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

What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#121

Post by TheBobinator »

learc83 wrote: post #13
jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them. So even if companies don't pick the arbitrator, arbitrators still have an incentive to find in favor of companies. Additionally, small claims court already basically works like what you're describing…

Who pays the abritration company? The employer.

Does the arbitration company make money when the employer doesn't? Nope.

Will the arbitration company force bribe money (Fine, Civil Suite) to make the problem go away? Nope.

Will the arbitration company put someone in jail for comitting a crime? Nope.

The entire point of arbitration is to eliminate the courts. "Tendancy" is the spin word, it leaves open the possibility the arbitration comapny might rule in favor of the employee. They will literally never do that.

E.g. Google's executives harassing women then using binding arbitration to remove their ability to sue them, which irregardless of the merit of the case, would be dismissed by the arbiter every time. Took a company-wide revolt to get them to stop. I'm beyond sure if the could've gotten away with literal beating and raping women they would've, and nobody wants to deal with the horror show executives participating in that kind of behaivour would become when they started down that road.

The problem with this approach is, the courts are there to avoid people exacting justice on their own terms which I'll remind you in our history, we've done quite a few times and it doesn't work out well. Sitting a mob of strangers down and having them pass down a ruling is a much better approach. Remember, 17 guns in america per man women and child and growing.

You do not want the setiment if corporations existing to literally eat people alive or that executives would shoot their own families for money to continue to grow. You don't want to let the faith in government and the courts wane over this BS. We've got a good thing going on right now in the US, it'd be a shame to throw it away over something as banal as executive pay or stockholder income.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#122

Post by hoaw »

mindslight wrote: post #72
Apocryphon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. I wonder what alternative solution that union skeptics have to offer for this problem.

Straightforward regulation?? Binding arbitration goes against logic , which is presumably more fundamental than even common law. In a way, unionization is really just one step up from that "vote with your dollars" tripe, and we know how well that works. I'm not categorically rejecting it, just highlighting that it's more of a stopgap than a solution. For instance, why wouldn't a union's management adopt the same kind…

Why would you regulate something when there is no consequences? American always hold the position of various degrees of "don't trust the government, take care of yourself", but as soon as something gets slightly uncomfortable someone else is supposed to step in.

Unionizing isn't really like voting with your dollars. Individual contract negotiation is essentially that. Unions have actual market power. It is like e.g. Walmart stops selling something.

A union could adopt a similar clause, but the members shouldn't allow that. If they do you of course have a much larger problem.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#123

Post by hoaw »

scarejunba wrote: post #79
vkou wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll tell you that nobody's forcing you to work for a company that requires you to undergo forced arbitration. I tell them that nobody's forcing them to work for a union shop.

Yes, I'm certainly not against a union-optional situation. If specific companies want to be union-only, that's fine by me. I'll go work elsewhere. If those companies can change their minds and admit scabs, that's okay by me. If a bunch of people want to group together to bargain, that's their right. I've gotten together with my co-workers and spoken to bosses before. The only problem is when state regulation is used…

It can't be a right if it isn't regulated. Unionizing is a legally recognized international right. It isn't really optional. Then of course you can argue how it should work, but that is largely a different matter. You want to waive that right that's fine, but it is just that. Anyone else who wants to keep their right should get to.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#124

Post by CompelTechnic »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #116
beaconstudios wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation. Any lower and you're essentially providing handouts - there's an argument to be had for that too (e.g. UBI, negative income tax) but it's a separate topic.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation Add: Plus a profit to that But that seems to be covered. There are multiple banks who will provide credit to consumers at lower interest rates than that and obviously still can make a profit. Car loans are usually lower than that. Mortgages go for between 1 1/4 and 2% (last time I looked). The max…

It's interesting that the mortgages in Switzerland can go that low. I remember that in the eurozone banks are earning negative interest on their reserves due to european central bank policy. I doubt that you would see 1.25% mortgage rates if this were not the case- it very well may be that these rates are not profitable, but are at least less unprofitable than letting the money sit in reserve.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#125

Post by verbify »

glogla wrote: post #120
verbify wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An underappreciated facet of payday loans is that without them desperate people would borrow from unsavoury people - making them illegal drives the high risk loan business underground into the hands of the Mafia. And then the consequences for the desperate people for defaulting is no longer bankruptcy, but broken legs or worse. I agree we should have less of it, but all legislation should be mindful of the consequenc…

"Payday loans - we're slightly better than mafia!" You might want to rethink that slogan.

