Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Follows Google To End Mandatory Arbitration For Sexual-Harassment Claims (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the next-in-line dept.

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.

72 comments

  1. Good btw by BeauHD++(5555555) · · Score: -1

    The patriarchy needs to DIE already.

    xbeaux

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re: Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re: Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for Facebook - kudos

    4. Re: Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    5. Re: Good btw by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re: Good btw by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I think I might be beginning to like country music.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re: Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    8. Re: Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Wheeler owns

    9. Re: Good btw by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re: Good btw by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      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.
    11. Re: Good btw by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      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.
    12. Re: Good btw by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re: Good btw by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    14. Re: Good btw by Whibla · · Score: 1

      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...

    15. Re: Good btw by xpiotr · · Score: 1

      > 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.

    16. Re: Good btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has it's moments.

    17. Re: Good btw by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      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.

    18. Re: Good btw by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      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.
  2. .. and so it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:.. and so it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THAT depends on your state, which you would know if your argument didn't come from FOX NEWS and/or Breitbart.

    2. Re:.. and so it continues by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      You're a liar.

      If you're an Uber driver in California for instance, you would have won the recent class lawsuit against Uber (if not for the arbitration clause).

      As it stands, only the drivers that had the presence of mind to opt-out of arbitration within a specific time limit won that case, but that's only a tiny fraction of them.

    3. Re: .. and so it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell the states it doesnâ(TM)t matter in

    4. Re:.. and so it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a liar.

      If you're an Uber driver in California for instance, you would have won the recent class lawsuit against Uber (if not for the arbitration clause).

      As it stands, only the drivers that had the presence of mind to opt-out of arbitration within a specific time limit won that case, but that's only a tiny fraction of them.

      What are you talking about those were people suing Uber, not Employees. It's somewhat ironic they refer to it as sexual assault when it appears at least some of them were flat out raped. Why did the Police not follow up with that? There's a BIG difference between assault and rape.

      You're riding in a car with a stranger.... A contractor of Uber of all things. Ah fuck it.

    5. Re:.. and so it continues by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      You're a liar.

      If you're an Uber driver in California for instance, you would have won the recent class lawsuit against Uber (if not for the arbitration clause).

      As it stands, only the drivers that had the presence of mind to opt-out of arbitration within a specific time limit won that case, but that's only a tiny fraction of them.

      To be ware, it's plausible the grandparent is bizzaro Hanlon's Razor... uninformed, as opposed to malice-driven.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:.. and so it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > There's a BIG difference between assault and rape.

      No, rape is one form of sexual assault. Typically terms like 'sexual assault' and 'criminal sexual conduct' are used in the law because they cover more degrees than just forced penetration without consent.

    7. Re:.. and so it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always good to see what the right wing snowflakes on slashdot will say regarding anything to do with sexual harassment. So insightful! Do you spend more time on slashdot or posting to r/incels or r/the_donald?

  3. Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Why should they disclose anything other than !INTERESTED_KXTHBAI?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually many countries and corporations have policies like this because a senior employee can have de-facto control over subordinate employees which can cause all sorts of problems like basically unreported rape and things.

      This is a huge problem in many countries where a lot of new interns (younger girls) basically find out soon that either they must sleep with a superior or quit. And in these same countries quitting or getting fired is basically equivalent to being unemployable.

    3. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      This isn't Puritanism. It is precisely the opposite: SJWism. Women are vulnerable to the patriarchal norms of oppression, men are rapists, we all know the arguments by now. Nice job trying to change the subject and blame it on religion, though. You even got modded up for it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      This is a huge problem in many countries where a lot of new interns (younger girls) basically find out soon that either they must sleep with a superior or quit. And in these same countries quitting or getting fired is basically equivalent to being unemployable.

      You had me upto that. It has nothing to do with younger girls, there are managers who swing both ways. Believe it or not WOMEN DO ABUSE MEN TOO. Got it? Such policies exist because relationship problems have no place in an office. It can get EXTREMELY complicated for Employers especially when it's a manager and underling or family (wife and husband both work for the same company for example or with their kids) .

      NOT ALL MEN FUCKING RAPE WOMEN.

    5. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Puritanism can take liberal as well as conservative forms. Puritanism is a philosophy that may or may not be tied to a specific religion.

      Both liberals and conservatives can be meddlesome, anti-sexuality arseholes.

    6. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Actually many countries and corporations have policies like this because a senior employee can have de-facto control over subordinate employees which can cause all sorts of problems like basically unreported rape and things.

      This is a huge problem in many countries where a lot of new interns (younger girls) basically find out soon that either they must sleep with a superior or quit. And in these same countries quitting or getting fired is basically equivalent to being unemployable.

      Spot on.

      I would add that the social trend towards equality of the sexes has improved society to the point where

      a lot of new interns

      doesn't mean a club of exclusively younger or even just girls.

      The perks of power have traditionally, in Weinsteinian fashion, afforded superiors sexual power over their subordinates.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Pill here, let's face the facts.

