81–90 of 188 posts
Arbitration isn’t necessarily bad for workers. Arbitrators tend to split the baby. So, if you have a weak case, you may come out ahead.
And if 20% is considered splitting the baby, I tremble to imagine what part the employee ends up with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so... serious question, and I'm asking you, 'cause it sounds like you are implying that you've sued your employer. is suing your employer a seriously career-impairing move? I mean, I think most court proceedings are public records, and it seems like if the fact that you sued your last employer for something came up in your background check, I personally assume that'd be as bad or worse than an old felony conviction,…
it probably won't impact you.
But, that doesn't mean I'm not curious.
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…
IANAL, but why not just have a special labor court with more judges to be the nonbiased arbitrators? Or use retired judges to be like “independent contractor” arbitrators as a special division of the courts? (I’m also not sure what the requirements to be an arbitrator are so please correct me).
For employees this is free in the first instance and you will have a neutral judge to rule about the situation. I think you don't even need a lawyer as an employee but just "file a case" with the court, but I'm not totally sure about that.
Anyway, it's a very important part of the system in Germany, those courts keep a lot of cases with work-related topics away from the "normal" courts while still providing a neutral platform for both parties.
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. 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?
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 right in exchange for them giving me a soda. I have the legal right not to go to work every day, which I waive in exchange for a paycheck. And so on.
They should have portrayed someone from the nurses they mentioned instead. Small amounts or problems someones life depends on make for a dramatic story, a rich guy and his fight for hundred thousands of extra compensation make me scoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that companies favor arbitration because arbitration tends to favor companies. If arbitration were truly neutral, and it were easy to access with low costs to the consumer, companies would stop using them. So even if companies don't pick the arbitrator, arbitrators still have an incentive to find in favor of companies. Additionally, small claims court already basically works like what you're describing…
Arbitration is also a lot cheaper than going to court, so companies would save money on arbitration even if arbiters were slightly less likely to side with them than courts.
Court costs are a greater barrier to the side that doesn't have a full time legal team.
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…
But today, the fact that companies, with a lot more lawyer money than individual employees, push that, shows all we need to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
from what I understand, arbitration is a way to come up with a resolution if possible before taking case to court. If arbitrator decision doesn't seem just to employee then why don't they appeal for court? Who own the cost of court proceedings in such scenario, company or employee? But given the exorbitant legal fees its not is favor of employee to take this route.
Because you signed a contract to abide by the outcome of the arbitration proceedings (i.e., it's "binding"). If you appeal, the judge will toss it out and you'll have wasted your money.