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

141–150 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#141

Post by FridgeSeal »

srkmno wrote: post #117
s17n wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of unions is to get workers a better deal through collective bargaining. In a company that's growing rapidly, it doesn't make sense for either the employees or the owners / management to worry too much about how the pie is getting divided up. As companies mature and growth slows, employees who aren't unionized are inevitably going to get screwed. In an industry where corporate profits can exceed $1000000 pe…

So they can kill these companies faster?

Hahahahaha, I don't think half these startups need any help grinding themselves into the dirt any faster, nor do I think that unions would contribute meaningfully to extinguishing something that wasn't already in process of that.

And honestly, if some hotshot startup dies because it's treating its workers like trash then good riddance. In this day and age we ought to do better than exploiting workers to the bone just because we can.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#142

Post by scarejunba »

phamilton wrote: post #138
danans wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-) I think part of the problem is that we non-organized workers (i.e. most tech workers and our similar peers) have accepted the unfortunate media-fueled trope that collective worker action equates to organized-crime connected unions like those of the Hoffa-period Teamsters. Unfortunately, many white…

You ignore the non-union organizations that also protect their own. ABA, AMA, etc. control the supply of doctors/lawyers and accomplish the same end result as unions: higher wages and less competition.

This is the thing. I'm never going to be stopped from working with a guy who wants me to work with him simply because some moron in an ivory tower thinks I don't have the credentials. This is good. I won't accept the alternative.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#143

Post by Symmetry »

xiphias2 wrote: post #79
Symmetry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I do mean forced arbitration. If the arbiter would be fair then the ability to threaten to fall back on the court system could be used as a coercive threat. Provided both sides have input into how the contract is drafted the compulsory nature of the arbitration is good for both, in expectation, though obviously when a dispute is adjudicated against either suddenly they'd have an interest in overturning it.

But as I say elsewhere, this doesn't necessarily apply to employer/employee contracts where one side might not even have read the full contract, much less have been able to negotiate its clauses.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#144

Post by ChuckMcM »

walshemj wrote: post #134
ChuckMcM wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I can't quote my copy as I'm under NDA from sharing it, however if you have a copy that you signed then carefully read the section about "equipment that you use to access your google work account".

You mean the companies equipment - that's fairly normal I have worked for companies that recognised unions in the UK and that clause never raised any issues. There where agreements about what sort of offence justified monitoring at work it had to be a serious offence for example.

Not sure why you had a down vote, but to be clear the contract I have makes no limitation on who "owns" the equipment. Nor does it limit how such verification might be done. And since, at the time, all Google employee services could be accessed through a browser to employee specific URLs, it could be pretty much anything.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#145

Post by stale2002 »

phamilton wrote: post #138
danans wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-) I think part of the problem is that we non-organized workers (i.e. most tech workers and our similar peers) have accepted the unfortunate media-fueled trope that collective worker action equates to organized-crime connected unions like those of the Hoffa-period Teamsters. Unfortunately, many white…

You ignore the non-union organizations that also protect their own. ABA, AMA, etc. control the supply of doctors/lawyers and accomplish the same end result as unions: higher wages and less competition.

But that's horrible. I don't want to throw up barriers to entry, in order to keep out new comers.

There are many great engineers that I know who would have been barred from the industry, if we had anything at all similar to the barriers to entry in the medical or "real" engineering industries.

It is because of this that if there is ever a software union, I am going choose "defect" every single time.

I am not going to let these new-comers, that I know, be barred from the amazing jobs in tech, just because they didn't get a degree or pass a test or whatever.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#146

Post by Bucephalus355 »

danans wrote: post #95
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? :-) I think part of the problem is that we non-organized workers (i.e. most tech workers and our similar peers) have accepted the unfortunate media-fueled trope that collective worker action equates to organized-crime connected unions like those of the Hoffa-period Teamsters. Unfortunately, many white…

One event that really drove a wedge between hard hat ppl and white collar was this riot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot

A few days after Kent State a group of construction workers head into a protest against Vietnam and pretty viciously attack a crowd of 1000 college students. There is plenty of blame to go around for this event (like any occurrence of mob action) and many sociological trends that led to this, but historians tend to mark this event as the “beginning of the end” for Union influence in the US.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#147

Post by stale2002 »

eropple wrote: post #105
m0zg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand. Google claims ownership even on the stuff that you do on _your own_ time, like nights and weekends, without using _any_ Google resources. Even if this stuff is in no way related to what you do at work.

There is an argument (and 'dragonwriter, if I have the measure of him, is illustrating it rather than advocating it) that a salaried employee has no "own time" except insofar as their time is not required by the employer. They can quit if they want time that the employer does not deign to grant them. In my more cynical moments I think this is the prevailing view in American tech.

Your description of how intellectual property works is untrue.

In the state of California, there very much is strong protections for workers intellectual property.

And the courts do not share your opinion on what is someone's "own time" or not. The courts instead protect workers.

It is possible that Google has made its employees sign some illegal contracts, that aren't enforceable in court. But if this stuff theoretical went to court, the law sides with workers.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#148

Post by interlocutor »

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?

The US government was "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Now it is of/by/for big corporations.

Forced arbitration is a whole-scale privatization of the justice system. Americans are actively being deprived of their right to justice, see: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbi...

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#149

Post by vageli »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #93
anth_anm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If two companies of comparable size want to agree to arbitrate any disputes in a contact, that should be allowed. It saves massive amounts of time and money. The problem is the disparity between the parties involved when it's a company and an individual. Forced arbitration also bans class action lawsuits, which weakens individuals even further.

I think forced arbitration should only be legal in actively negotiated contracts (i.e. both parties were active in writing and modifying all the terms), where the proposing party disclosed the implications in plain language, and where agreeing to it was entirely optional for either party (sort of like GDPR consent). I think those conditions would effectively exclude it from consumer contracts while permitting it when…

> I think forced arbitration should only be legal in actively negotiated contracts (i.e. both parties were active in writing and modifying all the terms), where the proposing party disclosed the implications in plain language, and where agreeing to it was entirely optional for either party (sort of like GDPR consent).

That may have the unintended side effect of employers including _even more_ onerous impositions which they anticipate will be negotiated away, making the negotiation "active" as far as the parties are concerned but with the same outcome.

If it were entirely optional, what employee _would_ opt in to forced arbitration?

Thinking more about it, I would imagine employers would offer small incentives in exchange for the forced arbitration clause (like more paid time off, etc) but at least in that case it would be a trade-off made by the employee.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#150

Post by joshuamorton »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #144
walshemj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the companies equipment - that's fairly normal I have worked for companies that recognised unions in the UK and that clause never raised any issues. There where agreements about what sort of offence justified monitoring at work it had to be a serious offence for example.

Not sure why you had a down vote, but to be clear the contract I have makes no limitation on who "owns" the equipment. Nor does it limit how such verification might be done. And since, at the time, all Google employee services could be accessed through a browser to employee specific URLs, it could be pretty much anything.

I feel like the corollary to this is that you're strongly encouraged to not access work stuff from a non Corp device.

I don't think I've ever logged in to my Corp account from any non Corp device other than my phone, which uses a work profile for exactly that reason.

Post reply on HN