My co is trying to muscle me into signing an arbit. agrmt

[mcsangel2]

And it's starting to creep me out. I've worked here for nearly 17 years. They started including arbitration agreements with employment offers in 2007. For whatever reason, they are just now getting around to the employees who've been here longer than that.

I was first contacted last month - in the middle of me being out on FMLA (intermittently, then for 2 weeks) while my mom was dying of lung cancer. RIGHT before I signed it, I asked if my continued employment was contingent on it, and HR referred me to the legal department. I had a bit of back and forth with the rep (over email, because I have no privacy at my desk and I am hard of hearing). I think she was taken aback that I didn't want to sign, and that I knew anything about them. I was very polite during this, I just said I'd rather not sign if I didn't have to. She said she'd get back to me.

Now, at least 4 weeks later, I got a voicemail (then an email when I asked) saying it was required. I said, ok, I'll get with the HR rep. While I was waiting to get the form, I asked again, via email, if it was necessary to keep my employment. Then she CALLS me back, leaving a message that only said "Yes, that's correct." I emailed her back saying I need it in writing. I had said higher up in the email chain when I asked, that that would be the only reason I would sign. Crickets from her since then.

What the heck? I'm now thinking my boss' offer for a week off (though I'm nearly out of pto) and a little bonus, was not so generously offered after all. He had said it was because I had taken on more work when the accounting manager left the company, at the same time I was dealing with the situation with my mother. And that *is* something he would do, but now I'm wondering if it was supposed to be a bribe?

Clearly, something is up. Legal won't put in writing that my employment is contingent on this, so I guess that means it would somehow invalidate the contract. 

Anyone ever have this happen?

[miso]

What's your beef with arbitration?

[mcsangel2]

It means giving up my rights to the full process of the legal system, in favor of arbitors influenced by the company. Unless something really, really heinous happened, in which case the contract could be called unenforceable . (using Google degree here). I already felt that way, but found this today:

4. Is forced arbitration bad?
Yes. For a variety of reasons, forced arbitration is generally bad for employees. Forced arbitration deprives you of your right to access the public court system. The denial of that access - without you being able to make a meaningful voluntary choice to surrender that right - is a significant loss.
The public court system provides the protection of a system relatively free from the influence of the employer - a protection often not provided in forced arbitration. Additionally, the court system is open to public scrutiny and its decisions are subject to appeal. In employment cases, access to discovery is critical, since so much of the information you need to prove your case is in your employer's hands. Unlike arbitration in labor or commercial disputes, instead of having a contract govern the relationship between the parties, there are laws that must be interpreted and enforced as they apply to the employment relationship, which make these cases more complex and require judges well-versed in the law. These and many other valuable features of the public court system are either limited or not available in the forced arbitration system.
Lastly, not only are there often much higher costs associated with forced arbitration than with use of the public court system, but recent evidence shows that employees who are governed by forced arbitration rarely file claims. This allows employers who violate employee protection laws to continue to do so without being held accountable for their actions.

[seeyalater52]

Where is ESF our arbitration queen? Everything I know about arbitration I learned from her!

[miso]

I guess that's valid.

All that being said, it's pretty standard.

[mcsangel2]

May 8, 2018 16:17:19 GMT -5 miso said:

I guess that's valid.

All that being said, it's pretty standard.

I know it is. And if they'd just put it in writing that I need to do it to keep my job, well, I would. I like my job and I really like my bosses. And I'm not interested in trying to find a new job after 17 years here.

[pixy0stix]

May 8, 2018 16:17:19 GMT -5 miso said:

I guess that's valid.

All that being said, it's pretty standard.

Some of it is this board. We've have one person *cough*ESF*cough* who is death to all arbitration, and through her careful tutelage, I've come to feel the same.

[miso]

LOL. Well, I'm not going to disparage ESF in any way.

I'll just say that it's how most large corporations do business, and I probably would've called instead of e-mailed in response, too.

I am just a messenger of The Man.

