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

141–150 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#141

Post by quickthrower2 »

mehrdada wrote: post #20
DannyB2 wrote: post #2

> But a federal judge in San Francisco wasn’t willing to go along with it. The judge, William Alsup, ordered DoorDash in February to proceed with the American Arbitration Association cases and pay the fees. Ah! Gotta love judge Alsup. Back in SCO vs Novell, and in Oracle vs Google. > ... in a hearing, Judge Alsup questioned whether the company and its lawyers really believed that. > "Your law firm and all the defense…

Funny his middle name is Haskell

> Do you know Haskell?

> Ha ha, you ask me do I know Haskell? Haskell is my middle name!

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#142

Post by freepor »

300bps wrote: post #135
cosmotic wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

State Farm is a mutual company. That means that the policyholders (i.e. you) actually own it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm

That’s like saying we choose the government. It’s true in theory, but in practice the top management uses the “owners” like Soylent Green.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#143

Post by WillDaSilva »

mars4rp wrote: post #129
r00fus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, most of the Democratic candidates supported abolishing mandatory forced arbitration (the SCOTUS decision). Here's Bernie's policy [1]. [1] https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-an...

Biden is not your mainstream Democratic candidate, in a good way.

Did you mean to say Bernie?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#144

Post by wtallis »

mycall wrote: post #109
paulgb wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically arbitration clauses have wording that also prohibit class-action cases. It looks like this hasn't been tested, but I guess that would be void too?

I'm sure corporations will fight tooth and nail to equate mass-arbitration with class-action. Very interesting how this might play out.

I don't see how there could be any viable argument toward that equivalence. Class action lawsuits are special in that most of the plaintiffs don't have to lift a finger while a small number of plaintiffs and their lawyers prosecute the case on behalf of everyone who doesn't opt out. Mass arbitration still requires each plaintiff to individually prove their case. Companies cannot write contracts that say you can only sue us if you're one of the lucky few; each and every customer/employee must individually have some avenue of recourse or the contract is going to be ruled unconscionable because the contract is only effectively binding on one party.

When a company says "you can't come after us because we're already facing too many other similar claims", that's called bankruptcy proceedings.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#145

Post by parkovski »

300bps wrote: post #135
cosmotic wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

State Farm is a mutual company. That means that the policyholders (i.e. you) actually own it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm

And accordingly, I could give orders to their lawyers and their likelihood of doing what I say is about the same as the percentage of the company that I own.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#146

Post by jjoonathan »

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.

> mutually agreed upon

So, buried in size 3 font on page 355 of a document included by reference in the 200 page TOS and that can be found at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" -- that one is to have read in full by legal counsel before spending $30/month on internet access?

Right.

I know that courts know about contracts of adhesion, but suggesting that there's anything mutual about them is absolutely grounds for a little prodding.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#147

Post by e8u3h3jeue »

avs733 wrote: post #124
Spivak wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The arbitration vendors (and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice) could and probably should write this into their rules. They rely on the appearance of fairness to enable corporations to use their services against consumers/employees. If they aren't careful there is a risk of the courts increasingly observing how tipped the scales of arbitration are. The jurisprudence, to the limited extent I und…

>(and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice)

This is misleading, neither America nor any other country has a justice system. Justice is often a goal of the legal system but it is not a direct attribute of the system.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#148

Post by fzeroracer »

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?

Unfortunately there's a lot of FUD over unions here and how they ruin things, employ lazy workers, are corrupt etc and therefore don't deserve to exist.

Of course the great irony is all of the arguments against unions also applies directly to corporations, yet those same people that are against unions don't really like to talk about the idea of abolishing corporations. Usually those arguments turn into 'one bad apple' or 'they'll be out-competed' or something about the free market, never mind that unions operate on the same free market principle as corporations.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#149

Post by fapjacks »

jerzyt wrote: post #134
function_seven wrote: post #4

The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…

Does that mean that someone is getting $1500 because their pizza arrived cold? I hope not.

Wouldn't that be nice? If the only thing DoorDash did wrong was deliver cold pizza?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#150

Post by ardy42 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #105
techsupporter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. This is not accurate. Almost every mandatory binding arbitration clause of substance includes wording that the arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be appealed. Also, the question of whether the arbitrator's ruling was fair and impartial--did you mean claiming "partial,"…

This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. The law does not work like that because judges don’t work like that. There are rights you can’t sign away. No matter what the contract says non competes are not valid in California. You can’t agree to be some…

> This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart.

Obviously there are limits, but if the arbitrators aren't open and blatant about their bias, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any remedy if you were wronged by a biased arbitrator.

The point of arbitration isn't to allow companies to engage illegal criminal conduct like slavery, it's to make them practically immune from civil court proceedings.

Post reply on HN