42,000 presumably plus health insurance and paid leave for answering the phones and filling kegs? It sounds like she's overpaid and with thousands of tweets and captioned Instagram photos—including fancy vacations shots—maybe she could make time for a second gig, something many of us did when younger and in need of extra cash.
I understand this is a very entitled generation, but she isn't entitled to millions (potentially depriving many others at the firm of their livelihood) for what looks like a manufactured grievance from a person with a history of very combative posts.
I understand this is a very entitled generation, but she isn't entitled to millions (potentially depriving many others at the firm of their livelihood) for what looks like a manufactured grievance from a person with a history of very combative posts.
6
The article is biased. I am an employer and recently added an arbitration clause for all new hires. If someone were to refuse to sign it offer would be withdrawn. Employment litigation can be spurious, pursued by an aggrieved employee whose attorney knows that the employer pays for both defense costs as well as the employee's fee if s/he were to prevail. Then there is the unknown risk andy substantial costs that would accompany going to a jury, along with reasonable fear that the jury could be swayed by emotion rather than facts. The asymmetry whereby the employee never has to pay the costs of the employer if they lose, is galling. Over the decades I have had to defend a small handful of spurious claims, some of which were dropped when proof of the ex-employee’s lies were incontrovertible. The others went away but cost money to defend or settle for nuisance amounts. These are personal when an employer tries hard to do the right thing but must endure the abuse of a small but memorable few. And not surprisingly, the first time an employer often learns of a perceived problem is not when they are politely approached to discuss it, but rather when served with the litigation papers. My company’s change to arbitration is new enough that I doubt it has deterred any action, and there have been no actions as of yet to arbitrate. But when I added this clause it was not to escape accountability but rather to have a fair, just and prompt process that protects the interests of all.
4
Your words are good. However: have you incorporated a *mechanism* that guarantees that your arbitration process is fair, just, and biased neither toward the employer nor toward the employee? How can you demonstrate that independent, unbiased observers would agree?
2
Call me naive, but I assume that arbitration is a fair and unbiased process. Certainly my mid-sized
business is not likely to see arbitration in a given year and no arbitrator would reasonably assume they'd have an opportunity to be involved with me a second time. Could your question be equally asked about a judge and jury? Or the EEOC or DOL for that matter?
business is not likely to see arbitration in a given year and no arbitrator would reasonably assume they'd have an opportunity to be involved with me a second time. Could your question be equally asked about a judge and jury? Or the EEOC or DOL for that matter?
2
Grateful I am not in the new Gig Economy. $42K a yr in Berkely? How dies WeWork expect anyone to live on that in the S.F. area?
And she thought it was a dream job? If I were her, I'd start studying for a Real Estate license right away. At least in sales, you get paid exactly what you put in.
Either that or learn to code. Otherwise, you're cannon fodder for these startups, which are little more than V.C.- funded exploitation machines. Welcome tot the "new"Industrial Revolution.
And she thought it was a dream job? If I were her, I'd start studying for a Real Estate license right away. At least in sales, you get paid exactly what you put in.
Either that or learn to code. Otherwise, you're cannon fodder for these startups, which are little more than V.C.- funded exploitation machines. Welcome tot the "new"Industrial Revolution.
4
I remember when $42K/yr was a good wage. I've worked a helluva lot harder for much less: precision manufacturing for defense and tech. Now? I can't see getting out of bed for that.
To classify this as an exempt position seems a stretch. A quick search suggests that exempts are executives, managers, engineers and people who make important decisions, including hiring and firing, independently. As important as deciding whether or not to answer the phone or when to change out the keg may be, I still think it's a stretch.
It also seems like a dirty trick to spring an arbitration clause on somebody who has already been on the job. Oh, by the way, we're changing the rules, sign here.
I've been fortunate in working for large and reputable corporations that don't play fast and loose with the law.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm the last person to suggest litigation in most matters, but contacting an attorney may not be a bad idea. Having said that, I'd do it before WeWork goes belly up as it inevitably will.
To classify this as an exempt position seems a stretch. A quick search suggests that exempts are executives, managers, engineers and people who make important decisions, including hiring and firing, independently. As important as deciding whether or not to answer the phone or when to change out the keg may be, I still think it's a stretch.
It also seems like a dirty trick to spring an arbitration clause on somebody who has already been on the job. Oh, by the way, we're changing the rules, sign here.
I've been fortunate in working for large and reputable corporations that don't play fast and loose with the law.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm the last person to suggest litigation in most matters, but contacting an attorney may not be a bad idea. Having said that, I'd do it before WeWork goes belly up as it inevitably will.
3
this article and related pieces on arbitration provide are shallow reporting. Little evidence is given that employees fare poorly under arbitration. Perhaps it is more expeditious or lower cost way of getting things settled vs the cumbersome court system. The Times seems biased against arbitration but has supplied scant accounts that it really is a problem and not just an interesting base for filling columns.
2
The viewpoint of the reporter was understandably informed by this thorough and groundbreaking article, where the Times supplied all the evidence you could possibly have wanted. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-pri...
Corporations fight for arbitration because, quite simply, it's a gold mine.
Corporations fight for arbitration because, quite simply, it's a gold mine.
3
What a surprise - low level managers engage in Lawsuit Lottery - and the industry responds by rejecting a liberal court bias to reward unfounded magical discrimination by demanding Arbitration by professionals who can recognize a money-grab a mile away - who'd a thunk it?
2
So you think Lincoln freed the slaves? Never, in his wildest nightmares, could he have anticipated a system of techie serfdom like this debacle.
A solution? You'll find one in the Euro Zone. There, EVERY job has its wages calculated to an hourly basis based on a stated work week (Typically 35 hours, as lunchtime or siesta doesn't count) as a matter of law. Overtime - which INCLUDES any out-of-workplace time when employees would be expected to be reachable - has to be compensated at time-and-a-half on weekdays and double time on weekends. Oh, and vacation time HAS to be taken and NO retaliation is allowed for legitimate sick time or family or maternal leave (Which is also regulated by law). Our tech and Wall Street types would throw a gagging fit at the thought of such protections, but the fact is that in Germany they have them - and productivity is GREATER than it is here.
Time for the Second Emancipation Proclamation, folks. It's WAY overdue.
