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

71–80 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#71

Post by JohnFen »

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…

Yes, at the heart of it, this is the problem. As an employee, an arbitration clause realistically means that the only recourse you have is through what amounts to a kangaroo court run for the benefit of the employer.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#72

Post by everdev »

Datenstrom wrote: post #66
everdev wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't have one on hand but I have seen quite a few. I have heard that they are mostly 20% time projects though I'm not sure if they try to take code written on your own time but it looks like they do (and anything else you have written before working there) from this: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/

> As part of your employment agreement, Google most likely owns intellectual property (IP) you create while at the company. Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google.

Just to be clear, it says "new" development while you're employed by Google, they don't claim to retroactively own your prior works pre-employment. I'm sure they ask you to declare it though so it's clear what you built before joining.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#73

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> there is no denying that it's the quicker and cheaper method

I don't think anyone is disputing that. The problem is that "cheaper" and "faster" comes with the cost of injustice.

> Labor unions are adversarial to change and innovation and especially in this era there is no place for them

Why not? What replaces them? The entire point of unions is to try to correct the serious power imbalance between employer and employee, an imbalance that historically (and currently) has been eagerly leveraged against employees.

What sort of protection against this would you recommend? Much stricter regulation?

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#74

Post by enraged_camel »

everdev wrote: post #44
enraged_camel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. :)

But didn't they make this happen without a union?

Yes, but only because software engineers generally have more leverage than employees in other fields.

(I meant "we" as in "our society".)

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#75

Post by Aunche »

syn0byte wrote: post #26
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.

Arbitration is also far cheaper than court. The average person filing a lawsuit is going to be much more confident than one going through arbitration, so of course, lawsuits end up being more successful.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#76

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#77

Post by 40acres »

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 a strange comment and something I see a lot in online forums, I guess you could characterize this as the "slippery slope" or "worst case scenario" argument. Unions have no power in big tech right now, none of the top tech companies have something resembling a union -- and yet even the discussion of unionization within the tech industry, despite some really terrible working conditions for "auxiliary" tech workers (ride share drivers, fulfillment center workers, delivery app drivers) and "core" workers (ageism anyone?) the slight mention of unionization and/or collective bargaining brings up these types of scenarios. Unionization in tech is not going to look like it does in other industries, I can't help but wonder why some folks shoot it discussions so quickly with this type of argument.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#78

Post by joshuamorton »

jahn716 wrote: post #63
defen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the right to surveillance on personal property Wait, what? I don't think I've seen that before, what does this mean exactly?

I had the exact same reaction. Shouldn't this worry the employees the most?

I work at Google and have absolutely no clue what he's referring to.

My best guess is that it has something to do with the permissions you give Google if you add a work profile/account to your phone. But that isn't required.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#79

Post by xiphias2 »

Symmetry wrote: post #38
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 a…

You mean arbitration is a good thing. Yes it is. Forced arbitration is taking away the option of going to court.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#80

Post by srkmno »

40acres wrote: post #77
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 a strange comment and something I see a lot in online forums, I guess you could characterize this as the "slippery slope" or "worst case scenario" argument. Unions have no power in big tech right now, none of the top tech companies have something resembling a union -- and yet even the discussion of unionization within the tech industry, despite some really terrible working conditions for "auxiliary" tech work…

The reason "auxiliary" workers get a raw deal in this country is that health insurance is dealt through employers via a terrible WW2 era tax incentive.

If companies didn't get on the hook for providing health insurance they would directly employ more people instead of using contractors.

So this is why I'm worried about labor unions in tech and the private sector in general; they are never the solution, and their lack isn't the cause to any of the described problems.

Post reply on HN