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

251–260 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#251

Post by dfxm12 »

shawkinaw wrote: post #169
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…

All you have to do is try to run a conference in Chicago to see how bad unions can make things though. Sorry, you can’t plug that in, only a card-carrying electrician is allowed to do that! And he’s on break. My point here is that unions have done plenty to make a bad name for themselves, blaming everything on the media is simplistic.

You're talking about being "simplistic", yet you want to reduce all unions to one bad example (which seems to protect the members of the union) from a city nicknamed in part due to its overall political corruption[0]?

Plus, if you read more than one sentence of the parent post, you'll see it blames than just the media.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windy_City_(nickname)#Politics

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#252

Post by gipp »

googernettles wrote: post #121

I can tell you with a high level of confidence that this is a Google PR stunt. Google executives conjured up a protest to force their hand acting against the interests of the board of directors and shareholders. Without a forced hand, executives would have been sued by shareholders for breaching fiduciary duties and terminated from their positions. The former executives would also forfeit their compensation packages…

I don't see how the theory outlined in your post makes it a "PR stunt". You're just saying they wanted to do the right thing but needed political cover to be able to get it done. If anything that makes them look better.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#253

Post by jkaplowitz »

deogeo wrote: post #101
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".

An NDA on the contract itself? Sounds shady as hell.

Pretty common in general. I recently saw a lawyer provide a template independent contractor agreement which had such a provision in the boilerplate, entirely unrelated to Google or any other huge company.

I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to. (They may say they don't negotiate, but there are exceptions at any company.)

They can't seriously expect their standard form agreement to stay NDA-confidential when they've had 6 to 8 figures of people sign versions of it, regardless of what the agreement requires. If there has ever been litigation over Google's legalese - even a dispute over whether forced arbitration applies - the copy in the court record is probably either public or unsealable upon request to the court.

(I'm a former Google employee, didn't have any role related to employee contract language, not a lawyer, certainly not speaking for them.)

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#254

Post by [deleted] »

icebraining wrote: post #222
toomuchtodo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most unions and guilds do this. I don’t find it unreasonable, and would still sign on to a technology workers union, dues and all. Credentialing? I’d be okay with that, otherwise if everyone can “be an engineer” just by saying so, no one is (and credentialing would be superior to the white board gauntlet mess tech interviews currently are). Collective action is the only way to improve working conditions and dissuade…

And this shows exactly why many oppose unions in the tech industry, despite the incredulity of union supporters: they make it easier to impose rules which many of us profoundly disagree with.

[deleted]

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#255

Post by deogeo »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #253
deogeo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NDA on the contract itself? Sounds shady as hell.

Pretty common in general. I recently saw a lawyer provide a template independent contractor agreement which had such a provision in the boilerplate, entirely unrelated to Google or any other huge company. I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to. (They may say they don't negotiate, but there are exceptions at any com…

> Pretty common in general.

Even more worrisome.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#256

Post by 0x262d »

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.

because we live in a dictatorship of capital

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#257

Post by m0zg »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #242
m0zg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem to not quite get this, so I'll try to be as clear as I can. Google should not have the ability to claim ownership on unrelated work that does not use company time or resources unless _I_ _voluntarily_ relinquish such ownership. Google should have no business whatsoever interfering with what I do on my own personal time. Nor should I have to make anything open source. Nor should I need to ask anyone's _per…

You might "think" but that's how Anglo Saxon employment law (UK USA Some Commonwealth countries) works. There is literally hundreds of years of case law on this - you may not know that modern employment law descends from acts like the "masters and servants act" - guess which one we are.

There were hundreds of years of "case law" on not letting black people drink from the same water fountains as white people. And yet, here we are.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#258

Post by auiya »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #84
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?

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".

So you're saying they use the Android app permissions model?

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#259

Post by CharlesColeman »

bradleyjg wrote: post #245
CharlesColeman wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and where agreeing to it was entirely optional for either party That’s really the crux of it, isn’t it? In general it is entirely common in a contract situation for one party to care so much about a particular provision that it would rather not contract at all than contract without that provision. Generally the better the best alternative to a negotiatied agreement (BANTA) for a party the more likely it is to be wi…

> I think the root of the perceived unfairness here is that people think a take it or leave it attitude is not fair.

I think the root of the perceived unfairness is that forced arbitration concerns using a power disparity to force renunciation by default of fundamental political rights (access to the court system) to the benefit of the powerful party.

The take it or leave it attitude is fine, but only when the parties are on fairly equal footing.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#260

Post by scarejunba »

ionised wrote: post #228
scarejunba wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine that sentence coming from a wannabe doctor or civil engineer.

I don't build things that will kill people if they're wrong. If I get this slightly wrong, the wrong people will be advertised the wrong car. The world won't end.
Post reply on HN