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

Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#21

Post by cma »

luckydata wrote: post #15
CydeWeys wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe arbitration is still optional. If you're an employee, there's no benefit whatsoever to forced arbitration.

Optional as long as you're ok not having a job. I have yet to sign a contract with any SV company that doesn't include forced arbitration.

His point is if it is such a net win for everyone, then you can simply agree to it at the time the lawsuit is being put together. The forced clause where you pre-agree to it is because they know it isn't always a benefit to both parties. Corporations often push for the forced clause and employees almost never do.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#22

Post by munificent »

luckydata wrote: post #15
CydeWeys wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe arbitration is still optional. If you're an employee, there's no benefit whatsoever to forced arbitration.

Optional as long as you're ok not having a job. I have yet to sign a contract with any SV company that doesn't include forced arbitration.

...this is literally what the article is about.

It's saying Google is removing forced arbitration from its employment contract.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#23

Post by docker_up »

I would be perfectly fine with forced arbitration that was perfectly fair and not skewed towards the employer. The problem with forced arbitration is that it's completely skewed towards the employers. Being able to have a fairly arbitrated conflict that was inexpensive and had looser rules than a formal lawsuit would be a benefit to all. Look at how small claims court is so much more efficient and fair than a regular lawsuit.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#24

Post by mehrdadn »

vertex-four wrote: post #17
mLuby wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much cheaper, faster, and more private for all parties, plus I believe it prevents class action lawsuits. And don't forget the possibility that the arbitrators (who are paid by the company) favor their benefactor… For example, you mention sexual harassment; the victim (and certainly the accused) might not want all those details in the public record.

The thing is, if the employer and the employee both wanted arbitration, neither would need to be forced into it - something along the lines of "arbitration is always available as an option with consent of all parties" written into the contract would be perfectly fine.

It wouldn't even need to be in the contract would it? They'd just both agree at the time of the dispute.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#25

Post by 40acres »

This has low key been a big year for labor in tech. First we have Amazon backing out of NYC partly due to political pressure from the unions and wins like this vs. Google. Full blown unionization may never happen but the forces of labor are definitely starting to affect tech giants.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#26

Post by syn0byte »

ddxxdd wrote: post #3

Someone please explain to me the benefits of having forced arbitration at all; what's the benefit of having disputes (including sexual harassment disputes) resolved behind closed doors without any possibility of appeal?

Employees only win 21% of the time. Almost half as often as federal courts and over half in state courts.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/#ep...

Plus, private arbitration is private. The terrible things the companies do to employees don't end up on public records. You can't even tell how often they are being taken to inverse kangaroo court.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#27

Post by m0zg »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #10

Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-) I'm really glad to hear that Google made this step, now if they would drop the overly expansive ownership claim in their employment agreement and the right to surveillance on personal property it would be a much more employee friendly place. I also hope that it gives them an edge in hiring which wou…

>> overly expansive ownership claim

Yeah, that particular clause gave me a looong pause before signing their contract, in fact I even seriously considered taking one of the other offers I had. This is why you see all those "happens to be owned by Google" disclaimers on open source projects. This means the person wrote this code on their own time, yet it's owned by Google anyway, which IMO is total employee-hostile bullshit.

I would not sign something like that contract today. At the time, though, the money differential and the allure of having Google on my resume outweighed the concerns. I have since discovered other companies can be a lot less possessive of the stuff I build on my own time and dime.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#29

Post by nimish »

riffraff wrote: post #19

Why isn't forced arbitration illegal? You're effectively agreeing to renounce to your rights to sue a company. Seems odd that US laws allows that. Or, is the clause only that arbitration has to be attempted but not binding to the fact that an agreement may be reached? This case would seem far less evil.

The Federal Arbitration Act, and a SCOTUS favorable to corporate interests.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#30

Post by deogeo »

docker_up wrote: post #23

I would be perfectly fine with forced arbitration that was perfectly fair and not skewed towards the employer. The problem with forced arbitration is that it's completely skewed towards the employers. Being able to have a fairly arbitrated conflict that was inexpensive and had looser rules than a formal lawsuit would be a benefit to all. Look at how small claims court is so much more efficient and fair than a regular…

I'd much rather expand the domain of small claims court, than create a parallel, privately-owned legal system. Even if it started out perfectly fair.
Post reply on HN