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

31–40 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#31

Post by dvtrn »

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.

Why isn't forced arbitration illegal?

We're getting there: https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-alerts-kentucky-bec...

States still hold a lot of chips when it comes to rulemaking over what is and isn't allowed w/rt employment types and agreements. It's a bit murky though, when it comes to Federal power weighing in on employment contracts at the state level (outside of things you've come to expect like protected classes/EEOC, workplace safety, and accomodations/accessibility for workers with physical impairments).

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#32

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

There’s no scenario where a legal proceeding between employee and a large company is fair. The main advantage of court is the ability to appeal and the public nature of the proceedings.

The only fair fight is if you have a competent union. That comes with its own problems.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#33

Post by dtech »

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.

Arbitration comes from agreements on how to settle future disputes being legal [1]. If two company agree to settle through a chess match between their CEOs instead of suing, by all means let them.

This is obviously problematic in cases where there is a significant power discrepancy (employee-employer, producer-consumer etc), or where arbitrators are paid by a single party. Despite this, US suspreme court has held that they are still valid [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Systems_Corp._v._Lewis

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#34

Post by ergothus »

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…

> collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors?

I'm all for balancing the employeremployee interaction, but is this truly something that works for most industries? Google cares about it's reputation among potential tech employees. Other areas (say, Amazon warehouses) probably have a lot less trouble finding people desperate for work and willing to put up with crap because they need the jobs.

As good as this news is, is this really a template that we can expect much to build from? (as opposed to organized unions with legally protected ability to strike, for example)

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#35

Post by sand500 »

dtech wrote: post #33
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.

Arbitration comes from agreements on how to settle future disputes being legal [1]. If two company agree to settle through a chess match between their CEOs instead of suing, by all means let them. This is obviously problematic in cases where there is a significant power discrepancy (employee-employer, producer-consumer etc), or where arbitrators are paid by a single party. Despite this, US suspreme court has held tha…

Sure but let anyone do voluntary arbitration not forced.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#36

Post by briandear »

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.

> You're effectively agreeing..

You are agreeing. As an adult, the choice to agree or not agree to conditions of a private transaction seem to be a fundamental liberty. If people didn’t agree and it affected recruitment, then companies would respond accordingly. Also, without arbitration, conceivably that could result in a lower offered salary to offset the risk of litigation. Given that the vast majority of employees never care about suing, the higher salary is a better outcome most of the time. Banning forced arbitration is necessarily going to increase employee costs to a company, which means less money to pay people much in the same way higher health costs affect salaries as well. I don’t agree with forced arbitration, but making it illegal disrupts the freedom of employees and employers to engage in agreements how they see fit. Without arbitration, you get a lower salary, all else being equal, which is essentially a form of insurance against the possibility that you might sue. Some people might be ok with that, but that choice should be between the employee and the employer; it isn’t government’s place to get involved.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#37

Post by enraged_camel »

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…

>>Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-)

This is why we need unions, period.

edit: It’s always amusing to see HN readers start pant-shitting whenever someone posts a comment in support of unions. :)

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#38

Post by Symmetry »

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.

Averaged across distinct contracts (as opposed to contract-instances) forced arbitration is a very good thing. If Google and Microsoft get into a dispute about the meaning of some agreement they signed they it's far better that they get some third party to quickly resolve the issue than that they have to spend years and millions of dollars in legal fees fighting it out in the courts. It's only when these agreements are imposed rather than negotiated that they become abusive.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#39

Post by Spooky23 »

mLuby wrote: post #8
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?

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.

Many union contracts call for arbitration. The advantages in that scenario is that it is faster and more definitive. Usually unions and management have some sort of process to pick the arbitrator in a manner deemed acceptable.

Advantages are speed, privacy and cost. You also avoid the political risk of the court district that you are in.

In an individual vs company situation, it’s always better for the employer, unless the employee can hire the arbitrator. If the company hires the person, that arbitrator may find it difficult to get future work if they side with the company.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#40

Post by whiddershins »

sand500 wrote: post #35
dtech wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitration comes from agreements on how to settle future disputes being legal [1]. If two company agree to settle through a chess match between their CEOs instead of suing, by all means let them. This is obviously problematic in cases where there is a significant power discrepancy (employee-employer, producer-consumer etc), or where arbitrators are paid by a single party. Despite this, US suspreme court has held tha…

Sure but let anyone do voluntary arbitration not forced.

It’s voluntary whether or not to agree ahead of time to be bound by a conflict resolution method should such conflict arise in the future.
Post reply on HN