Let's remember, this was in 2000. In the span from 1998 to 2002 that I worked for them, I had two years of six figures when counting overtime and bonuses. If I recall, it was $112 k and $118 k.

Now if this practice was suppressing my wages, just how much more do you think I should have been getting?

I'm just a parts changer... Not an engineer... They made more than I did.

I was being sarcastic. I have no idea what you do other than change parts.

What you seem to get stuck on is that since you are happy, the system works for everyone. Collude away, I'm good...

[Wild Cobra]

I was being sarcastic. I have no idea what you do other than change parts.

What you seem to get stuck on is that since you are happy, the system works for everyone. Collude away, I'm good...
I'm saying that the collusion when limited to agreeing not to cold call doesn't stop mobility.

[pgardn]

I'm saying that the collusion when limited to agreeing not to cold call doesn't stop mobility.

So you go mobile to receive exactly the same wage... To your surprise you thought you could make more but no, the price is fixed. But you are happy with that so it's ok.

[Wild Cobra]

So you go mobile to receive exactly the same wage... To your surprise you thought you could make more but no, the price is fixed. But you are happy with that so it's ok.
That's now how things happened.

[boutons_deux]

Foreign workers: Microsoft gets green light from Ottawa for foreign trainees

Tech giant exempted from new rules for finding Canadians to fill jobs

The federal government has granted an exemption to Microsoft Canada that will allow the company to bring in an unspecified number of temporary foreign workers to British Columbia as trainees without first looking for Canadians to fill the jobs.

A notice (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/work/opinion/territories-provinces.asp) posted on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website says foreign workers will receive specialized training in a new human resources development centre in the province. The tech giant will not have to perform a labour market impact assessment (LMIA) — a rigorous process that would include a search for Canadians who could fill the positions.

The exemption was granted under a provincial-federal agreement that gives a pass to companies that gain provincial approval.

The Canadian government argues the arrangement is the result of a significant investment by Microsoft that will create jobs for Canadians as well at a new 400-person training centre.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/12/13/225236/californias-hydrogen-highway-adds-another-station?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

[Winehole23]

George Lucas related:


Rather than apologizing to a $170bn corporation for hurting its feelings, Lucas should probably apologize to all of his employees from the mid-1980s onwards, and to the tens of thousands of VFX animators and tech engineers and others caught up in the massive wage-fixing cartel (https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/) that spread across industries and oceans (https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/) until it was busted up by the Department of Justice in 2010.


Better yet, he could pay back some of the stolen wages that VFX tech workers are seeking in a class action antitrust lawsuit (https://pando.com/2014/09/08/breaking-new-wage-theft-lawsuit-filed-against-hollywood-giants-as-techtopus-scandal-grows/) that grew out of the landmark Silicon Valley wage-theft lawsuit, and which -- court documents revealed (https://pando.com/2014/12/15/animation-workers-suing-major-studios-first-learned-about-hollywood-wage-theft-by-reading-pando/) -- was prompted by Pando’s reporting (https://pando.com/2014/07/07/revealed-court-docs-show-role-of-pixar-and-dreamworks-animation-in-silicon-valley-wage-fixing-cartel/) on the Hollywood component of the illegal conspiracy.


As readers of our series of articles on the Silicon Valley wage-theft cartel will recall, it was George Lucas himself who first initiated the illegal conspiracy to suppress tech workers’ wages by secretly coordinating recruitment and salaries with competing VFX film companies. Lucas later justified his actions by claiming that had he not secretly suppressed employees’ wages, the small movie studios would’ve gone bankrupt and everyone would’ve suffered. Stealing workers’ wages and their opportunities to protect Lucasfilm’s bottom line may have been an act of selfless benevolence, but it also turned Lucas into a multibillionaire when he sold out to Disney in 2012 and pocketed over four billion dollars for himself.

https://pando.com/2016/01/05/white-slaver-awakens-how-george-lucas-suppressed-employees-wages-while-becoming-multibillionaire/f07636abe414cb351b845c1893a96e8f865b2ae5/

