12 ms·

I wonder why the issue of being able to waive away your rights - forced arbitration, non-competes, severance packages etc. never come up at the presidential cam

I wonder why the issue of being able to waive away your rights - forced arbitration, non-competes, severance packages etc. never come up at the presidential campaign stage. Seems like this is pervasive enough to affect pretty much everyone. Or am I misunderstanding something here ?

azinman2 7y ago
Because it’s screws those with the least power the most.
cosmodisk 7y ago
They won't be the people funding your presential campaign though... Obama's campaign did cost about one cool billion dollars. Even if you get a million of these guys,each would have to contribute $1000..I suspect Trumps campaign was even more expensive.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  A billion dollars? About $3 per US citizen for the single most powerful position in the world, with saturation media coverage of the campaign for one to two years. Doesn’t seem like a lot. Trump spent under $400m, Hillary under $600m[1]. Bloomberg spent more on his primary campaign than Trump did from start to finish[2]. Steyer spent ~$200m and didn’t break 4% in Iowa[3]. Sure looks like money likes a winner rather than buying elections. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-clintons-final-campaign-spending-revealed https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-cl... [2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/wheres-mike-bloomberg-billionaire-bails-after-vanity-presidential-run-ends https://www.thedailybeast.com/wheres-mike-bloomberg-billiona... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/01/billionaire-tom-steyer-spent-200-million-on-his-own-presidential-campaign-last-year/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/01/billi...
  - patmorgan23 7y ago
    It's not $3 per vote though the math is much more complicated. For starters not everyone is registered or votes on any given election (even a presidential). Next you have to factor in the primary and electoral college. Votes in Florida and other swing states are much more 'expensive'.
function_seven 7y ago
I think because the issue seems too theoretical to most people. I'm betting that most people have never felt a negative impact from forced arbitration clauses, or non-compete agreements. Anecdotally, I've never once felt the need to take a company to court, only to be stymied by an arbitration clause. Nor have I been prevented from getting hired due to a non-compete. And I don't think I know anyone who has. I'm not saying these aren't valid and serious issues. Just that they're not day-to-day matters in the same way that healthcare, taxes, gas prices, or housing costs are. They're the type of issues that nobody thinks about until it bites them one day.
- vsskanth 7y ago
  speaking from my personal experience, I've seen non-competes being pretty pervasive outside tech and some states like CA or MA, I've had competitors flat out refuse to proceed with an interview because I had a non-compete. whether it is enforceable is a different question but it does reduce opportunities. Like you said, it's probably not what the majority of people are experiencing.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    CA or MA? Noncompetes have historically been completely unenforceable in CA, whereas until recently MA had a pretty oppressive noncompete regime. That contrast is actually commonly credited with why Silicon Valley overtook Route 128 in technological innovation: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-valley-route-128 https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-v...
    - vsskanth 7y ago
      thanks for the info, wasn't aware of the historical context.
manfredo 7y ago
Saying that arbitration agreements are signing away your rights is analogous to saying that joining a union means signing away your rights, because it often entails agreeing to only work at union jobs (you're "signing away your rights" to work for non-union employers). Yes, you're engaging in a contract that limits your options but you're not relinquishing any actual rights. Just like how a union can condition employment on agreeing not to work with other employers, a company can condition employment on agreeing to settle work related disputes through arbitration.
- harimau777 7y ago
  Two differences that I see: A union is designed to protect your rights, forced arbitration is designed to limit your rights. Arbitration clauses are so ubiquitous that it would be almost impossible to operate in modern society while refusing to sign them.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    A union may protect your rights, but they do ask for some in return - often the ability to work at non-union jobs. The point is, you're still "signing away your rights". You're agreeing that you won't do certain things that are within your right to do, as a condition to employment. Arbitration is ubiquitous because even at the cost of hundreds of dollars per hour arbitration is a lot cheaper and faster than going to court. And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. Companies that have arbitration agreements still get sued. Response to techsupporter, HN isn't letting me make a new comment: > This is not accurate. Almost every mandatory binding arbitration clause of substance includes wording that the arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be appealed. There is nothing to stop you from appealing anyway. The fact that you're trying to seek an outcome different from the result of private arbitration does increase the chances that the courts will decide to reject your case. It onus on the plaintiff to prove that arbitration was not done correctly. There are good observations to be made about the impartiality of arbiters - it's companies that are usually the ones paying for their services, and so it's not hard to image that this creates a conflict of interest. But a company that can force arbitration, and then use an arbiter that had agreed to dismiss all complaints is not correct - the kind of scenario you lay out is exactly the reason why you can sue even after agreeing to arbitration.
r00fus 7y ago
I mean, most of the Democratic candidates supported abolishing mandatory forced arbitration (the SCOTUS decision). Here's Bernie's policy [1]. [1] https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-an...
- mars4rp 7y ago
  Biden is not your mainstream Democratic candidate, in a good way.
  - WillDaSilva 7y ago
    Did you mean to say Bernie?
    - mars4rp 7y ago
      Yes
paulgb 7y ago
I noticed that Pete Buttigieg worked into his stump speech a remark about how "you’re not free if you can’t sue your credit card company even after they get caught ripping you off"[1]. > Seems like this is pervasive enough to affect pretty much everyone. Sadly, it's one of those things that effects everyone but that they don't know about until it's too late. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/pete-buttigie...
Digory 7y ago
1. The Democrat powers-that-be like arbitration as much as Republican p-t-b, so it is not a net gain to feature it prominently. 2. For the most part, the direct gains to consumers are small. Even if you get Door Dash to pay out two-thirds of its $9 mil., it's less than a thousand bucks per person. Pay a $250 filing fee, figure 1/3 fee for the lawyers, and you get $500 in an ideal case. That's nice for clients, but not life-changing. Indirectly, of course, there are large benefits. 3. Compared to one client's recovery, it looks like a windfall to lawyers. And most Americans would rather shoot themselves in the foot (metaphorically, at least) than help lawyers get rich. (In fact, it's probably not all that profitable for the lawyers. It looks like low-margin work that only pays off for the firm if each lawyer tries to manage an ungodly number of cases.)
toohotatopic 7y ago
Wouldn't this lead to a two class society, much like the accredited investors for startups? E.g. if you have a task to do for which you have to reveal secrets, how do you protect your moat without non-compete clauses if you hire employees or contractors? In other words, you need people who are allowed to sign away their rights. If you don't allow this as a default state, you have to hand out licenses to those who understand the issue. Right now, you have the concept of Age of Majority [1]. We simply assume that everybody who is old enough is capable of understanding his rights. If you question this, you will have a funny presidential campaign where you ask people to vote for you because they are not competent enough. That said, how is the president the right person to change that law? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

