4 ms·

I know this won't be popular...but I don't understand why people are so anti-arbitration. Court cases are very expensive, regardless of the verdict. In the situ

I know this won't be popular...but I don't understand why people are so anti-arbitration. Court cases are very expensive, regardless of the verdict. In the situation of running a business, you have a 1 business to many employees situation handling multiple cases simultaneously could get extremely expensive whether the cases are valid or not. People use the threat of legal fees to extort business owners all the time because all it takes is one bored attorney who's willing to take the case on contingency while the business is looking at $150-500 / hr fees to defend itself. Happens to doctors constantly. If you are a business that employees thousands of people the amount of potential legal costs could put you under entirely, because attorneys have to respond to every single claim that opposing attorneys make. These techniques exist almost solely to drive up legal costs. When your potential cost for an employee is far higher than the actual compensation you can afford to pay, it significantly increases your risk for every job you can create. This is usually a two way street as well. In nearly every contractor agreement I've read, the liability for the hired contractor is limited to at most the amount of compensation they receive from the business for the job they were performing.

ct520 8y ago
But you soon realize arbitration is a scheme that simply screws you over. Check out all the good nytime articles on it... then see for yourself https://levelplayingfield.io https://levelplayingfield.io
- brightball 8y ago
  Is there a particular type of search I should be looking for on there? Glancing through employment related search seems fairly balanced with some going either way and many being settled.
tareqak 8y ago
Have you ever gone through forced arbitration? If being forced through the court system is undesirable / one-sided and forced arbitration feels the same, then there should be something in the middle that is fair for both workers and employers, right? I don’t see why this issue has to be a zero-sum game.
taurath 8y ago
People are anti-arbitration because they empathize more with the employees than businesses. It is objectively better for employees to not have to go through a company-issued arbiter when the company has wronged them. The argument you're making is a bit like trickle-down economics - what about instead of minimizing the cost of lawsuits, you do less things that are likely to land you in a lawsuit, which is the point of the laws in the first place? Maybe then companies would focus their lobbying efforts on muting the effects of patent trolls and shady lawsuits. I do feel for the business owner, but taking away the rights of employees is worse for society.
- pitaj 8y ago
  > It is objectively better for employees to not have to go through a company-issued arbiter when the company has wronged them. The main argument of your parent comment is that it's better for both employees and employers due to generally lower costs all around. You simply made an assertion to the contrary. Do you have any evidence to support your position?
  - taurath 8y ago
    I alluded to it being similar to trickle-down economics - what is good at lowering costs for business is not necessarily better for both employees and employers. Employees giving up their rights to take action against an employer is a net negative against the employee - I would submit that for employees that are wronged, its a more significant negative than any lowered costs. I'm definitely for making it easier to run a business and afford to be able to hire people, but not at the expense of the employee. I didn't get into it much because it risks an argument on economic outlooks which I didn't feel was as important as the main point.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  Exactly, if employers lost arbitration 95% of the time, they'd find another arbitrator.
gamblor956 8y ago
People are anti-arbitration because arbitors are paid by the companies. Arbitrators do try to be as fair as possible, but there's simply no way to remove the inherent bias they have to the people who sign their paychecks. (Note: federal agency judges are different. While they are technically employees of the agency, they are protected by federal laws/union rules that apply broadly, and those job protections are incredibly strong. This is why agency judges like immigration judges are so willing to buck their employers.)
- dennisgorelik 8y ago
  > agency judges like immigration judges are so willing to buck their employers And that "protection" is one of important reasons why it is so hard for a potential immigrant to find a job in the US. Similarly, removing "forced arbitration" will make getting job at Google even harder.
ergothus 8y ago
I'm not anti-arbitration...I'm anti-FORCED-arbitration. I have suspicions about the incentives and stances of the arbitrators vs the law, but I'm not well-versed enough to state those with confidence. Almost everything you said about arbitration is true...but you left out the other side. My employer already has a lot more leverage over me than I do over them. When that scale is further tilted, across all their employees, many of the cost-benefit analyses about treating your employees fairly go into their benefit, further making things worse (and arguably more expensive for me). > People use the threat of legal fees to extort business owners all the time because all it takes is one bored attorney who's willing to take the case on contingency while the business is looking at $150-500 / hr fees to defend itself. I'm willing to discuss the benefits of good anti-SLAPP legislation all day, but "threats" aren't the same as suing, and "bored attorney willing to take the case on contingency" aren't actually all that easy to find - there's a reason a lot of crap goes unpunished until a group large enough for a class-action lawsuit comes along - the payout isn't worth it, at least not for the lawyers who would win. Companies LIKEWISE use the threat of legal fees all the time - the solution is not that employees need to sacrifice their legal rights.
mschuster91 8y ago
> Court cases are very expensive, regardless of the verdict. Then fix that problem! In Germany, for example, in labor court even if losing a case all parties get to foot their own bills. This also disincentivizes companies from hiring uber expensive lawyers. > People use the threat of legal fees to extort business owners And business owners have insurance here that covers them. As for the fees of the court system, they're low. People expect the state to provide an affordable justice/police system and not one that has to fund itself through "civil forfeiture"...
CPLX 8y ago
The main issues are that arbitration is generally secret, and class actions are prohibited. Those two facts tend to naturally exacerbate the natural advantages the company has due to the fact that they are well organized and able to amortize their work over multiple cases but individual opponents become less able to be similarly organized.
alarge 8y ago
Imagine a situation where a company is routinely misbehaving towards its employees. What are the tools that can be brought to bear to change a company's behavior? 1. Government regulation 2. Union representation 3. The threat of public exposure and resulting public opinion fallout 4. The potential downside of very large damage awards In the general absence of #1 (in the US, we generally don't like regulating businesses) and the small and declining power of #2, we rely upon #3 and #4 to influence company behavior. Forced arbitration generally guts both.
ahmedalsudani 8y ago
I think all the current replies to this comment are slightly off-mark. In an n-to-1 relationship, forced arbitration favours the 1 party. (An example is a company and its customers or a company and its employees.) The reason it favours the one party is that the cost of action is prohibitively high. As a customer/employee, suing your vendor/employer or taking them to arbitration requires you to dedicate much of your life to that cause. To them, it’s a small cost of doing business that has already been budgeted for. The solution that was invented is class-action lawsuits. If an employer steals $1000 from every employee, it’s not worthwhile for them to sue. If market collusion raises the price of a RAM module by 10%, it’s not worthwhile for most customers to sue. Forced arbitration removes that option. It is not possible to have class-action arbitration in any agreement I’ve read. Another way of removing the option of class actions is class-action waivers, which are problematic for the same reason in my opinion.
LorenPechtel 8y ago
The reason people are so anti-arbitration is that the decision of arbitrators is more based on which side of their bread is buttered and that seriously colors their decisions. An arbiter who rules against somebody is more likely to be rejected by that entity in the next arbitration. Thus it works between two small guys that will not likely encounter the arbiter again. However, when there are big fish involved there's a strong bias towards ruling for the big fish, the guy who rules for the small fish too much finds himself unemployed. When it's between two big fish the decisions will take the middle of the road. This causes big troubles with union vs government arbitration--the union simply doubles it's demands and will end up on average getting what it asked for. Right or wrong doesn't really enter into it. For practical purposes for the little guy vs big guy arbitration means don't bother unless you have a slam dunk smoking gun.

