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

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#151

Post by hopler »

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.

[flagged]

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#152

Post by hopler »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that could fix this would be making the decision for arbitration binding on companies. Basically, once a company picks arbitration, it can’t ever go back. Then make it so someone other than the company picks the arbiter. This would go a long way towards removing perverse incentives.

> One thing that could fix this would be making the decision for arbitration binding on companies This is how arbitration works. Non-binding arbitration is called mediation, and is basically glorified group therapy.

You denigrate it but it works well in many situations where parties want to rea b a profitable agreement.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#153

Post by hopler »

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?

Yes. For example to NLRB and CFPB and the FTC and the EPA and every other agency the curtains us govt is trying to kill.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#154

Post by hopler »

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).

We have the NLRB

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#155

Post by CogitoCogito »

pc86 wrote: post #150
CogitoCogito wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. Honestly I think it does _not_ make sense. If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them. > 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 judg…

I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. I don't think that's enough of a reason to disagree with your point but it's certainly one to consider, especially if one side has a lot more resources and jurisdictionally eac…

> I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees.

Honestly I think that you shouldn't have any inherent right to arbitration. You should have a right to access to a court. Arbitration should only there if both parties agree to it. If one party doesn't agree because they want to make it more expensive for you, so be it. I mean I can't really see what's fundamentally different than someone deciding they want to force you to a court trial for that reason versus them forcing you for another reason. It's just a legal strategy at the end of the day. If they are truly acting in bad will, they should be assessed court fees down the road. I know that that's difficult in the US court system, but that is a problem that should be fixed with the court system not by just side-stepping it with arbitration.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#156

Post by tboyd47 »

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…

American court decisions are strongly based on precedent. If these contests were to move through the court system naturally for a few years, don't you think that over time the volume of work would diminish as each decision became precedent for the next?

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#158

Post by ambulancechaser »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #155
pc86 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. I don't think that's enough of a reason to disagree with your point but it's certainly one to consider, especially if one side has a lot more resources and jurisdictionally eac…

> I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. Honestly I think that you shouldn't have any inherent right to arbitration. You should have a right to access to a court. Arbitration should only there if both parties agree…

You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it.

Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#159

Post by learc83 »

wildmusings wrote: post #113
learc83 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Most plaintiffs attorneys are working on contingency.

I very much doubt that. The vast majority of disputes that would end up in arbitration are smaller contract disputes, not personal injury claims.

>Also, almost no one has in house litigators.

They have counsel on retainer, and some companies still do. All big companies would if forcing customers and employees to accept arbitration wasn't an option.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#160

Post by evandijk70 »

verbify wrote: post #112
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.

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.

Most people will default before they will go to the mafia, which I think is a better solution than a payday loan
Post reply on HN