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

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#111

Post by daddylonglegs »

siruncledrew wrote: post #22
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…

IANAL, but why not just have a special labor court with more judges to be the nonbiased arbitrators? Or use retired judges to be like “independent contractor” arbitrators as a special division of the courts? (I’m also not sure what the requirements to be an arbitrator are so please correct me).

In England and Wales there are Employment Tribunals. These are run by a government appointed judges in an informal manner that should let people represent themselves. They include a conciliation service.

There are time limits on when a claim can be made and - if monetary compensation is ordered - how much can be paid out [1][2].

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/empl...

In 2012 the government imposed a £1200 (from memory) fee for taking a case to tribunal. So a low wage employee without union representation who was harassed out of a job or unfairly dismissed would have to: File a complaint while looking for a new job. Pay the fees during or after a period of involuntary unemployment. Prepare their case while working their new job. Arrange time off for themselves (and witnesses) and pay for transport to the hearing(s). Make their case. Possibly receive compensation totalling a few thousand pounds.

Claims dropped a lot and it was five years before the Supreme Court told the government to knock it off.

It's rough (and precarious) at the bottom. There have also been large cut backs in legal aid for dealing with the "proper" courts (and not just for civil cases[3]).

[1] The tribunal can also order an unfair employer to give the employee their job back or change their employment conditions.

[2] I think there are differences for cases involving some forms of discrimination.

[3] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/nigel-evans-rues-backing-fo...

Edit: formatting.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#112

Post by verbify »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #106
verbify wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An underappreciated facet of payday loans is that without them desperate people would borrow from unsavoury people - making them illegal drives the high risk loan business underground into the hands of the Mafia. And then the consequences for the desperate people for defaulting is no longer bankruptcy, but broken legs or worse. I agree we should have less of it, but all legislation should be mindful of the consequenc…

Why not cap the maximumum interest rates? Switzerland, not really a communist hell hole and quite liberal in economic matters, for example, caps annual interest rates at 15% annually. You don't see more broken legs than anywhere else.

If you cap maximum interest rates then people who are deemed too 'high risk' will be refused credit. As a result, they will seek credit elsewhere.

Switzerland is a wealthy low-crime country to start with, the mafia do not have a strong hold. For example the homicide rate in Switzerland is 0.54 per 100,000 people, by comparison in the United States it is 5.35 per 100,000 people.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#113

Post by wildmusings »

learc83 wrote: post #87
daveFNbuck wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming arbitration is also cheaper for potential plantifs, and assuming a truly neutral arbitrator, then that's not likely true. Court costs are a greater barrier to the side that doesn't have a full time legal team.

Not exactly. Most plaintiffs attorneys are working on contingency, i.e. a percent of the judgment. Going to court costs the plaintiffs themselves nothing. They only need to have a case with a decent enough chance of winning or settling for enough to make it worth the plaintiff attorney’s time.

Also, almost no one has in house litigators. So companies being sued also have to shell out for counsel by the hour.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#114

Post by [deleted] »

koolba wrote: post #23
siruncledrew wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but why not just have a special labor court with more judges to be the nonbiased arbitrators? Or use retired judges to be like “independent contractor” arbitrators as a special division of the courts? (I’m also not sure what the requirements to be an arbitrator are so please correct me).

> (I’m also not sure what the requirements to be an arbitrator are so please correct me). It most cases the only requirement is a pulse. There’s usually no mandatory legal or industry training.

[deleted]

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#115

Post by beaconstudios »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #106
verbify wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An underappreciated facet of payday loans is that without them desperate people would borrow from unsavoury people - making them illegal drives the high risk loan business underground into the hands of the Mafia. And then the consequences for the desperate people for defaulting is no longer bankruptcy, but broken legs or worse. I agree we should have less of it, but all legislation should be mindful of the consequenc…

Why not cap the maximumum interest rates? Switzerland, not really a communist hell hole and quite liberal in economic matters, for example, caps annual interest rates at 15% annually. You don't see more broken legs than anywhere else.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation. Any lower and you're essentially providing handouts - there's an argument to be had for that too (e.g. UBI, negative income tax) but it's a separate topic.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#116

Post by CaptainZapp »

beaconstudios wrote: post #115
CaptainZapp wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not cap the maximumum interest rates? Switzerland, not really a communist hell hole and quite liberal in economic matters, for example, caps annual interest rates at 15% annually. You don't see more broken legs than anywhere else.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation. Any lower and you're essentially providing handouts - there's an argument to be had for that too (e.g. UBI, negative income tax) but it's a separate topic.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation

Add: Plus a profit to that

But that seems to be covered. There are multiple banks who will provide credit to consumers at lower interest rates than that and obviously still can make a profit.

Car loans are usually lower than that. Mortgages go for between 1 1/4 and 2% (last time I looked).

The maximum rate of 15% is usually applicable for credit card debts.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#117

Post by mortehu »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #101
philwelch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absurd that you can actually waive any of your legal rights.. "You have the right to remain silent. So, we're just gonna go home now. Bye." A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit.

> A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit. This is one of the silliest sentences I've read today. An obligation is you had to do something. While a right is something you can choose to exercise or not. With the right to be silent, you never waive that right as in they can never force you not to be silent. What you do is you exercise your…

Using your interpretation, the inability to waive a right means nothing.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#118

Post by morganvachon »

bloak wrote: post #96
ldiracdelta wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we reduce the court load by instituting loser-pays tort reform.

Beware of this. "Loser pays", implemented literally, would be a bad thing. What you should do, which is what England has, is "the party whose unreasonable behaviour led to the case coming to court pays". Can someone suggest a concise way of expressing that, to help voters avoid a bad tort reform? In case it's not obvious, here's an example of where it matters. Alice damages Bob's car. Bob offers to settle for £100. A…

> In case it's not obvious, here's an example of where it matters. Alice damages Bob's car. Bob offers to settle for £100. Alice says, no, I want £500. Bob says, don't be silly, you can have £150, though that's too much, in my opinion. Alice sues Bob. The court decides that Alice should be compensated, so Alice "wins", and damages should be £80. Who should pay the court costs of £500? (And what if the damages were £300?)

Ok, you lost me on the part where the at-fault party (Alice) is owed compensation by the not-at-fault party (Bob). This makes absolutely no sense.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#119

Post by johnnyfaehell »

mortehu wrote: post #117
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit. This is one of the silliest sentences I've read today. An obligation is you had to do something. While a right is something you can choose to exercise or not. With the right to be silent, you never waive that right as in they can never force you not to be silent. What you do is you exercise your…

Using your interpretation, the inability to waive a right means nothing.

Not really. If I have a right to sue and I waive that right and I am not longer able to sue then waiving the right means a lot. Since I am not longer able to choose, I no longer have that right.

Also, I am pretty sure these are definitions and not interpretations. (According to the Oxford dictionary)

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#120

Post by glogla »

verbify wrote: post #102
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.

An underappreciated facet of payday loans is that without them desperate people would borrow from unsavoury people - making them illegal drives the high risk loan business underground into the hands of the Mafia. And then the consequences for the desperate people for defaulting is no longer bankruptcy, but broken legs or worse. I agree we should have less of it, but all legislation should be mindful of the consequenc…

"Payday loans - we're slightly better than mafia!"

You might want to rethink that slogan.

Post reply on HN