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

Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 181 posts

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#31

Post by bradleyankrom »

onecooldev24 wrote: post #23
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

Time to pressure congress to change this. A lot of people see SCOTUS decisions and think the matter closed, but congress with the flick of a pen could completely ban arbitration for employee contracts. The employer/employee relationship is by its nature power imbalanced. If employers band together and all require arbitration (as they likely will via a standardised templated contract) employees cannot do much.

Ohh yeah sure, employees should easily be allowed to harass employers by slowing down the justice process. And this place is suppose to be frequented by smart people, I am just amazed by the stupidity on this forum.

based on your comment history, your whole schtick seems to be insulting the people on HN. why are you here?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#33

Post by gowld »

fhayde wrote: post #7

From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-285_q8l1.pdf > It is unlikely that Congress wished to confer a right to class or collective actions in §7, since those procedures were hardly known when the NLRA was adopted in 1935. Kind of funny they use this as justification considering everything else they've upheld that was adopted decades prior to this without knowledge of modern custom or technology. Convenie…

In these cases, the correct SCOTUS answer is "we can't decide". The proper response is some sort of forced decision in Congress -- In a criminal case, a higher court can "remand" -- order a lower court to review and decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_(court_procedure)

We need the same for bitrotted legislation.

In effect, we do -- When SCOTUS says "We don't think past Congress made a decision about this, so we'll pick a default ruling", current Congress has every right and opportnity to hold a vote to make a decision. If they don't, that means they agree with the court, and just as well would have repealed the law if SCOTUS ruled the other way.

Now, in practice Congress doesn't do its job (to busy campaigning for reelection), so inertia wields as much power as any considered deliberation....

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#34

Post by gowld »

latortuga wrote: post #10
koolba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't disappointing at all as it reflects the state of the laws as they're currently on the books. Desiring or determining a court ruling based upon what you'd like the law to be rather than how it's currently written opens the door for legislation from the bench. If workers want the law changed to ban arbitration clauses then they should ask their representatives to pass legislation to do exactly that. And if s…

Okay sure. But don't lose track of reality in your quest for idealism though. There is a vast power imbalance between worker and corporation, both money and power. Businesses control the contracts, they have far more money, and, as a result, they have vastly more powerful lobbying. So in practice, there is no defense for workers anywhere! Kicking the can to "elect someone else" is just as naive as claiming that this…

Your concern is valid, and is the domain of anti-trust law.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#35

Post by Karishma1234 »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

This is really, really disappointing. Contracts are supposed to be fair for both sides. In isolation, meaning for one specific purchase or one specific job, they are. But what happens when every company and employer has this language in their contracts? What do they lose by including the language? They lose nothing!

The verdict seems very consistent with the existing laws while many believe it is unfair. But these are two separate things. Workers should petition their representatives to pass laws that will help them bring fairness and the courts will then have to look at the issue freshly.

> But what happens when every company and employer has this language in their contracts? What do they lose by including the language? They lose nothing!

That is not true. Arbitration does not come free and not necessarily always in favour of the employer either. Which of the following would you prefer ?

1. Pay a monthly fee of $25 and whenever you get a traffic ticket you don't have to pay it 40% of the times. 2. Pay a traffic ticket only if you get it.

Every single car I have purchased made me sign similar agreement and I know at least one car dealer who got sued and lost pretty badly.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#36

Post by gowld »

cookiecaper wrote: post #14
koolba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't disappointing at all as it reflects the state of the laws as they're currently on the books. Desiring or determining a court ruling based upon what you'd like the law to be rather than how it's currently written opens the door for legislation from the bench. If workers want the law changed to ban arbitration clauses then they should ask their representatives to pass legislation to do exactly that. And if s…

We have a system that operates at the pace of 1776. That served us well for a long time, but since the post-war proliferation of mass media, it's hard to argue that it's adequate anymore. You're right that people don't understand the way the separation of powers works, but the system badly needs to be revised. The world has totally transformed in the last 75 years and it's much smaller now. Political and legal feedba…

We must occasionally remind ourselves that the Supreme Court ruled to uphold slavery, so injustice under law is not a recent phenomenon.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#37

Post by imglorp »

gowld wrote: post #27
mars4rp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time Congress did something for the people against corporations?

Here's a 2010 data point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...

And a 2018 data point: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-equifax-cfpb/exclusiv...

So it used to be okay but in the new climate, CFPB has been gutted and is now the Corporation Financial Protection Bureau.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#38

Post by srj »

notyourday wrote: post #12
dctoedt wrote: post #4

Purely as a matter of statutory construction, Ginsburg's dissent seems better reasoned.

Her dissent is "I wish I could write legislation from a bench and darn we don't have enough on our side". It is great that SCOTUS is starting to uphold the laws as they are on the books. Frankly, the idea that not legislators but the courts get to write the laws should be abhorrent. Courts need to stick to "is this law contradict other laws and hence is invalid" decisions. Want to change the law? Get congress and sen…

Except for Gorsuch, who is new, the same justices ruled to throw out the Voting Rights Act coverage formula because they felt the criteria set 40 years ago was too old. There's no blind interpretation of the law, justices make a decision anchored at least in part by their poltics and work backwards to justify it.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#39

Post by dantheman »

sykh wrote: post #24
jeffdavis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 The supreme court is not a legislative body. It's fun when your side wins, but that's essentially the same as hoping for a benevolent dictator. The most important SCOTUS cases are constitutional ones limiting the legislative branch, not becoming a second legislature.

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

The Janus ruling will be about whether public sector unions can force government employees to pays dues to their union. If you believe this is compelled speech, it doesn't matter if there are decades of laws -- they are invalid.

There's decades of laws that made interracial marriage illegal (Loving v. Virginia), and the supreme court overruled them too. If the constitution forbids a government action then it's up to the supreme court to overrule it.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#40

Post by rayiner »

sykh wrote: post #24
jeffdavis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 The supreme court is not a legislative body. It's fun when your side wins, but that's essentially the same as hoping for a benevolent dictator. The most important SCOTUS cases are constitutional ones limiting the legislative branch, not becoming a second legislature.

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

If the Supreme Court overrules Abood in Janus, that'll be the Court doing its job to invalidate statutes that infringing Constitutional protections. Here, where there was no Constitutional concern, the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).
Post reply on HN