azinman2 7y ago

Because it’s screws those with the least power the most.

cosmodisk 7y ago

They won't be the people funding your presential campaign though... Obama's campaign did cost about one cool billion dollars. Even if you get a million of these guys,each would have to contribute $1000..I suspect Trumps campaign was even more expensive.

barry-cotter 7y ago
A billion dollars? About $3 per US citizen for the single most powerful position in the world, with saturation media coverage of the campaign for one to two years. Doesn’t seem like a lot. Trump spent under $400m, Hillary under $600m[1]. Bloomberg spent more on his primary campaign than Trump did from start to finish[2]. Steyer spent ~$200m and didn’t break 4% in Iowa[3]. Sure looks like money likes a winner rather than buying elections. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-clintons-final-campaign-spending-revealed https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-cl... [2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/wheres-mike-bloomberg-billionaire-bails-after-vanity-presidential-run-ends https://www.thedailybeast.com/wheres-mike-bloomberg-billiona... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/01/billionaire-tom-steyer-spent-200-million-on-his-own-presidential-campaign-last-year/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/01/billi...
- patmorgan23 7y ago
  It's not $3 per vote though the math is much more complicated. For starters not everyone is registered or votes on any given election (even a presidential). Next you have to factor in the primary and electoral college. Votes in Florida and other swing states are much more 'expensive'.

function_seven 7y ago

I think because the issue seems too theoretical to most people. I'm betting that most people have never felt a negative impact from forced arbitration clauses, or non-compete agreements. Anecdotally, I've never once felt the need to take a company to court, only to be stymied by an arbitration clause. Nor have I been prevented from getting hired due to a non-compete. And I don't think I know anyone who has. I'm not saying these aren't valid and serious issues. Just that they're not day-to-day matters in the same way that healthcare, taxes, gas prices, or housing costs are. They're the type of issues that nobody thinks about until it bites them one day.

