5 ms·

I honestly think changes should be made to employment law that invalidate sections of an employee contract that contravene or reduce the employee protections wr

by c12 9y ago

I honestly think changes should be made to employment law that invalidate sections of an employee contract that contravene or reduce the employee protections written in law. You shouldn't be able to sign a contract that waives your right to sue your employer if they discriminate against you.

zekevermillion 9y ago
Some types of claims are not waivable by law. But I'm not sure discrimination should be one of them. Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible to settle such claims in exchange for severance payments on termination of employment. This would only be helpful to employees who naively sign a separation agreement without understanding what they have given away. Perhaps a more nuanced approach could work, eg, the one taken by OWBPA to impose a mandatory post-signing period in which an older worker can revoke their signature. This is currently the law for "older workers" but I see no reason not to extend to all workers...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fulafel 9y ago
  In places where you can't waive this, people still get remuneration from the court. Of course these places have more reasonable lawyering costs too (and/or are bankrolled by the union).
- wpietri 9y ago
  I'm not sure the settling of claims on termination is a particularly great mechanism as it stands. At least among friends, that seems to be a common clause when somebody gets laid off or let go. E.g., I know somebody who was laid off from a large tech company with no notice, and any severance was made conditional on signing away all rights. In effect, the ability to sign away those rights generally, rather than in response to settling a specific incident of wrongdoing, gives employers terminating a employees an incentive to fuck them over so as to maximize leverage. Perhaps better is something where anybody signing away the right to sue over discrimination has to do it under the supervision of the state's workplace anti-discrimination regulator? That would remove the information asymmetry that the employer has here.
  - pm90 9y ago
    > Perhaps better is something where anybody signing away the right to sue over discrimination has to do it under the supervision of the state's workplace anti-discrimination regulator? That would remove the information asymmetry that the employer has here. Please, no. I can already predict the outcome: government bureaucracy slows down the whole process to a standstill, corruption/kickbacks become the norm. Meanwhile, employees still keep getting screwed over.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      Depends on the location, I suppose. I generally hear good things about the California labor regulators, and I've never heard a peep about corruption there.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible to settle such claims in exchange for severance payments on termination of employment." That's the point. That shouldn't be possible. I should not have to waive my rights to collect severance. That should just be given by default.
occamrazor 9y ago
Arbitration itself is not a problem. The selection of the arbiters is. From what I have seen, in Europe generally the panel is composed of two members chosen by the two parties and a third one by common agreement (any previous agreement being null and void) or, in case of disagreement, nominated by the president of the local tribunal.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > Arbitration itself is not a problem. The selection of the arbiters is. That's true, if the goal is to settle a specific unique dispute between two parties. The problem is that arbitration in the US isn't used as strategy to settle such disputes, it's used to keep disputes secret and divide-and-conquer wronged parties to make dispute settlement impractical for them. Basically, it serves to tip the scales further in favor of the largest, savviest players.
dhimes 9y ago
Came here to say this. Non-descrimination rights should be inalienable.
walshemj 9y ago
That is the case as I understand it - you cant sell your self into slavery

by c12 9y ago

zekevermillion 9y ago

Some types of claims are not waivable by law. But I'm not sure discrimination should be one of them. Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible to settle such claims in exchange for severance payments on termination of employment. This would only be helpful to employees who naively sign a separation agreement without understanding what they have given away. Perhaps a more nuanced approach could work, eg, the one taken by OWBPA to impose a mandatory post-signing period in which an older worker can revoke their signature. This is currently the law for "older workers" but I see no reason not to extend to all workers...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fulafel 9y ago
In places where you can't waive this, people still get remuneration from the court. Of course these places have more reasonable lawyering costs too (and/or are bankrolled by the union).
wpietri 9y ago
I'm not sure the settling of claims on termination is a particularly great mechanism as it stands. At least among friends, that seems to be a common clause when somebody gets laid off or let go. E.g., I know somebody who was laid off from a large tech company with no notice, and any severance was made conditional on signing away all rights. In effect, the ability to sign away those rights generally, rather than in response to settling a specific incident of wrongdoing, gives employers terminating a employees an incentive to fuck them over so as to maximize leverage. Perhaps better is something where anybody signing away the right to sue over discrimination has to do it under the supervision of the state's workplace anti-discrimination regulator? That would remove the information asymmetry that the employer has here.
- pm90 9y ago
  > Perhaps better is something where anybody signing away the right to sue over discrimination has to do it under the supervision of the state's workplace anti-discrimination regulator? That would remove the information asymmetry that the employer has here. Please, no. I can already predict the outcome: government bureaucracy slows down the whole process to a standstill, corruption/kickbacks become the norm. Meanwhile, employees still keep getting screwed over.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Depends on the location, I suppose. I generally hear good things about the California labor regulators, and I've never heard a peep about corruption there.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
"Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible to settle such claims in exchange for severance payments on termination of employment." That's the point. That shouldn't be possible. I should not have to waive my rights to collect severance. That should just be given by default.

occamrazor 9y ago

Arbitration itself is not a problem. The selection of the arbiters is. From what I have seen, in Europe generally the panel is composed of two members chosen by the two parties and a third one by common agreement (any previous agreement being null and void) or, in case of disagreement, nominated by the president of the local tribunal.

Slansitartop 9y ago
> Arbitration itself is not a problem. The selection of the arbiters is. That's true, if the goal is to settle a specific unique dispute between two parties. The problem is that arbitration in the US isn't used as strategy to settle such disputes, it's used to keep disputes secret and divide-and-conquer wronged parties to make dispute settlement impractical for them. Basically, it serves to tip the scales further in favor of the largest, savviest players.

dhimes 9y ago

Came here to say this. Non-descrimination rights should be inalienable.

walshemj 9y ago

That is the case as I understand it - you cant sell your self into slavery