
Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees - mayneack
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/google-ends-forced-arbitration-for-employees/
======
ChuckMcM
Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to
stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-)

I'm really glad to hear that Google made this step, now if they would drop the
overly expansive ownership claim in their employment agreement and the right
to surveillance on personal property it would be a much more employee friendly
place.

I also hope that it gives them an edge in hiring which would encourage other
employers to follow suit in order to be competitive.

~~~
m0zg
>> overly expansive ownership claim

Yeah, that particular clause gave me a looong pause before signing their
contract, in fact I even seriously considered taking one of the other offers I
had. This is why you see all those "happens to be owned by Google" disclaimers
on open source projects. This means the person wrote this code on their own
time, yet it's owned by Google anyway, which IMO is total employee-hostile
bullshit.

I would not sign something like that contract today. At the time, though, the
money differential and the allure of having Google on my resume outweighed the
concerns. I have since discovered other companies can be a lot less possessive
of the stuff I build on my own time and dime.

~~~
dekhn
I agreed to that contract and open sourced many thousands of lines of code
owned by Google, but still available to me and the rest of the world via
github. I don't see the problem. If you could demonstrate your project didn't
overlap google business then you could do your own project.

~~~
m0zg
People seem to not quite get this, so I'll try to be as clear as I can.

Google should not have the ability to claim ownership on unrelated work that
does not use company time or resources unless _I_ _voluntarily_ relinquish
such ownership. Google should have no business whatsoever interfering with
what I do on my own personal time. Nor should I have to make anything open
source. Nor should I need to ask anyone's _permission_ to utilize my own time
as I see fit. You can get these terms with other companies, if you ask for
them.

The only exception I think is reasonable is if my project discloses Google
proprietary information in any way, or directly competes with Google, in which
case Google should be able to terminate my employment.

This would be fair. What Google is doing now is slimy AF.

~~~
joshuamorton
The key point is "if you can demonstrate that your project doesn't compete
with Google's business" IARC is really easy. I was approved for a couple
projects, including one that absolutely could be considered to be competing
with Google's business if they wanted, in like a week.

You aren't actually legally required to go through IARC. The contract isn't
enforcible in CA if you really don't compete, but I have prewritten
verification of that now, and it was painless.

IME, Google's earned the benefit of the doubt in this context.

~~~
throwaway2048
If it's not enforceable, why is it in the contract? They obviously intend to
try to enforce it in cases where they can, which makes claims about "don't
worry about it, its not enforceable" even more shady.

------
riffraff
Why isn't forced arbitration illegal?

You're effectively agreeing to renounce to your rights to sue a company. Seems
odd that US laws allows that.

Or, is the clause only that arbitration has to be attempted but not binding to
the fact that an agreement may be reached?

This case would seem far less evil.

~~~
briandear
> You're effectively agreeing..

You are agreeing. As an adult, the choice to agree or not agree to conditions
of a private transaction seem to be a fundamental liberty. If people didn’t
agree and it affected recruitment, then companies would respond accordingly.
Also, without arbitration, conceivably that could result in a lower offered
salary to offset the risk of litigation. Given that the vast majority of
employees never care about suing, the higher salary is a better outcome most
of the time. Banning forced arbitration is necessarily going to increase
employee costs to a company, which means less money to pay people much in the
same way higher health costs affect salaries as well. I don’t agree with
forced arbitration, but making it illegal disrupts the freedom of employees
and employers to engage in agreements how they see fit. Without arbitration,
you get a lower salary, all else being equal, which is essentially a form of
insurance against the possibility that you might sue. Some people might be ok
with that, but that choice should be between the employee and the employer; it
isn’t government’s place to get involved.

~~~
asark
> You are agreeing. As an adult, the choice to agree or not agree to
> conditions of a private transaction seem to be a fundamental liberty.

1\. There's already plenty of stuff you're not allowed to sign away, no matter
how much more "free" being able to do so might make you. I certainly bristle
daily at how un-free I am not being able to sign myself into slavery.

2\. OK fine. So we ban corporations from entering into forced arbitration
contracts with individuals. _You_ still can. With your neighbor or whoever.
You can try with a corporation, but will find that _they_ aren't permitted to.
Since we collectively via the power of government conjure corporations from
the aether, eff 'em.

------
docker_up
I would be perfectly fine with forced arbitration that was perfectly fair and
not skewed towards the employer. The problem with forced arbitration is that
it's completely skewed towards the employers. Being able to have a fairly
arbitrated conflict that was inexpensive and had looser rules than a formal
lawsuit would be a benefit to all. Look at how small claims court is so much
more efficient and fair than a regular lawsuit.

