Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Follows Google To End Mandatory Arbitration For Sexual-Harassment Claims (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Facebook on Friday became the latest tech company to end a policy of requiring employees to settle claims of sexual harassment through private arbitration, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. It will now allow employees to take these types of claims to court. Tech companies have long used arbitration as a method for handling instances of sexual harassment to prevent employees from suing them in court, but that's starting to change. Facebook's move comes shortly after a similar move this week by Google, which came after thousands of its employees walked out in protest last week over its handling of sexual harassment complaints. Additionally, Facebook changed its policy on office dating and will now require employees who are director level or higher to disclose if they are dating a colleague, the report said. Previously, the company only required disclosure if an employee was dating someone they supervised, according to the report.
This is nothing but Virtue Signaling. Nothing. You ALWAYS had the right to pursue legal remedies outside your employer. If people actually READ the contracts they signed for Employment they'd realize it's a farse because much of it is invalid but they put the language there expecting most people to not question it.
Typical American Puritanism -- they want to control what employees do with each other, on their own damn time, outside of work. Hope this new intrusive policy leads to massive lawsuits for privacy violation.
Picture this -- two employees in different departments start dating. Boss has a crush on one of them, and they disclose whom they're dating. Let the shitshow begin.
US employers are far too intrusive as to employees' personal lives.
Agreed. Womyn shall inherit the earth. All males can be executed except for maybe one to have a source of sperm. One drop of semen goes a long, long way.
How are these mandatory arbitration clauses even legal, it basically denies employees the right to law and justice. This issue should be addressed at the federal level.
Good for Facebook - kudos
All those LA west coast silicone women
Really think they're hot
But it's no fun titty fuckin' titties when the titties are hard as rocks
And up in New York City all them uptight bitties
Like to shave their cooch
But I prefer a little fur on my burger
If you're wantin' me to tell the truth
I like my puss in boots
A girl who knows how to honky tonk
Hums along to a Waylon tune
While she's hummin' on my cock and balls
I want a girl in a cowboy hat
Her tongue knows where my butthole's at
Bush pokin' out her Daisy Dukes
I like my puss in boots
Boots
Well the girls in Chicago, they can spit, they can swallow
When they're on their knees
But it's hard to stay hard when you're fuckin' in a car it's four degrees
All the girls in Milwaukee wanna slob on my cocky
But I have to pass
Cause I only get wood when my dick is up a good ol' Southern ass
I like my puss in boots
A girl who knows how to honky tonk
Hums along to a Willie tune
While she's hummin' on my cock and balls
I want a girl in a cowboy hat
Her tongue knows where my butthole's at
Bush pokin' out her Daisy Dukes
I like my puss in boots
Boots
Don't want them high heels on
When you're slidin' up and down my dong
And keep them fuckin' flip flops and your birkenstocks
Away from my hillbilly cock
I like my puss in boots
A girl who knows how to honky tonk
Hums along to a Wheeler tune
While she's hummin' on my cock and balls
I want a girl in a cowboy hat
Her tongue knows where my butthole's at
Bush pokin' out her Daisy Dukes
I like my puss in boots
Boots
There are laws about harassment and you go to the police.
Why are they getting so involved.
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
... they were calling everyone else woman hating nazi islamophobes, these putrid companies were forcing victims of sexual harassment and bullying to forfeit their rights to redress?
Interesting.
Facebook and Google. Clearly so SJW driven that they will implode given time and if you are white male they will not have your back.
then you go to the police. g00gle and Farcebook cannot prevent you from that no matter what contract they make you sign. Otherwise the only reason for this is dollar$$$$$. g00gle and facebook will gladly lose money to virtue signal about this because we've finally found something corporations care more about than money and its spreading the SJW religious cult.
I think I might be beginning to like country music.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The contracts are invalid. Changing them is Virtue Signaling. Please pick one or neither, you can't have both.
You can go to the police for assault, but not harassment. For example, I can call you a twat, and it's perfectly legal. I can even make inappropriate references to your small, defective genitals. The police would not get involved, but it is entirely inappropriate in a workplace.
Ain't no body in my gov job trying to fuck the old bitches. Not even the old fuckers. My 63yo lead tech was bitching about it the other day. She was smoking fucking hot back in the day and she laments the loss of power that came along with that. The young ladies get annoyed constantly though.
The Education Amendments of 1972(Title IX), passed by the federal government, effectively requires non-judicial arbitration on college campuses. I'm not convinced Google's new policy will work as intended for those who wanted it.
Yeah, Wheeler owns
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
Yes, people always have a right to sue. But that isn't always the best option for the harassee. Going to court can be very expensive, and it is rare to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency. Corporations know how to grind you down and bleed you dry, with motion after motion, discovery, obfuscation, and delay. Arbitration is far faster and cheaper.