A solution? You'll find one in the Euro Zone. There, EVERY job has its wages calculated to an hourly basis based on a stated work week (Typically 35 hours, as lunchtime or siesta doesn't count) as a matter of law. Overtime - which INCLUDES any out-of-workplace time when employees would be expected to be reachable - has to be compensated at time-and-a-half on weekdays and double time on weekends. Oh, and vacation time HAS to be taken and NO retaliation is allowed for legitimate sick time or family or maternal leave (Which is also regulated by law). Our tech and Wall Street types would throw a gagging fit at the thought of such protections, but the fact is that in Germany they have them - and productivity is GREATER than it is here.
Time for the Second Emancipation Proclamation, folks. It's WAY overdue.
11
The WeWorks model for problem resolution looks more than fair. They first require the employee work with their manager. If that is not successful they try mediation. Only then does the issue go to arbitration. This policy seems more than reasonable and far beyond what you’d find in most organizations. Apparently this is where Ms. Zoumer had a problem as she prefers to litigate.
Ms. Zoumer clearly did not understand or ask about what her responsibilities would be, but apparently she wasted little time in trying to organize other employees to file a class action suit against her relatively new employer. I would bet that if you looked deeper, you’d find that Ms. Zoumer is a serial malcontent. WeWorks is better served by their parting ways.
Ms. Zoumer clearly did not understand or ask about what her responsibilities would be, but apparently she wasted little time in trying to organize other employees to file a class action suit against her relatively new employer. I would bet that if you looked deeper, you’d find that Ms. Zoumer is a serial malcontent. WeWorks is better served by their parting ways.
2
thats what happens when you allow unions to be destroyed
5
We get jobs back in America.
The headline of my print version of the article uses "Turn To" , whereas this online version says "Embrace." "Turn to " implies reluctance, which obviously is not the case.
The startups are embracing arbitration because it's the new business zeitgeist. Trendy companies embrace the greedy zeitgeist has become trendy in business. Evidently, disempowering employees has become "smart" business. Little wonder that so many proles, white- as well as blue-collared, are becoming restive.
The startups are embracing arbitration because it's the new business zeitgeist. Trendy companies embrace the greedy zeitgeist has become trendy in business. Evidently, disempowering employees has become "smart" business. Little wonder that so many proles, white- as well as blue-collared, are becoming restive.
3
Simple: If it is good for business, then it is bad for Americans. Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016.
7
If folk don't want to work at these places they are free not to. This piece illustrates another error in "progressive" thought. Always anyone trying to make a profit and as a consequence employs people are somehow evil in their intent.
2
First they bust the unions so they dom't have to pay fair wages and benefits. Then they force employees to give up their legal right to sue. What next, a return to slavery?
An employer has the right to a fair profit but so do the employees.
Saying that if one doesn't like it they can go find another job is honest when the working conditions are always the same.
An employer has the right to a fair profit but so do the employees.
Saying that if one doesn't like it they can go find another job is honest when the working conditions are always the same.
4
Sorta. Your freedom diminishes as this nasty practice becomes the norm. Hence the need for the Arbitration Fairness Act.
3
I just recently started to do some consulting with a very small start up, and they tried to make me sign all kinds of crazy stuff. I had to send their documents back to the lawyers twice. The first time was to get rid of a non-compete agreement. I'm a consultant, if someone pays me more I'm definitely going to compete with them.
The second time was because of an arbitration agreement. I was like come on! It made me think twice about working with this company, for fear of being caught up in a bunch of lawyer crap that will just cause me to lose time and money.
It is horrible what companies do nowadays to take all your intellectual developments and hoard them for themselves. I invented a novel purification technique once at a company, and when I mentioned fair use the owner started yelling at me! I thought I was going to get fired for saying I'm allowed to use something my brain invented.
More and more often, I feel like a cog trapped in a giant machine that takes my soul on one side and spits out dollar bills for the 1% on the other. You can't even have fair use of your own inventions, and we call America free? It's only free of you are a millionaire.
The second time was because of an arbitration agreement. I was like come on! It made me think twice about working with this company, for fear of being caught up in a bunch of lawyer crap that will just cause me to lose time and money.
It is horrible what companies do nowadays to take all your intellectual developments and hoard them for themselves. I invented a novel purification technique once at a company, and when I mentioned fair use the owner started yelling at me! I thought I was going to get fired for saying I'm allowed to use something my brain invented.
More and more often, I feel like a cog trapped in a giant machine that takes my soul on one side and spits out dollar bills for the 1% on the other. You can't even have fair use of your own inventions, and we call America free? It's only free of you are a millionaire.
16
These new labor practices are so depressing it actually makes me glad my work life is over.
16
Yet another reason we need Bernie and not corporatist Hillary Clinton. We need to treat workers (our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors) with respect and pay them well. It amazes me that companies that rake in money want to exploit workers. Did they get that rich by allowing customers not to pay them? Then why do they think it's acceptable not to adequately pay others?
12
In my opinion, this is less an issue of transparency, and more of an issue of an out of control civil court system. We have grown a culture that views civil court often as if it is a pathway to riches (though, often it is only the attorneys who see these riches). I'd be curious to know the cummulative cost of unnecessary litigation on our economy.
Of course there are examples of very ligitimate court cases, but it seems that the excesses of frivilous suits are driving this move.
Of course there are examples of very ligitimate court cases, but it seems that the excesses of frivilous suits are driving this move.
3
That is the exact same fraudulent argument that reagan used to justify promoting arbitration.
5
"But shortly after she became an associate community manager in WeWork’s office in Berkeley, Calif., reality set in. Ms. Zoumer said she was feeling pinched because her annual salary was only $42,000, a sum that, on some weeks, left her without money to ride the subway." - Dare I point out that Berkeley does not have a 'subway' - other than perhaps one of the cheap sandwich shops?
5
Ever heard of the trans bay tube?
1
Dare not. You are mistaken.
1
BART is not a subway just because parts of it are underground. NYC is the only American city I've ever seen with a subway system.