[Winehole23]

No man earns a billion dollars. It's more conventional to rip off workers, overcharge customers, buy off politicians and cheat competitors.

https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft

[boutons_deux]

No man earns a billion dollars. It's more conventional to rip off workers, overcharge customers, buy off politicians and cheat competitors.

https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft

And Trash/Repug cult mob don't GAF

[Winehole23]

No man earns a billion dollars. It's more conventional to rip off workers, overcharge customers, buy off politicians and cheat competitors.

https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft

1331437418227052545

[Winehole23]

1356629364398583810

[Winehole23]

No man earns a billion dollars. It's more conventional to rip off workers, overcharge customers, buy off politicians and cheat competitors.

https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft*ehem*

[boutons_deux]

Behind every great fortune, there's a great crime (or Ms of them)

[Winehole23]

America's 2nd richest man steals wages from delivery drivers.


Though Amazon's delivery drivers operate Amazon-emblazoned vans, wear Amazon uniforms, and are trained by Amazon employees, they are technically not employed directly by Amazon but by small contractors, known as "delivery service partners," that operate out of Amazon warehouses around the country.

Amazon has been sued in many of these wage theft cases, as lawsuits claim that Amazon serves as a joint employer of its delivery drivers because of the extensive control it exerts over them. "Amazon [is responsible for] virtually every aspect of [drivers'] jobs, including the existence of the job itself," the Washington State lawsuit against Amazon and eight of its contractors reads.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpyqm/amazon-keeps-getting-sued-for-paying-drivers-less-than-minimum-wage

[Winehole23]

No man earns a billion dollars. It's more conventional to rip off workers, overcharge customers, buy off politicians and cheat competitors.

https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4Qi2PaWQAEQrXg?format=jpg&name=mediumhttps://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-forms-theft-workers/

[Isitjustme?]

1356629364398583810

Lol guillotines. What are you 4 years old?

[Winehole23]

Lol guillotines. What are you 4 years old?No take on the topic?

[Isitjustme?]

No take on the topic?

Amazon was scum for doing that, duh. The guillotines are retarded and counterproductive. About as helpful as "defund the police" was.

[Ef-man]

1356629364398583810

Corporation stealing tips meant for employees, how fucked us is that!

[Winehole23]

Amazon was scum for doing that, duh. The guillotines are retarded and counterproductive. About as helpful as "defund the police" was.I'm not running a public persuasion campaign for Democrats, are you? :lol

[Isitjustme?]

I'm not running a public persuasion campaign for Democrats, are you? :lol

So, you have no interest in seeing the ideas and things you support get addressed and get proper attention? Because thats what I thought and assumed based on those posts. Good to have it confirmed you don't at least.

[Winehole23]

So, you have no interest in seeing the ideas and things you support get addressed and get proper attention? Because thats what I thought and assumed based on those posts. Good to have it confirmed you don't at least.You addressed it, Ef-Man did too.

Sorry about the sand in your drawers over the jokey guillotine, clearly you're unfamliar with the jocular tone of posting here and the general rough and tumble.

[Ef-man]

You addressed it, Ef-Man did too.

Sorry about the sand in your drawers over the jokey guillotine, clearly you're unfamliar with the jocular tone of posting here and the general rough and tumble.

A simple letter or email to your US Senator on this issue and your outrage will suffice. Congressmen always like to show how they protect the little guys and this would qualify.

[Isitjustme?]

You addressed it, Ef-Man did too.

Sorry about the sand in your drawers over the jokey guillotine, clearly you're unfamliar with the jocular tone of posting here and the general rough and tumble.

yeah, thats it.

[Winehole23]

A simple letter or email to your US Senator on this issue and your outrage will suffice. Congressmen always like to show how they protect the little guys and this would qualify.I do that too from time to time, but that's not really postworthy here.

If you want to raise the discourse, raise the discourse. Griping about my post doesn't do that.

[Winehole23]

yeah, thats it.the French aristocracy never saw it coming either