5 ms·

Basically: according to the court your employer can require you to agree to forced arbitration as you have the freedom to be homeless and starve instead, so it'

by olliej 4y ago

Basically: according to the court your employer can require you to agree to forced arbitration as you have the freedom to be homeless and starve instead, so it's a free and fair agreement and not remotely coercive.

baggy_trough 4y ago
Yes, because you can get a different job.
- Reptur 4y ago
  You can until they've all been bought up by a couple of billionaire owned conglomerates. An example being 6 corporations controlling 90% of all mainstream media. As things progress, we'll see further concentration because the name of the game is grow or fail. This is just further backslide of worker's rights in a long history of backslide.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    There are literally millions of employers in the US [1]. They're all bought up by some secret cabal of magic and unified billionaires wizards. >As things progress, we'll see further concentration Except recent trends are more companies, not less, as registrations of new entrants increased during COVID [2]. >This is just further backslide of worker's rights in a long history of backslide. Yet those backslidden workers make more now than pretty much any time in all of history and more than in any other place in the world... [3,4] [1] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb.html [2] https://www.commerceinstitute.com/new-businesses-started-every-year/#:~:text=Data%20from%20the%20US%20Census,new%20businesses%20is%20trending%20up https://www.commerceinstitute.com/new-businesses-started-eve.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > There are literally millions of employers in the US Now do how many railways or airlines or TV groups or newspapers there are. People with specific skills might have a specific profession (e.g. a journalist) for which their options for employment are extremely limited. Of course they can go and work at McDonalds, but that's not really a great option, is it?
      - SideQuark 4y ago
        >Now do how many ... Did you check? There's over 600 freight railways in the US. There's almost 400 airlines. There;s over 1200 newpaper companies. Not exactly "extremely limited." And, no matter how you want to argue, no single company or industry owes you a job. But the argument that there is not variety and competition in the US just isn't backed by the evidence. Every one of those professions you list has the US among the highest paying, if not the highest paying, country for those industries. *(Check OECD or whatever source you like). Or maybe these "extremely limited" options you image exist also decide to pay more than anywhere else? >Of course they can go and work at McDonalds Nice red herring. If you want to make more claims please provide evidence (not anecdote, not more opinions copied from blogs) sourced from more than your opinion, since that will base this discussion on realty.
        comte7092 4y ago
        >There's over 600 freight railways in the US. >There's almost 400 airlines. >There’s over 1200 newpaper companies. >Not exactly "extremely limited." It’s extremely misleading to not factor in market share in this type of analysis. Sure, there may be 400 airlines, but 10 make up 90% of the market. The notion that the other 390 make a material difference in the labor market for that industry is asinine.
        SideQuark 4y ago
        > The notion that the other 390 make a material difference in the labor market If there were the ability to do vastly differently in the labor market, it matters not how small one is - the better solution will over time grow and become the new standard. On the other hand, if there are actual real worl constraints outside the industry that all players in an industry face, then they will have similar prices, wages, actions, and outcomes. So if you really want to argue that somehow the biggest players decide the wages for every other player and these wages are not constrained except for the whim of billionaire cabals, then make that argument. Because that is not what happens when there are so many players. Or, if you really want to check facts, the largest airline in the US has around 20% market share, and it falls quickly after that. So there's nearly zero chance that there's lack of competition - every company after that one are all still fighting to increase market share, by offering they ever they can, including trying to attract the best workers. What's misleading is trying to lump actual competitors as one monolithic whole and claim there's no competition. The fact is there are many, many companies where one could work. That there are 10 to reach 90% is likely better than in any other country - it is in the few I just checked. Care to show countries where there is more competition? How many airlines do you think employees need to have a competitive market? One each? 5 of those 10 biggest airlines were started in my lifetime, and surely several were started in yours. The only asinine notion is claiming that small companies have no material differences in the labor market over the medium term, since in this industry (and pretty much every other) those small companies are constantly redefining the industry, many becoming the biggest players in less time than an employee's career. Thinking in static snapshot terms without understanding history or trajectories will always fail your analysis.
- mint2 4y ago
  No, because every job has that contract clause. That argument doesn’t work when talking about universal standards.
test6554 4y ago
Congress set out to incentivize arbitration in America over long and expensive court cases. This is the system working as intended. It would be interesting to hear the non-cynical reason why they made this change. I already am aware of the cynical reason.
- gsk22 4y ago
  As someone who is very much not a lawyer -- isn't one of the major gripes about arbitration that it precludes class action suits? Certifying a class is a lot easier than thousands of individuals going through repetitive arbitrations. And of course, there is the benefit (for the corporation) that a large percentage of people will find arbitration too burdensome.
  - fredophile 4y ago
    A major problem with arbitration is who pays for it. Usually the employer pays which means they pick the arbitrator. Arbitrators aren't stupid and know that if they rule against the employer too often the employer will hire someone else.
    - test6554 4y ago
      So this begs the obvious question... how does one become an arbitrator? ;-)
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      > Usually the employer pays which means they pick the arbitrator. Not true at all.
      - genocidicbunny 4y ago
        I seem to recall there have been instances where courts have basically said that if the employer requires arbitration and chooses the arbitrator, they also need to be the ones paying for it, otherwise the contract is far too one-sided towards the employer.
onphonenow 4y ago
Actually voters elected congress which passed a law to encourage arbitration. So this is congress and will of voters. Don’t like it? Elect different folks is best approach - this would be an easy law to change.
- absrd 4y ago
  As we know everything congress does is good and in accordance with the will of the voters
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    You are claiming this is a court created law that encourages arbitration- it is not. Some things are essentially court created via reference to a constitutional right for example. Arbitration is not a court created concept - this makes it much easier to change or eliminate
Manuel_D 4y ago
This is not far off from people saying capitalism is slavery because in order to avoid starvation you have to work. Your employer can require you to do work otherwise you'll be homeless and starve, therefore it's forced labor. Some people may not want to perform the work that an employer demands, and that's not unusual. No one, besides extremists, would call this coercive. I don't see anything different with arbitration.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  We’re just slowly reverting to serfdom, just this time with a supposedly voluntary 40 page legalese contract.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    I don't recall being treated like a serf in 2018. This ruling is just a return to the status quo before the 2019 CA law that attempted (and now failed) to ban arbitration. Even compulsory arbitration is subject to oversight, people can challenge the impartiality of arbitration and have their results vacated if it really was a skewed decision.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  You're so close to actual understanding here it's painful.