~~~
Spooky23
There’s no scenario where a legal proceeding between employee and a large
company is fair. The main advantage of court is the ability to appeal and the
public nature of the proceedings.

The only fair fight is if you have a competent union. That comes with its own
problems.

~~~
drdeca
What if, instead of aiming at “fair”, we instead aim at “Just”?

Edit: if there is a difference, that is. If there isn’t, then nvm.

------
mLuby
Sounds like a stunning victory for (unorganized) labor—almost too good to
believe! Does anyone with more details know if there are caveats or exemptions
(other than the mentioned contractors)?

~~~
ddxxdd
I don't know the details, but I do believe that high-skilled labor like Google
employees likely have more bargaining power than your local pizza delivery
driver. It wouldn't surprise me if we see these kinds of victories in other
tech companies.

~~~
mLuby
If I were other companies, I'd be scrambling to prevent this from happening
with my employees. Can't assume it'll spread without organized effort (hint,
the U word).

------
40acres
This has low key been a big year for labor in tech. First we have Amazon
backing out of NYC partly due to political pressure from the unions and wins
like this vs. Google. Full blown unionization may never happen but the forces
of labor are definitely starting to affect tech giants.

~~~
vanderZwan
> _This has low key been a big year for labor in tech._

Honestly, I am having my suspicions whether or not that "low key" aspect isn't
artificially maintained by the media somewhow. I had heard about the scandals
and such last year, but somehow I missed:

> _Following the massive, 20,000-person walkout at Google in November, Google
> got rid of forced arbitration for sexual harassment and sexual assault
> claims, offering more transparency around those investigations and more._

And I would say that 20,000 people walking out on Google should have been hard
to miss.

~~~
gipp
Indeed, it _was_ hard to miss. There was tons of coverage.

------
ddxxdd
Someone please explain to me the benefits of having forced arbitration at all;
what's the benefit of having disputes (including sexual harassment disputes)
resolved behind closed doors without any possibility of appeal?

~~~
mLuby
Much cheaper, faster, and more private for all parties, plus I believe it
prevents class action lawsuits. And don't forget the possibility that the
arbitrators (who are paid by the company) favor their benefactor…

For example, you mention sexual harassment; the victim (and certainly the
accused) might not want all those details in the public record.

~~~
vertex-four
The thing is, if the employer and the employee both wanted arbitration,
neither would need to be forced into it - something along the lines of
"arbitration is always available as an option with consent of all parties"
written into the contract would be perfectly fine.

~~~
mehrdadn
It wouldn't even need to be in the contract would it? They'd just both agree
at the time of the dispute.

------
googernettles
I can tell you with a high level of confidence that this is a Google PR stunt.
Google executives conjured up a protest to force their hand acting against the
interests of the board of directors and shareholders. Without a forced hand,
executives would have been sued by shareholders for breaching fiduciary duties
and terminated from their positions. The former executives would also forfeit
their compensation packages because of acting so "unreasonably".

Executives wanted to end forced arbitration because it was unethical. They
agreed that compelled arbitration was wrong. At the same time, no one was
justifiably willing to give up a hard-earned career of a lifetime. Capitalism
is not gentle to those who defy it.