Here's the problem with a lot of companies, startups or not. They do not value human resources as a business function. You wouldn't think of running a company without a finance, legal, and business development? So why wouldn't you have a human resources presence? When you have a strong human resources leader, FLSA issues are properly managed. Job descriptions are well-written, and evaluated correctly for compensation. Your risk is mitigated, and your company's reputation doesn't wind up in tatters.
The idea that a general counsel is also "chief culture officer" says volumes.
The idea that a general counsel is also "chief culture officer" says volumes.
14
None of these companies do. It's only the founders who got the VC money that matter. Everyone else is disposable.
2
The Start Up mantra of upending business models is a myth. It's the old-new corporate model. Put all of the burden of proof on the employee, supply your own equipment, crush any labor organizing in the work place, and pay as little as possible with no chance of overtime.. With an inept Congress it's pretty easy to be successful and claim your are building the "new" economy.
10
Maybe it's time to reinvigorate the Union movement.
As long as they can call the shots companies will structure all of their relationships to serve their own benefit. Who wouldn't? Arbitration isn't going away until it is outlawed.
As long as they can call the shots companies will structure all of their relationships to serve their own benefit. Who wouldn't? Arbitration isn't going away until it is outlawed.
15
Again, another reason we need Bernie, not Hillary who was on Wal-mart's board and sat idle as they harassed workers. She's in the pocket of corporations, the 1%, and Wall Street.
7
If businesses that require arbitration agreements were to modify those agreements to permit groups of aggrieved employees to bring [quasi] class action complaints, I might not be so skeptical about mandatory mediation/arbitration. As applied currently, however, these provisions isolate and limit the weaker of the two parties to any dispute.
Note to Ms. Berrent: the fact that a company will pay the arbitrator no matter the result is of small comfort to a claimant who already feels the scales are tipped against her.
Note to Ms. Berrent: the fact that a company will pay the arbitrator no matter the result is of small comfort to a claimant who already feels the scales are tipped against her.
8
As new companies grow, they are settling workplace disputes through the kind of arbitration used by big corporations to shield themselves from potentially expensive class-action cases.
---------------------------------------------------
So companies that are growing do not want to expose themselves unnecessarily to class action suits which are easy to bring and extraordinarily expensive to defend and is mostly beneficial to the law firm(s) bringing it. Gosh that is awful. Next thing you know they may start locking doors when they aren't there.
---------------------------------------------------
So companies that are growing do not want to expose themselves unnecessarily to class action suits which are easy to bring and extraordinarily expensive to defend and is mostly beneficial to the law firm(s) bringing it. Gosh that is awful. Next thing you know they may start locking doors when they aren't there.
4
Glib and sarcastic. Large companies and small alike use these Arbitration Clauses as a form of warfare to shield what they already know is abusive and exploitative behavior.
1
Any many people feel you don't need Unions anymore. I'm not against big business but a worker needs to level the playing field, that's were Unions come in. A worker alone is like in choppy waters alone in a row boat. Most workers would sign, they can't fight city hall. This is a Shame, but who really cares?
6
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss.
Don't get fooled again.
Same as the old boss.
Don't get fooled again.
10
Not surprising in any way that Wework treats it's workers like part of the gig economy. They are "eligible for" bonuses and equity but their salaries are low and they can't sue. The employer has all the power. Private corporate arbitration has a huge track record of bias. They are true to their principles for sure.
6
"Start-Ups, Preaching Transparency..."
And WHY should we take ANY corporate bumph and PR at face-value as real operating values, or gospel? Many start-ups seem particularly bad in this respect, run by egocentric CEOs who get upset if their PR slant is challenged (i.e. the "sharing economy" nonsense spouted by Uber and AirB&B as rationale and the CEOs' hysterical reaction to this being challenged as a false facade.)
That said, I have to say that the lead case here, at least as explained, seems like a bad choice for a case-in-point. The person got hired for a job, accepted the job, and then herself just "decided that "her duties were more suited to an hourly wage with the possibility of overtime" than her salaried job? And then, instead of making a case to her bosses about her compensation, she "enlists colleagues" in a class action against the employer? I doubt many (any?) employers would take well to employees deciding unilaterally their jobs should be reclassified and then getting other employees involved in agitating.
Surely, there must be better cases to document what I'm sure ARE more egregious cases of high-handed treatment of staff by start-ups and abuse of (sometimes semi-rigged) arbitration procedures.
And WHY should we take ANY corporate bumph and PR at face-value as real operating values, or gospel? Many start-ups seem particularly bad in this respect, run by egocentric CEOs who get upset if their PR slant is challenged (i.e. the "sharing economy" nonsense spouted by Uber and AirB&B as rationale and the CEOs' hysterical reaction to this being challenged as a false facade.)
That said, I have to say that the lead case here, at least as explained, seems like a bad choice for a case-in-point. The person got hired for a job, accepted the job, and then herself just "decided that "her duties were more suited to an hourly wage with the possibility of overtime" than her salaried job? And then, instead of making a case to her bosses about her compensation, she "enlists colleagues" in a class action against the employer? I doubt many (any?) employers would take well to employees deciding unilaterally their jobs should be reclassified and then getting other employees involved in agitating.
Surely, there must be better cases to document what I'm sure ARE more egregious cases of high-handed treatment of staff by start-ups and abuse of (sometimes semi-rigged) arbitration procedures.
4
This is precisely how unions were formed in the first place
9
The "sexy" battle cry for liberal this election has been to vilify Wall Street (deservedly), but these same people have been totally silent on the incredibly exploitative practices of nearly every major startup. From Uber to Lyft to Snapchat - a few young men have become billionaires while everyone who does the actual work are independent contractors struggling to make maybe $15/hour. Legislation to make these folks employees here in California last week was voted down by ONE vote. How much do you think uber and Lyft paid to make sure that happen?? So when you are feeling the Bern and show up at his rallies - live the values you preach and eschew all these exploitative start ups.
6
Having worked for many startups here in silicon beach - I can say with certainty they are the most conventional and exploitative workplaces in existences. Using hipster titles like "head of culture" and offering beer on tap and unlimited vacation (which nobody dares to take) they pretend to "disrupt" business as usual. In reality, they are business as usual offering most everyone, except a handful of programmers/engineers, terrible salaries with the expectation that you work 24/7. And as soon as they burn through their series A finding you're all fired - no severance - because well you know that's what is on the best interest of the company.
