> Seventh Circuit Holds that Arbitration-Bound Employees Cannot Be Given Notice of Collective Action Proceeding Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. When SCOTUS

> Seventh Circuit Holds that Arbitration-Bound Employees Cannot Be Given Notice of Collective Action Proceeding Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. When SCOTUS upheld arbitration agreements [1][2] it was obvious they were going to use this to strip away other worker rights. If it isn't evident before it is now. This essentially says since the employee signed an arbitration agreement and the other employees also did, this waives their rights to be informed of any type of employee action that might benefit them as a group (here it was overtime pay). Pretty soon they'll use this precedent to strip away more and more, probably even the first attack on California's innovation and economic key in rebuking non-competes. Part of the reason California's economy is so good in terms of tech and leading edge innovation is that they do not abide by non-competes. I wonder how long it will take them to go after this using this idea that signing arbitration agreements, which should be illegal, removes other protections like not upholding non-competes in Cali. It always blows me away how in all out war, battle after battle, companies are with the mere idea of unions. It looks like a superpower invading a small island nation repeatedly with little to no defenses. Unions are mostly ineffectual today and most people have been propagandized away from them, but even the hint of a group forming is attacked by rabid corporate lawyers even decades after unions have faded. It tells me that they are greatly fearful of unions. They have nothing to worry about, when arbitration agreements were added to contracts in the early 2000s at my workplace I scoffed at it, everyone looked at me funny. I do not like litigious people, but giving up your entire right to the legal system? Not smart. Here we can see why, now they are using it as a wedge to take more rights that were fought for. Giving up rights so easy that were hard to attain is short-sighted, naive and way too comfortable. > Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has steadily weakened the ability of parties bound by arbitration agreements to band together and sue. Given the rise of arbitration clauses in employment contracts, this trend has harmed workers since it is rarely economically feasible for workers to individually sue for, say, fifteen minutes of unpaid overtime a day, violations of statutes protecting laborers — like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — have become harder to redress. This will continue and continue. The one-sided and overpowered war rages on against worker rights and freedoms. Ultimately this harms competition and business in general, yes it may be better for the current company, but not the market in general or quality of life. California's non-compete stance that they are illegal is a good example, the market has benefitted many companies and product innovations, other rights are the same. It is short-term and monopolistic/oligopolistic to think that long term this helps the market. We aren't too far off from being WorryFree(tm) [3] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/business/supreme-court-upholds-workplace-arbitration-contracts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/business/supreme-court-up... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-divided-supreme-court-upholds-forced-arbitration-agreements-a-win-for-businesses https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-divided-supreme-cour... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffewing/2018/07/13/could-sorry-to-bother-you-really-happen-partial-spoilers/#2e8cd7d61f0a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffewing/2018/07/13/could-sorr...