Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

shrm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#11

Post by lostdog »

jayess wrote: post #10
kstrauser wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you believe it wouldn't pass the Senate? 2. Why would you be thankful if it were to fail?

This article was from 2022. The bill died after the congress adjourned. I handle litigation for my company. The far majority of it is someone looking for a payday. We blow millions of dollars on lawyers fighting BS lawsuits. It sickens me. I'm a lawyer and litigators disgust me (for the most part). It's 90% bottom feeders.

I would support making the courts fairer and cheaper, but a secret privated pseudo-justice system that is biased in favor of companies just isn't the way to do it.

If you want to argue that arbitration is fair, then please point to some open records from arbitration proceedings.

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#12

Post by nashashmi »

> Far reach

Political strategy to both claim political points and yet make sure nothing passes. At the end of the day, there is a whole lot of posturing and flags of victory by both sides. Republicans love it because it keeps the corporate America on their toes to keep politicians closely in their pockets. Democrats love it because it makes their party look better even if/ when they are complete trash.

Sickening.

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#13

Post by nmeagent »

jayess wrote: post #10
kstrauser wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you believe it wouldn't pass the Senate? 2. Why would you be thankful if it were to fail?

This article was from 2022. The bill died after the congress adjourned. I handle litigation for my company. The far majority of it is someone looking for a payday. We blow millions of dollars on lawyers fighting BS lawsuits. It sickens me. I'm a lawyer and litigators disgust me (for the most part). It's 90% bottom feeders.

What about the rights of the (using your fraction) 10% that aren't bottom feeders?

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#14

Post by nickff »

ceejayoz wrote: post #6
Veliladon wrote: post #2

Of course employers love arbitration. An arbitrator is not bound by precedent, the law, or even the agreement itself. Why does every corporation say they'll pay for the arbitration? Because when you're an arbitrator looking for work you want the corporation to come to you. So you rule for them as often as possible. There's no official collusion but a giant load of perverse incentive for them to be as corrupt as possi…

The company will also be acutely familiar with which arguments worked on the arbitrator in the past and which ones did not.

I am not aware of any pre-employment arbitration agreement which specifies a specific arbitrator. Most specify that a member of a specific group or association must be selected. I doubt that most employers actually know much about the individual arbitrator who is selected (ahead of the selection).

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#15

Post by nickff »

Veliladon wrote: post #2

Of course employers love arbitration. An arbitrator is not bound by precedent, the law, or even the agreement itself. Why does every corporation say they'll pay for the arbitration? Because when you're an arbitrator looking for work you want the corporation to come to you. So you rule for them as often as possible. There's no official collusion but a giant load of perverse incentive for them to be as corrupt as possi…

I don't think that what you're saying is true. It is my understanding that plaintiff lawyers often use the prospect of legal costs at trial to extort a large number of small settlements from large organizations. Arbitration costs are usually much less expensive than either side's legal fees, so covering those costs to avoid the prospect of a trial is advantageous to the employer (and the plaintiff).

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#16

Post by dang »

parasense wrote: post #9

Oh yeah! SHRM.org is not biased on this topic at all, and their coverage of the topic is 100% objective! /s

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

"Don't be snarky."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#17

Post by ceejayoz »

nickff wrote: post #14
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company will also be acutely familiar with which arguments worked on the arbitrator in the past and which ones did not.

I am not aware of any pre-employment arbitration agreement which specifies a specific arbitrator. Most specify that a member of a specific group or association must be selected. I doubt that most employers actually know much about the individual arbitrator who is selected (ahead of the selection).

"Arbitrator" here means "the organization the company uses for arbitration", which'll have a set of training standards etc. they tend to have. You shouldn't get wildly different results with different individuals within a one.

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#18

Post by cma »

nickff wrote: post #15
Veliladon wrote: post #2

Of course employers love arbitration. An arbitrator is not bound by precedent, the law, or even the agreement itself. Why does every corporation say they'll pay for the arbitration? Because when you're an arbitrator looking for work you want the corporation to come to you. So you rule for them as often as possible. There's no official collusion but a giant load of perverse incentive for them to be as corrupt as possi…

I don't think that what you're saying is true. It is my understanding that plaintiff lawyers often use the prospect of legal costs at trial to extort a large number of small settlements from large organizations. Arbitration costs are usually much less expensive than either side's legal fees, so covering those costs to avoid the prospect of a trial is advantageous to the employer (and the plaintiff).

None of that requires an arbitration agreement from the start. If it really benefits both you can just both agree to arbitration. Or make it opt-in at the start with an explanation of the great benefits.

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#19

Post by nickff »

cma wrote: post #18
nickff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that what you're saying is true. It is my understanding that plaintiff lawyers often use the prospect of legal costs at trial to extort a large number of small settlements from large organizations. Arbitration costs are usually much less expensive than either side's legal fees, so covering those costs to avoid the prospect of a trial is advantageous to the employer (and the plaintiff).

None of that requires an arbitration agreement from the start. If it really benefits both you can just both agree to arbitration. Or make it opt-in at the start with an explanation of the great benefits.

It may benefit both parties, but it doesn't benefit either counsel. The plaintiff's counsel usually operates under an agreement which guarantees them a certain percentage of any resulting compensation (contingency), and financially punishes the plaintiff for dropping the matter. Once counsel is engaged on contingency, the matter only very rarely goes to arbitration (as arbitration eliminates the prospect of favorable settlement in advance of looming litigation).

Re: House Passes Bill to Ban Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Pacts (2022)

#20

Post by nickff »

ceejayoz wrote: post #17
nickff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not aware of any pre-employment arbitration agreement which specifies a specific arbitrator. Most specify that a member of a specific group or association must be selected. I doubt that most employers actually know much about the individual arbitrator who is selected (ahead of the selection).

"Arbitrator" here means "the organization the company uses for arbitration", which'll have a set of training standards etc. they tend to have. You shouldn't get wildly different results with different individuals within a one.

I think you'd be surprised at how different individual arbitrators can be. Judges appointed by the same government and operating within the same laws can also vary quite widely.
Post reply on HN