19 ms·

> binding arbitration should be made illegal Binding arbitration and non-competes, are both disgusting anti-business, anti-American, anti-worker, anti-innovati

• gthtjtkt 9y ago
  Couldn't agree more. I called State Farm last month just to get a quote on a potential car purchase. Instead, I ended up canceling my current policy on the spot because the agent tried to push Limited Tort as if it was just an easy way to save money. It made me so furious because most people don't understand what they're giving up, and they won't understand until they get into an accident and learn they signed away their rights years ago. The way agents sell Limited Tort gives you a completely inaccurate impression of the potential consequences. That sort of thing should absolutely be criminal.
  • r00fus 9y ago
    Can you explain what Limited Tort meant in this case?
    • gthtjtkt 9y ago
      In car insurance it means you give up your right to sue for pain and suffering unless you suffer serious injuries. The PA definition of a serious injury is "a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement." So even if you're injured badly enough to need a year of physical therapy for full recovery, you would likely get no money for your pain and suffering under Limited Tort. Without Limited Tort you'd probably get anywhere from $30,000 - $100,000 for that amount of pain/suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.
      • erjjones 9y ago
        Out of curiosity, which insurance did you end up going with?
      • michaelmrose 9y ago
        Do you think the additional money actually serves to offset in any way shape or form the persons suffering? If so what is the conversion factor between pain and money? Do you think quantifying pain and suffering has a positive value even if its very hard to come up with a meaningful way to define suffering in terms of dollars?
        • mgkimsal 9y ago
          > "actually serves to offset in any way shape or form the persons suffering" If you're injured to the point where it impacts your ability to work, or you need extra care from someone... of course it offsets it.
          • michaelmrose 9y ago
            Paying for care has nothing to do with pain and suffering. I wasn't asking the pointless question you imagine I was asking an actual relevant nonobvious question.
            • mgkimsal 9y ago
              Perhaps you could work on rewording it to be obvious?
        • ridgeguy 9y ago
          To answer your questions: 1. Yes. Suffering isn't necessarily limited to some brief interval of time. For example, disfiguring injuries can impose suffering (employment discrimination, loss of consortium, etc.) throughout a person's post-injury lifespan. Money can mitigate burdens imposed by such effects of injury. 2. I don't know. But I would estimate the conversion factor for third-degree burns over 40% of a kid's body as greater than that of a kid's having lost a hand. YMMV. 3. Yes, I do.
  • chuckkir 9y ago
    As a PA resident I always thought of it as spending more if you want the lottery ticket. Obviously if you never get into an accident you'll be much richer with lower-priced limited tort, but you can pay extra if you want to bet that you'll be in an accident and will be in that group that might get some money. I know all insurance is gambling, and it's definitely a personal decision.
• phkahler 9y ago
  >> For non-competes, NDAs should suffice. With all that complaining about signing away your right to sue and work, why do you think it's OK to sign away your right to speak? Serious question.
  • disillusioned 9y ago
    Because a company still needs some level of protection against having their trade secrets spread to their direct competitors by way of a defecting employee.
    • phkahler 9y ago
      So you think a companies trade secrets are more important than a person's first amendment rights? I'm playing devil's advocate here BTW. I think trade secrets might be over rated.
      • GrinningFool 9y ago
        "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...]" This is not related to 1st amendment; this is no law being passed by congress or any government body. Nothing prevents a person from speaking after an NDA is signed - they won't get tossed in jail, because no law was broken. However, after doing so, they will be responsible for any civil penalties they agreed to when they signed the contract.
        • phkahler 9y ago
          I only brought in the first amendment to highlight the importance of the right to free speech. Contracts are important but perhaps some things should not be allowed in them. Many contracts are unfair, but people enter into them anyway for various reasons.
    • phkahler 9y ago
      People have been trying to charge rent on ideas for just about forever. We have patents and copyrights for that purpose. Not that I'm a fan of where that have gone (the length of copyright and even 20 years on patents).
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• Latty 9y ago
  Arbitration, just like plea deals, are an obviously terrible idea that is legal almost entirely because it reduces the cost of having trials. Less trials is cheaper, which everyone running things likes. Of course, that's trading justice for money, which most people would agree is a terrible idea. Of course, that isn't reflected in the actual state of the law.
  • Hermel 9y ago
    Arbitration can make sense in an international setup with contracts between large companies. For example, if an American company does business with a Russian company, they might agree to do arbitration in the UK in case of a dispute. However, what Amazon does here is just wrong.
  • dd36 9y ago
    Forced consumer arbitration has been widely adopted solely because it is used to preclude class actions. Some state courts send matters to public arbitration, which is decidedly different. There are parts of forced consumer arbitraiton that companies do not like, but there's too much upsdie to precluding class actions. Things companies don't like include: the high up front cost and the lack of appeals. There's nothing legally preventing arbitrators from being vehemently pro-consumer. The incentives prevent it but, legally, an arbitrator could award a crazy amount of money to a consumer on a tenuous basis and there's little that could be done. It's interesting that no such examples exist, however.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • Latty 9y ago
      Nothing preventing them? How many companies will hire the arbitrator that is pro-consumer? There are obvious incentives for the arbitrators to favour the people paying them - individuals are not going to be doing a lot of business with them, companies are.
      • megy 9y ago
• meddlepal 9y ago
  You're using the legal system... by negotiating away your right to sue. Don't sign the agreement if you don't like it.
  • hobs 9y ago
    That's fine until its inculcated into every commercial agreement going forward, and you have no legal power to challenge the entire system.
    • meddlepal 9y ago
      The answer seems pretty obvious... live a simpler life that doesn't depend on these services.
