4 ms·

> Let's say you're given an offer letter, but it has a binding arbitration clause (meaning that you can't sue). I would negotiate that term out of the contract

> Let's say you're given an offer letter, but it has a binding arbitration clause (meaning that you can't sue). I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. > I shouldn't have to go out individually to get onerous terms like that stricken. Why not? I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. History has shown us that unions almost never perform the way you describe. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. In the long run, they rarely benefit either party, let alone both. No thank you.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. Even if they accept your change (and, often, they will) you've now identified yourself as a "PITA". Before you've done your first day of work, you've had to negotiate terms of termination. That's unfair to you. You shouldn't have to talk about you getting fired to get binding arbitration struck. It shouldn't be on the table in the first place. It's an utter abuse of the original arbitration laws. I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. Let's say that you're an employee. Things are going well, but there's a change of management and, for political reasons, you're served with a PIP and it's pretty obvious that the outcome (you fail) has been decided. Is management going to let you call an external agent into the office, right then and there, to help you in the process? Almost certainly not. You'll be fired, and they'll try to argue that you committed "insubordination" by placing the call, or even that your sharing of information with an external party (such as an agent or lawyer) constitutes a "leak", making the termination "for cause". You might be able to beat them in the courts, but it'll rarely be worth it. They'll perjure themselves all over the place and fuck up your reputation, even if you win. That's where you need, on paper, the right to have an agent or representative present when you deal with management or HR. They can go 2-on-1 against you (manager plus HR rep) so you should have the right to make it 2-on-2. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. The world is a complicated place, and often confrontational. Besides, the other side has its collective bargaining infrastructure in place. HR is their agent, and corporations are just collective bargaining for rich, powerful people. Fights aren't good, but I'd rather it be a fight than a beating in which I lose.

michaelochurch 13y ago

I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. Even if they accept your change (and, often, they will) you've now identified yourself as a "PITA". Before you've done your first day of work, you've had to negotiate terms of termination. That's unfair to you. You shouldn't have to talk about you getting fired to get binding arbitration struck. It shouldn't be on the table in the first place. It's an utter abuse of the original arbitration laws. I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. Let's say that you're an employee. Things are going well, but there's a change of management and, for political reasons, you're served with a PIP and it's pretty obvious that the outcome (you fail) has been decided. Is management going to let you call an external agent into the office, right then and there, to help you in the process? Almost certainly not. You'll be fired, and they'll try to argue that you committed "insubordination" by placing the call, or even that your sharing of information with an external party (such as an agent or lawyer) constitutes a "leak", making the termination "for cause". You might be able to beat them in the courts, but it'll rarely be worth it. They'll perjure themselves all over the place and fuck up your reputation, even if you win. That's where you need, on paper, the right to have an agent or representative present when you deal with management or HR. They can go 2-on-1 against you (manager plus HR rep) so you should have the right to make it 2-on-2. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. The world is a complicated place, and often confrontational. Besides, the other side has its collective bargaining infrastructure in place. HR is their agent, and corporations are just collective bargaining for rich, powerful people. Fights aren't good, but I'd rather it be a fight than a beating in which I lose.