Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Obama makes the most significant worker's rights reform in the last 20 years and I'm already asleep   (slate.com) divider line 111
    More: Cool, Emily Bazelon, President Obama, trade groups, arbitration clauses, workplace discrimination, Yale Law School  
•       •       •

5038 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2014 at 11:56 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-08 09:14:37 PM  
For the last 20 years, the Supreme Court has been encouraging employers to force their workers into a system of arbitration that has been badly rigged against the workers. And so this order will result in millions of employees having their rights restored to them

That's actually pretty good news.

For Federal contractors.

Wonder if it'll have any impact on the mandatory arbitration small print in the contracts of workers outside that purview ultimately.
 
2014-08-08 09:28:46 PM  
Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.
 
2014-08-08 09:52:34 PM  

Mentat: Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.


Hobby Lobby does it too. They even have "Christian arbitrators".
 
2014-08-08 10:47:26 PM  

fusillade762: Mentat: Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.

Hobby Lobby does it too. They even have "Christian arbitrators".


They do it in finance too.  If your broker scams you, the lobby-backed arbitrators declare you a "savvy investor" and rule against you.
 
2014-08-08 11:05:40 PM  
God, I can't wait to see heads explode over this.
 
2014-08-08 11:17:24 PM  
Worst socialist every. Wait, hold on a sec...
 
2014-08-09 12:04:01 AM  
This is a feckless and lawless demand by a tyrant that will only benefit workers of federal contractors who are raped repeatedly, locked into storage containers, and forced into arbitration that ultimately finds the employer blameless for said rape and imprisonment.
 
2014-08-09 12:07:33 AM  
Poor little rich people. Their lives are so hard. Please won't you send some money to a rich person? No small bills please.
 
2014-08-09 12:07:45 AM  
'Gang raped by your coworkers and locked in a trailer?  You can't sue.'

Obama: 'Yes, she can.'
 
2014-08-09 12:19:58 AM  

Alphax: 'Gang raped by your coworkers and locked in a trailer?  You can't sue.'

Obama: 'Yes, she can.'


"You didn't rape that."
 
2014-08-09 12:20:19 AM  

Mentat: Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.


It really is. It bypasses that whole right to legal redress, and contracts that stipulate forced arbitration should be a warning sign before entering into them. That those with Federal contracts can't play this game is a step in the right direction. I'm sure that some folks will have issue with it, but it amounts to a shot off the bow for those who want to keep their contract employees from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Petitioning the government--which is what a court is--for redress of grievances shall not be infringed. It's that pesky part of the 1st Amendment that everyone seems to love up until it means that they're about to hear something that they don't like personally. Mandatory arbitration is a bypass on the First Amendment and needs to be addressed.
 
2014-08-09 12:22:18 AM  
It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.
 
2014-08-09 12:24:23 AM  

cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.


So the alternative is to allow industry lobbies to set up their own arbitration systems that always seem to rule in their favor.  Good plan.
 
2014-08-09 12:32:22 AM  

Mentat: cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.

So the alternative is to allow industry lobbies to set up their own arbitration systems that always seem to rule in their favor.  Good plan.


I see he really wanted to use the N word.
 
2014-08-09 12:33:16 AM  
Lawlessness!
 
2014-08-09 12:34:55 AM  

Mentat: cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.

So the alternative is to allow industry lobbies to set up their own arbitration systems that always seem to rule in their favor.  Good plan.


Like how they have their own doctors they'll send you to, to close worker's compensation claims.
 
2014-08-09 12:36:43 AM  

Alphax: I see he really wanted to use the N word.



That wasn't a dog whistle, that was more like a dog air horn.
 
2014-08-09 12:37:49 AM  

cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.


And the problem with forced arbitration is that arbiters are hired by the companies, and that if they want to continue to work for said companies, they learn very quickly to be in the corner of their client, as opposed to an impartial third party. Which puts employees into an inherently unfair position at the get go. Hence, the right to seek redress by looking to the government--yup, that pesky judicial branch--for redress of grievances.

But, yeah, keep going with the idea that going to court is itself the issue, and not abuses by companies that KNOW that their employees have to use arbitration that the companies themselves control, as opposed to companies looking to flout the contracts that they've signed. The power of the market should skew things back towards the center with companies no longer taking the risks of going into open court, and adhering to their contracts, and keeping their workers safe. Just a thought. Or do you think that the markets will NOT bounce back towards certain behavior if there is a high enough disincentive?
 
2014-08-09 12:38:17 AM  

cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.


The common clay of the new folksly, you know, morons.
 
2014-08-09 12:47:32 AM  

Jaden Smith First of His Name: cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.

The common clay of the new folksly, you know, morons.


I swear that guy is a grade a troll or my father.
 
2014-08-09 12:49:46 AM  
This $10.10 minimum wage and lawsuit costs only apply to federal contractors. Which means it is the American taxpayer who is picking up the tab.

Hmmm......wonder who will be getting even bigger contracts now.....

http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2013.aspx?m=1
 
2014-08-09 12:50:50 AM  

Jaden Smith First of His Name: cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.

