6 ms·

The really awful thing from that story (Planet Money did a great recent episode on the ProPublica coverage) is that they are able to get away with this through

The really awful thing from that story (Planet Money did a great recent episode on the ProPublica coverage) is that they are able to get away with this through Arbitration clauses. By way of their contracts, they strongarm their contractors into dealing with any "misclassification" issues (eg. exerting too much control over a contractor) individually, silently, and outside of court. Contractors have no ability to sue in a class action suit, and aren't even allowed to speak to fellow contractors if they go through arbitration. It's such a sneaky and frankly complicit way to enforce their business model. They know it's grey, and they put people in the corner so they can't call it grey with a loud enough voice for serious attention to be brought to the issue. Thankfully some law firms have taken the approach to overwhelm Arise with individual arbitration claims. Arise likely calculated in to their model as a cost of business expense, so the best that can be done is to make that expense grow.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> is that they are able to get away with this through Arbitration clauses. The root cause is the demand for that type of labor is dwarfed by supply for type of labor, and the long lasting solution would be to provide those people with better options.
- pas 6y ago
  Yep, because middle-income jobs are disappearing - due to automation and scale: https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563 https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563 Plus again scale shifts profits away from labor: https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979 https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979
Junk_Collector 6y ago
Arbitration is actually very expensive for the company but generally they can rely on the fact that most people will not utilize it for a variety of reasons. If people large scale started taking companies like this to claims it could quickly become more expensive than class action lawsuits trying to arbitrate each individual claim. If you feel strongly against arbitration clauses, activism to get people to use them is the fastest way to kill them as the cost benefit will quickly become a negative.
- jackvalentine 6y ago
  It happened earlier this year to Doordash! https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers-forced-arbitration-william-alsup https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers...
  - dmoy 6y ago
    I love me some Alsup decisions. Almost makes me wish I had gone into law and tried to become a judge. Ok not really almost, but for a brief second.
- nimish 6y ago
  Or just amend the Federal Arbitration Act to deny the use of arbitration as a tool to suppress legitimate use of the courts to address remedies. In the meantime create a tool to allow for mass arbitration actions.
  - nickff 6y ago
    How would you "amend the Federal Arbitration Act to deny the use of arbitration as a tool to suppress legitimate use of the courts to address remedies"? Do you just want to get rid of mandatory arbitration? That sounds like repealing the FAA and replacing it with its mirror image.
    - nimish 6y ago
      Forbid mandatory arbitration for b2c and b2smb Or forbid it entirely. What exactly is the problem with writing a law to stop an abusive practice?
      - nickff 6y ago
        Well, I (and many others) think that making the courts the sole venue for resolving these disputes is not necessarily better. Getting rid of mandatory arbitration means that only large cases (with lawyers on contingency) and class-actions (where the lawyers are the only ones who benefit) will go forward. Mandatory arbitration is the best venue for medium-sized individual (settlement/judgement) cases, and courts are not viable for them. I see mandatory arbitration as a trade-off, and would simply prefer that people take that kind of clause into account when they transact with others.
tylorr 6y ago
Here's the link to the planet money episode https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918195277/call-center-call-out https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918195277/call-center-call-ou...

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> is that they are able to get away with this through Arbitration clauses. The root cause is the demand for that type of labor is dwarfed by supply for type of labor, and the long lasting solution would be to provide those people with better options.

pas 6y ago
Yep, because middle-income jobs are disappearing - due to automation and scale: https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563 https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563 Plus again scale shifts profits away from labor: https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979 https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979

Junk_Collector 6y ago

Arbitration is actually very expensive for the company but generally they can rely on the fact that most people will not utilize it for a variety of reasons. If people large scale started taking companies like this to claims it could quickly become more expensive than class action lawsuits trying to arbitrate each individual claim. If you feel strongly against arbitration clauses, activism to get people to use them is the fastest way to kill them as the cost benefit will quickly become a negative.

jackvalentine 6y ago
It happened earlier this year to Doordash! https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers-forced-arbitration-william-alsup https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers...
- dmoy 6y ago
  I love me some Alsup decisions. Almost makes me wish I had gone into law and tried to become a judge. Ok not really almost, but for a brief second.
nimish 6y ago
Or just amend the Federal Arbitration Act to deny the use of arbitration as a tool to suppress legitimate use of the courts to address remedies. In the meantime create a tool to allow for mass arbitration actions.
- nickff 6y ago
  How would you "amend the Federal Arbitration Act to deny the use of arbitration as a tool to suppress legitimate use of the courts to address remedies"? Do you just want to get rid of mandatory arbitration? That sounds like repealing the FAA and replacing it with its mirror image.
  - nimish 6y ago
    Forbid mandatory arbitration for b2c and b2smb Or forbid it entirely. What exactly is the problem with writing a law to stop an abusive practice?
    - nickff 6y ago
      Well, I (and many others) think that making the courts the sole venue for resolving these disputes is not necessarily better. Getting rid of mandatory arbitration means that only large cases (with lawyers on contingency) and class-actions (where the lawyers are the only ones who benefit) will go forward. Mandatory arbitration is the best venue for medium-sized individual (settlement/judgement) cases, and courts are not viable for them. I see mandatory arbitration as a trade-off, and would simply prefer that people take that kind of clause into account when they transact with others.

tylorr 6y ago

Here's the link to the planet money episode https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918195277/call-center-call-out https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918195277/call-center-call-ou...