[Pyrate Jim]

I'm not sure where to go with this....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sup...Kz&ocid=HPCDHP

Apparently, as an employee you have to put up with your employer violating federal employment laws over wages, hours or civil rights.
You no longer have the right to take them to court and must rely on the arbitration of the very people who are screwing you.

And being in a Union won't help, since the Supreme Court will no longer recognize any other than individuals not a part of any group or class.

[LazarusratII]

Originally Posted by Pyrate Jim

I'm not sure where to go with this....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sup...Kz&ocid=HPCDHP

Apparently, as an employee you have to put up with your employer violating federal employment laws over wages, hours or civil rights.
You no longer have the right to take them to court and must rely on the arbitration of the very people who are screwing you.

And being in a Union won't help, since the Supreme Court will no longer recognize any other than individuals not a part of any group or class.

Ummm..

1. If you don't agree arbitration clauses don't sign them.

2. If you're Union don't sign them.

3. Can't say for sure as I haven't taken the time to read what this Arbitration contract actually said BUT most Arb contracts the arbitration agent usually isn't a part of the Company to avoid conflict of interests and law suits in a court of law (which is the entire point of Arbitration Clauses, to avoid law suits in court of law because with legal fees even if you win you loose)

4. Arbitration doesn't mean you agree to get screwed it means you agree to take your issue to a third party instead of court.


5. Finally Arbitration doesn't exempt companies from breaking the law.

[Ford]

Fewer options for working people? Sounds great for voters... I mean, corporations.

[da_mink]

Originally Posted by LazarusratII

Ummm..

1. If you don't agree arbitration clauses don't sign them.

2. If you're Union don't sign them.

3. Can't say for sure as I haven't taken the time to read what this Arbitration contract actually said BUT most Arb contracts the arbitration agent usually isn't a part of the Company to avoid conflict of interests and law suits in a court of law (which is the entire point of Arbitration Clauses, to avoid law suits in court of law because with legal fees even if you win you loose)

4. Arbitration doesn't mean you agree to get screwed it means you agree to take your issue to a third party instead of court.


5. Finally Arbitration doesn't exempt companies from breaking the law.

First off, if you cant even be bothered to read the opinion or information on the case, why in ****s name do you think you can comment intelligently on it?


1. good luck with that......
2. being union doesn't prevent arbitration agreements. It is one of many tradeoffs union workers can make during negotiations. It is not guaranteed.
3. the company decided the "neutral" arbitrator. Who I am sure will never be biased in favor of the company that holds them on retainer.
4. it also prevents you from brining any case before a judge regardless of the issue.
5. it doesn't, but it can severely limit the recourse someone has in going after those illegal actions.

Also keep in mind, arbitrators DO NOT need any specialized training or a law degree. If a mcdonalds wants to hire the franchise owners son to arbitrate, there is nothing in the law to prevent it. If Monsanto wants to hire its corporate lawyer, he can simple resign, start his own firm and get hired back on.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...yer-30005.html
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...ir-2870731.php

[LazarusratII]

Originally Posted by da_mink

First off, if you cant even be bothered to read the opinion or information on the case, why in ****s name do you think you can comment intelligently on it?


1. good luck with that......
2. being union doesn't prevent arbitration agreements. It is one of many tradeoffs union workers can make during negotiations. It is not guaranteed.
3. the company decided the "neutral" arbitrator. Who I am sure will never be biased in favor of the company that holds them on retainer.
4. it also prevents you from brining any case before a judge regardless of the issue.
5. it doesn't, but it can severely limit the recourse someone has in going after those illegal actions.

Also keep in mind, arbitrators DO NOT need any specialized training or a law degree. If a mcdonalds wants to hire the franchise owners son to arbitrate, there is nothing in the law to prevent it. If Monsanto wants to hire its corporate lawyer, he can simple resign, start his own firm and get hired back on.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...yer-30005.html
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...ir-2870731.php

Because as a part of my job we deal with arbitration agreements on a regular basis.

In all the agreements we have dealt with as a company they have been set up to mutually beneficial for both parties offering a means of resolving issues that are both cost effective and time expedient compared going through the court system.

I did read the article posted, however the article does not give the detail required to determine who the abriter was in this case nor their credentials. In order to find that I would have to do some serious research which I don't want to do or care to do.


I still stand by my post that if you are asked to sign a Arbitration contract that is not mutually beneficial, don't sign it. Why in the world would you voluntarily work for a company that you know is actively trying to screw you? Do you have no skills and that is the only job on the planet?


If you are union; It only makes sense that the Arbitration agreement in this case, which restricts group legal action, runs counter to what your Union was created for. Therefore not only should you not sign it, you should bring your Union to bare against it and have that portion of the agreement amended.

You are correct, arbiters do not need specialized legal training, However any company that wants to survive would make sure that anyone they hire for arbitration has some sort of legal standing. That way if the arbitration results are challenged in a court of law (like if someone believes they have been discriminated against in the arbitration process and so they file a discrimination law suit to challenge the arbitration) you have something to stand on.


Back to the article I agree with court that this guy's lawsuit should be tossed. Like I said I haven't read the actual Arbitration agreement but based on my prior experience I would bet money that the agreement he signed was pretty fair to both parties involved and he should have gone through arbitration first for himself. If his co-workers need to do the same they should as well instead of him taking up their cause as well with a class action law siuit.

