4 ms·

Agreed... but with the Supreme Court overturning Workers rights to file class action claims to recover lost wages, the ability to organize is under attack.

briandear 8y ago
They didn’t overturn that right. They affirmed that when an employee signs something, they are bound by the agreement they signed. Potential employees are free to not sign those agreements. Employees who have signed agreements can’t change their mind and suddenly complain about an agreement they willingly signed. If we eliminated those agreements and exposed companies to increased litigation risk, what would you expect to happen to wages? They’d go down naturally. Let’s pretend companies were bound by French style agreements — wages would quickly drop to French-style wages. American workers have more disposable income that almost every other country. If you want to reduce that disposable income, start allowing class actions. Mind you, employees DO have protection against wage “theft” — that’s already a crime. A simple google search will return dozens of law firms ready to represent a worker who thinks they’ve been wronged. Even arbitration agreements can’t protect against illegal activity. The only people getting paid for class actions are attorneys. The worker doesn’t win anything but maybe a $25 check. Meanwhile their employer has to incur extraordinary expenses. Who pays for that? The workers through lower salaries and customers through higher prices.
- matchagaucho 8y ago
  4 of the 9 Justices disagree. Minimum wage Workers do not have the time or resources to hire a Lawyer to chase down $100 in withheld overtime. When theft has occurred at a mass scale, such as Amazon Warehouse Workers or UPS Employees... it is far less expensive for the Employer to settle the matter with one collective unit, rather than thousands of individuals. Yes, the Lawyers reap the majority of the benefits, but the judgement takes that penalty into account.
  - Shivetya 8y ago
    Arbitration clauses which the Supremes upheld favor those who cannot afford a lawyer because it guarantees their grievance must be acknowledged and addressed. Now while an outcome favorable to the employee is not always guaranteed nor is one for the employer. Class Action with regards to wage suits is very rare and this was mainly a push by plaintiff attorneys who stood to rake in millions while offering no guarantee of providing a substantive reward for the plaintive. In the end as stated by some the reasoning, the two laws are written as such that binding agreements are truly that, binding. If that needs to change then Congress needs to act.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "Arbitration clauses which the Supremes upheld favor those who cannot afford a lawyer because it guarantees their grievance must be acknowledged and addressed. Now while an outcome favorable to the employee is not always guaranteed nor is one for the employer." In reality, it's almost guaranteed to be favorable to the employer, because they're the ones paying for the arbiter. "Class Action with regards to wage suits is very rare and this was mainly a push by plaintiff attorneys who stood to rake in millions while offering no guarantee of providing a substantive reward for the plaintive." Other than a change of behavior of the company, which would stop this from happening. Although you've not mentioned what you base your position on. "In the end as stated by some the reasoning, the two laws are written as such that binding agreements are truly that, binding. If that needs to change then Congress needs to act." That's already law. But what's happening is that employers are abusing their power over the employees, and basically saying, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." And most employees do not have the resources or knowledge to be able to enforce the original agreement.

briandear 8y ago

They didn’t overturn that right. They affirmed that when an employee signs something, they are bound by the agreement they signed. Potential employees are free to not sign those agreements. Employees who have signed agreements can’t change their mind and suddenly complain about an agreement they willingly signed. If we eliminated those agreements and exposed companies to increased litigation risk, what would you expect to happen to wages? They’d go down naturally. Let’s pretend companies were bound by French style agreements — wages would quickly drop to French-style wages. American workers have more disposable income that almost every other country. If you want to reduce that disposable income, start allowing class actions. Mind you, employees DO have protection against wage “theft” — that’s already a crime. A simple google search will return dozens of law firms ready to represent a worker who thinks they’ve been wronged. Even arbitration agreements can’t protect against illegal activity. The only people getting paid for class actions are attorneys. The worker doesn’t win anything but maybe a $25 check. Meanwhile their employer has to incur extraordinary expenses. Who pays for that? The workers through lower salaries and customers through higher prices.

matchagaucho 8y ago
4 of the 9 Justices disagree. Minimum wage Workers do not have the time or resources to hire a Lawyer to chase down $100 in withheld overtime. When theft has occurred at a mass scale, such as Amazon Warehouse Workers or UPS Employees... it is far less expensive for the Employer to settle the matter with one collective unit, rather than thousands of individuals. Yes, the Lawyers reap the majority of the benefits, but the judgement takes that penalty into account.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  Arbitration clauses which the Supremes upheld favor those who cannot afford a lawyer because it guarantees their grievance must be acknowledged and addressed. Now while an outcome favorable to the employee is not always guaranteed nor is one for the employer. Class Action with regards to wage suits is very rare and this was mainly a push by plaintiff attorneys who stood to rake in millions while offering no guarantee of providing a substantive reward for the plaintive. In the end as stated by some the reasoning, the two laws are written as such that binding agreements are truly that, binding. If that needs to change then Congress needs to act.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "Arbitration clauses which the Supremes upheld favor those who cannot afford a lawyer because it guarantees their grievance must be acknowledged and addressed. Now while an outcome favorable to the employee is not always guaranteed nor is one for the employer." In reality, it's almost guaranteed to be favorable to the employer, because they're the ones paying for the arbiter. "Class Action with regards to wage suits is very rare and this was mainly a push by plaintiff attorneys who stood to rake in millions while offering no guarantee of providing a substantive reward for the plaintive." Other than a change of behavior of the company, which would stop this from happening. Although you've not mentioned what you base your position on. "In the end as stated by some the reasoning, the two laws are written as such that binding agreements are truly that, binding. If that needs to change then Congress needs to act." That's already law. But what's happening is that employers are abusing their power over the employees, and basically saying, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." And most employees do not have the resources or knowledge to be able to enforce the original agreement.