vsskanth 7y ago
speaking from my personal experience, I've seen non-competes being pretty pervasive outside tech and some states like CA or MA, I've had competitors flat out refuse to proceed with an interview because I had a non-compete. whether it is enforceable is a different question but it does reduce opportunities. Like you said, it's probably not what the majority of people are experiencing.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  CA or MA? Noncompetes have historically been completely unenforceable in CA, whereas until recently MA had a pretty oppressive noncompete regime. That contrast is actually commonly credited with why Silicon Valley overtook Route 128 in technological innovation: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-valley-route-128 https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-v...
  - vsskanth 7y ago
    thanks for the info, wasn't aware of the historical context.

manfredo 7y ago

Saying that arbitration agreements are signing away your rights is analogous to saying that joining a union means signing away your rights, because it often entails agreeing to only work at union jobs (you're "signing away your rights" to work for non-union employers). Yes, you're engaging in a contract that limits your options but you're not relinquishing any actual rights. Just like how a union can condition employment on agreeing not to work with other employers, a company can condition employment on agreeing to settle work related disputes through arbitration.

harimau777 7y ago
Two differences that I see: A union is designed to protect your rights, forced arbitration is designed to limit your rights. Arbitration clauses are so ubiquitous that it would be almost impossible to operate in modern society while refusing to sign them.
- manfredo 7y ago
  A union may protect your rights, but they do ask for some in return - often the ability to work at non-union jobs. The point is, you're still "signing away your rights". You're agreeing that you won't do certain things that are within your right to do, as a condition to employment. Arbitration is ubiquitous because even at the cost of hundreds of dollars per hour arbitration is a lot cheaper and faster than going to court. And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. Companies that have arbitration agreements still get sued. Response to techsupporter, HN isn't letting me make a new comment: > This is not accurate. Almost every mandatory binding arbitration clause of substance includes wording that the arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be appealed. There is nothing to stop you from appealing anyway. The fact that you're trying to seek an outcome different from the result of private arbitration does increase the chances that the courts will decide to reject your case. It onus on the plaintiff to prove that arbitration was not done correctly. There are good observations to be made about the impartiality of arbiters - it's companies that are usually the ones paying for their services, and so it's not hard to image that this creates a conflict of interest. But a company that can force arbitration, and then use an arbiter that had agreed to dismiss all complaints is not correct - the kind of scenario you lay out is exactly the reason why you can sue even after agreeing to arbitration.

r00fus 7y ago

I mean, most of the Democratic candidates supported abolishing mandatory forced arbitration (the SCOTUS decision). Here's Bernie's policy [1]. [1] https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-an...

mars4rp 7y ago
Biden is not your mainstream Democratic candidate, in a good way.
- WillDaSilva 7y ago
  Did you mean to say Bernie?
  - mars4rp 7y ago
    Yes

paulgb 7y ago

I noticed that Pete Buttigieg worked into his stump speech a remark about how "you’re not free if you can’t sue your credit card company even after they get caught ripping you off"[1]. > Seems like this is pervasive enough to affect pretty much everyone. Sadly, it's one of those things that effects everyone but that they don't know about until it's too late. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/pete-buttigie...

Digory 7y ago

1. The Democrat powers-that-be like arbitration as much as Republican p-t-b, so it is not a net gain to feature it prominently. 2. For the most part, the direct gains to consumers are small. Even if you get Door Dash to pay out two-thirds of its $9 mil., it's less than a thousand bucks per person. Pay a $250 filing fee, figure 1/3 fee for the lawyers, and you get $500 in an ideal case. That's nice for clients, but not life-changing. Indirectly, of course, there are large benefits. 3. Compared to one client's recovery, it looks like a windfall to lawyers. And most Americans would rather shoot themselves in the foot (metaphorically, at least) than help lawyers get rich. (In fact, it's probably not all that profitable for the lawyers. It looks like low-margin work that only pays off for the firm if each lawyer tries to manage an ungodly number of cases.)

toohotatopic 7y ago

Wouldn't this lead to a two class society, much like the accredited investors for startups? E.g. if you have a task to do for which you have to reveal secrets, how do you protect your moat without non-compete clauses if you hire employees or contractors? In other words, you need people who are allowed to sign away their rights. If you don't allow this as a default state, you have to hand out licenses to those who understand the issue. Right now, you have the concept of Age of Majority [1]. We simply assume that everybody who is old enough is capable of understanding his rights. If you question this, you will have a funny presidential campaign where you ask people to vote for you because they are not competent enough. That said, how is the president the right person to change that law? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority