HR Issues

Arbitration Clauses

Undisclosed alnB87
Nov 28

Not only do these tech giants force employees to do arbitration per employment contracts, they make you pay for them too?! Upwards of $800.
How is this ethical? Or legal?
#arbitration

comments

Add a comment
  • Microsoft Sam-I-Am
    I share your resentment... I'm an industry hire to Microsoft, and let me tell you... most recruiters have you sign the most hostile employment agreements you can imagine:

    - Non-Disclosure --pretty common, I'd be concerned if that weren't the case.

    -Non-Disparagement--You cannot say anything negative about the employer during or after you're done. They can mistreat their workers, and you can't say shit. In some cases, can't even bring a civil suit because--that's "disparaging".

    -Non-compete: Some are written to make it damn near impossible to work in your chosen area of specialization if you're not careful. If they're too broad and too lengthy, I argue back that I will accept this clause if they pay me for the duration because, as written, it's designed to keep my talent scarce in the industry--so they need to compensate me for lost work opportunities.

    --Forced Arbitration: This right here is of course another example. There are two valid sides to whether this is necessary, but I'm advocating for the employee here. It does tie your hands for relief when there are real damages.

    --Right-To-Represent: When a recruiter "locks you in" for a particular job opening such that you cannot apply through another recruiter later on. Why would you waive this right? I've seen shitty recruiters try to sign up as many people as possible for the same job opening, pick one guy they think is the best choice, and string along the other losers. Basically they never get a shot to make their case to the actual hiring manager. They also do this to dry up the talent market and suffocate their competitors--either way, you're more apt to lose. The recruiter can be negligent in getting back to you, and you have no recourse.

    For all these reasons, it's important to understand your value, become the very best at what you do... and then simply refuse to sign agreements with companies/recruiters that try to force this shit on you. Talent is scarce. You have more options. You set the terms. All you have to do is defend them.
    Nov 280
  • Citibank $$>RSU
    Old news.
    Nov 280
  • OpenTable Meliodas
    It is typical for parties to pay their own litigation costs.

    It is legal and ethical, because you accepted those terms when you accepted employment.
    Nov 282
    • Undisclosed alnB87
      OP
      Sure but in true litigation, the wining party gets costs paid back and included in the judgment. Thats not the case with these clauses. Folks just chalk it up as a loss incidental to fighting employer violations of state or federal employment law.
      Nov 28
    • Microsoft ABACADABAC
      That not true. Only if the lawsuit had no grounds, or if there was some contractual or statutory provisions, would the court force the losing party to pay costs. In most cases, in America, each side pays their own costs, win or lose. This is known as the American Rule.
      Nov 28
  • Arbitration claused are not applicable to an EEOC investigation.
    Nov 300
  • Google gil
    Who cares?
    Nov 280

Download the app for more exclusive content.