Top 8% Own 85%

[Brain357]

You are babbling again. Show some proof.

Of what?

That settling was cheaper. Prove it. Moron.

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

What in the link specifically supports your claim? I don't see it.

So lawyers tell you why it's better to settle and you're too thick to see it

good thing you're not a lawyer

Now you tell me how is a 325 million dollar settlement a significant amount when the 4 companies involved are worth 600 billion, 527 billion. 115 billion and 35 billion each

and why did the plaintiffs start out suing for 3 billion and settle for a measly 325 million?

What in the link specifically supports your claim? I don't see it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It was a cheap as it could be that's why Google et al offered a settlement.

I don't really see why you don't understand how a settlement is nothing but a business decision. A settlement is always cheaper for the defendants than a trial that's what the idiots looking for a buck in a class action law suit hope for it has little to do with any actual damages

You are babbling again. Show some proof.

Of what?

That settling was cheaper. Prove it. Moron.

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

 

[Brain357]

You are babbling again. Show some proof.

Of what?

That settling was cheaper. Prove it. Moron.

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

 

[Londoner]

Some history.

From 1935 - 1975 there was huge policy support for American workers, including trade laws that made it hard for capital to move production to China, and labor policies that enforced living wages, and subsidies to middle class education and cost of living, and legislation that prevented pay-to-play cronyism where a handful of mega corporations are given control over every major economic sector.

In other words, the government took an active policy role in the maintenance of a strong middle class - the result was the golden age of capitalism, see the 1950s when the father's high Union wages and solid benefits enabled the mother to stay home and raise the family. [Many smart Conservatives actually liked the New Deal because it created a wage/benefit system that freed the mother to stay home, and it gave the father more time at home too. Meaning: these policies allowed families to spend more time together. ]

Then came the stagflation of the 70s triggered curiously by big oil (in the form of some very convenient oil shocks). This ended America's miraculous postwar prosperity - and it opened the door for Reagan and Big Business.

Reagan told us that we could no longer afford the "demand-centered" policy support for the middle class - and that we needed to go "all in" behind the Suppliers, with aggressive tax reduction, deregulation and free trade (which allowed corporations to shift production from expensive US labor markets to more profitable Asian labor markets).

Reagan said the increase in profits at the top of the income bracket would trickle down. Meanwhile the jobs left and the only thing that trickled down were credit cards.

Indeed, to make up for the loss of good jobs and high wages, Reagan expanded credit to the non-wealthy, who, as a result, borrowed the money they use to make in wages/benefits. This lead to a temporary boom called Morning in America. [If you don't believe me, research the explosion of debt-based consumption starting in the 80s - it is shocking. Reagan lead the transition from wage-based consumption to credit-based consumption, and the result was a 30 year spending orgy that resulted in an insolvent middle class. It got so bad that they had to turn their homes into ATM's to stay afloat and make up for all the money/jobs that never trickled down]

You get the point - right? The money that never trickled down is sitting in the pockets of the elite and the politicians they own.

You might ask, how did the elite get away with turning Washington into a subsidy and bailout machine that gives them tax breaks as they ship jobs to China? How did they create a country with more inequality than 3rd world nations? The answer is simple. They use their think tanks and media assets (from Rush to Fox) to distract uneducated voters with images of gay married liberal commie socialist terrorists.

They turned Ronald Reagan into a saint, yet his trickle down policies have destroyed the middle class, leaving the wealthy with the power to buy government and media. As a result, the elite create your laws and your opinions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Top 8% Own 85%

Republicans feel that's the way it should be.

No, Republicans feel it's nobody's business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of what?

That settling was cheaper. Prove it. Moron.

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

 

[Brain357]

That settling was cheaper. Prove it. Moron.

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

You really need to work on your math.

Still waiting on your proof. A link suggesting sometimes a company should settle isn't proof of anything.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

You really need to work on your math.

Still waiting on your proof. A link suggesting sometimes a company should settle isn't proof of anything.

