Comment by CogitoCogito | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CogitoCogito | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees.

Honestly I think that you shouldn't have any inherent right to arbitration. You should have a right to access to a court. Arbitration should only there if both parties agree to it. If one party doesn't agree because they want to make it more expensive for you, so be it. I mean I can't really see what's fundamentally different than someone deciding they want to force you to a court trial for that reason versus them forcing you for another reason. It's just a legal strategy at the end of the day. If they are truly acting in bad will, they should be assessed court fees down the road. I know that that's difficult in the US court system, but that is a problem that should be fixed with the court system not by just side-stepping it with arbitration.

You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it.

Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.

> You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it.

I know this is the case and I believe it is generally the way it should be (ecxept of course the fact that the agreements can be entered into prior to the disputes). I was responding to the devil’s post by basically pointing what you wrote here.

> Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.

I’m not sure what point you’re making here. I think that agreements by parties to restrict themselves to arbitration regarding disputes that have not yet arisen should be legally unenforceable. I think it would improve the arbitration system in every way. (This was essentially the argument of my first post.) Are you disagreeing with me?

>Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.

Unless because of career specialization, location, imperfect markets...whatever, you only have access to employers who insist on arbitration as part of the terms of employment.

One side agreed to it, and one side was coerced into agreeing to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com