by olliej 4y ago

baggy_trough 4y ago

Yes, because you can get a different job.

Reptur 4y ago
You can until they've all been bought up by a couple of billionaire owned conglomerates. An example being 6 corporations controlling 90% of all mainstream media. As things progress, we'll see further concentration because the name of the game is grow or fail. This is just further backslide of worker's rights in a long history of backslide.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  There are literally millions of employers in the US [1]. They're all bought up by some secret cabal of magic and unified billionaires wizards. >As things progress, we'll see further concentration Except recent trends are more companies, not less, as registrations of new entrants increased during COVID [2]. >This is just further backslide of worker's rights in a long history of backslide. Yet those backslidden workers make more now than pretty much any time in all of history and more than in any other place in the world... [3,4] [1] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb.html [2] https://www.commerceinstitute.com/new-businesses-started-every-year/#:~:text=Data%20from%20the%20US%20Census,new%20businesses%20is%20trending%20up https://www.commerceinstitute.com/new-businesses-started-eve.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > There are literally millions of employers in the US Now do how many railways or airlines or TV groups or newspapers there are. People with specific skills might have a specific profession (e.g. a journalist) for which their options for employment are extremely limited. Of course they can go and work at McDonalds, but that's not really a great option, is it?
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      >Now do how many ... Did you check? There's over 600 freight railways in the US. There's almost 400 airlines. There;s over 1200 newpaper companies. Not exactly "extremely limited." And, no matter how you want to argue, no single company or industry owes you a job. But the argument that there is not variety and competition in the US just isn't backed by the evidence. Every one of those professions you list has the US among the highest paying, if not the highest paying, country for those industries. *(Check OECD or whatever source you like). Or maybe these "extremely limited" options you image exist also decide to pay more than anywhere else? >Of course they can go and work at McDonalds Nice red herring. If you want to make more claims please provide evidence (not anecdote, not more opinions copied from blogs) sourced from more than your opinion, since that will base this discussion on realty.
      - comte7092 4y ago
        >There's over 600 freight railways in the US. >There's almost 400 airlines. >There’s over 1200 newpaper companies. >Not exactly "extremely limited." It’s extremely misleading to not factor in market share in this type of analysis. Sure, there may be 400 airlines, but 10 make up 90% of the market. The notion that the other 390 make a material difference in the labor market for that industry is asinine.
        SideQuark 4y ago
        > The notion that the other 390 make a material difference in the labor market If there were the ability to do vastly differently in the labor market, it matters not how small one is - the better solution will over time grow and become the new standard. On the other hand, if there are actual real worl constraints outside the industry that all players in an industry face, then they will have similar prices, wages, actions, and outcomes. So if you really want to argue that somehow the biggest players decide the wages for every other player and these wages are not constrained except for the whim of billionaire cabals, then make that argument. Because that is not what happens when there are so many players. Or, if you really want to check facts, the largest airline in the US has around 20% market share, and it falls quickly after that. So there's nearly zero chance that there's lack of competition - every company after that one are all still fighting to increase market share, by offering they ever they can, including trying to attract the best workers. What's misleading is trying to lump actual competitors as one monolithic whole and claim there's no competition. The fact is there are many, many companies where one could work. That there are 10 to reach 90% is likely better than in any other country - it is in the few I just checked. Care to show countries where there is more competition? How many airlines do you think employees need to have a competitive market? One each? 5 of those 10 biggest airlines were started in my lifetime, and surely several were started in yours. The only asinine notion is claiming that small companies have no material differences in the labor market over the medium term, since in this industry (and pretty much every other) those small companies are constantly redefining the industry, many becoming the biggest players in less time than an employee's career. Thinking in static snapshot terms without understanding history or trajectories will always fail your analysis.
mint2 4y ago
No, because every job has that contract clause. That argument doesn’t work when talking about universal standards.

