What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss • Hacker News Board

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#141

Post by eeZah7Ux » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

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…

Courts exits to protect citizen rights and, ultimately, protect democracy.

Creating ways to circumvent the legal system (e.g. plea bargains, private arbitration and so on) is rarely done in good faith.

No law of physics prevents the creation of a cheap, equitable and efficient legal system.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#142

Post by renholder » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

gboudrias wrote: post #68

I'm fairly against arbitration and I'm fairly certain it's much more limited here in Canada. In this particular story, what strikes me is the amounts being discussed. 1 million dollars isn't chump change to anyone. If we have to have arbitration, there should be a hard legal limit on how much they can arbitrate when a physical person is involved. Also it should be limited to financial matters, forcing any other matte…

>In this particular story, what strikes me is the amounts being discussed. 1 million dollars isn't chump change to anyone. If we have to have arbitration, there should be a hard legal limit on how much they can arbitrate when a physical person is involved.

Two points:

1. 1 Million is chump change to UBS.

2. It was class-action. More parties = More money. He wasn't in it just for himself.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#143

Post by eeZah7Ux » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #59

Apocryphon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

I get what you mean but the "nobody's forcing you" arguments are all fallacious. Life it's not a dichotomy between forced and free.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#144

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

verbify wrote: post #137

pjc50 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demand is not really "pre-existing", it's one created by the payday loan industry to a large extent. Especially by advertising their use for buying consumer goods. What tends to happen is not that people go to the Mafia (traditionally they come to you!), but that people make creditors of their utility companies and landlords by deferring payment. (The older alternative to unsecured very high interest short term l…

I'm not sure about the laws in your locality (in the UK you have to have a licence from the UK Office of Fair Trading to offer consumer credit), but I would generally support banning anyone other than payday loan companies from selling very high interest loans - high interest loans from utility companies and landlords strikes me as an obscenity. > What tends to happen is not that people go to the Mafia (traditionally…

(also in the UK)

> high interest loans from utility companies and landlords strikes me as an obscenity.

My point is usually that this is a lot cheaper, since these don't usually charge interest at the payday rates. Utility companies have barriers to cutting you off.

But ultimately people who have negative cashflow week-to-week are going to get in trouble. Limiting how much debt they can get in causes them to hit the buffers earlier, but less hard.

(Incidentally, this is yet another major problem with "universal credit": paying it on a 6 week delay is designed to force people to use payday lenders!)

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#145

Post by virgilp » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #85

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?

> It's absurd that you can actually waive any of your legal rights... Seriously, this is bonkers. I see this claim all the time in comments about mandatory arbitration clauses, but it doesn’t make sense as stated. You need to narrow it down or at least clarify it somehow. Being able to waive legal rights is necessary for society to function. For example, I have the legal right to not give McDonald’s $1. I waive that…

> I have the legal right not to go to work every day, which I waive in exchange for a paycheck

No you don't. You chose to go to work every day, in exchange for said paycheck. But it is a choice, and you can reverse it any time. Waiving the right means "in exchange for this paycheck, I promise to waive my right not to go to work for you - i.e. I am now legally your slave". You can't do that.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#146

Post by rocqua » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #11

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?

Waiving your right to first go to court seems reasonable enough provided you cannot waive the right to appeal arbitration in court.

What makes the most sense is that both sides have the option to accept arbitration before any trial starts. This way, routine cases can be dealt with in arbitration, and more complicated ones at trial.

What needs to be avoided is

* people being pressured into arbitration in return for something (e.g. Accept arbitration or don't get a job) * people opting into/out of arbitration based on rulings. So, no deciding to move to arbitration because you don't like a judge, nor deciding to go for a trial if arbitration isn't going your way.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#147

Post by CaptainZapp » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

cascom wrote: post #135

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.

The problem is that pay day loans are typically pretty small <$500 and meant to be short duration 1-8 weeks, meaning that if it’s a $500 loan out for one month @15% that is $6.2 in interest, it is going to cost more than that to process and administer the loan, let alone funding costs, default risk, etc.

Which may explain why the businessmodel just doesn't exist in Switzerland.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#148

Post by CogitoCogito » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

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…

> Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense.

Honestly I think it does _not_ make sense. If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them.

> 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 the company, so they have a strong incentive to favor the company. Arbitration wouldn't be so bad if the inherent bias is removed.

I think these are good ideas, but I think there's another very big one to consider: why should anyone be allowed to choose arbitration before the dispute at hand arises? I simply think it should be disallowed. I always here people supporting arbitration say stuff like "it's better for both parties", but if that's actually the case then both parties would choose the arbitration at the time of the dispute. Allowing people to tie themselves to arbitration ahead of time entirely removes the incentive to actually provide a fairer and better process to both sides.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#149

Post by hvs » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

URSpider94 wrote: post #75

User23 wrote: post #70

Can a lawyer here explain how these arbitration clauses aren't unconscionable?

Not a lawyer, but the Supreme Court has ruled that they are Constitutional, and that’s pretty much that.

They ruled that they are "constitutional" not that they are "conscionable".

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#150

Post by pc86 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #148

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…

> Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. Honestly I think it does _not_ make sense. If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them. > 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 judg…

I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees.

I don't think that's enough of a reason to disagree with your point but it's certainly one to consider, especially if one side has a lot more resources and jurisdictionally each side will need to pay their own legal fees.