Hacker News Reader

Comment by fzeroracer | Hacker News Reader

Arbitration agreements are a massive, massive scam and the fact that they can be forced as part of your employment contract needs to go. It allows companies to sweep away shitty corporate behavior and avoid addressing the actual issues with their workplace in addition to overwhelmingly tilting the system against employees.

View on HN

My rule of thumb is if I can't opt out of arbitration then I can't work for you. Most established orgs give you a grace period after start date to request opt-out to legal and I've run into no flack for doing just that. However I've learned from experience that it is critical to not be bound by it - especially if your pay is tied to a metric or a quota and/or a portion of your package is options/RSUs.

so... serious question, and I'm asking you, 'cause it sounds like you are implying that you've sued your employer. is suing your employer a seriously career-impairing move? I mean, I think most court proceedings are public records, and it seems like if the fact that you sued your last employer for something came up in your background check, I personally assume that'd be as bad or worse than an old felony conviction, from the employer's perspective.

Are people who sued their employer a protected class in the USA, or is there some other reason why this isn't a career-ending event?

it probably won't impact you.

well, yes. For a lot of reasons, I'm not likely to sue my employer.

But, that doesn't mean I'm not curious.

I didn't imply I sued them. Keep in mind that suing someone has the implication of going public. You don't need to sue someone to be bound by arbitration. Generally legal conversations can and will happen prior to the event of suing your employer. This is something most people would gloss over or not consider. If you sign arbitration you have no wiggle room - because it is all up to the company, and they likely view arbitration as in their best interest. But if you have opted out you can go get your own attorney and present your claim without getting into a public legal battle. If you hold the cards it is in their best interest to negotiate, settle and not get sued (as that becomes public and is bad for both sides). Generally when making legal agreements the "career ending events" are protected as part of the settlement. It would be amiss to forget to CYA in your negotiation. This may include language that explicitly states anyone from that company talking about your externally. Obviously they're incented to keep that bargain or you can then go down the path of defamation and further liabilities.

This is why you unionize.

Seriously. I wonder what alternative solution that union skeptics have to offer for this problem.

They'll tell you that nobody's forcing you to work for a company that requires you to undergo forced arbitration.

I tell them that nobody's forcing them to work for a union shop.

Yes, I'm certainly not against a union-optional situation. If specific companies want to be union-only, that's fine by me. I'll go work elsewhere. If those companies can change their minds and admit scabs, that's okay by me.

If a bunch of people want to group together to bargain, that's their right. I've gotten together with my co-workers and spoken to bosses before. The only problem is when state regulation is used to enforce this. I'm not okay with that.

It can't be a right if it isn't regulated. Unionizing is a legally recognized international right. It isn't really optional. Then of course you can argue how it should work, but that is largely a different matter. You want to waive that right that's fine, but it is just that. Anyone else who wants to keep their right should get to.

I get what you mean but the "nobody's forcing you" arguments are all fallacious. Life it's not a dichotomy between forced and free.

Straightforward regulation?? Binding arbitration goes against logic, which is presumably more fundamental than even common law.

In a way, unionization is really just one step up from that "vote with your dollars" tripe, and we know how well that works. I'm not categorically rejecting it, just highlighting that it's more of a stopgap than a solution.

For instance, why wouldn't a union's management adopt the same kind of disenfranchisement clauses in case you try to sue them? You know, to keep dues down and all that.

Why would you regulate something when there is no consequences? American always hold the position of various degrees of "don't trust the government, take care of yourself", but as soon as something gets slightly uncomfortable someone else is supposed to step in.

Unionizing isn't really like voting with your dollars. Individual contract negotiation is essentially that. Unions have actual market power. It is like e.g. Walmart stops selling something.

A union could adopt a similar clause, but the members shouldn't allow that. If they do you of course have a much larger problem.

The consequences of deeply fundamental issues develop slowly. Binding arbitration goes against the concept of law itself - allowing one party to unilaterally effect how a contract document can be interpreted means there is actually no contract at all! Even capital-L Libertarians believe that one of the jobs of government is to administer law, and so preserving that function is directly in line with its purpose.

Of course we can just assume that it's a forgone conclusion that government is corrupt, and look to how we can personally act to overcome - I did say that collective action is a "step up" from individual action. It's just important to remember the larger context of direct action being a tactic rather than a solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com