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

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#121

Post by mulmen »

Reelin wrote: post #59
cosmodisk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got downvoted for simply raising valid questions,but here we are. I am a European as well,lived in 4 different countries in Europe and they were all so much different. Americans could have whatever they want, including free higher education, healthcare and strong employment laws.The country is rich enough to be able to support it. However, the culture of the country is different and that culture righ…

> A very good example of this is the tipping system ... So all the stakeholders are happy. As a recent example in my state, a local establishment raised wages, raised prices, and strictly disallowed tips. I thought it was a great idea, but apparently sales fell and there were complaints from both wait staff and customers. They promptly switched back. > Which one is better? Honestly? The European one IMO because it ac…

Some people do not tip at all so I am sure they were unhappy about the higher prices. Did the restaurant raise wages at or above the level their top employee was earning with tips? If it was a cent less than that i can understand why employees were unhappy.

There is immense cultural momentum behind tipping culture.

Where I live it is common to have a 15+% gratuity added to the tab automatically and then an optional extra tip that goes to the full staff. This seems to be a reasonable compromise.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#122

Post by hermitdev »

gamblor956 wrote: post #92
abtinf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building your private home with union labor is a completely different thing than unionized work forces in companies. When building your home, you have the option of hiring non-union workers. Workers have the option of not joining the union. The union essentially acts as a service provider to the independent workers. These individuals charge quite a bit more than non-union workers, but often have astounding levels of…

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.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#123

Post by Talanes »

Reelin wrote: post #53
tssva wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it was the union which forced the district not to remote teach? I live in an area where teachers are not unionized and the teachers are still getting paid and not teaching. The school district has signed contracts with the teachers which doesn't have any terms which stop payment because the schools close during the year and the district is not requiring remote learning because of equal access issues.

> doesn't have any terms which stop payment because the schools close during the year And so they shouldn't! In many (most?) US states, the public schools are unconditionally funded by the state based on student enrollment figures. Cutting teacher pay during a closure under such a system would be a purely greedy move.

California funds schools by actual attendance, not enrollment, and we're around 10% of the US school population.

Sources: https://edsource.org/2019/californias-school-funding-flaws-m...

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.20.a...

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#124

Post by avs733 »

Spivak wrote: post #116
whatshisface wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitration isn't a court, it's a mutually agreed upon deal that might help parties stay out of court.

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 understand it, relies on the assertion that arbitration is fair. Upholding that believe is in the arbitrators interest.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#125

Post by hermitdev »

manfredo wrote: post #32
kenned3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a very strong protections of speech" I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada. I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are…

The "censored" TV shows are really just the networks not wanting to piss off their advertisers. There is little to no censorship in the sense that the government actually prevents you from publishing something - especially now that almost all media is internet or cable. The last area where government actually decided content was with broadcast television, since the government got to decide how to use a limited number…

The FCC still levies fines for certain levels profanity and certain forms of nudity for over-the-air broadcasts for TV and FM/AM radio (I dont think satellite is bound due to being a paid service). Granted the standard for finable offenses has loosened over the years, and you can get away with more late night (presumably because the kids should be in bed).

I dont recall if the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Janet Jackson/Just Timberlake Super Bowl half time show resulted in a fine, but pretty much all live broadcasts are now delayed 15-30 seconds or so that so a producer (or whomever) can hit the censor button if something comes up.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#126

Post by Igelau »

dataflow wrote: post #96

> DoorDash got the bill for the 6,000 claims — more than $9 million. > DoorDash balked, arguing in court that it couldn’t be sure that all of the claimants were legitimate dashers. The American Arbitration Association said the company had to pay anyway. It refused, and the claims were essentially dead. How is that legal for binding arbitration? Didn't both sides agree that disputes will be resolved by arbitration?

I guess that means they weren't bound anymore.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#127

Post by hermitdev »

lostlogin wrote: post #21
kenned3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a very strong protections of speech" I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada. I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are…

Misread your comment as “7 letter words you can’t say on TV”. I’ve spent way too long looking for offensive 7 letter words. It seems that for a word to be truely offensive it is usually very short.

"7 words you can't say on TV" was a great George Carlin standup special.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#128

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dataflow wrote: post #96

> DoorDash got the bill for the 6,000 claims — more than $9 million. > DoorDash balked, arguing in court that it couldn’t be sure that all of the claimants were legitimate dashers. The American Arbitration Association said the company had to pay anyway. It refused, and the claims were essentially dead. How is that legal for binding arbitration? Didn't both sides agree that disputes will be resolved by arbitration?

> How is that legal for binding arbitration?

It doesn’t appear to be legal. But that would require a court order to enforce the arbitrator’s ruling. Benefit here being, there can be excess damages found against DoorDash if they’re acting in bad faith.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#129

Post by mars4rp »

r00fus wrote: post #64
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 ?

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.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#130

Post by Reelin »

Talanes wrote: post #123
Reelin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't have any terms which stop payment because the schools close during the year And so they shouldn't! In many (most?) US states, the public schools are unconditionally funded by the state based on student enrollment figures. Cutting teacher pay during a closure under such a system would be a purely greedy move.

California funds schools by actual attendance, not enrollment, and we're around 10% of the US school population. Sources: https://edsource.org/2019/californias-school-funding-flaws-m... https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.20.a...

Wow, that's terrible IMO. Public schools are quasi-governmental entities with largely fixed costs. Aren't the taxes getting paid either way? Doesn't regulation require a specific number of school days per year? And there are certainly truancy laws on the books.
Post reply on HN