Live data from Hacker News

Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

techcrunch.com

291–293 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#291
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree it's shady, but I suspect it's there so that they don't have to specifically negotiate to add it when a special-case deal is agreed to... They can't seriously expect their standard form agreement to stay NDA-confidential Yep. Basically the same logic as companies with competitive salaries trying to keep wage info quiet, even in the age of Glassdoor. It's not that there's something to hide about the standard…

> But it adds a hurdle to people comparing notes on exactly what they signed, and when somebody does get a special exemption, it stops them putting up a point-by-point guide for everyone else. So to make it harder for labor to organize, basically.

More or less, yeah.

It's not as directly defensive as salary hiding, which can obviously help conceal everything from wage collusion to Ledbetter v. Goodyear style inequities. But it still stops labor from sharing information and helping to share in concessions.

I didn't include it above, but a related part is that layering on NDAs makes it harder for non-employees to get involved. If you post your whole contract online, a random employment lawyer might happen by and go "hey, you're getting screwed, 3.A.ii is non-standard and probably illegal". But if you restrict it to employee viewing and low-specificity discussions, you're less likely to have lawyers or activists get involved unprompted.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the root of the perceived unfairness here is that people think a take it or leave it attitude is not fair. I think the root of the perceived unfairness is that forced arbitration concerns using a power disparity to force renunciation by default of fundamental political rights (access to the court system) to the benefit of the powerful party. The take it or leave it attitude is fine, but only when the partie…

The power disparity remains whether or not we restrict arbitration. If isn't take it or leave it on that, it'd be take it or leave it on salary or vacation days or whatever else. I don't see how tweaking one, in the grand scheme of things, small available contractual term is doing anything about power imbalances generally. Instead the crux then seems to be "fundamental political rights". I guess I don't see it that w…

> The power disparity remains whether or not we restrict arbitration. If isn't take it or leave it on that, it'd be take it or leave it on salary or vacation days or whatever else. I don't see how tweaking one, in the grand scheme of things, small available contractual term is doing anything about power imbalances generally.

I didn't specific it earlier, but I think restrictions on binding arbitration would also extend to contractural prohibitions on class action lawsuits, since the two typically go hand in hand.

It doesn't eliminate the power disparity, but eliminates new mechanisms that are used to increase it as well as protecting the mechanisms that have traditionally been used to protect against it.

> The fundamental right here is the parties' ability to form an enforceable agreement under terms they agree to.

I disagree, there are other rights that are at least as important that must be balanced against that.

Also "terms they agree to" is a slippery concept, and it's arguable it doesn't apply to 99% of the contracts "agreed to" today (think click-throughs and other walls of tiny text, which are typically neither actively negotiated, read, nor fully understood by one party as an essential matter of practicality).

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optional as long as you're ok not having a job. I have yet to sign a contract with any SV company that doesn't include forced arbitration.

...this is literally what the article is about. It's saying Google is removing forced arbitration from its employment contract.

Yeah I get it. I was trying to explain it to the commenter that missed that detail.
Post reply on HN