[seeyalater52]

May 8, 2018 16:27:33 GMT -5 miso said:

LOL. Well, I'm not going to disparage ESF in any way.

I'll just say that it's how most large corporations do business, and I probably would've called instead of e-mailed in response, too.

I am just a messenger of The Man.

The calling thing is such a funny and endearing quality of my lawyer colleagues, who are much less willing to put things in writing than the rest of us, haha.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Just a hunch... I'd venture your state is one where continued employment isn't considered sufficient to compel employees to sign one. IIRC, this is something where states differ.



ETA: I may be thinking of non-competes.

[miso]

May 8, 2018 16:29:21 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

May 8, 2018 16:27:33 GMT -5 miso said:

LOL. Well, I'm not going to disparage ESF in any way.

I'll just say that it's how most large corporations do business, and I probably would've called instead of e-mailed in response, too.

I am just a messenger of The Man.

The calling thing is such a funny and endearing quality of my lawyer colleagues, who are much less willing to put things in writing than the rest of us, haha.

There's nothing all that funny or endearing about it.

I hate using the phone, but phone calls aren't discoverable like e-mails, texts, and IMs are.

[NewOrleans]

May 8, 2018 16:07:57 GMT -5 miso said:

What's your beef with arbitration?

lol!

[seeyalater52]

May 8, 2018 16:33:43 GMT -5 miso said:

May 8, 2018 16:29:21 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

The calling thing is such a funny and endearing quality of my lawyer colleagues, who are much less willing to put things in writing than the rest of us, haha.

There's nothing all that funny or endearing about it.

I hate using the phone, but phone calls aren't discoverable like e-mails, texts, and IMs are.

Totally fair. The situations I’m thinking of aren’t anything that would matter one way or the other or even be sensitive. They just seem to avoid the phone a lot less than the rest of us do, I think more out of rote lawyer habit than anything else.

[cookiemdough]

Knowing they were going to have long time employees sign this, especially since they are not currently bound by those terms, they should be prepared for these questions.

I don’t like that they aren’t and that they don’t seem to have a clear or transparent way to communicate what this change means for the employee.

[miso]

May 8, 2018 16:36:23 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

May 8, 2018 16:07:57 GMT -5 miso said:

What's your beef with arbitration?

lol!

Don't just laugh!

I want to hear all the reasons.

As much as I adore her, "because ESF said so" doesn't really sway me.

[jenny1980]

It's sort of horrifying the number of things I have signed without reading lol.

Guess not going to law school was probably wise.

[NewOrleans]

May 8, 2018 16:45:53 GMT -5 miso said:

May 8, 2018 16:36:23 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

lol!

Don't just laugh!

I want to hear all the reasons.

As much as I adore her, "because ESF said so" doesn't really sway me.

Well, I'm only LOL'ing at ESF's library and litany of posts on the topic through the years, which are a running joke for us.

My line of work does not contain them, so my primary interest in them is as a consumer. I wish to have the option of class action, and they are binding without oversight or appeal. I generally just view them as a form of deregulation and a tool to help corporations, and what helps corporations by definition doesn't have consumers' best interests in mind. 

[Michael Scott]

May 8, 2018 16:45:53 GMT -5 miso said:

May 8, 2018 16:36:23 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

lol!

Don't just laugh!

I want to hear all the reasons.

As much as I adore her, "because ESF said so" doesn't really sway me.

But you consider, "that it's how most large corporations do business" an explanation.

[miso]

May 8, 2018 17:02:03 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

May 8, 2018 16:45:53 GMT -5 miso said:

Don't just laugh!

I want to hear all the reasons.

As much as I adore her, "because ESF said so" doesn't really sway me.

Well, I'm only LOL'ing at ESF's library and litany of posts on the topic through the years, which are a running joke for us.

My line of work does not contain them, so my primary interest in them is as a consumer. I wish to have the option of class action, and they are binding without oversight or appeal. I generally just view them as a form of deregulation and a tool to help corporations, and what helps corporations by definition doesn't have consumers' best interests in mind. 

