6 ms·

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 ent

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.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Union membership is usually job-specific. If you leave the job, you generally also leave the union unless your new job is also a union job. And even if the new job is a union job, if it's a different union then your position in the old union doesn't transfer over. Talent guilds are generally the only unions that restrict their members from doing non-union work, and even the talent guilds have exceptions for lower-earning members.
  - techsupporter 7y ago
    > And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. 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. Also, the question of whether the arbitrator's ruling was fair and impartial--did you mean claiming "partial," or biased, arbitration?--is, much like the question of jurisdiction or ability to arbitrate, left to the arbitrator to decide under those same terms.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. The law does not work like that because judges don’t work like that. There are rights you can’t sign away. No matter what the contract says non competes are not valid in California. You can’t agree to be someone’s slave if you can’t pay your debts and have the court enforce that.
      - ardy42 7y ago
        > This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. Obviously there are limits, but if the arbitrators aren't open and blatant about their bias, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any remedy if you were wronged by a biased arbitrator. The point of arbitration isn't to allow companies to engage illegal criminal conduct like slavery, it's to make them practically immune from civil court proceedings.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  > so ubiquitous that it would be almost impossible to operate in modern society In "modern _US_ society".

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.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Union membership is usually job-specific. If you leave the job, you generally also leave the union unless your new job is also a union job. And even if the new job is a union job, if it's a different union then your position in the old union doesn't transfer over. Talent guilds are generally the only unions that restrict their members from doing non-union work, and even the talent guilds have exceptions for lower-earning members.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  > And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. 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. Also, the question of whether the arbitrator's ruling was fair and impartial--did you mean claiming "partial," or biased, arbitration?--is, much like the question of jurisdiction or ability to arbitrate, left to the arbitrator to decide under those same terms.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. The law does not work like that because judges don’t work like that. There are rights you can’t sign away. No matter what the contract says non competes are not valid in California. You can’t agree to be someone’s slave if you can’t pay your debts and have the court enforce that.
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. Obviously there are limits, but if the arbitrators aren't open and blatant about their bias, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any remedy if you were wronged by a biased arbitrator. The point of arbitration isn't to allow companies to engage illegal criminal conduct like slavery, it's to make them practically immune from civil court proceedings.
kwhitefoot 7y ago
> so ubiquitous that it would be almost impossible to operate in modern society In "modern _US_ society".