Really so settling a 3 billion dollar law suit for 300 million is not a good deal

You can't figure out that 300 million is cheaper than 3 billion on your own?
and the recipients of the cash got about one one thousandth of the original asking price why did they settle for so little

 

[Skull Pilot]

Everyone knows this but here you go

https://www.hunton.com/files/News/2...a76a3a8/To_Settle_Or_Not_To_Settle_Law360.pdf

BAsically it makes sense to settle cases

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

You really need to work on your math.

Still waiting on your proof. A link suggesting sometimes a company should settle isn't proof of anything.

Do you really think that a 300 million dollar settlement from 4 companies collectively worth 1.3 trillion dollars was expensive for them?

So let me ask you another question you will refuse to answer if you were suing someone for 100 dollars and they offered you one penny would you settle? How about if you and 10 other people were suing?

Because that's what the lawyers for the plaintiffs did

 

[Brain357]

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

You really need to work on your math.

Still waiting on your proof. A link suggesting sometimes a company should settle isn't proof of anything.

Really so settling a 3 billion dollar law suit for 300 million is not a good deal

You can't figure out that 300 million is cheaper than 3 billion on your own?
and the recipients of the cash got about one one thousandth of the original asking price why did they settle for so little

So they were guilty and could expect to pay 3 billion at trial?

 

[Brain357]

Doesn't sound like the companies in question:
For some companies, particularly those now struggling with cash flow issues and tight credit markets, the cost of attorneys' fees alone is an important initial criterion.

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

You really need to work on your math.

Still waiting on your proof. A link suggesting sometimes a company should settle isn't proof of anything.

Do you really think that a 300 million dollar settlement from 4 companies collectively worth 1.3 trillion dollars was expensive for them?

So let me ask you another question you will refuse to answer if you were suing someone for 100 dollars and they offered you one penny would you settle? How about if you and 10 other people were suing?

Because that's what the lawyers for the plaintiffs did

Babbling again. You have no proof of any of your ridiculous claims.

 

[Andylusion]

The companies on the other end of the poaching, of course, lose knowledge and skills when their employees leave. Moreover, replacing employees creates labor competition and drives wages higher, and the fear of losing employees forces a firm to plan ahead for something that may or may not happen. So some companies have responded with aggressive, or even illegal, antipoaching strategies. In April 2015, a judge approved a $415 million settlement between several technology companies—including Apple and Google—and the approximately 64,000 tech employees they conspired not to hire from each other.

The suit assumes that 4 companies make up the ENTIRE market in IT

Sorry but that's not true those people had thousands of other companies to choose from

The only way you would be right is if every single IT company entered into non compete deals and that didn't happen and never will happen

Like it states, poaching drives up wages. They colluded against poaching. When it is many of the largest companies that holds down wages. You are dismissed moron.

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

My point was poaching doesn't drive wages up, or not poaching holds wages down.

There simply isn't enough poaching to be that wide of an effect on the market. Again, who do companies poach? The Timmy in the mail room? Or Executive Bob of the Engineering department?

The act of poaching itself, is a costly event, and one that is not always successful. You can spend tens of thousands, trying to get some guy to join your team, and end up with him being loyal to the company he's with.

Yes, for the specific individual who is poached, there is generally a pay bump, or they wouldn't switch jobs. But even without poaching, people switch jobs all the time.

And this entire conversation has nothing to do with crony capitalism. Crony Capitalism is specifically a description of people in business, having friends and relatives in government, who give them favors or special agreements. Al Gore and Occidental Petroleum, where Al Gore had thousands of dollars in Occidental Stock, and then gave them exclusive drilling rights on Federal Land in California. That's Crony Capitalism.

If you and me each have our own businesses, and you agree to work on the east side, and I on the west side, and we don't fight over territory, that's not Crony Capitalism.... that's just you and me having an agreement, and there is nothing wrong with it.

It's like you and I are not screaming and attacking each other on this forum. Is this Crony Debating? There's nothing wrong with such agreements, whether stated openly, or taken for granted.