This protest reads like a Pepsi commercial. They should win an Oscar this
Sunday.

~~~
nullc
This post was flagged. I thought it was interesting and civilly stated. It may
well be baseless or untrue but I think the readers can take it for whatever
its worth to them.

If this change were 'orchestrated' to push through an ethical change that
otherwise would have been hard to sell then I think that would also have been
a laudable act just as well. Executives are also employees and should be free
to collaborate with their colleagues for the benefit of all employees.

------
Animats
It may also be because forced arbitration backfired on Google when they went
after Anthony Levandowski. They claimed he took Waymo's trade secrets and went
to Uber. But they can't sue him. They can only go to arbitration. And that's
over and settled. They can only sue Uber.

------
JohnFen
That's a great start. Now if only everyone else would do the same.

------
crb002
Curious if any company offers a bonus for voluntary arbitration agreements?
Pay out 1/2 their insurance costs saved. Fully market solution where everyone
is acting of free will.

------
stefek99
Hahahahaha :) Imbalance when signing an employment agreement.

Of course, you want to have a job so you agree to things that are not in your
favor LOL.

------
intopieces
Binding arbitration is a good way to limit liability and bad PR; take it away,
and the company will be looking for something else to de-risk them.

I expect the outcome will be more contractors, since those companies that
employ the contractors do not have to abide by this.

------
srkmno
Whatever your thoughts about arbitration there is no denying that it's the
quicker and cheaper method, what this unfortunate development accomplishes is
enlarging the pool of well to do clients and plaintiffs for the lawyers to
exploit.

In a related note: organized labor almost killed the US car industry, when
economical foreign cars got popular, domestic car companies couldn't quickly
make the necessary adjustments to compete with the foreign product largely
because of the inertia of union agreements.

Labor unions are adversarial to change and innovation and especially in this
era there is no place for them and hopefully automation will eradicate them
completely, it's disheartening that many HN commenters would support such
antiquated and inefficient agreements.

~~~
40acres
This is a strange comment and something I see a lot in online forums, I guess
you could characterize this as the "slippery slope" or "worst case scenario"
argument. Unions have no power in big tech right now, none of the top tech
companies have something resembling a union -- and yet even the discussion of
unionization within the tech industry, despite some really terrible working
conditions for "auxiliary" tech workers (ride share drivers, fulfillment
center workers, delivery app drivers) and "core" workers (ageism anyone?) the
slight mention of unionization and/or collective bargaining brings up these
types of scenarios. Unionization in tech is not going to look like it does in
other industries, I can't help but wonder why some folks shoot it discussions
so quickly with this type of argument.

~~~
srkmno
The reason "auxiliary" workers get a raw deal in this country is that health
insurance is dealt through employers via a terrible WW2 era tax incentive.

If companies didn't get on the hook for providing health insurance they would
directly employ more people instead of using contractors.

So this is why I'm worried about labor unions in tech and the private sector
in general; they are never the solution, and their lack isn't the cause to any
of the described problems.

~~~
s17n
The point of unions is to get workers a better deal through collective
bargaining. In a company that's growing rapidly, it doesn't make sense for
either the employees or the owners / management to worry too much about how
the pie is getting divided up. As companies mature and growth slows, employees
who aren't unionized are inevitably going to get screwed. In an industry where
corporate profits can exceed $1000000 per employee, I'd say we need more
unionization.

~~~
srkmno
So they can kill these companies faster?

~~~
FridgeSeal
Hahahahaha, I don't think half these startups need any help grinding
themselves into the dirt any faster, nor do I think that unions would
contribute meaningfully to extinguishing something that wasn't already in
process of that.

And honestly, if some hotshot startup dies because it's treating its workers
like trash then good riddance. In this day and age we ought to do better than
exploiting workers to the bone just because we can.

------
martin1975
an opportune time to unionize, if you ask me...

~~~
iceninenines
Yes, in states without "right to work" (for less) and other union-busting
laws. More importantly would be for workers to quit en masse and start their
own employee-owned co-op so they're not cheated out of profits they helped
create but rarely see.

------
LeicaLatte
Very encouraging.

------
trumped
in the end, that's probably a bad thing because Google might get better
employees