A big problem is that the arbitrator wants repeat business from the corporation, and know they will likely never see the petitioner again. This is a built-in bias.
It will now allow employees to take these types of claims to court
Oh my goshm, thank you so much, corporate overlord!
Seriously, something along the way went very, very wrong here. We allowed the company we work for, take away basic civil rights.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
Yes, people always have a right to sue. But that isn't always the best option for the harassee.
Who said anything about suing? Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free. If your employer doesn't want to do anything then take your complaint, charges and evidence to the place your're supposed to.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Predictably, this will make them less likely to hire people who are likely to become the target of sexual harassment. Any time you raise the cost of hiring people with a discernible shared characteristic (and a bigger risk of suing is a big potential cost to average out), people naturally hire less of people who share those characteristics.
Same reason maternity leave laws, and similar laws ended up reducing job prospects for the people they were supposedly helping.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free.
The police are very unlikely to get involved in a typical office harassment situation. An intern was groped or propositioned by her boss with no witnesses, and no evidence? The police can do nothing with that.
Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free.
The police are very unlikely to get involved in a typical office harassment situation. An intern was groped or propositioned by her boss with no witnesses, and no evidence? The police can do nothing with that.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Presumably they'd at least 'want' to speak to those involved and log the report, even if the claim is unverifiable.
In this way they'd become aware that repeat incidents, should they occur, were at least repeats, as opposed to an (alleged) isolated case.
Hard to spot patterns of (mis)behaviour by your employees if there's no institutional memory...
> Same reason maternity leave laws, and similar laws ended up reducing job prospects for the people they were supposedly helping. FYI. Sweden gives the same number of days to the man as for the woman 240+240. Thus eliminating that gender part.
Employer "risks" the same with a woman and a man, as normally the man takes care of the child from 7-8 months and onwards.
My point is that if you really wanted to make laws, you have to go all the way.
Never hire a man. Guys are just lawsuits waiting to happen.
Once we kill our heterosexual white males we will have to find a new enemy to conquer so we can spread our message of love and kindness throughout the world. I think we should turn our hatred on the handedness. For too long right handed minorities have been oppressing the left handed minorities.
In the United States of America most the population is in fact a minority. The Minority is being brutally oppressed by a tiny number of majority cisgendered white old men. White old men are truly some bad mother fuckers to be oppressing everyone so dam much.
It has it's moments.
Just stop hiring women. Seriously, they bring more trouble into the workplace than they're worth.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Because they are working with a very different standard of evidence.
For the police it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
For the arbitration, it is preponderance of the evidence.
For company administrative action, it is even less than that. If there were no witnesses because his office door was closed, then why was the door closed? One-on-one meetings should be held with the door open. So even if there is no evidence of groping, policy was violated, and behavior was suspicious. That's not enough to go to jail, but it is enough to lose your job, or at least get a written reprimand on a first offence.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Because they are working with a very different standard of evidence.
For the police it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
No. For a crime it is "beyond reasonable doubt".
For the arbitration, it is preponderance of the evidence.
No. For a civil case it is "preponderance of evidence". For arbitration it is whatever the specific employer wants it to be, ranging from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "accusation is enough".
For arbitration, the company sets the standard of evidence required, which can range from "You need incontrovertible proof" to "none". The company literally needs no evidence to fire your ass. Removing arbitration sets the bar to "preponderance of evidence" but requires that the accuser finance the suit themselves. If things are clear and evidence exists then the accuser need not finance anything and can simply report the crime.
Where things get hairy is when arbitration results in a firing with no evidence, in which case the accused (who presumably got fired) can then take the matter up in a civil proceeding against the accuser (not the company) and then the accuser has to pony up a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, accusers who cost someone materially can be forced to justify their statements regardless of what their employer believes. False accusation suits are not uncommon, although they are exceedingly rare for people who are fired after an arbitration (due to those people believing that the arbitration result has any legal standing).
In either case an employee (either the accuser or the accused) is going to either have to live with it or pay for the suit themselves. As you pointed out, employees may not be able to afford this, especially employees who have just been fired with little notice.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
It's never a company that is at the disadvantage.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
bare minimum, mandatory arbitration for anything that has even the potential to be an actual crime should be forbidden
as is NDAs for anything that even touches criminality, like these things coming out where someone paid off someone to make rape charges go away, those should be declared null and void by definition
Notice this says employees, just like Google's recent announcement. Which means the majority of workers, who are contractors, are still stuck under arbitration or worse.
Straight up virtue signaling for the enshrined elite.