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

191–200 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#191

Post by nabla9 »

lisper wrote: post #166
antonzabirko wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ianal and all that - but these tos are dubious. They can be ruled unconscionable, not enforceable because they are easy to miss, and being overly favored to tho company. Ignore the arbitration clauses and talk to your lawyer.

IANAL either but I do know a little about contract law because I was involved in a legal dispute involving contract law [1]. One of the fundamental principles of contract law is that for a contract to be legally binding there has to have been a "meeting of the minds" [2], i.e. the two parties have to actually have agreed to the terms of the contract. Merely publishing terms of service does not constitute a legally bi…

The US has binding consumer arbitration. In the US those are not empty clauses, despite the fact that they break many legal principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#192

Post by someguyorother »

freepor wrote: post #142
300bps wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a matter of feedback, really. It doesn't matter if a government is selected by the people if the government can control the people more effectively than the people can control the government.

If the company holds very infrequent general meetings and the owners can't schedule extra ones, then the managers are going to rule, irrespective of who "formally" governs the company.

It's like a people's democratic republic: even if the election is fair, the political bureau sets the rules 99% of the time and the congress of deputies only meets once a year - and soon enough the elections end up no longer being fair.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#193

Post by toohotatopic »

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 ?

Wouldn't this lead to a two class society, much like the accredited investors for startups?

E.g. if you have a task to do for which you have to reveal secrets, how do you protect your moat without non-compete clauses if you hire employees or contractors? In other words, you need people who are allowed to sign away their rights. If you don't allow this as a default state, you have to hand out licenses to those who understand the issue.

Right now, you have the concept of Age of Majority [1]. We simply assume that everybody who is old enough is capable of understanding his rights. If you question this, you will have a funny presidential campaign where you ask people to vote for you because they are not competent enough. That said, how is the president the right person to change that law?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#194

Post by marcus_holmes »

nabla9 wrote: post #190
surround wrote: post #152

Stack overflow’s TOS has a binding arbitration clause, [1] despite overwhelming user feedback to the contrary. [2] Y Combinator’s TOS has an arbitration clause. [3] If you’ve created an account on HN, you’ve agreed to arbitration. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309756 [3] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/

The US stands alone in consumer arbitration. In most countries consumer arbitration is either heavily regulated, or non binding. In EU pre-dispute binding consumer arbitration clauses are considered unfair terms. American Exceptionalism in Consumer Arbitration https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2265556

Thanks for this. I'm curious: I live in Germany. Is YC/HN's arbitration clause enforceable against me? Can I take them to court in Germany?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#195

Post by harimau777 »

manfredo wrote: post #55
harimau777 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A union may protect your rights, but they do ask for some in return - often the ability to work at non-union jobs. The point is, you're still "signing away your rights". You're agreeing that you won't do certain things that are within your right to do, as a condition to employment. Arbitration is ubiquitous because even at the cost of hundreds of dollars per hour arbitration is a lot cheaper and faster than going to…

I briefly worked as a field service engineer before becoming a programmer. The job that I worked was non-union but many (all?) of the electricians where in the local union.

Do you know how that works with the idea that by joining a union you are giving up your right to work non-union jobs?

I'm not trying to say that you are wrong, I just don't know enough to know if that was a special case or if there are certain circumstances where a union worker can or cannot work a non-union job.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#196

Post by cool_dude85 »

hermitdev wrote: post #122
gamblor956 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Downvoted not because I disagree with you (I do), but because you offer up no counterpoint/arguments to support your opinion.

The original quote doesn't offer any arguments to support its claim. It's just a statement of opinion as fact.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#197

Post by C4stor »

arbitraryacct wrote: post #186
caseysoftware wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the tradeoffs of forcing arbitration. If you take away my ability to file suit, you pick up more of the fees. When I did it last year, filing as a plaintiff was a flat $250. Getting pissed off people to come up with $250 may be a challenge but not impossible. * I'm not sure if you could pull a Thiel/Hulk Hogan thing to bankroll an arbitration swarm but if so, this could definitely get ugly for companie…

"this could definitely get ugly for companies that misbehave" It doesn't just have to be companies that misbehave. If you don't like your competitor, maybe you'll sponsor that $250 per user to allow their userbase to throw arbitrations at them. You can burn your competitor down at a ratio of at least 1:5 if you do something like this. If you take some fees for every case you win or that ends up settling, the ratio wi…

If only companies had a way to escape the arbitration system... oh wait, they self select this system even though there's nothing forcing them to !

Arbitration is a tool, but it's totally unfair to say it's used by anyone else than the company choosing it.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#198

Post by tjpnz »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #194
nabla9 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US stands alone in consumer arbitration. In most countries consumer arbitration is either heavily regulated, or non binding. In EU pre-dispute binding consumer arbitration clauses are considered unfair terms. American Exceptionalism in Consumer Arbitration https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2265556

Thanks for this. I'm curious: I live in Germany. Is YC/HN's arbitration clause enforceable against me? Can I take them to court in Germany?

Not a lawyer but I suspect it would depend on the country.

As an example there are clauses written into ToS which don't allow refunds on digital purchases. These work fine in the US but are illegal in countries with stronger consumer protections like Australia. US companies do still have to obey local laws - at least when it comes to the sale of faulty goods.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#199

Post by jeltz »

arbitraryacct wrote: post #183
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 is extremely disruptive. If someone takes you to arbitration, you pay $1k non-refundable, simply because they want to take you to court. If you do end up in court, it's another $20k just for JAMS fees. Again, non-refundable, doesn't matter if you win or lose. So if someone is trying to take you to arbitration over less than $20k, it really doesn't matter AT ALL if they are right or not, it makes sense to…

If so, why not just remove the arbitration clause?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#200

Post by dathinab »

Reelin wrote: post #45
dathinab wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Facebook could decide that LGBTQ+ people are offensive and strongly restrict theire free speech even for non LGBTQ+ topics (sure there are other regulations to prevent this, but they have much less tooth).

That you have to handle consequences when you insult someone or you IDK openly call for the murder of all ... People that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into.

Post reply on HN