11
Young corporations, same as the old corporations.
5
Or maybe they're teaching the wrong things in their MBA programs, the same things that resulted in the Dot-Com bust, the wrong thing that resulted in 2007, starring Wall Street, the wrong thing by making arbitration standard operating procedure.
4
From the corporate point of view it's not wrong if it helps their business success. This isn't going to change without legislation outlawing forced arbitration.
3
Government is the worst provider of any service, including dispute resolution. The competitive market in arbitration and mediation will lead to improvement in these services. Regardless, we need a free market in labor.
2
If that is your picture you are old enough to know better by having experienced the government when it functioned properly before the reagan/GOP began destroying it.
8
~The competitive market in arbitration and mediation will lead to improvement in these services.~
The market has never fixed any problem it created. It never has, and it never will. That's the nature of greed.
~Regardless, we need a free market in labor.~
We do or you do?
The market has never fixed any problem it created. It never has, and it never will. That's the nature of greed.
~Regardless, we need a free market in labor.~
We do or you do?
6
Recent research shows that arbitration clauses almost always benefit the business and screw the customer.
Arbitration ---- big pay lawyers squeezing small people
just look st the GM faulty ignition switch
just look st the GM faulty ignition switch
10
The reagan/GOP attack on Unions continues. This tactic was one of the undermining inventions that came out of his administration. It was the culmination of his years of laying ground work for it by telling over and over false stories about nuisance and fraudulent lawsuits. Turns out it was a lot like NC HB2, a thing created for a stated purpose that had many unstated uses embedded in it.
I'm pretty sure it is still illegal for any person to give up their Civil Rights outside of a court of law with a qualified attorney representing them and a qualified Judge supervising the thing.
I'm pretty sure it is still illegal for any person to give up their Civil Rights outside of a court of law with a qualified attorney representing them and a qualified Judge supervising the thing.
11
Arbitration is a sham. I am currently litigating against my immediate supervisor in the Federal civil service, a militant minority womyn, because she violated the Americans with Disabilities Act both in her treatment of me and my coworker. He's insulin-dependent diabetic and she informed him, in my hearing, that he needed her permission to go to the bathroom for any reason. She attempted to derail my lawsuit by holding a kangaroo-court arbitration on the basis of "conduct issues" when in actuality it's her conduct that is now the subject of a Senate inquiry, as well as going before both the Departments of Justice and Labor. I still refuse to arbitrate and will be asking for punitive damages against this freak.
9
When will our elected representatives ever protect us from having our constitutional protections stolen by the powerful? When will we demand that congress work for the American people, rather than corporate overlords? Must we go back to blood in the streets?
13
The way the corporation treats its employees; the way the congress treats its constituents; the way the supreme court treats everyone, you very well may see blood on the streets if income inequality continues its deadly spiral.
8
Another clear example of embedded lobbyist involved and interacting with our gov't representatives and with mega corporations. Geez, I wonder how Trump &Hilliary would handle this topic?
1
This article goes to show that even Jerry Brown has become a lackey for corporate interests. It's pretty bad when Democrats are carrying water for corporate interests against the interests of ordinary working people.
3
I can't see calling a 16 billion dollar company a "startup". And if you have trouble paying subway fare on $42,000 a year, you'd better give up something - perhaps the third mocha-latte of the day.
But yes there are too many people giving up their legal rights. And in more ways than allowing arbitration. They are losing their right to privacy with invasive checks, drug tests and more.
But yes there are too many people giving up their legal rights. And in more ways than allowing arbitration. They are losing their right to privacy with invasive checks, drug tests and more.
9
you're kidding about the mocha lattes, right? or have you never lived in or near the very expensive cities where startups are located?
If these companies want to pay their employees that little, they should relocate to areas where that comes close to covering the cost of living. The reasons they don't are 1) management doesn't want to live in those areas themselves and 2) they know they would have big trouble finding the talent they need there, or convincing talent to move there. They are in expensive big cities for that talent. They need to pay that talent enough to live in those expensive big cities. Full stop.
If these companies want to pay their employees that little, they should relocate to areas where that comes close to covering the cost of living. The reasons they don't are 1) management doesn't want to live in those areas themselves and 2) they know they would have big trouble finding the talent they need there, or convincing talent to move there. They are in expensive big cities for that talent. They need to pay that talent enough to live in those expensive big cities. Full stop.
6
I live on about 20k a year in Manhattan. I'm not hungry or homeless or unable to ride the subway or even take a cab from time to time. However, If I had 42k per year, like the woman in the article I could travel the globe globe again, which would be fun. I don't think the problem is low income; it's loss of civil rights. You deserve the right to sue your employer in court if you've been mistreated.
2
Yes! Managers absolutely don't want to live in less expensive places. It simply wouldn't be any fun for them to throw their money around and crush the middle and working classes. But as the destruction these megalomaniac startups cause to city life becomes undeniable, municipalities will have to say ENOUGH to the tech-over of local economies. Let tech entrepreneurs work remotely from small towns and non-marquee citeis and give them the lift they need! Let them train talent in Appalachia and hire locally. Let them establish beer gardens and yoga studios in the Midwest and, again, hire locally. Tech companies are not going away, so it makes sense to site them where they will do far less damage and far more good.
1
It's sad to see creature comforts and brand pride swindle people out of their rights. What troubles me more than the management (after all, new silk hat, same pig) using this shallow approach is how easily young people buy into the false benevolence of their employer. Kudos to Ms Zoumer for seeing herself as more than a human resource.
6
In the pages of the Times these last few weeks, we've learned two things.
First, that arbitration is terribly unfair, exploitative, unbalanced and unworkable.
Second, that in the case of a certain cleft-chinned quarterback, a completely unfair, byzantine and corrupt arbitration process turned out AWESOME.
First, that arbitration is terribly unfair, exploitative, unbalanced and unworkable.
Second, that in the case of a certain cleft-chinned quarterback, a completely unfair, byzantine and corrupt arbitration process turned out AWESOME.
2
We need Federal legal protection from ALL arbitration agreements. They are against the Constitutional right to a fair trial. And they are always used by corporations and companies to restrict the rights of the common person.
