4 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoI 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 agoExactly, if employers lost arbitration 95% of the time, they'd find another arbitrator.