      In general (there are exceptions but they are rare and this statement isn't about them), women are commonly attracted to men with power. Similarly, in general, empowered men are attracted to young women.

      When young women enter the workforce of an established business, there will be some men with power somewhere. Maybe there will be women with power too, but the young women aren't attracted to them, so they don't find excuses to be in their presence, flirt with them, seek out projects under them, etc.

      But many such young women WILL do such things for the men with power, making themselves into temptations for those men. Hell, they might even consciously and directly seek to offer sexual favors to such men in return for advancement. Or, in some cases, they won't do this, but the men with power will abuse their power to pressure the women into sexual subservience.

      It isn't until after such deeds are done that any shaming begins, and as a matter of reputational self-defense, young women in this position must resort back to "he pressured me into it!" Its a card that brings only advantages when played. In some cases, the men really did pressure the women into it. In other cases, the women sought it out and only claimed to have been pressured into it after the fact. In either case, the narrative is the same, as are the consequences.

      So, to clarify: not all men with power are rapists, not all young girls are attracted to men with power, not all power is held only by men, not all women with power are saints, not all inappropriate relationships with empowered men are actively sought by disempowered women, etc. But commonly men with power are attracted to young women, and commonly young women are attracted to men with power, and commonly they are thrown together at large businesses, and commonly this recipe goes badly.

      And this story is not *nearly* as common when the gender roles are reversed.

      So, that's reality.

    8. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      This is a huge problem in many countries where a lot of new interns (younger girls) basically find out soon that either they must sleep with a superior or quit. And in these same countries quitting or getting fired is basically equivalent to being unemployable.

      You had me upto that. It has nothing to do with younger girls...

      Actually, it does, your whataboutism notwithstanding.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      So sexually harassing women in the workplace is suddenly something liberals do. Jesus. How's life on the far left? Literally everyone is an enemy to you, aren't they? What's it like, being a political extremist?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% true, not all men are rapists. In fact MOST men are not rapists. The overwhelming majority of men do not rape. These are all true facts.

      It's also true that more rapes are perpetrated by men than women.

      And, it's also true that when people use their corporate power to pressure someone into sex....of the set of people that do that....more are men than women.

      So, that second set of facts is what fuels the biases and narratives.

    11. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You’re both right wings trolls, and Jesus you are both stupid.

    12. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me upto that. It has nothing to do with younger girls...

      Actually, it does, your whataboutism notwithstanding.

      They do not target younger girls; they target ALL girls. Age has nothing to do with it.

      Nice try though.

    13. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by astrofurter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Dude... he's using the term "puritanism" metaphorically. I don't think he believes the social just-us nazis are actually members of the (extinct?) Puritan religion.

      It's a valid comparison. Social just-us nazis - especially feminazis - do act an awful lot like the raging hypocrite Fundamentalist "Christians" who plagued America back in the day.

    14. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The overwhelming majority of men do not rape.

      It's also true that more rapes are perpetrated by men than women.

      Only because in many places women can't legally be considered rapists. Compare the numbers for men made to penetrate and you'll see it's basically equal to that of women raped. And you'll also find that the majority of offenders in that case are women. In juvenile detention centers, women in positions of authority are the offenders the majority of the time for both female and male victims.
      Just look at the pound me too movement and it overwhelmingly ignoring Asia Argento raping a boy. And she's not the only pound me too cheerleader guilty of that.

      In non-reciprocal hetero DV cases, the woman is the perpetrator 70% of the time. Lesbians have the highest DV rates, and gay men the lowest. It's almost like estrogen makes people violent.

      You're just a victim of the WAW effect.

    15. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That is complete and utter horseshit and you and I both know it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    16. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's also interesting that "a lot" now means, like, 5-ish.

    17. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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.

      There's nothing "American" or "outside of work" about any of this. Conflict of interest office relationships affect the workplace directly. This is also standard in pretty much every large company regardless of where they are based.

      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.

      Nice dooms day scenario. Unfortunately for you these kinds of situations and scenarios are incredibly rare and in many cases don't work out well for the Boss.

      US employers are far too intrusive as to employees' personal lives.

      The only thing intrusive here was the forced arbitration. In the rest of what we have been discussing the past few weeks, the US's code of conducts lag well and truly behind those in other parts of the world.

    18. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Men don't get raped by gay bosses, gimme a break. Sounds like someone's a homophobic misogynist.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, a simple law stating binding arbitration cannot be included in an employment contract is all you need to do to stop this horseshazbot. I've had recruiting agencies ask me to sign documentation giving up overtime pay. I refuse to call those companies back or accept calls from them. You should too.

      Think it through. What recourse do employee's have when their ability to sue you is taken away and you put them into an impoverished condition intentionally? There's 11 guns per man, women, and child in this country. You REALLY do not want to be ANYWHERE near those kinds of people or businesses. The kinds of violence they tend to attract is not worth your time and often city and munincipal governments want to sweep the drama under the rug for reasons that ought to be obvious. Mercifully most of those businesses are short-lived and the managers generally end up in jail, dead, or they lose their shirt and the bankruptcy proceedings label them so no reasonable company would hire them.

