
Google employees pushing for nationwide legislation banning forced arbitration - howard941
https://www.recode.net/2019/2/28/18244755/forced-arbitration-employees-google-walkout-activists-congress
======
vivekd
The problem with arbitration is bias. Companies volunteer to hire the
arbitrator and the arbitrator routinely rules in favor of the companies
because they know where the money is coming from.

The problem then seems to be not the idea but the implementation. If we could
get rid of the bias, arbitration could be an effective solution to resolving
workplace disputes in a manner much faster, cheaper and with less headaches
than courts.

The problem of bias in arbitration doesn't seem like an insurmountable one to
me. Imagine if both the employee and the employer had to agree to an
arbitrator or arbitration company - failing which the matter has to go to a
state run court.

Imagine if there was a rating system - where people or lawyers can rate
arbitrators on their fairness and knowledge of the law.

Arbitration is widely used in b2b settings. The problem with employee employer
arbitration isn't the arbitration itself, it's the power imbalance and the
employers control of the arbitrator.

What legislation should target is employers who control arbitrators and use
them as a rubber stamp court.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
It's not just bias. Most disputes are settled through negotiation rather than
arbitration or a lawsuit. The results of negotiation depend on the parties'
BATNA, or Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. If the company's BATNA is
forcing you through cheaper binding arbitration rather than a more expensive
lawsuit, you're not going to get as good of settlement offers in lieu of the
formal dispute resolution process.

Another way of thinking about it: reducing the price of formal dispute
resolution will cause induced demand. There are disputes that employers would
send to arbitration if possible and settle out-of-court if not. It's not
necessarily the case that making dispute resolution cheaper _per case
resolved_ will result in less money spent on it _in aggregate_.

~~~
jdsully
This is the first time I've heard an argument _for_ the crazy high cost of the
US court system.

Realistically though the BATNA is no lawsuit at all because the plaintiff
can't afford it.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Lawyers will take strong cases against deep-pocketed defendants on
contingency, obviating that need.

~~~
jdsully
That's only for the most obvious of cases lacking any nuance. Further in such
cases the lawyers take much of the recovered so the plaintiff collects pennies
on the dollar - while risking their professional reputation.

Its a matter of degree, Companies know they can screw employees under a
certain amount where its not worth it to challenge them in court. With court
costs as high as they are that amount is in the tens of thousands of dollars.

------
sancho11
“No worker is safe until all workers are safe. No consumers are empowered
until all consumers are empowered,” said Tanuja Gupta, one of the organizers
of the Google Walkout and a member of the spinout group End Forced Arbitration
at a press conference in DC announcing today’s legislation. “We call on
Congress to quickly pass the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act.”

Gupta ( if you know who it is) can not be sure of it..

------
buboard
what percentage of the employed population are google's employees?

~~~
olliej
A better question: what % of employees are (often unknowingly) covered by
forced arbitration clauses.

Google employees have an advantage over lower wage workers because in america
people with money are more important to legislators than those with less.

------
srkmno
Are they invested in law firms? Because that's the logical explanation for
taking up this silly cause.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Arbitration is the result of a power imbalance between labor and employers, an
attempt to subvert the ability to seek recourse in the justice system. It is
wildly disingenuous to insinuate investment in legal firms is the motivator.

Uber and Chipotle are two examples of arbitration working as intend by
employers.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-uber/forced-
int...](https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-uber/forced-into-
arbitration-12500-drivers-claim-uber-wont-pay-fees-to-launch-cases-
idUSKBN1O52C6) (Forced into arbitration, 12,500 drivers claim Uber won’t pay
fees to launch cases)

[https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-
chipo...](https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-
chipotle-20190104-story.html) (Chipotle may have outsmarted itself by blocking
thousands of employee lawsuits over wage theft)

~~~
jmalicki
The Chipotle example is news because it is precisely not working as intended
by the employer - it is preventing Chipotle from mounting a single deep
pocketed defense for all of the cases together, and forcing Chipotle to
address the claims one by one in small claims arbitration, which will may cost
it more than just paying out.

~~~
klyrs
Curious, isn't it. Google cancelled their forced arbitration policy so soon
after we saw it going so badly for chipotle and uber...

