IMO forced arbitration clauses are so damn unethical and companies should not be able to allow someone to sign away a right that should be inalienable. I honestly struggle to comprehend how they...
IMO forced arbitration clauses are so damn unethical and companies should not be able to allow someone to sign away a right that should be inalienable. I honestly struggle to comprehend how they are even legal to begin with, especially in EULAs and TOSs. Is there any "legitimate" reason for them to exist? Because I can't think of any.
Honestly I think forced arbitration would be fine so long as the following criteria are fulfilled: Third party arbitration service that has no incentives towards either party, financial or...
Honestly I think forced arbitration would be fine so long as the following criteria are fulfilled:
Third party arbitration service that has no incentives towards either party, financial or otherwise
Both parties must agree to arbitration - that is to say both the employee must use arbitration for dissatisfaction with the company and the company must use arbitration for dissatisfaction with the employee
The reason being that arbitration often results in better outcomes (as personally rated) for both parties and is much faster than a court battle. It also doesn't require either side to have lawyers to argue on their behalf, as it's a bit more informal much like civil court.
The biggest issue is that companies generally don't want to sign away their rights to a court battle with their employees, but are perfectly happy having their employees sign away their rights. I stay away from companies with 1-way forced arbitration as it shows how little they care about their workforce.
I agree that the outcomes with arbitration are usually arrived at quicker, with often better results for both parties (and have first-hand experience with that being the case), with less expense,...
I agree that the outcomes with arbitration are usually arrived at quicker, with often better results for both parties (and have first-hand experience with that being the case), with less expense, and it also reduces the strain on the civil justice system. However my issue is still with the "forced" part and I don't think even should your criteria be met it is sufficient to justify companies being able to remove civil court as an option for employees. And I damn sure don't think it's even remotely close to sufficient in the case of forced arbitration clauses in EULAs or TOSs which are almost entirely one-sided and are contractual instruments of dubious value/validity to begin with.
The imbalance you mention is also definitely a serious issue as well... I doubt there is or ever will be a case where a corporation would voluntarily give up its right to sue employees/ex-employees, and yet they absolutely can force their employees give up that right. Unless forced arbitration was forced both ways, I don't see it as ethical.
I'm actually working on negotiating a contract to do exactly this. It's a very small corporation though and I agree any reasonably sized corporation is unlikely to give up this power imbalance.
I doubt there is or ever will be a case where a corporation would voluntarily give up its right to sue employees/ex-employees
I'm actually working on negotiating a contract to do exactly this. It's a very small corporation though and I agree any reasonably sized corporation is unlikely to give up this power imbalance.
Yeah, I probably should have specified major corporation there as that's really what I meant, since obviously there will be some small, privately owned or non-profit ones that might. But even...
Yeah, I probably should have specified major corporation there as that's really what I meant, since obviously there will be some small, privately owned or non-profit ones that might. But even still, I am curious how balanced the implementation is/will be even in those rare cases. By any chance can you discuss any details of the arrangement in the instance you're negotiating or is that not possible (I totally understand if that is the case, BTW, so no pressure).
I'd be happy to shed some light however I can, but I'm not sure there's much else to say - the gist of it is that I told them that the arbitration clause needs to go both ways or one party is...
I'd be happy to shed some light however I can, but I'm not sure there's much else to say - the gist of it is that I told them that the arbitration clause needs to go both ways or one party is signing away more rights than the other and it's a serious imbalance.
And they are actually, genuinely considering fully equal reciprocity with regards to forced arbitration? Colour me surprised and impressed if so. And if it comes to fruition that is absolutely...
And they are actually, genuinely considering fully equal reciprocity with regards to forced arbitration? Colour me surprised and impressed if so. And if it comes to fruition that is absolutely praise-worthy even, IMO.
I totally agree about forced arbitration. It is only there to ensure the unethical and potentially illegal action inside a company are not public knowledge. Everyone should be able to have their...
I totally agree about forced arbitration. It is only there to ensure the unethical and potentially illegal action inside a company are not public knowledge. Everyone should be able to have their day in court and essentially forcing employees into a closed door session where they most likely are forced to sign away even more rights is incredibly unethical, at best.
IMO forced arbitration clauses are so damn unethical and companies should not be able to allow someone to sign away a right that should be inalienable. I honestly struggle to comprehend how they are even legal to begin with, especially in EULAs and TOSs. Is there any "legitimate" reason for them to exist? Because I can't think of any.
Honestly I think forced arbitration would be fine so long as the following criteria are fulfilled:
The reason being that arbitration often results in better outcomes (as personally rated) for both parties and is much faster than a court battle. It also doesn't require either side to have lawyers to argue on their behalf, as it's a bit more informal much like civil court.
The biggest issue is that companies generally don't want to sign away their rights to a court battle with their employees, but are perfectly happy having their employees sign away their rights. I stay away from companies with 1-way forced arbitration as it shows how little they care about their workforce.
I agree that the outcomes with arbitration are usually arrived at quicker, with often better results for both parties (and have first-hand experience with that being the case), with less expense, and it also reduces the strain on the civil justice system. However my issue is still with the "forced" part and I don't think even should your criteria be met it is sufficient to justify companies being able to remove civil court as an option for employees. And I damn sure don't think it's even remotely close to sufficient in the case of forced arbitration clauses in EULAs or TOSs which are almost entirely one-sided and are contractual instruments of dubious value/validity to begin with.
The imbalance you mention is also definitely a serious issue as well... I doubt there is or ever will be a case where a corporation would voluntarily give up its right to sue employees/ex-employees, and yet they absolutely can force their employees give up that right. Unless forced arbitration was forced both ways, I don't see it as ethical.
I'm actually working on negotiating a contract to do exactly this. It's a very small corporation though and I agree any reasonably sized corporation is unlikely to give up this power imbalance.
Yeah, I probably should have specified major corporation there as that's really what I meant, since obviously there will be some small, privately owned or non-profit ones that might. But even still, I am curious how balanced the implementation is/will be even in those rare cases. By any chance can you discuss any details of the arrangement in the instance you're negotiating or is that not possible (I totally understand if that is the case, BTW, so no pressure).
I'd be happy to shed some light however I can, but I'm not sure there's much else to say - the gist of it is that I told them that the arbitration clause needs to go both ways or one party is signing away more rights than the other and it's a serious imbalance.
And they are actually, genuinely considering fully equal reciprocity with regards to forced arbitration? Colour me surprised and impressed if so. And if it comes to fruition that is absolutely praise-worthy even, IMO.
So far yes, but we'll see what the final contract looks like. 😉
I totally agree about forced arbitration. It is only there to ensure the unethical and potentially illegal action inside a company are not public knowledge. Everyone should be able to have their day in court and essentially forcing employees into a closed door session where they most likely are forced to sign away even more rights is incredibly unethical, at best.