      With that said.

      Stable households and stable people make stable companies, especially at the executive level. You have no idea what kind of stress you can place on a family as an executive of a company engaging in self-enriching shenanigans. Everyone likes to pretend the job market smooths those rough edges over but it really doesn't. The problem with success is certain a-holes want it all for themselves, and they will screw anyone and everyone else over to get it.

      Furthermore, heterosexual people in monogamous relationships with families do not like working with non-heterosexual people or especially people who prefer polygamous relationships. I came to the conclusion a long time ago if I had a friend who was cheating on his girlfriend, it was time to find a new friend, because that guy will screw me and everyone else over he can. Women who cheat are nuclear-grade stay-away. Homosexual people, even married ones, do not have kids, and therefor they are going to have a completely different value structure than monogamous, heterosexual people.

      The fact is you need to have a reasonable moral and ethical structure in your life and the only way to really have that is to live it. Showing you practice that is to many people, a valid hiring signal. How you show it, and what those values are, is a key discussion.

    20. Re: Facebook office dating policy, yuck! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It is a good thing to not require arbitration for sexual harassment cases. Even if arbitration is sufficient in most cases, there will always be edge cases where the participants shouldn't have been *required* to do it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Why is the company even involved in this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are laws about harassment and you go to the police.
    Why are they getting so involved.

  5. So all this time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 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.

  6. Two companies I wouldn't work for.. by supercell · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re: Two companies I wouldn't work for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Faceboot and Big Brother Google have official policies of racial and sexual employment discrimination. Only Hindu H1-B unwelcome-guest workers, from "appropriate" castes, are allowed to be hired for tech positions. Only hyper-entitled womyn from rich families and class-exclusionary private schools are allowed to be hired for management roles.

      More and more talented engineers are fleeing from the hostile work environment at the Surveillance Valley behemoths. As they are replaced by people hired for their skin color, genitals, and family connections, the quality of these companies' software is declining precipitously.

  7. If there was a crime committed by Jarwulf · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:If there was a crime committed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol wut? That's fucking stupid. Not doing anything WAS costing them money which IS what they care about. It cost google $90M in case you forgot. "Spend a little money now to save a fuckton later" is in Business 101. It sounds like you're the one with an agenda to push. Which cult are you in?

    2. Re: If there was a crime committed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It cost them $90 million? Lolwut.

      Can't figure out if retarded or trolling ...

    3. Re:If there was a crime committed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Oh it's the "herp derp crime" meme that's been coming up like clockwork in every single one of these posts.

      You seem to have forgotten that your country has two forms of courts, criminal and civil. This post pertains only to the civil form.

      You also seem to have an immense and misplaced amount of faith in the police. You may recall in fact that multiple people had gone to the police over Bill Crosby for example before the whole thing broke, and none of them had any luck for decades.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:If there was a crime committed by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      So ending mandatory arbitration is going to solve the supposed problem of police ignoring rape victims? Lol.

    5. Re:If there was a crime committed by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      The fact that they had a large hand in starting this SocJus Witchhunt craze in the first place is costing them a ton of money. But they don't care because they're zealots. Nothing to do with saving money. Lehman brothers had a bigger Diversity Division than Risk management till they collapsed. They're insane and you are too if you can't see it.

    6. Re:If there was a crime committed by serviscope_minor · · Score: -1, Troll

      Does it hurt to be that disingenuous or does it come naturally to you?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  8. What the Fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The contracts are invalid. Changing them is Virtue Signaling. Please pick one or neither, you can't have both.

  9. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  10. No one wants dried out floppy pussy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  11. Thank you so much, corporate overlord! by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Thank you so much, corporate overlord! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We allowed the company we work for, take away basic civil rights.

      Actually, we didn't, it's just that people who work for Facebook and Google are retarded.

      Not legally retarded, mind you, because that would have been an actual problem; but retarded enough that they're stupid enough to think half-baked "legalese" in an employment offer means anything.

  12. Only hire homosexuals or women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  13. Easy enough to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stop hiring women. Seriously, they bring more trouble into the workplace than they're worth.

    1. Re:Easy enough to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just stop hiring women. Seriously, they bring more trouble into the workplace than they're worth.

      Ok so fix harassment with discrimination?

      I suppose you'd fix global warming by burning all the fossil fuels immediately?

    2. Re:Easy enough to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'd fix if by burning the warmists immediately. I like solutions that actually work.

    3. Re:Easy enough to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, I'd fix if by burning the warmists immediately. I like solutions that actually work.

      Except that shutting up the people who are talking about a problem does nothing to solve the problem.

      You know this, you're just in deep denial.

  14. Call to End Binding Arbatration by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    It's never a company that is at the disadvantage.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  15. outta be a law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  16. Contractors screwed again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.