I haven't had the benefit of being on this board for years, so I'm sorry I've missed the library.

As someone who is literally the person who has to deal with anybody refusing to sign our standard agreement and/or handle the resulting litigation, I have a vastly different view on the topic.

I love arbitration, mediation, and out-of-court dispute resolution. With the volume of cases my company has to field, third-party neutrals are the most efficient and effective way to reach resolution.

[aliciabella]

I personally wouldn't sign it and I would put all your conversations in emails. I don't trust anyone in their "recollections" of our phone calls.

[miso]

May 8, 2018 17:06:39 GMT -5 Michael Scott said:

May 8, 2018 16:45:53 GMT -5 miso said:

Don't just laugh!

I want to hear all the reasons.

As much as I adore her, "because ESF said so" doesn't really sway me.

But you consider, "that it's how most large corporations do business" an explanation.

And so what?

There's a reason why it's this way.

There is literally not enough time or money to take every case to court.

[EllieArroway]

My company is trying to pay me to sign one, which is weird and makes me not want to do it. They haven't said anything at all about it being required, though. It was just like 'Hey these are required for new hires, but since you were hired before they were a thing we will give you $100 if you'll go ahead and sign it now k thanks.'

[NewOrleans]

May 8, 2018 17:08:16 GMT -5 miso said:

May 8, 2018 17:02:03 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Well, I'm only LOL'ing at ESF's library and litany of posts on the topic through the years, which are a running joke for us.

My line of work does not contain them, so my primary interest in them is as a consumer. I wish to have the option of class action, and they are binding without oversight or appeal. I generally just view them as a form of deregulation and a tool to help corporations, and what helps corporations by definition doesn't have consumers' best interests in mind. 

I haven't had the benefit of being on this board for years, so I'm sorry I've missed the library.

As someone who is literally the person who has to deal with anybody refusing to sign our standard agreement and/or handle the resulting litigation, I have a vastly different view on the topic.

I love arbitration, mediation, and out-of-court dispute resolution. With the volume of cases my company has to field, third-party neutrals are the most efficient and effective way to reach resolution.

I believe that if the workplace is an amicable one, they probably are efficient and inexpensive. 

ETA: I one time collected a bunch of ESF's posts to explain it to Shanbrite.  I will try to find it to moritify ESF again. (((Shanbrite)))

[ESF]

I realize that arbitration agreements are standard, but that doesn't make them fair.

They aren't. I could write a novel about my problems with them, but here are just a few:

1. Arbitrators know that employers  and large businesses are repeat business, whereas employees are not, especially employees that don't make six figures. There's a built in bias. The major agencies have for years refused to comply with California law requiring some very basic disclosures about how often consumers and employees succeed. If they are not biased and interested in combatting the perception that they are, why can't they provide some basic summary data?

2. It's secret. It prevents the public from knowing the full scale of a company's discrimination and unethical practices. This means that it's harder for people to make an informed decision about whether to work there or do business with the company. It makes it harder for the government to assess which companies should be investigated. It makes it harder for investors to know how risky an investment is. It makes it harder for victims' lawyers to use public records to help build their case or assess the case's strengths and weaknesses, while the company has all the cards.

3. In most instances, they do not allow for class actions. No lawyer is going to take a case for one Olive Garden waiter who was shortchanged his restaurant tips. A lawyer will however take a case against the Olive Garden who shortchanged all their waiters.

If arbitration was as fair or better than court for employees and consumers, businesses would not need employees and their customers to sign these agreements waiving their right to a jury trial as a condition of employment or purchase/transaction. If it were actually superior to court, victims could just willingly agree to proceed to arbitration when a dispute actually arose. Instead, businesses strong arm them in fine print contracts or by engaging in the kinds of shenanigans here, and then stack the courts with right wing judges to ensure their shitty abuse of power is protected.