The common clay of the new folksly, you know, morons.


I thought that the educated folks were just tending towards liberality, what with all that Godless secular humanism, and the only people you could trust, were those unsullied by the Liberal Conspiracy to turn our children into hippy-pinko-pacifists? Shouldn't then, the uneducated then be those that our Brave Corporate Pioneers rely upon?

Let's not ignore the idea that our Beamish Boy feels that the public is under equipped to understand those hard cases, and that we should just let the heavy mental lifting should be done by those who are paid to do so--because the American people are too damn stupid be allowed near such glories as our judicial system...

It's almost as if he has forgotten that juries are chosen by BOTH parties in a suit.
 
2014-08-09 12:57:33 AM  
Hey, I have something important to tell you.

But I'm not going to tell you yet. I'm going to complain first that other people haven't told you what I'm going to tell you. I'm going to write paragraph after paragraph telling you how excited I am about the thing I haven't told you about yet, which is a thing that other media outlets haven't told you.

Eventually, I'll hint at something about what I'm going to tell you, but I'll still wait to tell you, because that's my hip writing style, which I learned from my community college creative writing class, and not from any experience or education in journalism, because journalists actually tell you what they're writing about, and that's, like, so uncool to reveal so much about your character when writing creative fiction. You wouldn't want Vonnegut to open the story with Ice-9 and not give you background on his characters first, would you? How interested would you be if he did that?

So, what exactly is that breaking news? Oh, wait, you've stopped reading already? No! Come back! I had something really important to tell you....
 
2014-08-09 12:58:37 AM  

cchris_39: This $10.10 minimum wage and lawsuit costs only apply to federal contractors. Which means it is the American taxpayer who is picking up the tab.

Hmmm......wonder who will be getting even bigger contracts now.....

http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2013.aspx?m=1


Yes, it's those darned workers who will be to blame for contract price increases, and not the no bid process that accepts already inflated contract prices. If only those darned minimum wage folks would just learn how to scrape lichens from the underpasses to feed their families, we could all be living lives of tax free bliss...
 
2014-08-09 12:59:44 AM  

cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.


Yes, because abiding by the law and not screwing your employees and customers is unprofitable and zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM!

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-09 01:05:15 AM  

cchris_39: This $10.10 minimum wage and lawsuit costs only apply to federal contractors. Which means it is the American taxpayer who is picking up the tab.


We should instead pay them 50 cents a day, so they'll go on food stamps.

www.gnorb.net
 
2014-08-09 01:05:28 AM  
Paying more for the same thing. There should be a word for that.
 
2014-08-09 01:09:20 AM  
This provision says that companies with federal contracts worth more than $1 million can no longer force their employees out of court, and into arbitration, to settle accusations of workplace discrimination.

This isn't primarily a labor issue.

Lenny_da_Hog: Hey, I have something important to tell you.

But I'm not going to tell you yet. I'm going to complain first that other people haven't told you what I'm going to tell you. I'm going to write paragraph after paragraph telling you how excited I am about the thing I haven't told you about yet, which is a thing that other media outlets haven't told you.

Eventually, I'll hint at something about what I'm going to tell you, but I'll still wait to tell you, because that's my hip writing style, which I learned from my community college creative writing class, and not from any experience or education in journalism, because journalists actually tell you what they're writing about, and that's, like, so uncool to reveal so much about your character when writing creative fiction. You wouldn't want Vonnegut to open the story with Ice-9 and not give you background on his characters first, would you? How interested would you be if he did that?

So, what exactly is that breaking news? Oh, wait, you've stopped reading already? No! Come back! I had something really important to tell you....

god, thank you
 
2014-08-09 01:13:55 AM  

cchris_39: Paying more for the same thing. There should be a word for that.


Inflation. You should look into that concept. Why, in my youth, I could purchase comic books for a mere quarter, and 50 cents would get me into a movie. The movies are still 2 hours long, and filled with expensive stars, and yet the price has risen 16 times that, for a matinee no less. It's almost as if wages rise over time when prices themselves go up. It's almost like paying MORE for the same gallon of gasoline, or MORE for the same gallon of milk. Depressing wages isn't exactly an accepted means to fighting inflation, but a lot of folks still want it to be...
 
2014-08-09 01:20:16 AM  
Hey guys, thanks again for making the thread all about one dingbat.
 
2014-08-09 01:21:37 AM  

Mentat: Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.


Agreed, but after looking at the Executive Order itself, this article is (unsurprisingly) oversimplifying. She likely had someone explain it to her but forgot what it about after a few head-bounces off of her shoulder pads.

The order states that claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and those regarding sexual harassment or assault -- limited scope of torts -- can only go to arbitration voluntarily and post-incident. Companies can still pressure employees as they have to get them to sign the contracts in the first place.

If you already have thousands of employees signed into third-party arbitration contracts, those contracts stand for every other claim of tort. Only civil rights and sexual harassment/assault incidents are exempt from forced arbitration.

It applies only to work actually billed to the federal contract -- it doesn't remove forced arbitration from all employed by a given contractor. You might be working in administration for the contractor, billed to overhead, and all binding arbitration would still apply.
 
