4 ms·

How hard would it be for a random person to fight back successfully though? If it requires hiring a lawyer that might be enough barrier itself. All they have to

by ianai 4y ago

How hard would it be for a random person to fight back successfully though? If it requires hiring a lawyer that might be enough barrier itself. All they have to do is ensure they don’t pay the worker enough to hire a lawyer.

metadat 4y ago
The companies might find it difficult to actually get legal enforcement against poorly compensated employees. It seems like more of a scare tactic.
- ianai 4y ago
  To me, it’s just slavery. Don’t care about any seeming mitigating factors.
- sulcate 4y ago
  An entity doesn't need 'legal enforcement' for a supposed debt when they can threaten to or send someone to collections and ruin their credit/drain their time to fighting it, though.
  - metadat 4y ago
    See sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32906450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32906450
    - sulcate 4y ago
      See what? An irrelevant comment that doesn't address the fact that one doesn't get to magically wish away a corporation's claim (unjust or not) of debt against an individual? Because that's not how debt works ("just ignore it") and directly ignores the article: "Although critics question the legality of TRAPs, a legal analysis published last year found that courts generally uphold the agreements in challenges brought under anti-kickback provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law establishing a federal minimum wage. However, the author of the study, Loyola Marymount associate law professor Jonathan F. Harris, said another type of legal challenge might prove more successful: courts could refuse to enforce TRAP contract language under the so-called unconscionability doctrine, a legal principle that allows judges to void agreements containing unreasonable terms dictated by a party “with superior bargaining power.” In 2000, the study noted, a federal judge in Manhattan nullified one employment agreement in the financial services industry, ruling that the language of the contract “approaches indentured servitude.”" So, I don't get where you or the other person in this thread are getting the idea that this is a non issue because you can just ignore the contract terms. I too wish this was a non issue for those involved and ignorable, because it's despicable. It's obviously unconscionable and a problem that these companies are attempting to extort money from disadvantaged populations (not the supposedly previously narrower, highly paid technical applications of the agreements) even if said agreements existed in a counterfactual universe in which a corporation pursuing you for debt was a non issue. Debt is not expensive to draft continuous demand letters against or to transfer to a collections agency. Plus, you know, the above paragraph in the article.
      - ThrustVectoring 4y ago
        If you're at all the target audience for this website, you and your entire social circle are soft targets for debt collectors. You have a high credit score and care about it, you have bank accounts and non-retirement investment accounts, you may have home equity in a state that doesn't protect the hell out of it like Texas, etc. If you get sued for $20k and a judgement gets entered, odds are your creditor ends up getting the full $20k. If this isn't you then I apologize for stereotyping, but this does describe a majority of the commentariat here. A lot of the subjects of these articles are from very different socioeconomic backgrounds and will have a very different experience. Their bank account either doesn't exist or has like a week's pay in it. If they have investments, they're in an untouchable 401(k). They may live in a state that forbids wage garnishment, and even if you get that their wages may already be garnished and immune to further action. You might be able to grab their tax refunds, but those might already be spoken for by other creditors. And to top it all off, bankruptcy court can at any time issue a stay of proceedings and follow it up with a discharge of debts. In short, there's a reason why most consumer debts are sold on for pennies on the dollar. That's what you actually get from it - maybe you talk some poor sod into paying $20/mo on a $20k debt that you bought for $200. Especially against an intransigent target that rightfully believes the debt to be morally invalid, you can find it extremely difficult to actually collect on a debt. Anyhow, my point is that attempting to enforce these contract provisions invites PR/legal/political blowback that far outweighs maybe getting a thousand dollars out of the small cohort that actually calls the bluff and makes them make them pay.
tehwebguy 4y ago
Courts will enforce contracts for all kinds of things many would consider unconscionable, I wouldn’t want that to be my backup plan.
refurb 4y ago
It's not hard, you just ignore it. If some scumbag company is trying to squeeze employees for training costs, you really think they'll pay tens of thousands for a lawyer to sue over this? It's empty threats.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Sure, why wouldn't they? They only need to make an example of one employee every now and then to deter the rest.
  - darkarmani 4y ago
    What example? How can they get any money out of someone that doesn't have anything? Eventually, the debt will go to collections and someone might get 10% of the money collected.
- sulcate 4y ago
  From the article: " Although critics question the legality of TRAPs, a legal analysis published last year found that courts generally uphold the agreements in challenges brought under anti-kickback provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law establishing a federal minimum wage. However, the author of the study, Loyola Marymount associate law professor Jonathan F. Harris, said another type of legal challenge might prove more successful: courts could refuse to enforce TRAP contract language under the so-called unconscionability doctrine, a legal principle that allows judges to void agreements containing unreasonable terms dictated by a party “with superior bargaining power.” In 2000, the study noted, a federal judge in Manhattan nullified one employment agreement in the financial services industry, ruling that the language of the contract “approaches indentured servitude.” " Additionally, it does not cost tend of thousands of dollars to have a law firm draft demand letters for debt. Even if the debt is contestable, theoretically, it remains a huge problem and not something that can be ignored.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I've been in a similar situation before. Employers who put this sort of stuff in their contracts are like landlords who say "you have to repaint the place on your own dime after 10 years of living there". They think they are being cleaver. These employers don't want to go to court, they don't want to collect the debt, they just like scary language. My employer threatened me with similar language, so I shrugged my shoulders and said "ok?". Never heard of it again. They won't spend $20 to buy pizza for their employees, you think they'll spend money on lawyers?
WalterBright 4y ago
Workers successfully sue their employers all the time.
- dspillett 4y ago
  Not enough of them to put off many employers from doing the things that they could be sued for, it would seem given how many companies behave. If the cost of being successfully sued is significant but survivable, and the chance of someone bothering and succeeding is small, then they often feel that they can go right ahead and do what they want relatively safely. Note that “and succeeding” includes not being intimidated into backing down, or conned/cajoled/intimidated into taking a small hush payment instead – once someone sets out to sue the employer still have options to try significantly minimise the potential damage.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Not enough of them to put off many employers from doing the things that they could be sued for, it would seem given how many companies behave. I've talked to corporate lawyers about this. Larger companies have teams of lawyers dealing with an incessant stream of lawsuits by employees. A large percentage of them are completely without merit, and both parties know this. But it's cheaper to settle than go to court, which is why employees sue for the cash grab. It really doesn't matter how well a larger corp treats its employees, they'll get sued again and again anyway. A larger corp is just a bigger, fatter, juicier target for lawsuits.

