California: lose your wage claim and pay your employer's attorneys' fees | Hacker News Reader

California: lose your wage claim and pay your employer's attorneys' fees

magnetmail.net

10 pointsgrellas8 comments

If a lot of people were abusing the system to get undue money from employers, knowing it would cost the employers far less to settle than to fight, then that's obviously bad. However, this type of regulation seems like it now swings the entire system in favor of the employers rather than neutralizing the problem.

In other words, people who actually were wrongfully withheld their just pay will now greatly fear losing even if they know they were wronged, and so the employers have less to fear by wrongfully withholding pay. It seems to me there should be a separate judgement as to whether or not the claimants accusations were fraudulant or malicious, separate from whether or not they lost the claim itself, before imposing this harsh penalty.

Ok, I guess I don't understand what "dismissed... with prejudice against all parties" would mean, then. If the company didn't "win" the suit, why do they get to recover lawyer fees?

I also worry about all the asymmetries: the basic one (company has deeper pockets), but also some subtler ones: the company hires more expensive lawyers, the company may retain lawyers, the company has more experience with these cases, etc.

"With prejudice against all parties" means, effectively, that the decision is final, i.e. neither side can re-file the claims as a new complaint.

Recoverability of attorney fees varies by jurisdiction. I've recently been involved in a claim against an insurance company and where I am, in civil disputes each party pays their own fees, regardless of the outcome. The only way you can recover your fees in addition to actual damages is to have the judge decide that the other party took an egregiously unreasonable position.

Seems unfair in that after fees I recovered only about 15% of my loss but I suppose the approach does serve to keep both sides honest.

Yes, but what would be worse, you recovering only about 15% (and costing your opposition hopefully as much as you lost or more), or you recovering nothing and the insurance company keeping everything?

The problem I've noticed with insurance companies is that they try to run a profit off of the individual person, when really they should be running a profit off of the community as a whole. This is greed vs sustainability.

If I charge 100 people $5 for some bogus insurance, if I only pay out $450 for the group, I'm netting $50. However, insurance companies charge 100 people $5 and will up each individuals payments for any claim to try and keep making $500.

100 people getting good insurance at a great cost will stay with a company until they die, they'll also get their friends and family to join up. Suddenly you've got 1,000 people and you're making $500 from loyal customers.

Read any economics paper on the issues involved in insurance and you'll understand why things are the way they are. Moral hazard abounds on both sides of the transaction, there are many other transactions that each party is a stakeholder to.

It sounds like you have an issue with the premium the company charges for taking the risk vs. how they are making their money as the only difference. Do you feel that the guy who leaves his doors unlocked and thus gets broken into a lot should pay the same premiums as you? (I assume you lock your doors / take other precautions)

Oh and your loyal customers they left because they saw an ad from progressive / geico about how they could save thousands on their insurance. Or conversely GEICO/Progressive see the rates you are charging and think about how much money they could make if they substituted their service with yours and then make you a "crazy" offer to sell.

Also, part of GEICO's rates are the investment genius of Warren Buffet, by making shrewd investments with the premiums they are able to discount the insurance rate by a portion of the interest accrued on the premium.

One of these companies, I think it is GEICO, was able to offer low rates because they only took drivers with spotless accident histories, and they would drop you after one claim. I'm not sure they still operate this way, because they advertise on a lot of mainstream outlets now, and before I remember them being almost a "by invitation only" sort of deal.

It sounds like the previous system was stacked against the corporations. Why shouldn't the system be designed to discourage frivolous suits? Stockholders are people too.

If a person brings suit and loses, their lawyer should also be held accountable.

That's pretty fucked up. When the legal system has failed this badly, armed revolt is about the only option left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com