What bugs me about this specific discussion, is that people on the left, are angry about what happens... no matter what happens.

If one company cuts prices undercutting the competition, you call it Predatory pricing.

If the company over prices the products compared to the competition, you call it Price Gouging.

And if two companies have the same price for their products, you call it Price Collusion.

So if they under price, price the same, or over price, you call it immoral and illegal. In short, no matter what the companies do, the left-wing complains about it.

 

[Andylusion]

That link you gave me was about companies agreeing not to poach high paid employees from each other not about colluding to lower wages for all their employees

So you really don't understand how workers get paid more in capitalism then.

It was not collusion to keep all their employees wages down as you claim but rather it was about non compete clauses

big difference

No it isn't a big difference. Companies pay less if they don't have to worry about losing workers. You really don't understand how capitalism is supposed to work.

It didn't impact every employee as you were saying

so it was no big deal and they still had to worry about losing people because they could have gone to any one of hundreds of IT companies that exist

Not the largest companies. What they were doing is illegal for a reason. Go learn about capitalism and then come discuss.

The largest companies? Being what, all of them? Every single large company on the face of the planet? Bull crap.

 

[Andylusion]

Take action..... and use the government to seize property, without compensation, from people that have committed no crime?
How do you suppose that is in any way constitutional?

WTF are you talking about?

I did not state or suggest any such thing.

I was not asking you, specifically.

Okay but I don't think anyone in the thread suggested anything close you what you are claiming.

How else do you fairly redistribute that wealth, if not by seizing it?

I have no desire to redistribute wealth. NONE....NONE....NONE....get it?????? I NEVER suggested such tyrannical foolishness, but apparently some think that anyone who opposes the current fraudulent system that has resulted in outrageous income inequality, must want socialism. WTF!!!

This from the same author I posted in the OP, makes sense to me...

Since all these distortions originate from the Fed, the only solution is to abolish the Fed. Those who have absorbed the ceaseless propaganda believe that an economy needs a central bank to create money and manage interest rates.

This is simply wrong. The U.S. Treasury (a branch of government actually described by the Constitution, unlike the Fed) could print money just as it borrows money. Should a liquidity crisis squeeze rates higher, the Treasury has the means to create liquidity and make it available to the legitimate financial system.

All the Fed's regulatory powers were power-grabbed from legitimate government agencies defined by the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve is the primary engine of income/wealth inequality in the U.S.Eliminate "free money for cronies," bailouts of the "too big to fail" banks that own the Fed, manipulation of markets, the purchase of impaired private assets at high prices, and all the other tools of financialization the Fed wields to enforce its grip on the nation's throat--in other words, abolish the Fed--and the neofeudal structure that feeds inequality will vanish along with the feudal lords that enforced it.

We don't need to "fix" things as much as remove the obstacles that are blocking the way forward. The Federal Reserve is the primary obstacle to reducing income/wealth inequality. Those who support the Fed are supporting a neofeudal arrangement that widens the income/wealth gap by its very existence.

Really..........

How exactly, does the Federal Reserve create income and wealth inequality? And why would getting rid of the Fed eliminate "too big to fail", or "free money for cronies"?

You realize that the only reason the GM Unions got a massive chunk of GM in the bankruptcy is because Obama directly controlled the bankruptcy process, and gave them most of GM? Given that truth, and I assume you are informed enough to know that, how would getting rid of the fed have changed that outcome?

 

[Andylusion]

Brain, you and I own tech companies. Over lunch we decided we won't recruit each other's employees by offering them higher wages. We can get all our other tech company buddies to do the same.

But we are not colluding. And we are not working to constrain wages.

We just practicing good ole honest American capitalism.
Aka; screw the worker.

Oh and that law suit we settled? We weren't guilty of anything other than getting caught. That's why we settled. We are innocent I tell ya. Innocent.

LMAO

But you can't.......... You can't get "ALL OTHER TECH COMPANIES" to not hire people at a higher wage.

