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

111–120 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#111

Post by anamexis »

caseysoftware wrote: post #75
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…

Either way, they end up having to fight on a thousand little battlefields all over the place and likely do not have the interest or ability to fight each and every one. This is the sort of thing that can tie up legal teams for years and drain reserves in no time. I was involved in a mass-arbitration last year. The NDA bars any details from being released for 2 years but in the meantime, we can say we reached "a resol…

Generally speaking, what does "a resolution, not a settlement" mean? Or is that not a general legal term?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#112

Post by mycall »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #63
manfredo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In court they can do a class action, so little reason not to.

In fact, the class action filing management could also be automated using the vendor's same system.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#113

Post by cosmotic »

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…

I took State Farm to small claims court. They paid to upgrade it to general division at the last possible moment, which significantly increases the logistics and complexity of the case. I think they did it as an intimidation tactic. Corporations are horrible.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#114

Post by hermitdev »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #50
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…

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.

This is my biggest gripe with unions in the US: that they can basically force you to join the union against your will if you want to perform certain jobs. The Teacher's Union is notorious for this.

There was a fairly recent ruling from the SCOTUS that struck down compelling non union members to pay union dues. It was as recently as 2018 or 2019. Cant remember the case name, but it originated in Illinois (a very, very pro union state).

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#115

Post by itake »

dataflow wrote: post #96

> 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?

Many companies require you sign a contracting to use their service (or in this case to be employed by them) that says you agree to binding arbitration

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#116

Post by Spivak »

whatshisface wrote: post #100
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And what company is going to write in a default judgement for the plaintiff in their ToS?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#117

Post by gbronner »

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?

The US has a very flexible labor market that allows for easy entry and exit, but can appear (and be) ruthless in its drive for efficiency.

Europe is great for workers who get lucky enough to get a contract (French unemployment is often 2-3x US unemployment), don't want to leave, and don't want to be rich.

Average US GDP per capita is 35% higher than France and Britain, despite having large numbers of poorly educated immigrants. Furthermore, tax rates are much lower in the US than in Europe, so people can actually consume quite a bit more.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#118

Post by wegs »

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.

Well, I'm pretty sure. The negotiation between the teacher's union on the administration is a closed-door meeting, but I follow district politics very closely.

Perceived equity issues fed into this as well. The result, of course, is that parents who have time to teach kids have kids who are learning, while the vast majority of the district is learning nothing. With remote learning, the results would be less differential. But I guess the districts feels worse about inequities it contributes to than ones that arise out of inaction. We have a 1:1 program, so all students have technology.

But I would the union preempted this, and is what made this discussion moot.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#119

Post by Talanes »

falcor84 wrote: post #93
capital_guy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but then the rest of the sentences after that go to great length to explain his actual programming background, in QuickBASIC, and how he applied his knowledge of fundamentals to the scenario at hand.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#120

Post by simcop2387 »

anamexis wrote: post #111
caseysoftware wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way, they end up having to fight on a thousand little battlefields all over the place and likely do not have the interest or ability to fight each and every one. This is the sort of thing that can tie up legal teams for years and drain reserves in no time. I was involved in a mass-arbitration last year. The NDA bars any details from being released for 2 years but in the meantime, we can say we reached "a resol…

Generally speaking, what does "a resolution, not a settlement" mean? Or is that not a general legal term?

No idea if there's a legal distinction but a settlement usually makes it sound like one side admitted fault even if that isn't the case
Post reply on HN