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

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#161

Post by fundingshovel »

TomMckenny wrote: post #81
MaupitiBlue wrote: post #7

Arbitration isn’t necessarily bad for workers. Arbitrators tend to split the baby. So, if you have a weak case, you may come out ahead.

Employees only win some 20% of arbitration cases. It seems incredibly unlikely that 80% of cases are employees going through all this outlandish effort just for bogus claims. And if 20% is considered splitting the baby, I tremble to imagine what part the employee ends up with.

20% is far better than 1%

https://www.fastcompany.com/40440310/employees-win-very-few-...

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#162

Post by verbify »

evandijk70 wrote: post #160
verbify wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm struggling to follow your argument. You can also default on a payday loan - I think defaulting is better than the mafia, which is precisely the benefit of payday loans - they add in a step where you don't go to the mafia.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#163

Post by daddylonglegs »

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…

I was told that the mafia in the US lost a lot of business with the rise of credit cards but I can't find a source for that. Some researchers say that people turn to payday loans not only because they don't have access to bank loans but because the charging structure for payday loans is transparent and up-front:

"But most of the RiteCheck customers I interviewed had done the math and found that it was less expensive to use RiteCheck than to use a bank. In their experience, required minimum balances and fees for everything from ATM usage to account maintenance were going up."

https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/public...

PS I'm not sure I'd call the payday lenders savoury myself, though they be less unsavoury than loan sharks.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#164

Post by CogitoCogito »

ambulancechaser wrote: post #158
CogitoCogito wrote: post #155

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. 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.

> 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.

I know this is the case and I believe it is generally the way it should be (ecxept of course the fact that the agreements can be entered into prior to the disputes). I was responding to the devil’s post by basically pointing what you wrote here.

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

I’m not sure what point you’re making here. I think that agreements by parties to restrict themselves to arbitration regarding disputes that have not yet arisen should be legally unenforceable. I think it would improve the arbitration system in every way. (This was essentially the argument of my first post.) Are you disagreeing with me?

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#165

Post by TheCoelacanth »

lucozade wrote: post #110
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?

It's only absurd if you waive a right that is beneficial to you. In the EU we have a legal right to work no more than 30-something hours (I don't recall the exact figure). Now, I'm fine with the idea that no-one should be forced to work excessive hours. So I have no issue with a right of this type existing. But that's different from me choosing to work particular hours. So, in my case, that right is a restriction to…

You shouldn't be able to waive any right preemptively. If you choose to waive the right to trial for a current case or choose to waive the right to not work over 30 hours for now, that is fine. If you can waive the right to ever go to court or permanently waive the right to not work more than 30 hours, that is a problem.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#166

Post by TheCoelacanth »

fundingshovel wrote: post #161
TomMckenny wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees only win some 20% of arbitration cases. It seems incredibly unlikely that 80% of cases are employees going through all this outlandish effort just for bogus claims. And if 20% is considered splitting the baby, I tremble to imagine what part the employee ends up with.

20% is far better than 1% https://www.fastcompany.com/40440310/employees-win-very-few-...

1. That is only "civil rights lawsuits", probably one of the hardest kinds of cases to win.

2. You left out the 78% "likely settlement" category. Many of those are victories for the employee, just not the maximum possible victory.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#167

Post by learc83 »

ambulancechaser wrote: post #158
CogitoCogito wrote: post #155

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. 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.

>Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.

Unless because of career specialization, location, imperfect markets...whatever, you only have access to employers who insist on arbitration as part of the terms of employment.

One side agreed to it, and one side was coerced into agreeing to it.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#168

Post by lucozade »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #165
lucozade wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only absurd if you waive a right that is beneficial to you. In the EU we have a legal right to work no more than 30-something hours (I don't recall the exact figure). Now, I'm fine with the idea that no-one should be forced to work excessive hours. So I have no issue with a right of this type existing. But that's different from me choosing to work particular hours. So, in my case, that right is a restriction to…

You shouldn't be able to waive any right preemptively. If you choose to waive the right to trial for a current case or choose to waive the right to not work over 30 hours for now, that is fine. If you can waive the right to ever go to court or permanently waive the right to not work more than 30 hours, that is a problem.

There's no "ever" here. I choose to waive my right within my existing contract.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#169

Post by coryfklein »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #148
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…

> 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…

> If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them.

This is certainly true, but many parties are mutually benefited by resolving some disputes via a neutral arbiter rather than the courts. It's just another example of where private companies can be more efficient than legal bodies.

There are just more inherent costs in a legal court of law.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#170

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

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.

I should have phrased it better. I am not talking about an arbitration case itself, but the decision to use arbitration as the means for settling disputes. If company decides to use arbitration in 2018, then in 2020, they are not allowed to change their mind to not use arbitration. Deciding to use arbitration locks the company in. Thus, the various arbitration providers don't have any concern that if their decisions are not friendly to the company the company will stop using their services.
Post reply on HN