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

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#171

Post by coryfklein »

verbify wrote: post #102
munchbunny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restructuring arbitration for neutrality and thus cannibalizing arbitration as an industry seems like a fine outcome to me. Feels a bit like the payday loan industry: I'm sure it does some people some good, but it's largely just predatory and throws people into a rigged game. We'd be better off with less of it.

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…

In the case of payday loans I don't think we have to worry about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The number of people that will literally start turning to the Mafia for loans has got to be minuscule.

On the other hand, the number of people who will no longer be bent over a barrel every day will be significantly improved.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#172

Post by JumpCrisscross »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #170
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing that could fix this would be making the decision for arbitration binding on companies This is how arbitration works. Non-binding arbitration is called mediation, and is basically glorified group therapy.

I should have phrased it better. I am not talking about an arbitration case itself, but the decision to use arbitration as the means for settling disputes. If company decides to use arbitration in 2018, then in 2020, they are not allowed to change their mind to not use arbitration. Deciding to use arbitration locks the company in. Thus, the various arbitration providers don't have any concern that if their decisions…

This is how every arbitration clause I've seen is structured. I think it's a good idea to write that restriction into law, given anyone deviating from the norm is probably tryin to game the system to their advantage.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#173

Post by mindslight »

hoaw wrote: post #122
mindslight wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The consequences of deeply fundamental issues develop slowly. Binding arbitration goes against the concept of law itself - allowing one party to unilaterally effect how a contract document can be interpreted means there is actually no contract at all! Even capital-L Libertarians believe that one of the jobs of government is to administer law, and so preserving that function is directly in line with its purpose.

Of course we can just assume that it's a forgone conclusion that government is corrupt, and look to how we can personally act to overcome - I did say that collective action is a "step up" from individual action. It's just important to remember the larger context of direct action being a tactic rather than a solution.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#174

Post by fencepost »

devereaux wrote: post #57
narrator wrote: post #37

Just to put a word in for the other side. A friend of mine had some startup that had a huge contract for its product. One of the employees got let go and filed an employment suit. The lawyer he got was somewhat unethical and basically buried the company in legal fees. They went out of business before they could fulfill the big contract and tried to settle many times with the employee, but the lawyer kept egging him o…

How can the lawyer of one party cause legal fees to the other party? I genuinely do not understand, as each party is responsible for its own costs

If I'm suing you and I file a motion for summary judgement in my favor, do you need to respond to it? How much is your attorney going to be charging for the time required for that response?

Now imagine that I'm filing multiple motions per week some of which may require a fair amount of time to respond to, so you're getting billed for 10-40 hours of attorney time per week. How long can you sustain that burn rate?

This ties into SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, aka "I may not be able to win my suit, but I can make you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against it anyway") and the saying "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" ("we may not be able to convict you, but we can drag a court case out for years and ruin your life").

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#175

Post by mruts »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
mruts wrote: post #50

Why can’t judicial systems just get more funding? Surely they aren’t that expensive? You just have to rent the space, and pay the employees (all of which probably don’t make that much money). Surely some money from the military could pay for that?

> pay the employees (all of which probably don’t make that much money). Court are packed with lawyers. The only thing buttressing against the sky-high compensation a good lawyer can make in the private sector is the political opportunity clerking and working in a court can open up. These aren't people one goes cheap on.

According to google, public prosecutors make a median salary of $81,000. So maybe like two-thirds as much as an average software engineer? Doesn't sound that expensive.

Also, they get to cash in after working in the public sector for awhile, so in essence they get deferred comp from the private sector.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#176

Post by gruez »

ardy42 wrote: post #128
verbify wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>say a regulation that requires TBTF banks to offer payday loans and make up for the loss through their other products

but if banks are forced to make loans at a loss, aren't we effectively subsidizing people that don't repay loans? you might think this is a noble goal, but I'd doubt many people will be on board.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#177

Post by philwelch »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #101
philwelch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absurd that you can actually waive any of your legal rights.. "You have the right to remain silent. So, we're just gonna go home now. Bye." A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit.

> A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit. This is one of the silliest sentences I've read today. An obligation is you had to do something. While a right is something you can choose to exercise or not. With the right to be silent, you never waive that right as in they can never force you not to be silent. What you do is you exercise your…

The distinction between waiving and not-exercising a right is a bit of a gradient, though. Most contracts entail at least one party incurring future obligations. Any of these obligations, by virtue of not existing in the first place, will waive one’s pre-existing rights.

There are legal limits on which contracts are enforceable by law, and perhaps mandatory arbitration should be one of them. But there is always, in principle, the ability to waive one’s rights, because there’s no other logical way to voluntarily incur future obligations.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#178

Post by philwelch »

sarchertech wrote: post #67
philwelch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absurd that you can actually waive any of your legal rights.. "You have the right to remain silent. So, we're just gonna go home now. Bye." A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit.

There are many rights you can't waive. For instance, you can't sell yourself into slavery--everyone except for hardcore libertarians is fine with that one. And you can't waive your right to remain silent permanently. You can reassert that right at any time.

Unless you plea bargain, or receive judicial immunity.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#179

Post by ardy42 »

gruez wrote: post #176
ardy42 wrote: post #128

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. > If you cap maximum interest rates then people who are deemed too 'high risk' will be…

>say a regulation that requires TBTF banks to offer payday loans and make up for the loss through their other products but if banks are forced to make loans at a loss, aren't we effectively subsidizing people that don't repay loans? you might think this is a noble goal, but I'd doubt many people will be on board.

> but if banks are forced to make loans at a loss, aren't we effectively subsidizing people that don't repay loans? you might think this is a noble goal, but I'd doubt many people will be on board.

Perhaps, but I have little sympathy for the feelings of the better-off people who want to clutch every penny to the point that they are jealous of the help the needy might get. If they're able to block reforms, then I think efforts need to be made to change their attitudes.

Re: What Happens When You Try to Sue Your Boss

#180

Post by CogitoCogito »

coryfklein wrote: post #169
CogitoCogito wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them. This is certainly true, but many parties are mutually benefited by resolving some disputes via a neutral arbiter rather than the courts. It's just another example of where private companies can be more efficient than legal bodies. There are just more inherent costs in a legal court of law.

I don’t disagree, but I don’t believe this is an argument against my claim that the choice of whether a dispute should go to arbitration should not be made before the dispute arises.
Post reply on HN