You are crazy! Do you have any clue how many tech companies there are out there? And you think you are going to get all of them, to agree to not offer a higher wage? You are crazy!

 

[gipper]

WTF are you talking about?

I did not state or suggest any such thing.

I was not asking you, specifically.

Okay but I don't think anyone in the thread suggested anything close you what you are claiming.

How else do you fairly redistribute that wealth, if not by seizing it?

I have no desire to redistribute wealth. NONE....NONE....NONE....get it?????? I NEVER suggested such tyrannical foolishness, but apparently some think that anyone who opposes the current fraudulent system that has resulted in outrageous income inequality, must want socialism. WTF!!!

This from the same author I posted in the OP, makes sense to me...

Since all these distortions originate from the Fed, the only solution is to abolish the Fed. Those who have absorbed the ceaseless propaganda believe that an economy needs a central bank to create money and manage interest rates.

This is simply wrong. The U.S. Treasury (a branch of government actually described by the Constitution, unlike the Fed) could print money just as it borrows money. Should a liquidity crisis squeeze rates higher, the Treasury has the means to create liquidity and make it available to the legitimate financial system.

All the Fed's regulatory powers were power-grabbed from legitimate government agencies defined by the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve is the primary engine of income/wealth inequality in the U.S.Eliminate "free money for cronies," bailouts of the "too big to fail" banks that own the Fed, manipulation of markets, the purchase of impaired private assets at high prices, and all the other tools of financialization the Fed wields to enforce its grip on the nation's throat--in other words, abolish the Fed--and the neofeudal structure that feeds inequality will vanish along with the feudal lords that enforced it.

We don't need to "fix" things as much as remove the obstacles that are blocking the way forward. The Federal Reserve is the primary obstacle to reducing income/wealth inequality. Those who support the Fed are supporting a neofeudal arrangement that widens the income/wealth gap by its very existence.

Really..........

How exactly, does the Federal Reserve create income and wealth inequality? And why would getting rid of the Fed eliminate "too big to fail", or "free money for cronies"?

You realize that the only reason the GM Unions got a massive chunk of GM in the bankruptcy is because Obama directly controlled the bankruptcy process, and gave them most of GM? Given that truth, and I assume you are informed enough to know that, how would getting rid of the fed have changed that outcome?

Really?????

Ever heard of Quantitative Easing? You might want to check it out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I was not asking you, specifically.

Okay but I don't think anyone in the thread suggested anything close you what you are claiming.

How else do you fairly redistribute that wealth, if not by seizing it?

I have no desire to redistribute wealth. NONE....NONE....NONE....get it?????? I NEVER suggested such tyrannical foolishness, but apparently some think that anyone who opposes the current fraudulent system that has resulted in outrageous income inequality, must want socialism. WTF!!!

This from the same author I posted in the OP, makes sense to me...

Since all these distortions originate from the Fed, the only solution is to abolish the Fed. Those who have absorbed the ceaseless propaganda believe that an economy needs a central bank to create money and manage interest rates.

This is simply wrong. The U.S. Treasury (a branch of government actually described by the Constitution, unlike the Fed) could print money just as it borrows money. Should a liquidity crisis squeeze rates higher, the Treasury has the means to create liquidity and make it available to the legitimate financial system.

All the Fed's regulatory powers were power-grabbed from legitimate government agencies defined by the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve is the primary engine of income/wealth inequality in the U.S.Eliminate "free money for cronies," bailouts of the "too big to fail" banks that own the Fed, manipulation of markets, the purchase of impaired private assets at high prices, and all the other tools of financialization the Fed wields to enforce its grip on the nation's throat--in other words, abolish the Fed--and the neofeudal structure that feeds inequality will vanish along with the feudal lords that enforced it.

We don't need to "fix" things as much as remove the obstacles that are blocking the way forward. The Federal Reserve is the primary obstacle to reducing income/wealth inequality. Those who support the Fed are supporting a neofeudal arrangement that widens the income/wealth gap by its very existence.

Really..........

