A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

Post by laughinghan » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

vsskanth wrote: post #54

function_seven wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think because the issue seems too theoretical to most people. I'm betting that most people have never felt a negative impact from forced arbitration clauses, or non-compete agreements. Anecdotally, I've never once felt the need to take a company to court, only to be stymied by an arbitration clause. Nor have I been prevented from getting hired due to a non-compete. And I don't think I know anyone who has. I'm not s…

speaking from my personal experience, I've seen non-competes being pretty pervasive outside tech and some states like CA or MA, I've had competitors flat out refuse to proceed with an interview because I had a non-compete. whether it is enforceable is a different question but it does reduce opportunities. Like you said, it's probably not what the majority of people are experiencing.

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #58

crazygringo wrote: post #5

This seems like fantastic news -- if class action suits aren't allowed, then technology now makes it easier to file "cookie cutter" arbitration suits at such low cost that it effectively acts like a small class-action suit anyways. But I'm worried companies will be able to respond in a way that neutralizes it -- tweaking arbitration terms somehow. I hope not, though. It is absolutely necessary that we hold companies…

It seems like an easy tweak to nullify this strategy is to invalidate automated arbitration claims. Even without this tweak, if a company saw a huge increase in "cookie cutter" arbitration suits they could probably just not respond to these suits and hope that the majority of complainants aren't willing to go to court. A cookie cutter suit likely indicates a low-effort action, not likely to be followed up with a laws…

Post by vsskanth » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 12:31 AM UTC

laughinghan wrote: post #61

vsskanth wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speaking from my personal experience, I've seen non-competes being pretty pervasive outside tech and some states like CA or MA, I've had competitors flat out refuse to proceed with an interview because I had a non-compete. whether it is enforceable is a different question but it does reduce opportunities. Like you said, it's probably not what the majority of people are experiencing.

CA or MA? Noncompetes have historically been completely unenforceable in CA, whereas until recently MA had a pretty oppressive noncompete regime. That contrast is actually commonly credited with why Silicon Valley overtook Route 128 in technological innovation: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-v...

Post by jcims » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

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…

Post by jcims » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 12:39 AM UTC

tssva wrote: post #39

wegs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you sure it was the union which forced the district not to remote teach? I live in an area where teachers are not unionized and the teachers are still getting paid and not teaching. The school district has signed contracts with the teachers which doesn't have any terms which stop payment because the schools close during the year and the district is not requiring remote learning because of equal access issues.