Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#11

Post by cryptonector »

Aqua wrote: post #8

It's absurd that you can actually waive any of your legal rights... Seriously, this is bonkers. After the #MeToo movement revealed that forced arbitration has been used to keep sexual harassment complaints quiet, a handful of companies, including Google and Facebook Inc., agreed to get rid of it for harassment claims Wow, how noble of them. How about getting rid of all of that BS?

Waiving your right to first go to court seems reasonable enough provided you cannot waive the right to appeal arbitration in court.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#12

Post by dcosson »

jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

Aren't there already systems in place within the legal system to allow this? Like small claims court or appealing a parking ticket, where you present the case to one judge and they decide rather than holding a full trial before a jury.

I don't see why relying on one arbiter saves any more time than relying on one judge. Is it that the arbiter would be less qualified/lower paid than a judge?

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#13

Post by learc83 »

jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them.

So even if companies don't pick the arbitrator, arbitrators still have an incentive to find in favor of companies.

Additionally, small claims court already basically works like what you're describing, no jury just one arbitrator not picked by either side--the judge.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#14

Post by jedberg »

learc83 wrote: post #13
jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them. So even if companies don't pick the arbitrator, arbitrators still have an incentive to find in favor of companies. Additionally, small claims court already basically works like what you're describing…

> The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies.

That's only because they are paid by the companies (and picked by the companies). If the companies didn't pick and the payment came out of the disputed amount or the loser paid, then they wouldn't have an incentive to favor the company.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#15

Post by jedberg »

dcosson wrote: post #12
jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

Aren't there already systems in place within the legal system to allow this? Like small claims court or appealing a parking ticket, where you present the case to one judge and they decide rather than holding a full trial before a jury. I don't see why relying on one arbiter saves any more time than relying on one judge. Is it that the arbiter would be less qualified/lower paid than a judge?

It's basically small claims court except with possibly less qualified people and for larger amounts of money.

Small claims is like that specifically because it is a small amount of money.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#16

Post by alistairSH »

dcosson wrote: post #12
jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

Aren't there already systems in place within the legal system to allow this? Like small claims court or appealing a parking ticket, where you present the case to one judge and they decide rather than holding a full trial before a jury. I don't see why relying on one arbiter saves any more time than relying on one judge. Is it that the arbiter would be less qualified/lower paid than a judge?

Small claims is capped at very small values. $5000 in VA. $5000 (corporation) or $10000 (individual) in CA. Too low for sexual harassment or other career-impacting transgressions by an employer.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#17

Post by maxlybbert »

dcosson wrote: post #12
jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

Aren't there already systems in place within the legal system to allow this? Like small claims court or appealing a parking ticket, where you present the case to one judge and they decide rather than holding a full trial before a jury. I don't see why relying on one arbiter saves any more time than relying on one judge. Is it that the arbiter would be less qualified/lower paid than a judge?

To be legal, arbitration must be fair and protect the legal rights of both parties (although enforcing that requirement is obviously difficult). But arbitration doesn’t have to be as formal as a regular court, and that informality is supposed to save a lot of money, so US law actually prefers arbitration when it’s an option.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#18

Post by sjg007 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #3

Arbitration agreements are a massive, massive scam and the fact that they can be forced as part of your employment contract needs to go. It allows companies to sweep away shitty corporate behavior and avoid addressing the actual issues with their workplace in addition to overwhelmingly tilting the system against employees.

This is why you unionize.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#19

Post by learc83 »

jedberg wrote: post #14
learc83 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them. So even if companies don't pick the arbitrator, arbitrators still have an incentive to find in favor of companies. Additionally, small claims court already basically works like what you're describing…

> The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. That's only because they are paid by the companies (and picked by the companies). If the companies didn't pick and the payment came out of the disputed amount or the loser paid, then they wouldn't have an incentive to favor the company.

I think you may have missed the rest of my comment.
Post reply on HN