4 ms·

Weaponising "forced arbitration" to overload the company's legal resources is an increasingly common tactic https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/1/22463550/amazon-l

Weaponising "forced arbitration" to overload the company's legal resources is an increasingly common tactic https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/1/22463550/amazon-lawsuit-arbitration-terms-of-service-update-alexa https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/1/22463550/amazon-lawsuit-ar... https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers-forced-arbitration-william-alsup https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers... https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/postmates-drops-parallel-appeals-in-mass-arbitration-disputes https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/postmates-d...

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Legal firms will be able to soon compare the size of their supercomputers that have to respond and overwhelm the opposition. From law to bits.
- carapace 3y ago
  whoa... like what quants did for trading but for legal, uh, wrangling...
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Well, if they're rational enough... we're in a situation analogous to two hypothetical superhuman AIs on a brink of conflict: both can honestly and accurately estimate their chances of winning, and thus skip the fighting and go straight to agreement that favors the winning side as much as their estimate says it would anyway.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Which superhuman will be the first to suggest a nice game of chess instead?
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    Did you just assume no hallucinations?
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Yes. I'm not talking about GPT-4 on steroids, but a proper GAI. FWIW, I find hallucinations of LLMs to not be unusual or that big of a deal, because if comparing to human mind, it's pretty clear to me that LLMs are the equivalent of the "inner voice", which - at least for me - tends to spit out things that "feel right", but aren't necessary factually correct. This suggests that LLMs alone won't make a GAI, but they may be an important component of it.
tzs 3y ago
The DoorDash case was hilarious. Some workers tried to start a class action lawsuit, and DoorDash argued that it should be dismissed because according to their contract the workers had a duty to arbitrate. Then when workers actually tried to arbitrate DoorDash tried to get that replaced with a class action. Judge Alsup would have none of that crap: > The employer here, DoorDash, faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause. No doubt, DoorDash never expected that so many would actually seek arbitration. Instead, in irony upon irony, DoorDash now wishes to resort to a class-wide lawsuit, the very device it denied to the workers, to avoid its duty to arbitrate. This hypocrisy will not be blessed, at least by this order.
- ortusdux 3y ago
  It sounds like the 2000 employees mentioned in this article should file a class action and cite Judge Alsup in the briefs.
  - barrkel 3y ago
    I would think a class action suit would be more favorable to Twitter (and lawyers) and less favorable to the ex-employees. Every time I read about them, they seem to sum up total damages which are less than the individual damages, and members of the class get a small check at the end.
    - civilitty 3y ago
      IANAL but that’s because most members of a class action have too weak a claim to litigate. Anyone with a strong claim and the money to fight it (or a lawyer on contingency) can opt out of the settlement and fight it on their own. It’s a lot different when it’s employment violations. The case for each employee is stronger, many more lawyers would be willing to take the case on contingency, and there’s not much room to massage the damages below what the employees are already owed
      - 3y ago
quickthrowman 3y ago
Workers aren’t weaponizing forced arbitration, they have no leverage over DoorDash. DoorDash has to deal with the consequences of their decision to require forced arbitration, they are the party with power to dictate terms in the company/worker relationship. They brought it on themselves by not managing risk.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I'm wondering how much they'd prefer dealing with negotiating with a union rep than all of these individual cases.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Legal firms will be able to soon compare the size of their supercomputers that have to respond and overwhelm the opposition. From law to bits.

carapace 3y ago
whoa... like what quants did for trading but for legal, uh, wrangling...
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Well, if they're rational enough... we're in a situation analogous to two hypothetical superhuman AIs on a brink of conflict: both can honestly and accurately estimate their chances of winning, and thus skip the fighting and go straight to agreement that favors the winning side as much as their estimate says it would anyway.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Which superhuman will be the first to suggest a nice game of chess instead?
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  Did you just assume no hallucinations?
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Yes. I'm not talking about GPT-4 on steroids, but a proper GAI. FWIW, I find hallucinations of LLMs to not be unusual or that big of a deal, because if comparing to human mind, it's pretty clear to me that LLMs are the equivalent of the "inner voice", which - at least for me - tends to spit out things that "feel right", but aren't necessary factually correct. This suggests that LLMs alone won't make a GAI, but they may be an important component of it.

tzs 3y ago

The DoorDash case was hilarious. Some workers tried to start a class action lawsuit, and DoorDash argued that it should be dismissed because according to their contract the workers had a duty to arbitrate. Then when workers actually tried to arbitrate DoorDash tried to get that replaced with a class action. Judge Alsup would have none of that crap: > The employer here, DoorDash, faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause. No doubt, DoorDash never expected that so many would actually seek arbitration. Instead, in irony upon irony, DoorDash now wishes to resort to a class-wide lawsuit, the very device it denied to the workers, to avoid its duty to arbitrate. This hypocrisy will not be blessed, at least by this order.

ortusdux 3y ago
It sounds like the 2000 employees mentioned in this article should file a class action and cite Judge Alsup in the briefs.
- barrkel 3y ago
  I would think a class action suit would be more favorable to Twitter (and lawyers) and less favorable to the ex-employees. Every time I read about them, they seem to sum up total damages which are less than the individual damages, and members of the class get a small check at the end.
  - civilitty 3y ago
    IANAL but that’s because most members of a class action have too weak a claim to litigate. Anyone with a strong claim and the money to fight it (or a lawyer on contingency) can opt out of the settlement and fight it on their own. It’s a lot different when it’s employment violations. The case for each employee is stronger, many more lawyers would be willing to take the case on contingency, and there’s not much room to massage the damages below what the employees are already owed
    - 3y ago

quickthrowman 3y ago

Workers aren’t weaponizing forced arbitration, they have no leverage over DoorDash. DoorDash has to deal with the consequences of their decision to require forced arbitration, they are the party with power to dictate terms in the company/worker relationship. They brought it on themselves by not managing risk.

dylan604 3y ago
I'm wondering how much they'd prefer dealing with negotiating with a union rep than all of these individual cases.