by ianai 4y ago

metadat 4y ago

The companies might find it difficult to actually get legal enforcement against poorly compensated employees. It seems like more of a scare tactic.

ianai 4y ago
To me, it’s just slavery. Don’t care about any seeming mitigating factors.
sulcate 4y ago
An entity doesn't need 'legal enforcement' for a supposed debt when they can threaten to or send someone to collections and ruin their credit/drain their time to fighting it, though.
- metadat 4y ago
  See sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32906450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32906450
  - sulcate 4y ago
    See what? An irrelevant comment that doesn't address the fact that one doesn't get to magically wish away a corporation's claim (unjust or not) of debt against an individual? Because that's not how debt works ("just ignore it") and directly ignores the article: "Although critics question the legality of TRAPs, a legal analysis published last year found that courts generally uphold the agreements in challenges brought under anti-kickback provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law establishing a federal minimum wage. However, the author of the study, Loyola Marymount associate law professor Jonathan F. Harris, said another type of legal challenge might prove more successful: courts could refuse to enforce TRAP contract language under the so-called unconscionability doctrine, a legal principle that allows judges to void agreements containing unreasonable terms dictated by a party “with superior bargaining power.” In 2000, the study noted, a federal judge in Manhattan nullified one employment agreement in the financial services industry, ruling that the language of the contract “approaches indentured servitude.”" So, I don't get where you or the other person in this thread are getting the idea that this is a non issue because you can just ignore the contract terms. I too wish this was a non issue for those involved and ignorable, because it's despicable. It's obviously unconscionable and a problem that these companies are attempting to extort money from disadvantaged populations (not the supposedly previously narrower, highly paid technical applications of the agreements) even if said agreements existed in a counterfactual universe in which a corporation pursuing you for debt was a non issue. Debt is not expensive to draft continuous demand letters against or to transfer to a collections agency. Plus, you know, the above paragraph in the article.
    - ThrustVectoring 4y ago
      If you're at all the target audience for this website, you and your entire social circle are soft targets for debt collectors. You have a high credit score and care about it, you have bank accounts and non-retirement investment accounts, you may have home equity in a state that doesn't protect the hell out of it like Texas, etc. If you get sued for $20k and a judgement gets entered, odds are your creditor ends up getting the full $20k. If this isn't you then I apologize for stereotyping, but this does describe a majority of the commentariat here. A lot of the subjects of these articles are from very different socioeconomic backgrounds and will have a very different experience. Their bank account either doesn't exist or has like a week's pay in it. If they have investments, they're in an untouchable 401(k). They may live in a state that forbids wage garnishment, and even if you get that their wages may already be garnished and immune to further action. You might be able to grab their tax refunds, but those might already be spoken for by other creditors. And to top it all off, bankruptcy court can at any time issue a stay of proceedings and follow it up with a discharge of debts. In short, there's a reason why most consumer debts are sold on for pennies on the dollar. That's what you actually get from it - maybe you talk some poor sod into paying $20/mo on a $20k debt that you bought for $200. Especially against an intransigent target that rightfully believes the debt to be morally invalid, you can find it extremely difficult to actually collect on a debt. Anyhow, my point is that attempting to enforce these contract provisions invites PR/legal/political blowback that far outweighs maybe getting a thousand dollars out of the small cohort that actually calls the bluff and makes them make them pay.

