Slashdot Mirror
Google Will End Forced Arbitration For Employees (cnet.com)
Google said it will no longer require current and future staff to go through mandatory arbitration for disputes with the company. "The change goes into effect on March 21," reports CNET. "The search giant will also remove mandatory arbitration from its own employment agreements with contract and temporary staff, though the change won't impact staffing firms." From the report: This comes after Google employees in November walked out of their offices to protest the company's handling of sexual harassment claims. One of their demands was to end forced arbitration in cases of sexual harassment and discrimination. In January, some Google employees launched a social media campaign to pressure the company and other tech companies to drop mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration often means workers can't take their employers to court when they complain internally. The campaign organizers said 60 million Americans are affected by forced arbitration.
The Supreme Court has over the past 15 years built up a line of cases establishing that arbitration clauses in employment and other contracts are enforceable. While usually couched in freedom of contract terms, much of the impetus is to try to decrease the workload on the overburdened federal court system.
This is good. To quote another slashdot user named bluefoxlucid:
Arbitration is an ineffective and inefficient method of encouraging or enforcing fair and ethical business behavior.
Lawsuits allow employees and consumers to sanction a business, to hold a legal threat over its head if it acts in a way legally liable in a civil context. It's the stick that comes behind the carrot in encouraging ethical business. Without a class-action suit, each individual employee or customer must take their own time, money, and risk to address these behaviors--which means fewer individuals will achieve representation, and so the risk of harm to a business for acting in an unethical manner harmful to its employees or customers is fractional. Even if all all employees or customers did come to self-represent, they would sink an enormous amount of time and effort into seeking redress, instead of into any more-useful pursuit.
Well, the nice thing about suing is that your case is heard by a judge or jury who ostensibly have no vested interest in the outcome.
Compare this with professional arbitration firms WHO RELY ON CORPORATIONS FOR REPEAT BUSINESS. Note that this is why the results of arbitration are contractually kept secret. If the world knew how lopsided the verdicts are then mandatory binding arbitration would become politically untenable.
Arbitration is so hopelessly rigged that it only exists to present the illusion of providing an avenue to pursue redress of grievances. Contracts requiring forced arbitration may as well have blanket indemnification clauses instead.
It's absolute bullshit and represents the dereliction of duty of the judicial branch of government.