ct520 8y ago

But you soon realize arbitration is a scheme that simply screws you over. Check out all the good nytime articles on it... then see for yourself https://levelplayingfield.io https://levelplayingfield.io

brightball 8y ago
Is there a particular type of search I should be looking for on there? Glancing through employment related search seems fairly balanced with some going either way and many being settled.

tareqak 8y ago

Have you ever gone through forced arbitration? If being forced through the court system is undesirable / one-sided and forced arbitration feels the same, then there should be something in the middle that is fair for both workers and employers, right? I don’t see why this issue has to be a zero-sum game.

taurath 8y ago

People are anti-arbitration because they empathize more with the employees than businesses. It is objectively better for employees to not have to go through a company-issued arbiter when the company has wronged them. The argument you're making is a bit like trickle-down economics - what about instead of minimizing the cost of lawsuits, you do less things that are likely to land you in a lawsuit, which is the point of the laws in the first place? Maybe then companies would focus their lobbying efforts on muting the effects of patent trolls and shady lawsuits. I do feel for the business owner, but taking away the rights of employees is worse for society.

pitaj 8y ago
> It is objectively better for employees to not have to go through a company-issued arbiter when the company has wronged them. The main argument of your parent comment is that it's better for both employees and employers due to generally lower costs all around. You simply made an assertion to the contrary. Do you have any evidence to support your position?
- taurath 8y ago
  I alluded to it being similar to trickle-down economics - what is good at lowering costs for business is not necessarily better for both employees and employers. Employees giving up their rights to take action against an employer is a net negative against the employee - I would submit that for employees that are wronged, its a more significant negative than any lowered costs. I'm definitely for making it easier to run a business and afford to be able to hire people, but not at the expense of the employee. I didn't get into it much because it risks an argument on economic outlooks which I didn't feel was as important as the main point.
mywittyname 8y ago
Exactly, if employers lost arbitration 95% of the time, they'd find another arbitrator.

