5 ms·
> "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary) There
by chimeracoder 8y ago
> "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary)
There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well. For an employee who is successful, arbitration is also a lot cheaper than a court case.
- staticautomatic 8y agoNo its not because the kinds of employment cases that can net $575k in court are typically taken on contingency by the plaintiff's lawyers.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> No its not because the kinds of employment cases that can net $575k in court are typically taken on contingency by the plaintiff's lawyers. "Contingency" doesn't mean it's free. If the case is won (which is the situation we're talking about), the lawyer gets paid out of the net recovery.
- treis 8y agoTypically a third and would obviously still come out way ahead if you do the basic math.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> Typically a third and would obviously still come out way ahead if you do the basic math. Yes, typically 33-45%. As I said in the original comment: > There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well
- GW150914 8y agoSo it’s somewhere between double and triple the award considering costs. That’s huge and if your point isn't purely pedantic then I’m missing it.
- ergothus 8y agoFWIW, the article also claimed that workers tried to resolve differences using arbitrations less often. Assuming that's true, hard to prove the direction of causation, but it's another point to consider.