[da_mink]

I still stand by my post that if you are asked to sign a Arbitration contract that is not mutually beneficial, don't sign it. Why in the world would you voluntarily work for a company that you know is actively trying to screw you? Do you have no skills and that is the only job on the planet?

Sorta, yes
The median wage in this country is considered to be "low wage" by the US treasury department, More than half the American population has effectively zero control over their employment contracts. These aren't full stack developers in SF capable of having a back and forth with an employer making certain tradeoffs, they're retail workers that can be fired at any time.

[LazarusratII]

Originally Posted by da_mink

Sorta, yes
The median wage in this country is considered to be "low wage" by the US treasury department, More than half the American population has effectively zero control over their employment contracts. These aren't full stack developers in SF capable of having a back and forth with an employer making certain tradeoffs, they're retail workers that can be fired at any time.

May-be this won't make any sense to you but; All companies want "valuable employees", even for low paying positions.

Having an HR policy that is so biased against your employees that it ensures "good" employees either won't work for you, or will transition away from you at the first opportunity that presents itself, pretty much ensures your company will be made up of untrained, unmotivated or incompetent workers and is not a successful business model for anyone other than Tacobell, BurgerKing or McDonalds.

At my job (which is pretty typical to most places), for every entry level worker I hire, the first 2-4 weeks while they are being trained and learning their job they actually hurt my production output because training them pulls an experienced builder off the line. I maximize production, and profitability, by hiring good people and keeping them. It's actually in my best interest to try and make working for me as much of a win/win as possible. Implementing polices that may save me money in the short term but result in a high turn over of employees end up costing me in the long term and most business realize this.

Edited in a "and"

[da_mink]

Originally Posted by LazarusratII

May-be this won't make any sense to you but; All companies want "valuable employees", even for low paying positions.

Having an HR policy that is so biased against your employees that it ensures "good" employees either won't work for you, or will transition away from you at the first opportunity that presents itself, pretty much ensures your company will be made up of untrained, unmotivated or incompetent workers and is not a successful business model for anyone other than Tacobell, BurgerKing or McDonalds.

At my job (which is pretty typical to most places), for every entry level worker I hire, the first 2-4 weeks while they are being trained and learning their job they actually hurt my production output because training them pulls an experienced builder off the line. I maximize production, and profitability, by hiring good people and keeping them. It's actually in my best interest to try and make working for me as much of a win/win as possible. Implementing polices that may save me money in the short term but result in a high turn over of employees end up costing me in the long term and most business realize this.

Edited in a "and"

I run my own companies, I am well aware about needing employees. Just as I am aware that the market means for every job I post at min wage I get 100+ applications. That sort of hiring power, enables me to continue paying minimum wage, have an overly strict social media policy and generally run the company however I want. If I had a binding arbitration agreement (my employment contracts present arbitration as the "first option", with civil suits still being allowed), I REALLY doubt the number of applicants I get would be changed.

Do arbitration agreements increase turnover though? I am fully on board with everything in that last paragraph. It is just I see arbitration agreements only arising when there is an issue, not when they're hired and barely while working. I just don't know if the impacts of arbitration agreements on long and short term effect on turnover have been studied (did a quick google search and couldn't find anything).

[LazarusratII]

Originally Posted by da_mink

I run my own companies, I am well aware about needing employees. Just as I am aware that the market means for every job I post at min wage I get 100+ applications. That sort of hiring power, enables me to continue paying minimum wage, have an overly strict social media policy and generally run the company however I want. If I had a binding arbitration agreement (my employment contracts present arbitration as the "first option", with civil suits still being allowed), I REALLY doubt the number of applicants I get would be changed.

Do arbitration agreements increase turnover though? I am fully on board with everything in that last paragraph. It is just I see arbitration agreements only arising when there is an issue, not when they're hired and barely while working. I just don't know if the impacts of arbitration agreements on long and short term effect on turnover have been studied (did a quick google search and couldn't find anything).

I see Arb agreements mostly in contract agreements between customers, other generals and us. Usually to resolve contractual disagreements in order to keep projects moving and not tied up in legal courts should anything go wrong. Overall my impression of them has been favorable.

We have never used Arb agreements with our employees, there's really been no need. I doubt that if we did decide to put out an Arb agreement with our guys it would cause any turn over BUT our Arb agreement would be mutually beneficial and not an issue. Even if we had a hostile Arb agreement, I still don't think it would case turn over because we have a good work culture and climate. People like working here and we hardly have issues.

That all being said, if we had a bad climate and a hostile Arbitration policy I fully believe it would cause turn over and a drop in the quality of new hires as the word got out.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by LazarusratII

1. If you don't agree arbitration clauses don't sign them.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to let companies use arbitration agreements as a barrier to employment. Reminds me of the sub shops forcing sandwich makers to sign non-competes as the most bald-faced intimidation tactic you could come up with.

Sign this non-compete or you don't get to pay rent on minimum wage. Since you're making sandwiches clearly you have options.

This will be abused, and disproportionately against people with the least leverage in the labor market.

[LazarusratII]

Originally Posted by Umami

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to let companies use arbitration agreements as a barrier to employment. Reminds me of the sub shops forcing sandwich makers to sign non-competes as the most bald-faced intimidation tactic you could come up with.

Sign this non-compete or you don't get to pay rent on minimum wage. Since you're making sandwiches clearly you have options.

This will be abused, and disproportionately against people with the least leverage in the labor market.

So you are going to have to elaborate more on why you feel arbitration agreements can be used by companies to prevent workers from working else where.

As for you last paragraph, yes it will.