2014-08-09 01:22:14 AM  

Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks again for making the thread all about one dingbat.


You're talking about the writer, right?
 
2014-08-09 01:26:10 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks again for making the thread all about one dingbat.

You're talking about the writer, right?


If only. I applaud your efforts to get us back on track, Lenny, but I think Kittypie was referring to the dingbat who thinks "minorities" don't deserve the right to serve on juries.
 
2014-08-09 01:37:00 AM  
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/RacePovertyTortAwards.pdf
 
2014-08-09 01:44:10 AM  

cchris_39: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/RacePovertyTortAwards.pdf


Let them eat dense, flourless cake?
 
2014-08-09 01:51:55 AM  

ReverendJynxed: Mentat: cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.

So the alternative is to allow industry lobbies to set up their own arbitration systems that always seem to rule in their favor.  Good plan.

Like how they have their own doctors they'll send you to, to close worker's compensation claims.


Oh, God.  A client of mine got mad and smashed my good hand.

Sent to their doc.  Three fractures in my hand and fingers.  Told me I was OK to work the next day.  I pointed out that I had to lift 60 pounds unassisted a few times per hour.  "No problem."

Bull.  shiat.

Assholes.
 
2014-08-09 01:54:59 AM  
Yeah, I don't see how this is a big deal. It isn't like the rights of federal contractors have been trampled on up to this point.
 
2014-08-09 01:58:34 AM  

zimbach: cchris_39: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/RacePovertyTortAwards.pdf

Let them eat dense, flourless cake?


Good one :)
 
2014-08-09 01:59:09 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-09 02:03:59 AM  
Interesting. Let's see if it survives the obviously coming challenge. I would say the provision about disclosing labor violations is in the greatest danger. Forced speech doesn't have a great record in federal court.
 
2014-08-09 02:04:13 AM  

Mentat: Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.


QFT
 
2014-08-09 02:04:27 AM  

cchris_39: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/RacePovertyTortAwards.pdf


Don't worry. It's not like the Federal Government is going to spend any money in impoverished minority-laden areas.
 
2014-08-09 02:04:38 AM  

cchris_39: Paying more for the same thing. There should be a word  words for that.


FIVE DOLLARS!
 
2014-08-09 02:05:27 AM  

ArkAngel: Interesting. Let's see if it survives the obviously coming challenge. I would say the provision about disclosing labor violations is in the greatest danger. Forced speech doesn't have a great record in federal court.


'Forced speech'.. that's an interesting term.  You make it sound like something bad.
 
2014-08-09 02:06:31 AM  

cchris_39: Paying more for the same thing. There should be a word for that.


Privatization?
 
2014-08-09 02:09:43 AM  

fusillade762: Mentat: Good.  Forced arbitration is a huge scam.

Hobby Lobby does it too. They even have "Christian arbitrators".


It's a lot more common than you may think.

img.fark.net

Also:
http://www.citizen.org/rigged-justice-rogues-gallery

Mandatory-arbitration provisions are not rare. In fact, agreements not to sue are becoming a ubiquitous facet of commercial life, governing everything from employment to used-car sales. On job-related matters alone, the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) estimates that 30 million Americans, or roughly a fifth of the nonunion workforce, have been forced to sign away the right to bring civil claims before a judge or jury.
 
2014-08-09 02:15:19 AM  
ha! This is what happens when you read the CIA article and post in the "not bad" thread. Sorry...

img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-08-09 02:15:40 AM  

ArkAngel: Interesting. Let's see if it survives the obviously coming challenge. I would say the provision about disclosing labor violations is in the greatest danger. Forced speech doesn't have a great record in federal court.


Sorry, I can require any background on your company I wish during the bidding process.

If you're unwilling to provide it, you're out of the bidding.

I can force you to turn over all of your internal procurement processes and procedures, for example. I can ask you how many times you've been sued by suppliers in the procurement process. I can ask you how many times and how far you've gone over-budget on a contract. It is part of your project history -- you're corporate "resume". Private contract openings ask for information like this all the time.

They have always been able to ask background questions like this. Federal contract administrators are now *required* to ask those questions and demand a response as part of the process. Having a record doesn't mean you're necessarily disqualified from the bidder's list -- in fact, the administrator is required to ask you follow-up questions and offer you a chance to show how you've improved your processes to reduce any incidents. It's just another means of comparing bidders.

Just like any contract solicitation -- if you don't like the terms, don't bid.
 
2014-08-09 02:18:26 AM  

Kittypie070: Hey guys, thanks again for making the thread all about one dingbat.


www.theoldrobots.com
 
2014-08-09 02:18:42 AM  

cchris_39: It will force more out of court settlements and drive up costs.

The problem with going to trial, especially in urban areas is heavily minority and uneducated juries that view the judicial process as (a) a chance to stick it to the man and (b) a license to help each other win the lawsuit lottery. I award you big, you award me big when it's my turn.


That's the kind of folksy racism that  cchris_39and most other white people will secretly laugh their asses off at.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report