17
You'll get none as long as republicans control congress. They don't work for you, don't you know?
2
Agreed, but the Democrats aren't coming off much better. Remember the employee free choice act? Democrats left that for dead when they controlled both houses of Congress.
3
What's the point of having laws for consumer/worker protection when at the same time we allow huge loopholes to circumvent them?
16
We Americans have simply got to grasp the reality that as employees we are on the bottom rung of the caste system. Decades of union busting, and rescinding hard-won employee rights, have put us back in old days of when the Robber Barons ruled, and where workers were closer to pack-animals in worth, maybe even less. As a nation we sing these hymns of praise to the the Free-market Gods, who are benevolent and just - but no God whose only goal is profits over citizen rights, and well being is either. The Free-Market (was it ever truly free?) has never been on the side of the workers, never. Every hard-won employee right had to be won with flesh and blood, not the turning of a businesses moral eye to do the right thing. Never!
Every company knows, or should, by now the right songs to sing to sound progressive and plucky (is a company really ever plucky?) and innovative. They all know how to seduce naive new grads into untenable positions. Even how to seduce older, more seasoned workers to do three times the work at two times less money.
The art of the employment seduction is well versed, and its aided by article after article in this tome and so many others that like sycophants sing the praises of these hard-charging, plucky, disruptive (is the new black), fun-loaded places to work where adult sized playground slides get you around the offices. What fun! And what pluck!
Bleah! Its still the same old. Workers beware, if it sounds too good, it is! Ask lots of questions!
Every company knows, or should, by now the right songs to sing to sound progressive and plucky (is a company really ever plucky?) and innovative. They all know how to seduce naive new grads into untenable positions. Even how to seduce older, more seasoned workers to do three times the work at two times less money.
The art of the employment seduction is well versed, and its aided by article after article in this tome and so many others that like sycophants sing the praises of these hard-charging, plucky, disruptive (is the new black), fun-loaded places to work where adult sized playground slides get you around the offices. What fun! And what pluck!
Bleah! Its still the same old. Workers beware, if it sounds too good, it is! Ask lots of questions!
19
It's not just "young people" who are losing their rights, it's everybody! While I don't condone frivolous lawsuits in any way or form, I don't think it's fair for companies to take away our rights in exchange for employment. I recently had to sign away my right to sue for a contract position, too. With "at will" employment in place, what is protecting workers these days? NOTHING.
19
One of the main problems for employees who are forced to sign mandatory arbitration clauses is that it forces them into a system of private arbitration where the arbitrator -- who makes or supplements his or her living handling such arbitrations -- is likely to be consciously or subconsciously biased against the employee and in favor or the employer, who is likely to be a source of repeat business (that is to say, more arbitrations) in the future. And of course one loses the right to a trial by jury of one's peers, who are also more likely to be less biased as a group than a paid "neutral" arbitrator.
If the overwhelming majority of employee-employer disputes are going to be handled through arbitration, we need a government-funded and truly neutral system of handling these cases, where the arbitrators, like judges, are paid by the government, not the private system we have in place now.
If the overwhelming majority of employee-employer disputes are going to be handled through arbitration, we need a government-funded and truly neutral system of handling these cases, where the arbitrators, like judges, are paid by the government, not the private system we have in place now.
14
If she's misclassified as exempt, her arbitration case would be a slam dunk and the employer would be required under California law to pay the arbitrator's fees. I disagree that the only fair way is for her to bring a class action, which would serve only to make her attorney rich. Employment law in California has become a type of lottery for plaintiffs, with multi-million dollar verdicts in the most garden variety cases, and an ATM for the plaintiffs' bar. Little known fact: plaintiffs' attorneys recover their fees on top of any verdict, and those fee awards are usually well into the six figures. This high stakes gamesmanship has distorted the real purpose of the laws meant to protect employees.
10
"Disrupt" has become doublespeak for "Amoral".
10
I recently saw the WeWork founders speak. They are attempting to build a fundamentally new way of working and living. To do this they must operate without the constraints of government over-regulation and an activist base of workers. Otherwise they are doomed to fail.
This is the SF startup mantra. And if you can't stand the heat, back away from the fire.
This is the SF startup mantra. And if you can't stand the heat, back away from the fire.
2
In the past, other start-ups relying on perhaps under-paid employees, compensated those employees by making them shareholders, making them part of the vision. It made many young people wealthier far quicker than they thought possible. It also made everyone WANT to do more, to stay an hour or three longer to finish a project. The 'start-ups' have taken away those incentives, and now are actually limiting the rights of the employees. That's not progress. That's a fall-back to robber baron days. History repeating itself.
19
Meet the Fundamentally New Way of Working and Living, same as the old way of working and living when workers were serfs and Knew their Place.
2
Calling yourself a startup and a disrupter does not give you a license to operate outside the law. Calling it your mantra doesn't alter anything.
6
Giving up the right of access to "due process" is intolerable under any rule of law, and any such practice must inevitably fall. Right to judicial review or relief must not be abandoned, nor relinquishment of that right be permitted. Ever.
19
My one cent based on my 30 years plus working companies is that if I am young with no friend in higher places and with little resources, I would prefer arbitration because what I really want is to have another opinion on the situation. In every cases where I was treated unfair with respect to others, it is either not seen or denied by those at higher ranks. An arbitration will put the matter on record for many years and moves the issues to upper managements where it takes more money and efforts to cover up. As for my many situations, I just swallow my pride and anger, keep calm and carry on, work twice as hard and be as professional and ethical as possible, and build up my skill sets in order to move on to better opportunities years later. I learned this from a wise American Chinese old female coworker at GTE Government Systems. She taught me that if I have a choice, I should always choose to focus on making the future better for me and others instead of wasting time correct wrongs (as there will be infinite supply of that in my lifetime.) This work advice applies only to opportunity risks and never for safety or human dignity.
3
If you read Craigslist ads here in the Bay Area, you'll also see tons of small startups breaking the law by advertising for unpaid interns to do the work of a regular employee. They seem oblivious to the legal requirements of unpaid internships and many twentysomethings seem unaware of their rights. Someone should really start an employment rights awareness organization aimed at millennials.
23
Today, the way into a job for many graduates is through internship. It's a concept now seriously being taken advantage of IMO.
