3 ms·
Getting rid of company-handled arbitration sounds less work for the tech companies?
by detcader 8y ago
Getting rid of company-handled arbitration sounds less work for the tech companies?
- matte_black 8y agoNo? It's much faster and cheaper to deal with the arbitration yourself than to have all the dirty laundry aired out in public courts, which will almost certainly be a long, expensive process.
- detcader 8y agoIf only us men stopped using women like objects at such a rate that it bears statistically significant stress on the scale of the industry! Then most businesses would need to spend zero time and money.
- StreamBright 8y agoI am not sure what you are implkying here but most (95%+) men do not use women like object in western countries.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vedantroy 8y agoIf you don't want to have your "dirty laundry aired out in public courts", then don't have dirty laundry.
- matte_black 8y agoNo one tries to have dirty laundry, and if you are a company of any significant size there’s going to be dirty laundry regardless.
- munk-a 8y agoI don't accept this statement. If employees attempting to seek redress over HR issues would hurt the image of a company than that company has some really toxic stuff going on.
- Finch2192 8y ago"Yourself"? I am quite sure you are not aware of the issue here. We're talking about binding, or forced arbitration. Often times, people are unaware that they are being forced into arbitration, and when they are, it severely limits their legal recourse. There's little reason to support it, unless you're a huge company with liability concerns. Here's a good source on the matter: https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration
- rcw4256 8y agoThen don't force it. If it truly is best for both parties, both parties will opt for it. It doesn't need to be required.