On the contrary, I think you summed up my feelings pretty succinctly. Was there something I wrote that led you to think I felt otherwise?

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#126

Post by tyfon »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #116
beaconstudios wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation. Any lower and you're essentially providing handouts - there's an argument to be had for that too (e.g. UBI, negative income tax) but it's a separate topic.

you'd presumably want to keep interest at around the level required to cover the defaulting rate, plus costs of operation Add: Plus a profit to that But that seems to be covered. There are multiple banks who will provide credit to consumers at lower interest rates than that and obviously still can make a profit. Car loans are usually lower than that. Mortgages go for between 1 1/4 and 2% (last time I looked). The max…

(I work in a bank with unsecured loans).

There is a saying, you can accept any customers you want as long as the price (interest rate) is correct. As a group you can manage this pretty well. For some segments of unsecured loans the default rates are high enough to warrant those interest rates. The customers who score better gets lower rates as there is competition in the market and they often shop around. Having too high rates gives a lot of not taken up loan offers which the managers hate.

Car loans are almost impossible to lose money on especially the secured ones. It becomes a question of "how much can a person damage a car before it being repossessed". Usually the car is fine and one gets the money back as long as you don't loan out more than you expect can be recovered after said damage. That's why you can give so low interest rates. Unsecured car loans are much more expensive and often requires full coverage insurance.

So yes, one can give out loans to lower interest rates than 15% but then you have to cut off the lower scoring customers that would not be profitable with that rate.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#127

Post by tyfon »

Aqua wrote: post #8

It's absurd that you can actually waive any of your legal rights... Seriously, this is bonkers. After the #MeToo movement revealed that forced arbitration has been used to keep sexual harassment complaints quiet, a handful of companies, including Google and Facebook Inc., agreed to get rid of it for harassment claims Wow, how noble of them. How about getting rid of all of that BS?

I think this is solved quite ok where I live. We can not "agree" to anything that gives us less rights than the laws express.

So you can't enter into an agreement where you waiver worker rights, consumer rights (warranty) etc.

Any such agreements are void.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#128

Post by ardy42 »

verbify wrote: post #112
CaptainZapp wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not cap the maximumum interest rates? Switzerland, not really a communist hell hole and quite liberal in economic matters, for example, caps annual interest rates at 15% annually. You don't see more broken legs than anywhere else.

If you cap maximum interest rates then people who are deemed too 'high risk' will be refused credit. As a result, they will seek credit elsewhere. Switzerland is a wealthy low-crime country to start with, the mafia do not have a strong hold. For example the homicide rate in Switzerland is 0.54 per 100,000 people, by comparison in the United States it is 5.35 per 100,000 people.

>>> An underappreciated facet of payday loans is that without them desperate people would borrow from unsavoury people - making them illegal drives the high risk loan business underground into the hands of the Mafia. And then the consequences for the desperate people for defaulting is no longer bankruptcy, but broken legs or worse.

> If you cap maximum interest rates then people who are deemed too 'high risk' will be refused credit. As a result, they will seek credit elsewhere.

You could solve the loan shark problem and cap the interest rate by socializing the rest of the risk through some mechanism -- say a regulation that requires TBTF banks to offer payday loans and make up for the loss through their other products. Obviously there are details to be worked out, but the burden of a policy to combat loan sharking does not have to fall on the most vulnerable.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#129

Post by natpalmer1776 »

verbify wrote: post #125
glogla wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Payday loans - we're slightly better than mafia!" You might want to rethink that slogan.

On the contrary, I think you summed up my feelings pretty succinctly. Was there something I wrote that led you to think I felt otherwise?

I think the issue here is that in an ideal world, neither would exist. The original reply to your comment suggests that this is not even being considered and thus is satirizing your rationale.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#130

Post by ardy42 »

learc83 wrote: post #13
jedberg wrote: post #10

Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by t…

The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them. So even if companies don't pick the arbitrator, arbitrators still have an incentive to find in favor of companies. Additionally, small claims court already basically works like what you're describing…

> The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them.

Another important factor is that arbitration is often used by companies as a way to shield themselves from class action lawsuits. Even if arbitration were fair with low costs to the consumer, no one would go through it individually to collect a $10 damage.

If a million employees each suffered $10 in damages from a particular action of a company, there needs to be a way for them to collectively pursue damages.

Post reply on HN