3
Nelle what CL ads are you looking at? I did a search right now and found less than 20 unpaid internships, many from non-profits that can legally use unpaid interns as volunteers. There were less than 5 that appeared to be from tech startups. Where are these "tons of small startups" you speak of?
Two questions: In these organizations, are all employees bound by the same arbitration clause? If some high-level employees have contracts of employment and various side deals that are also contractual, do those, too, have arbitration clauses? Or do the executives get to have their day in court when a high-stakes deal goes wrong and they feel they're owed buckets of money?
Secondly, do the arbitration clauses obligate the parties to follow applicable state and federal laws and regulations in a jurisdiction that has a reasonable connection with the enterprise? Of do the arbitrators get to fly by the seat of their pants?
In a perfect world, there would be a Ralph Nader who'd champion reforms of this one-sided practice. There would be a Congress and state legislatures that would regulate it or prohibit it.
In our new Gilded Age of ruthless capitalism, it's going to take some truly abusive fact situations and many sympathetic victims in order for anything to change. Until then, it's going to be take it or leave it, with an endless supply of millennials who'll gladly to what's asked to earn some money in our gig economy.
Secondly, do the arbitration clauses obligate the parties to follow applicable state and federal laws and regulations in a jurisdiction that has a reasonable connection with the enterprise? Of do the arbitrators get to fly by the seat of their pants?
In a perfect world, there would be a Ralph Nader who'd champion reforms of this one-sided practice. There would be a Congress and state legislatures that would regulate it or prohibit it.
In our new Gilded Age of ruthless capitalism, it's going to take some truly abusive fact situations and many sympathetic victims in order for anything to change. Until then, it's going to be take it or leave it, with an endless supply of millennials who'll gladly to what's asked to earn some money in our gig economy.
11
For most of my work career I was considered a professional. That never prevented me from doing other types of tasks.
In one company I helped move product around a warehouse as we were going to an automated warehousing system and it was my way to learn.
In another company I spent as much time learning the manufacturing process as I did in my office. Again, when the facility went from an MRP to a JIT system of manufacturing I was prepared.
The woman from WeWork loved the fact that there was beer on tap, but did not like changing the keg. In every office I have worked in, everyone who drank coffee made coffee when it was required.
The success of a business is dependent on their employees and flexible employees are the best investment a company can make.
In one company I helped move product around a warehouse as we were going to an automated warehousing system and it was my way to learn.
In another company I spent as much time learning the manufacturing process as I did in my office. Again, when the facility went from an MRP to a JIT system of manufacturing I was prepared.
The woman from WeWork loved the fact that there was beer on tap, but did not like changing the keg. In every office I have worked in, everyone who drank coffee made coffee when it was required.
The success of a business is dependent on their employees and flexible employees are the best investment a company can make.
4
"The woman from WeWork loved the fact that there was beer on tap, but did not like changing the keg."
You make negative nonexistent inferences. Nowhere in the article does it say what you allege, that 1, she loved the tap beer, or 2, that she did not like changing the kegs.
As a person of the obvious highest integrity, you should retract your statement and offer a correction.
You make negative nonexistent inferences. Nowhere in the article does it say what you allege, that 1, she loved the tap beer, or 2, that she did not like changing the kegs.
As a person of the obvious highest integrity, you should retract your statement and offer a correction.
9
This article is an example of the bigger problem described by others' comments. Whether referring to legal documents or prescription drug advertisements, substantial disclosure is required but the ease of comprehension of the disclosure is not, putting the onus of understanding on the consumer. The business world knows this and uses it to full advantage. This is not a new phenomenon but more than ever, as others have said, you are forced to make decisions agreeing to things requiring extensive training to understand.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for more start-ups to emerge that help consumers interpret legalese.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for more start-ups to emerge that help consumers interpret legalese.
5
No one is compelled to work for these companies. If it truly is so horrible, then raise your own capital, put your capital at risk, create a business model that customers value, and start your own company. It is astonishing that so many NYT commentators believe one is "entitled" to a vast array of benefits and rights from an employer without regard for what it requires to form, operate, and grow a business. It also is notable that no one asks why businesses use arbitration clauses with class action waivers (i.e., costs of litigation and unfathomable jury verdicts). Here is a fair proposal: eliminate arbitration but also eliminate punitive damages, civil jury trials, and Rule 23-style class actions (i.e., adopt a European model). If you're not willing to accept the second half of that proposal but insist on the first half, you must concede you don't truly want fairness.
12
Most people do not enjoy the leverage, or options, to turn down an otherwise good job. And, if this trend becomes the norm, they will have no choice.
6
I can't imagine suing my boss if I got fired. But many nominally white collar job titles are really just excuse to avoid paying overtime. I get it; we're living in the era of cost-cutting. But aren't at least some of you glorious job creators just the slightest bit embarrassed by these silly semantic games?
4
This is why we need unions? The arbitration "contracts" are really nothing more than "yellow dog" contracts with management that prevent union organizing by demanding potential hirees to sign a pre-employment agreement. That these were outlawed by the National Labor Relations means nothing to employers today who refuse to acknowledge that employees are not slaves.
19
Wrong on all counts. Pre- employment arbitration agreements do not prevent anyone from forming a union, and collective bargaining agree,mets usually contain arbitration provisions.
1
We are outsourcing everything these days, now even justice.
As in the case of outsourcing in the commercial sector of a broad range of back office services and processes where the American worker is the loser, our American society will be the loser.
Our court administered system of justice is far from perfect. However, a private system of justice controlled by the interests that benefit the most from it, will be, from the perspective of those whom the system is designed to control, even more so.
If you want to understand why arbitration is moving forward, just follow the money. Government likes arbitration for the private sector because it reduces the need for maintaining an expensive court system. Business likes it because they can have better control over their exposure and the outcome. Lawyers like it, because it offers new and better opportunities for them to earn fees. The only people who do not benefit from it are the general public.
As in the case of outsourcing in the commercial sector of a broad range of back office services and processes where the American worker is the loser, our American society will be the loser.
Our court administered system of justice is far from perfect. However, a private system of justice controlled by the interests that benefit the most from it, will be, from the perspective of those whom the system is designed to control, even more so.
