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

71–80 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#71

Post by [deleted] »

learc83 wrote: post #61
munchbunny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restructuring arbitration for neutrality and thus cannibalizing arbitration as an industry seems like a fine outcome to me. Feels a bit like the payday loan industry: I'm sure it does some people some good, but it's largely just predatory and throws people into a rigged game. We'd be better off with less of it.

I'm fine with doing away with arbitration in most cases, but I'd rather just do that directly. My point is that it's hard to enforce neutrality, because there is always an implicit incentive for arbitrators to find in favor of big companies. Even if those companies aren't directly choosing a specific arbitrator, big companies in the aggregate are the ones primarily driving the business.

[deleted]

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#72

Post by mindslight »

Apocryphon wrote: post #36
sjg007 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you unionize.

Seriously. I wonder what alternative solution that union skeptics have to offer for this problem.

Straightforward regulation?? Binding arbitration goes against logic, which is presumably more fundamental than even common law.

In a way, unionization is really just one step up from that "vote with your dollars" tripe, and we know how well that works. I'm not categorically rejecting it, just highlighting that it's more of a stopgap than a solution.

For instance, why wouldn't a union's management adopt the same kind of disenfranchisement clauses in case you try to sue them? You know, to keep dues down and all that.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#73

Post by jbottoms »

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.

An article in Harvard Negotiation Law Review points out that courts can order arbitration if both parties agree to it, but cannot control the mechanisms of the arbitration. Therefore, if the company is paying any portion of the arbitrator's fee and the company is not leading in the process, they can elect to not pay the arbitrator's fee. In which case the arbitration fails and the case is dismissed. It appears to be in the plaintiff's interest to prefer mediation over arbitration. In essence, arbitration is broken.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#74

Post by lsc »

windexh8er wrote: post #6
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.

My rule of thumb is if I can't opt out of arbitration then I can't work for you. Most established orgs give you a grace period after start date to request opt-out to legal and I've run into no flack for doing just that. However I've learned from experience that it is critical to not be bound by it - especially if your pay is tied to a metric or a quota and/or a portion of your package is options/RSUs.

so... serious question, and I'm asking you, 'cause it sounds like you are implying that you've sued your employer. is suing your employer a seriously career-impairing move? I mean, I think most court proceedings are public records, and it seems like if the fact that you sued your last employer for something came up in your background check, I personally assume that'd be as bad or worse than an old felony conviction, from the employer's perspective.

Are people who sued their employer a protected class in the USA, or is there some other reason why this isn't a career-ending event?

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#77

Post by gcb0 »

lsc wrote: post #74
windexh8er wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rule of thumb is if I can't opt out of arbitration then I can't work for you. Most established orgs give you a grace period after start date to request opt-out to legal and I've run into no flack for doing just that. However I've learned from experience that it is critical to not be bound by it - especially if your pay is tied to a metric or a quota and/or a portion of your package is options/RSUs.

so... serious question, and I'm asking you, 'cause it sounds like you are implying that you've sued your employer. is suing your employer a seriously career-impairing move? I mean, I think most court proceedings are public records, and it seems like if the fact that you sued your last employer for something came up in your background check, I personally assume that'd be as bad or worse than an old felony conviction,…

it probably won't impact you.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#78

Post by gcb0 »

narrator wrote: post #43
rectang wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burying the opposition in legal fees is only available to parties with the financial resources to keep their lawyers going. The vast majority of the time, it is companies employing this stratagem, not individuals.

It's different when it's a bootstrapped startup though.

so, because in this one time the company was as vulnerable as the person, the law is.... what? I can't even guess where you were going with your point!

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#79

Post by scarejunba »

vkou wrote: post #59
Apocryphon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. I wonder what alternative solution that union skeptics have to offer for this problem.

They'll tell you that nobody's forcing you to work for a company that requires you to undergo forced arbitration. I tell them that nobody's forcing them to work for a union shop.

Yes, I'm certainly not against a union-optional situation. If specific companies want to be union-only, that's fine by me. I'll go work elsewhere. If those companies can change their minds and admit scabs, that's okay by me.

If a bunch of people want to group together to bargain, that's their right. I've gotten together with my co-workers and spoken to bosses before. The only problem is when state regulation is used to enforce this. I'm not okay with that.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#80

Post by daveFNbuck »

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…

Arbitration is also a lot cheaper than going to court, so companies would save money on arbitration even if arbiters were slightly less likely to side with them than courts.
Post reply on HN