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

91–100 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#91

Post by gamblor956 »

xmprt wrote: post #57
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…

Having a 2nd hand experience with Hollywood Unions, there are so many outdated rules that make filming a nightmare. If you're producing a union film then you need to hire people for certain jobs and you're not allowed to do those jobs yourself even if it would make everything go smoother. If you don't abide by union rules then you're not eligible for certain awards or screenings. I had another experience in college w…

Having 1st hand experience with Hollywood unions, (and being 1 background extra gig away from SAG eligiblity) I can say that none of the rules are outdated, and they definitely don't making filming a nightmare.

Yes, if you're making a union film you need to hire union members for positions covered by the union agreement. But unless your studio has signed an agreement with the unions, you're not subject to union rules. Generally, only the big studios and the bigger indies are subject to the Hollywood union rules.

If you don't abide by union rules then you're not eligible for certain awards or screenings.

This doesn't apply to the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, or other major awards. Many of the films nominated for these awards every year don't abide by union rules because their weren't subject to them.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#92

Post by gamblor956 »

abtinf wrote: post #49
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…

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…

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.

All of the statements in that paragraph are false.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#93

Post by falcor84 »

capital_guy wrote: post #82
paulgb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also taught himself Java to better understand the arguments in Oracle vs. Google. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...

Ehhh the article you linked explicitly says "Judge Alsup would like everyone to know that he doesn’t know Java."

I don't see how that refutes anything. Java is a complicated language and I personally wouldn't hire anyone who are vain enough to say "I know Java". In any case, the very next sentence of the article is "Not very well, anyway", which definitely supports the claim that he taught himself Java.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#94

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

manfredo wrote: post #40

This strategy does result in increased upfront costs for companies. But this sort pile-on strategy seems like it could be countered with arbitration agreements that aren't subject to any sort of timeline, or arbitration agreements that preclude use of automated complaint filing systems. Fundamentally, this strategy of inundating the company with claims only works because it's more expensive for the company to respond…

I think it remains to be seen if the courts will allow arbitration agreements that are completely one-sided. I mean, a big part of the original Supreme Court rulings was that the arbitration proceedings would be impartial. Having an arbitration agreement with no timeline seems like it would be more likely to be overturned.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#95

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Animats wrote: post #28

Oh, it's even worse than that for companies. The 9th and 10th circuits have both agreed that if the defense refuses to pay for arbitration, plaintiff can go to court. They're no longer barred from suing at that point. Incidentally, the AAA rules have some useful provisions in consumer disputes. Either party can request to transfer the case to small claims court. At least in California, that's not only cheaper, small…

That seems unfairly stacked in favor of the defense. If they refuse to pay for the arbitration, that should be the same as if they just refuse to show up to court, i.e. default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#96

Post by dataflow »

> DoorDash got the bill for the 6,000 claims — more than $9 million.

> DoorDash balked, arguing in court that it couldn’t be sure that all of the claimants were legitimate dashers. The American Arbitration Association said the company had to pay anyway. It refused, and the claims were essentially dead.

How is that legal for binding arbitration? Didn't both sides agree that disputes will be resolved by arbitration?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#97

Post by dllthomas »

maxlybbert wrote: post #30
dllthomas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was his involvement in SCO vs Novell? He doesn't seem to be mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._Novell,_Inc .

SCO vs. Novell was in Utah, under Judge Kimball. But Alsup was impressive in Oracle vs. Google, noting that he had some familiarity with programming and calling out Math.max() as the kind of function where scènes à faire and merger probably apply.

He also oversaw Waymo v. Uber, and PG&E's probation (IIRC), and there were some great moments from both.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#98

Post by fernly »

Is this current news? In trying to find non-pay-walled coverage (FU,NYT), I quickly found previous stories on this from February and in November.

The November 25 article[1] mentions the "squirming out" remark by the judge.

A WaPo article from February 16 [2] mentions that each of the 5000 Dashers who filed for arbitration had to put up $300.

[1] https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-accuses-doordash-of-try...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/16/doordashs...

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#99

Post by paulgb »

capital_guy wrote: post #82
paulgb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also taught himself Java to better understand the arguments in Oracle vs. Google. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...

Ehhh the article you linked explicitly says "Judge Alsup would like everyone to know that he doesn’t know Java."

I've been paid to write Java for multiple companies, and I'd like everyone to know that I don't know Java.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#100

Post by whatshisface »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #95
Animats wrote: post #28

Oh, it's even worse than that for companies. The 9th and 10th circuits have both agreed that if the defense refuses to pay for arbitration, plaintiff can go to court. They're no longer barred from suing at that point. Incidentally, the AAA rules have some useful provisions in consumer disputes. Either party can request to transfer the case to small claims court. At least in California, that's not only cheaper, small…

That seems unfairly stacked in favor of the defense. If they refuse to pay for the arbitration, that should be the same as if they just refuse to show up to court, i.e. default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

Arbitration isn't a court, it's a mutually agreed upon deal that might help parties stay out of court.
Post reply on HN