If you want to understand why arbitration is moving forward, just follow the money. Government likes arbitration for the private sector because it reduces the need for maintaining an expensive court system. Business likes it because they can have better control over their exposure and the outcome. Lawyers like it, because it offers new and better opportunities for them to earn fees. The only people who do not benefit from it are the general public.
14
If you believe WeWork managers did not know that arbitration lopsidedly favors employers in work place disputes, I've got a condo in Boca I would love to sell to you sight unseen. As to the BLB managers who claim they were justified in "excluding" Mr. Ziober from their next contract, there should be a special place in he!!, or perhaps just in the law books when the courts establish that Userra preempts their phony baloney arbitration clause!
25
I would have said that Ms Zoumer is exactly the kind of employee that no one wants. It's not arbitration that's the issue, it's people that accept a position and salary then decide they want more. I don't know why a paper like the NYT would support trial lawyers over arbitration. Im continually amazed that, in this day of government thinking it should micro manage our entire daily lives, that lawyers still receive phenomenal payouts, at the expense of businesses and individuals. Look into the BP oil spill in the Gulf and see where most of the money went, that should be an eye opener. But then, with a portion of those riches flowing back to Washington DC politicians, what do you expect?
9
The horror of employees wanting to advance and make more money! The horror!
4
Ah for the days of the CIO!
3
Don't like the employer? Find another job.
3
The Obama Administration issued proposed rules a year or so ago that should, if they are finalized, help employees like Ms. Zoumer. Under the current rules, Ms. Zoumer's salary is above the threshold level (of around $25,000) typically used to determine whether an employee qualifies for overtime pay. In other words, under current rules if an employee makes more than around $25K annually in base pay, then overtime is presumed not to be required. The new rules would raise the threshold amount to around $50,000. Since Ms. Zoumer's salary was below that level, she would, under the new rules, presumably be entitled to overtime pay.
13
This article largely avoids mentioning the elephant in the room: class actions.
There's nothing inherently wrong with an arbitration provision. Contrary to what some commenters write here, arbitration usually makes it easier, not harder, for an employee to get justice.
Unless, of course, a class-action claim is involved. Without getting into the contractual and other nuances that make arbitration an unsuitable method of resolving class action claims, arbitration is an unsuitable method of resolving class action claims. Employers' lawyers know this and class-action plaintiffs' lawyers know this. Everybody involved in this "business" knows this.
Employers (and their lawyers) want to make class actions more difficult, or even impossible. Class-action plaintiffs (and their lawyers) want just the opposite. There's the rub. What most of us think is fair is that class actions NOT be blocked entirely but that the results of successful class actions benefit members of the "class," not only the class' lawyers.
That too often does not happen. Sometimes plaintiffs' lawyers provide a valuable service to their clients. But too often the class members end up with a pittance, or nothing at all, while the class' attorneys collect seven-figure fees.
If the abuses of class-action litigation could be prevented, most people would favor them.
There's nothing inherently wrong with an arbitration provision. Contrary to what some commenters write here, arbitration usually makes it easier, not harder, for an employee to get justice.
Unless, of course, a class-action claim is involved. Without getting into the contractual and other nuances that make arbitration an unsuitable method of resolving class action claims, arbitration is an unsuitable method of resolving class action claims. Employers' lawyers know this and class-action plaintiffs' lawyers know this. Everybody involved in this "business" knows this.
Employers (and their lawyers) want to make class actions more difficult, or even impossible. Class-action plaintiffs (and their lawyers) want just the opposite. There's the rub. What most of us think is fair is that class actions NOT be blocked entirely but that the results of successful class actions benefit members of the "class," not only the class' lawyers.
That too often does not happen. Sometimes plaintiffs' lawyers provide a valuable service to their clients. But too often the class members end up with a pittance, or nothing at all, while the class' attorneys collect seven-figure fees.
If the abuses of class-action litigation could be prevented, most people would favor them.
11
The only purpose of business if money, not fairness or the general welfare. Only the 'burdensome" regulation of government is on the side of the people but the GOP and Dem fellow-travelers have fought for policies that harm people and help businesses for decades.
6
With all due respect to the authors, I find the article one-sided. To be legally valid an arbitration agreement must provide for the same rights and remedies that an employee would be entitled to receive in court. Moreover the employer must pay all costs of the arbitration including filing fees and the arbitrator's fees, which can be substantial. For many years, the Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the right of parties to enter into arbitration agreements. And, the courts will deny enforcement of agreements that are unconscionable. I am aware of numerous cases where arbitrators have ruled in favor of employees in employment cases. The argument that employees are being deprived of their constitutional rights by signing these agreements is simply not true. To the NYT: Please tell the other side of this story.
5
Good, the lawsuit culture is killing us and killing jobs, that's a far far worse outcome than the isolated incidents.
4
Corporate Democracy leads to start-up corporate demagoguery that services the lowest common denominator of young adults that trade their worker's rights for lottery tickets. The fabled Silicon Valley Entrepreneurial class loses its collective shine as more cultural stigmata surfaces. But none of these shenanigans would happen if Democracy wasn't taken-over by money interests in the first place. It is the democratic forum that decides the rules. And those rules reflect the ruling class.
6
The NYT is only now figuring out how onerous Silicon Valley treats employees? I've been with half a dozen startups during my career, going back to the late 80's. While they all offered stock options, and so I made money off the ones that went IPO or were acquired, every other aspect of employment at them was abusive compared to the jobs I had in huge organizations.
11
Let's have a dose of reality here. A work place is not a democracy, the company sets the rules and those rules are biased in favor of the company. At least in most companies the welfare of the workers are a concern, but when the chips are down a company will protect itself at the expense of the worker, every time. If it has gotten to the point of an employee suing his or her employer, their career at that company is over, even with an arbitration clause, win or lose their career is over.
Arbitration clauses were instituted in companies because the courts were out of control. Even a trivial lawsuit by an employee could result in months of wasted time and huge legal bills. Arbitration clauses were written to bring closure to disputes in a reasonable time frame and with manageable costs. Arbitration clauses can be written that are equitable for both sides, but since the company lawyer is the one writing the clause, they are of course biased towards the company.
