Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
1–10 of 181 posts
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#2Ruling can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-285_q8l1.pdf
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#3This 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!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#4Purely as a matter of statutory construction, Ginsburg's dissent seems better reasoned.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#5This 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!
Replying to myself: Think about how many transactions--i.e., in legal terms, a contract--you participate in every day. Now imagine that every one of those contracts forced on you to essentially give up your access to the court system for resolving grievances with private companies. That's where I believe we're heading, especially now that it seems like the issue has been officially resolved (at least for jobs). It's really scary.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#6Time 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.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#7From 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. Convenient argument when it's serving their purpose.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#8This 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!
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 said representatives won't do so then they should elect someone else next election cycle who will.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#9This 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!
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…
Given the US is a common law system, whats "on the books"
and "how it's currently written" is only part of the story - precedent established in prior cases is another large deciding factor in what the law "is", and judges have a fair degree of latitude to adapt interpretation in this regard. Interpretation is not static either.
> opens the door for legislation from the bench
In common law systems, indirectly this is what happens and has done for centuries. Through interpretation of statute and binding precedent, the bench does get to help define, albeit in far more limited fashion than the legislature, what "the law" is in a common law system. This is one reason why lawyers have to examine both the statute _and_ the case law.
Disappointing is the right word.
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#10This 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!
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 decision respects the law on the books.