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

51–60 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#51

Post by anth_anm »

dvtrn wrote: post #31
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…

I thought that SCOTUS already ruled that the federal arbitration act gives states little power in this?

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#52

Post by srkmno »

Whatever your thoughts about arbitration there is no denying that it's the quicker and cheaper method, what this unfortunate development accomplishes is enlarging the pool of well to do clients and plaintiffs for the lawyers to exploit.

In a related note: organized labor almost killed the US car industry, when economical foreign cars got popular, domestic car companies couldn't quickly make the necessary adjustments to compete with the foreign product largely because of the inertia of union agreements.

Labor unions are adversarial to change and innovation and especially in this era there is no place for them and hopefully automation will eradicate them completely, it's disheartening that many HN commenters would support such antiquated and inefficient agreements.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#54

Post by anth_anm »

briandear wrote: post #36
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 employee…

Companies shouldn't be allowed to have you sign away your constitutional rights like this.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#55

Post by dvtrn »

anth_anm wrote: post #51
dvtrn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought that SCOTUS already ruled that the federal arbitration act gives states little power in this?

Oh? You may be entirely right, if that's the case, this fact completely eluded me and I'll take the correction.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#56

Post by anth_anm »

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.

Not having forced arbitration doesn't mean you can't agree to arbitration voluntarily.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#57

Post by CobrastanJorji »

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 idealistic take is that the United States is a country that maximizes freedom, which includes the freedom to enter into whatever contracts you wish. You aren't forced to take a job that requires you to waive your right to sue; you're choosing to do it. If it were too important, capitalism suggests that another employer would show up, offer you a little less pay and no arbitration clause, and everybody would work for that company instead.

In practice, this isn't how life works, but that's the theoretical reason. The real reason is that pro-corporate politicians hold power and corporations want arbitration agreements to be legal, largely because courts are more expensive, bad PR, and are less likely to work out in their favor.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#58

Post by anth_anm »

Spooky23 wrote: post #39
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.

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, unle…

The difference in that case if you have a union on your side to help ensure that you get a fair arbiter and a fair process.

Without that, it's all on the company.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#59

Post by fooker »

everdev wrote: post #47
m0zg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 bu…

> "happens to be owned by Google" disclaimers on open source projects Not sure I've seen this before, do you have examples?

https://github.com/google/souper

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#60

Post by jdmichal »

srkmno wrote: post #52

Whatever your thoughts about arbitration there is no denying that it's the quicker and cheaper method, what this unfortunate development accomplishes is enlarging the pool of well to do clients and plaintiffs for the lawyers to exploit. In a related note: organized labor almost killed the US car industry, when economical foreign cars got popular, domestic car companies couldn't quickly make the necessary adjustments…

This is removing forced arbitration. Parties can still agree to settle a case via arbitration. But now it will actually be an agreement between the two parties for a particular case, as opposed to a blanket contractual obligation with unbalanced power dynamics.
Post reply on HN