5 ms·

I'll never fathom the business minds that think these kinds of things are a solution, in whatever industry. If you have to start passing out legal agreements to

I'll never fathom the business minds that think these kinds of things are a solution, in whatever industry. If you have to start passing out legal agreements to cover up your business practices, you've got to know on some level that you're circling the drain, right? At that point why not just get out of business while you can? Especially in our hyper-connected and social media heavy present, why even take the risk of "being found out" when the risk is so incredibly high? You're effectively playing Russian roulette with your financial future each time you do it.

jliptzin 7y ago
Because they're shortsighted idiots. Based on your comment I assume you're not a shortsighted idiot, so it's going to be hard for someone like you to understand their mentality. If you've ever had the displeasure of working with people like this (like I have) you'll know what I'm talking about. They're usually stubborn and can't be reasoned with. The good news, though, is that it's very easy to compete against these dumbasses if you're in the same line of business.
pjc50 7y ago
Entire industries are, or at least used to be pre-internet, dominated by "cowboys" - this sort of big job which a customer will only ever buy once a decade is ripe for it. They do the minimum they can to avoid getting actually sued most of the time. Sometimes they "phoenix" a company to ditch a bad reputation and even bad debts.
celticmusic 7y ago
I'll never fathom the lawmakers that allow this sort of stuff to be legal. It's like forced arbitration clauses. Yes, they're useful in certain contexts, but the second the power dynamic changes between the two entities, forced arbitration should no longer be valid.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  I would argue there are no places forced arbitration is useful. It's only even slightly legitimate function seems to be reducing the load on the legal system, which, why? We have a legal system to enforce justice. If it's overloaded, increase the damn budget. This is akin to saying "we will only have firemen on call from 8am to 10pm, for budget constraints." If my house is on fire at midnight, fucking firemen better show up. Pay what's needed and raise taxes if required.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  It's never a good idea. It's not really a power imbalance that matters, but rather that the powerful will consider an arbiter's past decisions in deciding whether to accept them. Thus an arbiter who wants to keep on being an arbiter will tilt things considerably towards the powerful and an arbiter between two powerful entities will split their decisions about in the middle. Give a union binding arbitration and they can simply double their demands and end up with basically whatever they really asked for in the long run.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
The appearance of good practices matters more than the actual situation.

jliptzin 7y ago

Because they're shortsighted idiots. Based on your comment I assume you're not a shortsighted idiot, so it's going to be hard for someone like you to understand their mentality. If you've ever had the displeasure of working with people like this (like I have) you'll know what I'm talking about. They're usually stubborn and can't be reasoned with. The good news, though, is that it's very easy to compete against these dumbasses if you're in the same line of business.

pjc50 7y ago

Entire industries are, or at least used to be pre-internet, dominated by "cowboys" - this sort of big job which a customer will only ever buy once a decade is ripe for it. They do the minimum they can to avoid getting actually sued most of the time. Sometimes they "phoenix" a company to ditch a bad reputation and even bad debts.

celticmusic 7y ago

I'll never fathom the lawmakers that allow this sort of stuff to be legal. It's like forced arbitration clauses. Yes, they're useful in certain contexts, but the second the power dynamic changes between the two entities, forced arbitration should no longer be valid.

FussyZeus 7y ago
I would argue there are no places forced arbitration is useful. It's only even slightly legitimate function seems to be reducing the load on the legal system, which, why? We have a legal system to enforce justice. If it's overloaded, increase the damn budget. This is akin to saying "we will only have firemen on call from 8am to 10pm, for budget constraints." If my house is on fire at midnight, fucking firemen better show up. Pay what's needed and raise taxes if required.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
It's never a good idea. It's not really a power imbalance that matters, but rather that the powerful will consider an arbiter's past decisions in deciding whether to accept them. Thus an arbiter who wants to keep on being an arbiter will tilt things considerably towards the powerful and an arbiter between two powerful entities will split their decisions about in the middle. Give a union binding arbitration and they can simply double their demands and end up with basically whatever they really asked for in the long run.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

The appearance of good practices matters more than the actual situation.