5 ms·

I came here to say this. Never touch a job, contract, anything that takes away your right to avail yourself of the legal system. There are quite a few "Christ

I came here to say this. Never touch a job, contract, anything that takes away your right to avail yourself of the legal system. There are quite a few "Christian" organizations (in particular, rehabs) that require "biblical" arbitration. While the discussion around this is usually limited to "lol conservatives are scared of sharia law and then this???", the real issue is that arbitration clauses, whether they're founded in corporate culture or bibilical law, always hurt the person who gave up their legal rights. Perhaps the corporate U4 agreements are more honest, as their purpose is simply to save the employer the cost of arbitration, but they're every bit as scary. Don't sign away your rights!

umanwizard 11y ago
They always hurt the person who gave up their rights? I'd argue that 99.9% of the time, they don't. How often do people want to sue their employer, anyway? I've worked at two big-name companies, and I think they both had arbitration classes. I don't remember for sure. Never mattered.
- Afton 11y ago
  It is always either neutral or negative is probably what OP meant here. I.e. it is never in your interests to have such a clause. In theory, you could use that clause as leverage for a better salary or benefits or other positive outcomes, but in practice I doubt that there are any cases of employment contracts where you give up this right for anything other than 'the right to sign the employment contract'.
  - onetwotree 11y ago
    I feel as though being a stickler for your contract rights places you in a bit stronger negotiating position, if only on a purely psychological level.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    It's often very positive because by signing the contract, you get a potentially desirable job. I agree that these sorts of clauses should be banned, but "never sign a mandatory arbitration clause" is overly simplistic advice.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Rights still matter even if you don't exercise them. The presence of those rights can make your employer act better than they would have just because of the increased chance of being sued by some employee. Even if you would have tolerated larger violations of your rights than your fellow coworkers, the least tolerant coworkers protect the rest because they will take action against smaller violations. Unless one thinks small violations of workers' rights can make themself worse off than larger violations, they benefit from protecting their class rights for the collective effect.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    I don't think you understood my point. I don't think mandatory arbitration clauses are ideal, and I wish they were banned. That's what you're arguing here and I agree with you The point is that it's overly simplistic advice to say never to sign such a thing, when there are potentially huge upsides (getting a high-paying job that treats nearly all employees well).
- onetwotree 11y ago
  This is like asking "Why do the police matter? I've never been the victim of a crime!". The police are protecting you because they offer a deterrent to crime, and the civil law protects by providing a deterrent to your employer fucking you over. Signing away your right to sue your employer when they give you the shaft is just as stupid as signing away your right to call the police when someone steals your car.
doomrobo 11y ago
Aren't you always able to sue? Even if you sign a contract saying that you consent to internal arbitration? You can always sue.
- onetwotree 11y ago
  Nope. Not if you sign one of these.
- tptacek 11y ago
  No, you can't. That's what the "mandatory int "mandatory arbitration" means. Those contracts are binding, even in discrimination claims.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  You can always attempt to sue. As in, there is nothing stopping you from serving the papers to a court to initiate the process. However, it would be a pretty clear-cut dismissal motion if a mandatory arbitration clause in in place. And you'd probably piss off the judge for wasting their time to boot.

umanwizard 11y ago

They always hurt the person who gave up their rights? I'd argue that 99.9% of the time, they don't. How often do people want to sue their employer, anyway? I've worked at two big-name companies, and I think they both had arbitration classes. I don't remember for sure. Never mattered.

Afton 11y ago
It is always either neutral or negative is probably what OP meant here. I.e. it is never in your interests to have such a clause. In theory, you could use that clause as leverage for a better salary or benefits or other positive outcomes, but in practice I doubt that there are any cases of employment contracts where you give up this right for anything other than 'the right to sign the employment contract'.
- onetwotree 11y ago
  I feel as though being a stickler for your contract rights places you in a bit stronger negotiating position, if only on a purely psychological level.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  It's often very positive because by signing the contract, you get a potentially desirable job. I agree that these sorts of clauses should be banned, but "never sign a mandatory arbitration clause" is overly simplistic advice.
danharaj 11y ago
Rights still matter even if you don't exercise them. The presence of those rights can make your employer act better than they would have just because of the increased chance of being sued by some employee. Even if you would have tolerated larger violations of your rights than your fellow coworkers, the least tolerant coworkers protect the rest because they will take action against smaller violations. Unless one thinks small violations of workers' rights can make themself worse off than larger violations, they benefit from protecting their class rights for the collective effect.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  I don't think you understood my point. I don't think mandatory arbitration clauses are ideal, and I wish they were banned. That's what you're arguing here and I agree with you The point is that it's overly simplistic advice to say never to sign such a thing, when there are potentially huge upsides (getting a high-paying job that treats nearly all employees well).
onetwotree 11y ago
This is like asking "Why do the police matter? I've never been the victim of a crime!". The police are protecting you because they offer a deterrent to crime, and the civil law protects by providing a deterrent to your employer fucking you over. Signing away your right to sue your employer when they give you the shaft is just as stupid as signing away your right to call the police when someone steals your car.

doomrobo 11y ago

Aren't you always able to sue? Even if you sign a contract saying that you consent to internal arbitration? You can always sue.

onetwotree 11y ago
Nope. Not if you sign one of these.
tptacek 11y ago
No, you can't. That's what the "mandatory int "mandatory arbitration" means. Those contracts are binding, even in discrimination claims.
jdmichal 11y ago
You can always attempt to sue. As in, there is nothing stopping you from serving the papers to a court to initiate the process. However, it would be a pretty clear-cut dismissal motion if a mandatory arbitration clause in in place. And you'd probably piss off the judge for wasting their time to boot.