3 ms·
> 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 paren
by 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.