[irishbride2]

I completely understand why they are more efficient and easier from the view of the in house lawyer. But I also understand why consumers and employees are not concerned with what is easiest and most efficient for the company.

[miso]

May 8, 2018 17:12:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

If arbitration was as fair or better than court for employees and consumers, businesses would not need employees and their customers to sign these agreements waiving their right to a jury trial as a condition of employment or purchase/transaction. If it were actually superior to court, victims could just willingly agree to proceed to arbitration when a dispute actually arose. Instead, businesses strong arm them in fine print contracts or by engaging in the kinds of shenanigans here, and then stack the courts with right wing judges to ensure their shitty abuse of power is protected.

I strongly disagree with this.

But we are never going to agree on this topic. LOL.

I view dispute resolution as a necessary and practical part of business.

In an ideal world, perhaps it would be superior to litigate everything.

But we don't live in an ideal world, and, as you know, the courts are so clogged as it is.

While some companies may require arbitration because they think they will achieve better results than they would in court, most companies utilize third-party neutrals mainly for operational efficiency.

[NewOrleans]

We can't have a Miso/ESF / ML/CEP rumble without 05heel here to supervise and generally not care about our goings-on.

[miso]

May 8, 2018 17:25:24 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

We can't have a Miso/ESF / ML/CEP rumble without 05heel here to supervise and generally not care about our goings-on.

Oh, 05heel will rule in favor of ESF, as will the rest of this board. This is not even a question.

But I don't consider a discussion about arbitration a "rumble."

We are so entrenched on opposite sides here that there's almost nothing to fight about. LOL.

[NewOrleans]

May 8, 2018 17:32:07 GMT -5 miso said:

May 8, 2018 17:25:24 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

We can't have a Miso/ESF / ML/CEP rumble without 05heel here to supervise and generally not care about our goings-on.

Oh, 05heel will rule in favor of ESF , as will the rest of this board. This is not even a question.

But I don't consider a discussion about arbitration a "rumble."

We are so entrenched on opposite sides here that there's almost nothing to fight about. LOL.

No, we are in a fight.  I'm sitting here with a broken beer bottle looking around murderously.  

[ESF]

May 8, 2018 17:18:50 GMT -5 miso said:

May 8, 2018 17:12:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

If arbitration was as fair or better than court for employees and consumers, businesses would not need employees and their customers to sign these agreements waiving their right to a jury trial as a condition of employment or purchase/transaction. If it were actually superior to court, victims could just willingly agree to proceed to arbitration when a dispute actually arose. Instead, businesses strong arm them in fine print contracts or by engaging in the kinds of shenanigans here, and then stack the courts with right wing judges to ensure their shitty abuse of power is protected.

I strongly disagree with this.

But we are never going to agree on this topic. LOL.

I view dispute resolution as a necessary and practical part of business.

In an ideal world, perhaps it would be superior to litigate everything.

But we don't live in an ideal world, and, as you know, the courts are so clogged as it is.

While some companies may require arbitration because they think they will achieve better results than they would in court, most companies utilize third-party neutrals mainly for operational efficiency.

We definitely are not going to agree, but I do need to respond the courts being clogged argument, because it is one of my pet peeves.

The judiciary is clogged because we as a country have refused to fund it and staff it. The judiciary hasn't grown with the population, let alone the changing legal needs of that population or expanded federal jurisdiction.  The last time new judge positions were created for ND Cal was 1990. We have the same number of judges handling everything in San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco today as we did in 1990. That is an astonishing fact to me.

The GOP and the Chamber of Congress love the clogged courts line because they like to create the appearance of lawsuits run amok to get people to vote against their own interests. The real problem is that Congress has refused fund a proper judiciary that actually reflects the needs of the population. It's also the fault of Congress for expanding federal jurisdiction, sometimes in enormous ways, but not actually putting judges on the bench to handle that increased workload.

I'm not going to be convinced that a private for profit justice system is necessary because the courts are clogged, because it's very simple to unclog the courts.