How exactly, does the Federal Reserve create income and wealth inequality? And why would getting rid of the Fed eliminate "too big to fail", or "free money for cronies"?

You realize that the only reason the GM Unions got a massive chunk of GM in the bankruptcy is because Obama directly controlled the bankruptcy process, and gave them most of GM? Given that truth, and I assume you are informed enough to know that, how would getting rid of the fed have changed that outcome?

Really?????

Ever heard of Quantitative Easing? You might want to check it out.

That did make some rich people richer, but it had no effect on the poorer.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Do you have any clue how many tech companies there are out there?

285,000.

And you think you are going to get all of them, to agree to not offer a higher wage?

Don't have to get all of them. Just the largest ones in the area.
You know, the ones that do most of the hiring.

 

[gipper]

Okay but I don't think anyone in the thread suggested anything close you what you are claiming.

How else do you fairly redistribute that wealth, if not by seizing it?

I have no desire to redistribute wealth. NONE....NONE....NONE....get it?????? I NEVER suggested such tyrannical foolishness, but apparently some think that anyone who opposes the current fraudulent system that has resulted in outrageous income inequality, must want socialism. WTF!!!

This from the same author I posted in the OP, makes sense to me...

Since all these distortions originate from the Fed, the only solution is to abolish the Fed. Those who have absorbed the ceaseless propaganda believe that an economy needs a central bank to create money and manage interest rates.

This is simply wrong. The U.S. Treasury (a branch of government actually described by the Constitution, unlike the Fed) could print money just as it borrows money. Should a liquidity crisis squeeze rates higher, the Treasury has the means to create liquidity and make it available to the legitimate financial system.

All the Fed's regulatory powers were power-grabbed from legitimate government agencies defined by the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve is the primary engine of income/wealth inequality in the U.S.Eliminate "free money for cronies," bailouts of the "too big to fail" banks that own the Fed, manipulation of markets, the purchase of impaired private assets at high prices, and all the other tools of financialization the Fed wields to enforce its grip on the nation's throat--in other words, abolish the Fed--and the neofeudal structure that feeds inequality will vanish along with the feudal lords that enforced it.

We don't need to "fix" things as much as remove the obstacles that are blocking the way forward. The Federal Reserve is the primary obstacle to reducing income/wealth inequality. Those who support the Fed are supporting a neofeudal arrangement that widens the income/wealth gap by its very existence.

Really..........

How exactly, does the Federal Reserve create income and wealth inequality? And why would getting rid of the Fed eliminate "too big to fail", or "free money for cronies"?

You realize that the only reason the GM Unions got a massive chunk of GM in the bankruptcy is because Obama directly controlled the bankruptcy process, and gave them most of GM? Given that truth, and I assume you are informed enough to know that, how would getting rid of the fed have changed that outcome?

Really?????

Ever heard of Quantitative Easing? You might want to check it out.

That did make some rich people richer, but it had no effect on the poorer.

Your point is?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There were other considerations as well you're just focusing on one

But in addition to legal fees and the possibility of huge payouts at the end of a trial, companies risk other damages when they fight employment litigation, said Mark Shank of Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail LLP, who refers to such damages as “hassle factors.

That is it? Seriously? If they were not guilty there would be no huge payout because they would win.

That's it?

The law suit was originally for 3 BILLION and you don't think settling for one one thousandth of that was cheaper?

Of course it was

The question is why did the plaintiffs settle for one one thousandth of their original price if they thought they had a good case?

You really need to work on your math.

Still waiting on your proof. A link suggesting sometimes a company should settle isn't proof of anything.

Really so settling a 3 billion dollar law suit for 300 million is not a good deal

You can't figure out that 300 million is cheaper than 3 billion on your own?
and the recipients of the cash got about one one thousandth of the original asking price why did they settle for so little

So they were guilty and could expect to pay 3 billion at trial?

No they weighed the risk benefit equation

Now unless you answer ny question as to why these people who were so egregiously hurt by these companies settled for so little we are done