tehwebguy 4y ago

Courts will enforce contracts for all kinds of things many would consider unconscionable, I wouldn’t want that to be my backup plan.

refurb 4y ago

It's not hard, you just ignore it. If some scumbag company is trying to squeeze employees for training costs, you really think they'll pay tens of thousands for a lawyer to sue over this? It's empty threats.

int_19h 4y ago
Sure, why wouldn't they? They only need to make an example of one employee every now and then to deter the rest.
- darkarmani 4y ago
  What example? How can they get any money out of someone that doesn't have anything? Eventually, the debt will go to collections and someone might get 10% of the money collected.
sulcate 4y ago
From the article: " Although critics question the legality of TRAPs, a legal analysis published last year found that courts generally uphold the agreements in challenges brought under anti-kickback provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law establishing a federal minimum wage. However, the author of the study, Loyola Marymount associate law professor Jonathan F. Harris, said another type of legal challenge might prove more successful: courts could refuse to enforce TRAP contract language under the so-called unconscionability doctrine, a legal principle that allows judges to void agreements containing unreasonable terms dictated by a party “with superior bargaining power.” In 2000, the study noted, a federal judge in Manhattan nullified one employment agreement in the financial services industry, ruling that the language of the contract “approaches indentured servitude.” " Additionally, it does not cost tend of thousands of dollars to have a law firm draft demand letters for debt. Even if the debt is contestable, theoretically, it remains a huge problem and not something that can be ignored.
- refurb 4y ago
  I've been in a similar situation before. Employers who put this sort of stuff in their contracts are like landlords who say "you have to repaint the place on your own dime after 10 years of living there". They think they are being cleaver. These employers don't want to go to court, they don't want to collect the debt, they just like scary language. My employer threatened me with similar language, so I shrugged my shoulders and said "ok?". Never heard of it again. They won't spend $20 to buy pizza for their employees, you think they'll spend money on lawyers?

WalterBright 4y ago

Workers successfully sue their employers all the time.

dspillett 4y ago
Not enough of them to put off many employers from doing the things that they could be sued for, it would seem given how many companies behave. If the cost of being successfully sued is significant but survivable, and the chance of someone bothering and succeeding is small, then they often feel that they can go right ahead and do what they want relatively safely. Note that “and succeeding” includes not being intimidated into backing down, or conned/cajoled/intimidated into taking a small hush payment instead – once someone sets out to sue the employer still have options to try significantly minimise the potential damage.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Not enough of them to put off many employers from doing the things that they could be sued for, it would seem given how many companies behave. I've talked to corporate lawyers about this. Larger companies have teams of lawyers dealing with an incessant stream of lawsuits by employees. A large percentage of them are completely without merit, and both parties know this. But it's cheaper to settle than go to court, which is why employees sue for the cash grab. It really doesn't matter how well a larger corp treats its employees, they'll get sued again and again anyway. A larger corp is just a bigger, fatter, juicier target for lawsuits.