Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#41

Post by cosmodisk »

mandelken wrote: post #6

As a European, reading these articles on arbitration, no-compete, required licenses, 'right-to-work', tipping, "gig work", firing over zoom, and so much more, it seems U.S. workers could really use some collective bargaining? Here unions are the obvious century-old solution to improve working conditions, why don't workers organize there? Are we just lucky here, like with universal health care?

Not sure why you got downvoted for simply raising valid questions,but here we are. I am a European as well,lived in 4 different countries in Europe and they were all so much different. Americans could have whatever they want, including free higher education, healthcare and strong employment laws.The country is rich enough to be able to support it. However, the culture of the country is different and that culture right now doesn't want all those things for one reason or another. Some are because of lack of education or simply experience,some are purely ideological,while others have some logical and educated opinions on why it shouldn't be the case. Unless there's a dramatic shift in opinions,for one reason or another, these things won't happen. A very good example of this is the tipping system: the restaurant owners love it because they don't need to pay for it.The clients kind of like it because they do feel in charge and they 'reward' waiter for the service they believe was worthwhile. The waiter thinks he's doing great because his base salary is so piss poor that any extra coin or note look like a lottery ticket.So all the stakeholders are happy. You could even make career out of it,if you are really good at it.In most European countries, waiter's job is usually something a student does or someone who doesn't have any other options. The job is seen as something anyone could do with 5 min trainin. There's no aspiration to become a really really good waiter,who understands when to approach a customer,when ask when not to ask and all the hidden and subtle signs customers make during the evening. And the job usually doesn't pay that much,unless there's tipping involved ( it varies a lot between European countries). Which one is better?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#42

Post by huffmsa »

Good on Judge Alsup. This is the bed they asked for. They can sleep in it.

Not much gets me going more than someone making tons of demands and then backing out when they actually have to deal with the consequences associated with those demands.

Fuck 'em.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#44

Post by manfredo »

vsskanth wrote: post #17

I wonder why the issue of being able to waive away your rights - forced arbitration, non-competes, severance packages etc. never come up at the presidential campaign stage. Seems like this is pervasive enough to affect pretty much everyone. Or am I misunderstanding something here ?

Saying that arbitration agreements are signing away your rights is analogous to saying that joining a union means signing away your rights, because it often entails agreeing to only work at union jobs (you're "signing away your rights" to work for non-union employers). Yes, you're engaging in a contract that limits your options but you're not relinquishing any actual rights. Just like how a union can condition employment on agreeing not to work with other employers, a company can condition employment on agreeing to settle work related disputes through arbitration.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#45

Post by Reelin »

dathinab wrote: post #31
kenned3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a very strong protections of speech" I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada. I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are…

Wikipedia: > only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. Which means the US right of free speech is somewhat weak compared to some other countries. Especially it means that any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech. I never understood why a…

> any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech

I don't follow what you're trying to say here? A private company can do as it pleases because an employee's speech could conflict with its business interests. In some cases, other federal, state, or local laws offer additional protections to the employee (ex California provides very strong protections for employee political speech).

The idea is that the government isn't allowed to restrict your speech, but it also can't force you to interact with someone you don't want to. If you say things that offend people, the consequences are your problem to deal with.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#46

Post by battery_cowboy »

joshuaheard wrote: post #43

The "reform" is to clog the system with a huge number of cases? I don't see the benefit here. A better solution would be for the American Arbitration Association to have a special system for class actions like government courts do.

The best solution would be for corporations to not get special treatment like fucking babies.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#47

Post by cityzen »

battery_cowboy wrote: post #46
joshuaheard wrote: post #43

The "reform" is to clog the system with a huge number of cases? I don't see the benefit here. A better solution would be for the American Arbitration Association to have a special system for class actions like government courts do.

The best solution would be for corporations to not get special treatment like fucking babies.

couldn't agree with this more!

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#48

Post by harimau777 »

manfredo wrote: post #44
vsskanth wrote: post #17

I wonder why the issue of being able to waive away your rights - forced arbitration, non-competes, severance packages etc. never come up at the presidential campaign stage. Seems like this is pervasive enough to affect pretty much everyone. Or am I misunderstanding something here ?

Saying that arbitration agreements are signing away your rights is analogous to saying that joining a union means signing away your rights, because it often entails agreeing to only work at union jobs (you're "signing away your rights" to work for non-union employers). Yes, you're engaging in a contract that limits your options but you're not relinquishing any actual rights. Just like how a union can condition employ…

Two differences that I see:

A union is designed to protect your rights, forced arbitration is designed to limit your rights.

Arbitration clauses are so ubiquitous that it would be almost impossible to operate in modern society while refusing to sign them.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#49

Post by abtinf »

gumby wrote: post #13
mandelken wrote: post #6

As a European, reading these articles on arbitration, no-compete, required licenses, 'right-to-work', tipping, "gig work", firing over zoom, and so much more, it seems U.S. workers could really use some collective bargaining? Here unions are the obvious century-old solution to improve working conditions, why don't workers organize there? Are we just lucky here, like with universal health care?

Unions have suffered from a bad reputation in the United States over the past few decades. Some of it is deserved BTW; some big unions were/are corrupted and some were connected with organized crime. Even more innocently, unions have been quite conservative; as jobs and technology changed some were very resistant and fought modernization (requiring people who were not needed to be around). But a lot of it also stems…

Building your private home with union labor is a completely different thing than unionized work forces in companies.

When building your home, you have the option of hiring non-union workers. Workers have the option of not joining the union. The union essentially acts as a service provider to the independent workers. These individuals charge quite a bit more than non-union workers, but often have astounding levels of competence, productivity, and workmanship.

When a company is unionized, none of those things are true. Instead of the union being a de facto endorsement of a particular worker, it acts to protect its own power over the workers. Instead of the company having a choice about who to hire for a particular role, it is forced into one choice. Instead of workers joining a union for their own benefit, they are forced to join because of legal coercion. The union is highly motivated to control and limit its members--freedom for the members means destruction of the union.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#50

Post by s1artibartfast »

wegs wrote: post #27
gumby wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions have suffered from a bad reputation in the United States over the past few decades. Some of it is deserved BTW; some big unions were/are corrupted and some were connected with organized crime. Even more innocently, unions have been quite conservative; as jobs and technology changed some were very resistant and fought modernization (requiring people who were not needed to be around). But a lot of it also stems…

Most of the bad reputation is deserved. Most US unions are horrible organizations. There are still some good unions, just not many. That doesn't make the concept of a union bad. They worked much better 50 years ago, even. It's a great concept, but the implementation got corrupted over the years. I don't think we'll fix unions' reputations without first fixing unions. And we really need more unions and more credible u…

When my mother was a school teacher, the union had mandatory fees which went to partisan political campaigns against her ideology and self interest. I think this was eventually challenged and overturned in court, but it left a terrible impression.
Post reply on HN