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.

Comments

Free at last!!

[youngone]

Why would forced arbitration even be legal?

Re:Free at last!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Free at last!!

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why would forced arbitration even be legal?

It's not forced, it's agreed upon contractually.

And, why? Because courts are only slightly better than spinning a roulette wheel because they face no competitive pressure to improve, ever, being a monopoly.

What they should have done here - and every REAL mutual contract does this - is to give the employees a choice of a dozen different arbiters that Google feels are fair players, and let those arbiters fight it out for employee preference by competing on the most fair dealings for employees, and let them pick a new one every n months.

When you have mutually-agreed-upon arbiters then you have a real contract. If people are signing employment contracts without ever having qualified their potential arbiter ahead of time, then due diligence cannot be said to have taken place. But many employees would rather be treated like children than do that kind of research, so perhaps even at Google it's unlikely. We can't have nice things without humans accepting adult responsibility for themselves.

Re:Free at last!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "right to sue" is overrated.

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.

Re:Free at last!!

[gumpish]

give the employees a choice of a dozen different arbiters that Google feels are fair players, and let those arbiters fight it out for employee preference by competing on the most fair dealings for employees

Why would it be in a business's interest to use fair arbiters?
Why would arbiters, who rely on corporate defendants (not aggrieved individuals) for repeat business, be motivated to render fair findings rather than findings which favor the company?
Why do nearly all contracts which require mandatory binding arbitration also specify that the results of arbitration must remain secret?
As much as you hate the idea, governments have a larger role to play than simply providing for the national defense.

Re:Free at last!!

[nzkbuk]

It's not forced, it's agreed upon contractually.

In all practical effects most contract negotiations boil down to If you want a job with us you will sign our employment contract, we will not enter into negotiation If that's not effectively the same as "forced" I don't know what is.
The exception to the above rule tends to be at C level.

Good.

[BcNexus]

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.

Re:Good.

[Waccoon]

Of course corporations should have a monopoly on efficiency and strength in numbers. We can't have the commoners using the same techniques as a business to make their causes practical or even viable.

Even back in the 90's, I remember each employer showing me anti-union videotapes as a standard hiring procedure. I never thought I'd see the day when arbitration became widely tolerated, let alone people believing that unions are universally bad.

Given that you need a job to buy food to live

[rsilvergun]

then yeah, it's forced. Especially when nearly all employers do it. Google's one of the top employers so good luck getting a job with them to escape forced arbitration.

And this begs the question, should you be able to sell yourself into slavery then? If you're willing to say yes then at least your consistent, though on some level you must realize that if you're selling yourself into slavery then you're not in a position to make fair contracts. Anymore than a child would be.

Re:Given that you need a job to buy food to live

[Waccoon]

But... but... you can still work for an employer who doesn't do this stuff. The free market will take care of itself. Honest!

It's shocking how hard it is to find a EULA that doesn't have a binding arbitration cause. It only took a few years for everyone to start doing it.