Live data from Hacker News

A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

nytimes.com

101–110 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#101

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…

> 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.

You’re right but that’s not a great example of the rights you give up on joining a union. The right to work non union jobs isn’t particularly valuable except to non members and non members and people just starting their career are not the union’s concern. They protect the interests of the average member, so people for whom it’s a career, who have some years of experience. Those don’t generally work crappy jobs unless there’s discrimination against them.

Giving up the right to negotiate your own compensation would be a huge deal for any professions or jobs with obvious large differences in productivity and many employers. So you only see that at the bottom end. No limits on top end compensation. The Screen Actors Guild doesn’t say with this many years experience you must get paid this much, they say no one can get paid less than this.

With a single employer compressing pay differentials is a lot easier so you get what the average member wants, security of tenure, seniority based pay and promotions. If you want to negotiate something different go find another employer.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#102

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…

"Arbitration is ubiquitous because even at the cost of hundreds of dollars per hour arbitration is a lot cheaper and faster than going to court"

My understanding is that arbitration is only a thing in the modern world because there is a law allowing it, and the law only allows it because of "activist judges" interpreting it, although of course we don't call them that.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#103
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…

A lot of the challenges come out of the specifics of the laws surrounding unions. They were written in a much rougher era, where corporations and unions were very much in direct opposition. If we could re-write those laws, we could open the door to much more cooperative relationships between unions that the current laws do not allow. Unfortunately, there's no sign of the republican and democratic parties getting toge…

"much more cooperative relationships between unions"

Sure, cooperation sounds good in theory, but don't we have examples (in the US) of where management of a company and management of their union ended up very friendly at the expense of the workers? I'm pretty sure I read about stuff like that in the context of the recent automotive union corruption scandals.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't be the people funding your presential campaign though... Obama's campaign did cost about one cool billion dollars. Even if you get a million of these guys,each would have to contribute $1000..I suspect Trumps campaign was even more expensive.

A billion dollars? About $3 per US citizen for the single most powerful position in the world, with saturation media coverage of the campaign for one to two years. Doesn’t seem like a lot. Trump spent under $400m, Hillary under $600m[1]. Bloomberg spent more on his primary campaign than Trump did from start to finish[2]. Steyer spent ~$200m and didn’t break 4% in Iowa[3]. Sure looks like money likes a winner rather t…

It's not $3 per vote though the math is much more complicated. For starters not everyone is registered or votes on any given election (even a presidential). Next you have to factor in the primary and electoral college. Votes in Florida and other swing states are much more 'expensive'.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 someone’s slave if you can’t pay your debts and have the court enforce that.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees. I'm not entirely sure they can agree to not front the fees without also potentially voiding arbitration. While money does mean a lot in court, there's a very strong sentiment that it should not be a barrier to entry. There's at least one case that went to appears where, when the plaintiff ran out of money and arbitration was canceled, the case was…

The arbitration clause is for the company's protection, therefore the arbitration fees are their burden. If they breach the arbitration clause by not paying for arbitration in a timely manner, the plaintiff is entitled to go to court in the 9th and 10th Circuits.

But what if the arbitration clause says the plaintiff will pay? I believe that's what the parent comment was talking about.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#107

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.

You wouldn't hire anyone who says "I know Java"? That seems extreme. Some people do know Java and are completely justified in saying so.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#108
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…

In your opinion, will mass-arbitration become more and more common?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#109
post #73
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…

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.
Post reply on HN