test6554 4y ago

Congress set out to incentivize arbitration in America over long and expensive court cases. This is the system working as intended. It would be interesting to hear the non-cynical reason why they made this change. I already am aware of the cynical reason.

gsk22 4y ago
As someone who is very much not a lawyer -- isn't one of the major gripes about arbitration that it precludes class action suits? Certifying a class is a lot easier than thousands of individuals going through repetitive arbitrations. And of course, there is the benefit (for the corporation) that a large percentage of people will find arbitration too burdensome.
- fredophile 4y ago
  A major problem with arbitration is who pays for it. Usually the employer pays which means they pick the arbitrator. Arbitrators aren't stupid and know that if they rule against the employer too often the employer will hire someone else.
  - test6554 4y ago
    So this begs the obvious question... how does one become an arbitrator? ;-)
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    > Usually the employer pays which means they pick the arbitrator. Not true at all.
    - genocidicbunny 4y ago
      I seem to recall there have been instances where courts have basically said that if the employer requires arbitration and chooses the arbitrator, they also need to be the ones paying for it, otherwise the contract is far too one-sided towards the employer.

onphonenow 4y ago

Actually voters elected congress which passed a law to encourage arbitration. So this is congress and will of voters. Don’t like it? Elect different folks is best approach - this would be an easy law to change.

absrd 4y ago
As we know everything congress does is good and in accordance with the will of the voters
- onphonenow 4y ago
  You are claiming this is a court created law that encourages arbitration- it is not. Some things are essentially court created via reference to a constitutional right for example. Arbitration is not a court created concept - this makes it much easier to change or eliminate

Manuel_D 4y ago

This is not far off from people saying capitalism is slavery because in order to avoid starvation you have to work. Your employer can require you to do work otherwise you'll be homeless and starve, therefore it's forced labor. Some people may not want to perform the work that an employer demands, and that's not unusual. No one, besides extremists, would call this coercive. I don't see anything different with arbitration.

epicureanideal 4y ago
We’re just slowly reverting to serfdom, just this time with a supposedly voluntary 40 page legalese contract.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  I don't recall being treated like a serf in 2018. This ruling is just a return to the status quo before the 2019 CA law that attempted (and now failed) to ban arbitration. Even compulsory arbitration is subject to oversight, people can challenge the impartiality of arbitration and have their results vacated if it really was a skewed decision.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
You're so close to actual understanding here it's painful.