4 ms·
We've spent the last 30-odd years electing people that stuff the books and court benches with laws and people that make sure that - by and large - attorneys and
by dccoolgai 12y ago
We've spent the last 30-odd years electing people that stuff the books and court benches with laws and people that make sure that - by and large - attorneys and the victims they represent can't hold companies like this responsible or accountable - for almost anything, let alone misdeeds with needy victims. Go look up "forced arbitration"... these "service providers" probably have, at best, the right to a loser-pays "arbitrator" who is paid and picked by Handybook. The risk that any of them might opt for any quasi-legal proceeding (let alone the rigged arbitration system they are likely limited to) given that many of them most likely have some kind of liminal citizenship status is effectively nil. If I were doing the liabilities/risk business analysis for this, I would delete the row this was on just to clean up the spreadsheet a little bit.
The concept of companies being held responsible for things they do that hurt or exploit people is a humorous anachronism from a bygone era.
- danielweber 12y agoIt doesn't look like the "candidate/employee" signed anything. And if they did, the contract isn't enforceable without consideration. "We are considering you for the job" is not consideration.
- jordanb 12y agoThe way companies do forced arbitration now is by providing the employee with an opt out form that they have to fill out and mail to the legal department within 30 days. Sharp-eyed employees will notice this in their new hire documentation but most will not. The company can then claim that they did not make forced arbitration a condition of employment and did give the employee an opportunity to opt out, which they declined to take. Courts have upheld this as legal: http://www.dglaw.com/images_user/newsalerts/Litigation_Employees_Who_Dont_Opt_Out.pdf http://www.dglaw.com/images_user/newsalerts/Litigation_Emplo...
- danielweber 12y agoThey never hired her. There was no on-going agreement or failure to opt-out. Again, contracts still need consideration. Employment is consideration. They never employed her.
- rdl 12y agoI don't get why the fuck they didn't just pay her a day rate for work, since she was essentially working.
- BWStearns 12y ago(IANAL) The 12 hours of free-work might constitute consideration, but I don't see why you would even take a contracts angle on this particular interaction when you just have generic labor law.