gamblor956 8y ago

People are anti-arbitration because arbitors are paid by the companies. Arbitrators do try to be as fair as possible, but there's simply no way to remove the inherent bias they have to the people who sign their paychecks. (Note: federal agency judges are different. While they are technically employees of the agency, they are protected by federal laws/union rules that apply broadly, and those job protections are incredibly strong. This is why agency judges like immigration judges are so willing to buck their employers.)

dennisgorelik 8y ago
> agency judges like immigration judges are so willing to buck their employers And that "protection" is one of important reasons why it is so hard for a potential immigrant to find a job in the US. Similarly, removing "forced arbitration" will make getting job at Google even harder.

ergothus 8y ago

I'm not anti-arbitration...I'm anti-FORCED-arbitration. I have suspicions about the incentives and stances of the arbitrators vs the law, but I'm not well-versed enough to state those with confidence. Almost everything you said about arbitration is true...but you left out the other side. My employer already has a lot more leverage over me than I do over them. When that scale is further tilted, across all their employees, many of the cost-benefit analyses about treating your employees fairly go into their benefit, further making things worse (and arguably more expensive for me). > People use the threat of legal fees to extort business owners all the time because all it takes is one bored attorney who's willing to take the case on contingency while the business is looking at $150-500 / hr fees to defend itself. I'm willing to discuss the benefits of good anti-SLAPP legislation all day, but "threats" aren't the same as suing, and "bored attorney willing to take the case on contingency" aren't actually all that easy to find - there's a reason a lot of crap goes unpunished until a group large enough for a class-action lawsuit comes along - the payout isn't worth it, at least not for the lawyers who would win. Companies LIKEWISE use the threat of legal fees all the time - the solution is not that employees need to sacrifice their legal rights.

mschuster91 8y ago

> Court cases are very expensive, regardless of the verdict. Then fix that problem! In Germany, for example, in labor court even if losing a case all parties get to foot their own bills. This also disincentivizes companies from hiring uber expensive lawyers. > People use the threat of legal fees to extort business owners And business owners have insurance here that covers them. As for the fees of the court system, they're low. People expect the state to provide an affordable justice/police system and not one that has to fund itself through "civil forfeiture"...

CPLX 8y ago

The main issues are that arbitration is generally secret, and class actions are prohibited. Those two facts tend to naturally exacerbate the natural advantages the company has due to the fact that they are well organized and able to amortize their work over multiple cases but individual opponents become less able to be similarly organized.

alarge 8y ago

Imagine a situation where a company is routinely misbehaving towards its employees. What are the tools that can be brought to bear to change a company's behavior? 1. Government regulation 2. Union representation 3. The threat of public exposure and resulting public opinion fallout 4. The potential downside of very large damage awards In the general absence of #1 (in the US, we generally don't like regulating businesses) and the small and declining power of #2, we rely upon #3 and #4 to influence company behavior. Forced arbitration generally guts both.

ahmedalsudani 8y ago

I think all the current replies to this comment are slightly off-mark. In an n-to-1 relationship, forced arbitration favours the 1 party. (An example is a company and its customers or a company and its employees.) The reason it favours the one party is that the cost of action is prohibitively high. As a customer/employee, suing your vendor/employer or taking them to arbitration requires you to dedicate much of your life to that cause. To them, it’s a small cost of doing business that has already been budgeted for. The solution that was invented is class-action lawsuits. If an employer steals $1000 from every employee, it’s not worthwhile for them to sue. If market collusion raises the price of a RAM module by 10%, it’s not worthwhile for most customers to sue. Forced arbitration removes that option. It is not possible to have class-action arbitration in any agreement I’ve read. Another way of removing the option of class actions is class-action waivers, which are problematic for the same reason in my opinion.

LorenPechtel 8y ago

The reason people are so anti-arbitration is that the decision of arbitrators is more based on which side of their bread is buttered and that seriously colors their decisions. An arbiter who rules against somebody is more likely to be rejected by that entity in the next arbitration. Thus it works between two small guys that will not likely encounter the arbiter again. However, when there are big fish involved there's a strong bias towards ruling for the big fish, the guy who rules for the small fish too much finds himself unemployed. When it's between two big fish the decisions will take the middle of the road. This causes big troubles with union vs government arbitration--the union simply doubles it's demands and will end up on average getting what it asked for. Right or wrong doesn't really enter into it. For practical purposes for the little guy vs big guy arbitration means don't bother unless you have a slam dunk smoking gun.