      • pmiller2 9y ago
        That's entirely workable... if you want to not have a job, or a bank account, or a credit card.
      • landryraccoon 9y ago
        Exiling yourself from society shouldn't be a requirement of wanting equal access to the justice system.
      • michaelmrose 9y ago
        There is zero reason not to include such a contract in every point of contact between you and society if you let people run with this one eventually the bottom of your receipt for a pound of grapes will contain such language and they'll call it a contract of adhesion. If mandatory binding arbitration included as part of your standard interaction with businesses is a net negative for 99% of people and a positive for business owners and large stock holders there is no particular reason why the 99% can't vote not to allow the owners to do that.
      • jfaat 9y ago
        A few months ago my car got covered in white paint from the garage of the apartment I live in. I had it detailed, which they agreed to pay for right away. They credited my account for the cost of the detail, then added it back as a rent charge when I refused to sign away my right to sue over the incident (well, the contract said basically they weren’t liable for anything that happened at all around that time on the premises. also the detailing didn’t remove the paint). They required me to pay back the money in order to make my rent payment the next month, or i would have been charged 10% of the rent + detailing charge as a fee. So yeah, avoid services like renting an apartment and you’ll be all set. Good luck!
• goldenkey 9y ago
  I had good experience arbitrating with AT&T over a missing credit for an old phone I sent in when upgrading. They didnt know where the phone was even though tracking showed they received it, and they werent giving me a credit. I tried to escalate and speak to more and more agents but ultimately I sent a letter to their legal department with a Request For Arbitration form. A paralegal from their legal department contacted me and offered me a good sum of money shortly after. Really was a smooth process..
  • conistonwater 9y ago
    But you didn't reach arbitration? Somebody from the legal department thought the best way to avoid legal risk was to give you money, which is how they avoided the possibly more risky legal process.
    • goldenkey 9y ago
      I filled out the request for arbitration. Ive never arbitrated before so I assumed that was the process. But are you saying they settled instead of arbitrating? What is the difference?
• otakucode 9y ago
  The thing with non-competes is that most businesses realize that their employees could run circles around them and out-compete them without even trying if they were brave enough to try. So they fear that. I mean, no overhead of a radically expensive office building plus its utilities and maintenance, those multiple layers of ineffective management, the executive cherry on top charging an ultra premium to make your company look good? Cut that stuff out and you barely need to charge anything to continue making a perfectly opulent living for a typical technology worker. And it's not like the office or any of those things actually add anything of value, they're all just maintained mostly through sheer force of will and tradition - things proven to fail at any moment. So if you sign something that severely penalizes going out on your own and competing against your employer, they're going to jump on that and treat it like a lifeline because it very much is exactly that.
• gnopgnip 9y ago
  The alternative of going to trial more often has its own downsides. Similar parallels to plea bargaining. If the cost of a plea bargain or arbitration is $500, and the cost of a trial is $5000, with trials only there are many injustices that would never be pursued.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• djsumdog 9y ago
  I walked away from a job offer recently. It was the first company that refused to remove their non-compete clause. They're illegal in California. In Illinois, they're illegal if you made less than $13/hr. They should be made illegal everywhere. I know one software developer personally who has been screwed over by a non-compete. I know others who simply ignore them, which is dangerous since different states have rules differently on their enforceability.
  • azernik 9y ago
    If you don't mind my asking, what state was this in? And did you get the impression that it's treated as a norm locally?
    • jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
      I can say I looked up the ruling history in Oregon and the longest one that I found held was ~6months. Generally courts in OR state are narrow towards non competes. So that's at least some evidence it varies by state.
    • djsumdog 9y ago
      This was in Illinois. Chicago has a vastly different hiring environment than any other place I've lived in. The interviews are long, there are a ton of behaviour questions (one interview had a solid hour dedicated to behaviour questions; and they wanted really detailed specifics). It's a far departure from other markets I've worked in. I've personally never even asked behaviour questions during an interview, and really I think you can get a good judge of behaviour just by watching the candidate answer technical questions. I'm not sure if non-competes are the norm. I have a feeling they might be as they recently passed laws to ban them for low income earners. I've only had one job offer, and they refused to remove it. I have no problem signing NDAs, IP wavers, patent wavers, etc. But I refuse to sign anything that restricts my right to work after a company stops paying me. If it turns out all of them do the same thing, I might have to head back to the west coast.
      • infinite8s 9y ago
• GrinningFool 9y ago
  I recently bought furniture. There was small print that said I was agreeing to the terms and conditions on the back. Historically you're used to seeing warranty and financing (if any - none in this case) information. When I flipped it over, it turned out it was a binding arbitration agreement. For a furniture purchase.
• wpietri 9y ago
  > Binding arbitration and non-competes, are both disgusting anti-business, anti-American, anti-worker, anti-innovation, anti-rights that need to be killed. Agreed. Here's how I look at it: If a company really screws you over, you can sue. It's a lot of time and money, but it's worth it for a big problem. But what if the problem is small? If I get screwed out of $5 by a dodgy company, I won't bother to sue. But if they've done the same to a lot of people, a class action lawsuit makes it worth some lawyer's time to go after them. Arbitration clauses destroy that. Without class action, we need much more vigorous government intervention. Failing that, consumers lose the trust in the marketplace, harming commerce and making everybody poorer. And we'd likely see more proactive regulation as well, reducing innovation.
• mehrdada 9y ago
  I'm proud to have turned down a economically-maximizing offer with a margin on principle of not signing non-competes. I understand that I was lucky to have the luxury to be able to say no and not everyone is able to do so on a different circumstance, but I believe if you have the option of taking a lower offer without a non-compete you have the moral obligation to your profession to push back and resist, and let them know that a non-compete is morally repellent.