Last points, there are no trivial documents when you are signing up for a job. Read the employee handbook, cover to cover, before you sign. This is a binding contract that sets the terms of your employment and you cannot go back after the fact and say you didn't know what you were signing. If you don't like what you see, walk away. Finally, it is not Washington's or anyone else's job to protect you from unwise decisions. It is your job, your life, you must accept responsibility for your own decisions.
Arbitration clauses were instituted in companies because the courts were out of control. Even a trivial lawsuit by an employee could result in months of wasted time and huge legal bills. Arbitration clauses were written to bring closure to disputes in a reasonable time frame and with manageable costs. Arbitration clauses can be written that are equitable for both sides, but since the company lawyer is the one writing the clause, they are of course biased towards the company.
Last points, there are no trivial documents when you are signing up for a job. Read the employee handbook, cover to cover, before you sign. This is a binding contract that sets the terms of your employment and you cannot go back after the fact and say you didn't know what you were signing. If you don't like what you see, walk away. Finally, it is not Washington's or anyone else's job to protect you from unwise decisions. It is your job, your life, you must accept responsibility for your own decisions.
8
All very reasonable when jobs that paid a decent wage were common. Today young people have few opportunities and are loaded with debt.
2
I'm a lawyer and have written many contracts including arbitration provisions. Arbitration often is a much cheaper and practically available remedy for a wronged employee. Indeed, if an employer expects that most disputes are likely to be initiated by an employee rather than by the employer, an employer may be better off NOT including an arbitration provision, thus leaving a wronged employee with no remedy other than to file an expensive lawsuit.
This leaves the thorny question of class actions, however, which (with rare exceptions) are the only type of claim with sufficient financial promise to attract a plaintiff's lawyer in employment litigation.
An arbitration provision could expressly carve out "class action" claims, but I can't recall ever seeing one that did. Some arbitration provisions expressly prohibit class actions (to which plaintiffs' lawyers strongly object), but most simply don't mention them at all.
A LAW could also "carve out" class-action claims – i.e. declare that arbitration provisions requiring that class action claims be arbitrated are unenforceable. An effort to pass such a law, however, would highlight an important point: employers are deathly afraid of class actions. While a class action may be the only practical way to enforce an important right (because each individual claim is too small), they have been abused by some plaintiffs' lawyers. If restrictions on class actions are to be prohibited, plaintiffs' lawyers also need to be reined in.
This leaves the thorny question of class actions, however, which (with rare exceptions) are the only type of claim with sufficient financial promise to attract a plaintiff's lawyer in employment litigation.
An arbitration provision could expressly carve out "class action" claims, but I can't recall ever seeing one that did. Some arbitration provisions expressly prohibit class actions (to which plaintiffs' lawyers strongly object), but most simply don't mention them at all.
A LAW could also "carve out" class-action claims – i.e. declare that arbitration provisions requiring that class action claims be arbitrated are unenforceable. An effort to pass such a law, however, would highlight an important point: employers are deathly afraid of class actions. While a class action may be the only practical way to enforce an important right (because each individual claim is too small), they have been abused by some plaintiffs' lawyers. If restrictions on class actions are to be prohibited, plaintiffs' lawyers also need to be reined in.
11
At Three Cents, your advice is over-priced by one-third.
2
You are on the right track.
As a lawyer, you should know that arbitration clauses are designed to inhibit the exercise of grievances. In most instances, an individual employee's loss is tiny compared to the enormous legal fees which accompany most litigation, and most legal fees are not recoverable as damages. This imbalance is evened out when a class of victims can pool their resources and sue as a group. The mere fact that employers have worked so hard to impose arbitration clauses should be telling to anyone with common sense. By the way, you might want to read the series of excellent articles in the NYTimes about how the financial industry patiently spent years working through the courts to create enforceable arbitration provisions that, previously, were held to be unenforceable as contrary to public policy
3
Dear Jennifer Berrent,
As Chief Culture Officer, you should be instituting re-education camps to which difficult people like Tara can be sent. Kim Jong Un would definitely have your back.
As Chief Culture Officer, you should be instituting re-education camps to which difficult people like Tara can be sent. Kim Jong Un would definitely have your back.
4
Washington is just unwilling to protect us. Just one more example of the politicians protecting corporate benefactors over the people. Arbitration is an affront to our basic right to have our day in court. The fact that judges routinely side with the business side of the arbitration arrangement also shows how judges are now on the side of business at the expense of the people. Arbitration clauses should be outlawed. I recently asked my primary doctor if I could strike the arbitration clause in our arrangement. I was told if I did that then I would need to find a new doctor. This has got to be illegal. How can any entity force you do something you don't want to do in order to maintain a relationship with your doctor.
14
Arbitration outsources some domains of justice to the private sector. Only those who benefit economically from this arrangement can possibly be in favor of this. We have already seen how this works in areas like defense and incarceration.
And, oh, "Chief Culture Office" sounds very North Korean. Why do we laugh at them so much?
And, oh, "Chief Culture Office" sounds very North Korean. Why do we laugh at them so much?
11
They're Back! America's trial lawyers -- those bottom feeders bombarding you with television commercials begging you to file lawsuits -- operate a global extortion racket with the blessing and legislative assistance of the Democrat Party. They spend billions electing sympathetic judges and legislators to grease the wheels of the class action lawsuit process. Their opposition to arbitration is simple. Arbitration limits the dispute to what actually happened to the individual complainant. Such disputes can be resolved on real facts and real assessments of injury. Class actions, on the other hand, tend to be more about the nuisance value of the lawsuit and how much it will cost to make the lawyers go away. Usually that means some fake settlement that gives silly coupons to the alleged victims, but a huge cash payout to the lawyers. Is it any wonder that some of the biggest players in the trial bar all ended up in jail?
All of this advocacy against arbitration is just self-serving blather from the trial bar.
All of this advocacy against arbitration is just self-serving blather from the trial bar.
10
Yeah, right. Blather on about how much you hate lawyers. But, God forbid you or someone in your family is ever badly injured, through no fault of your own. Then tell me about it. Because, when you need one, believe me, you'll be grateful for the most aggressive "bottom feeder" you can find.
2
Class action has the power to change wrongful policy in a way that individual disputes can not. When one person or a small number are being treated unfairly then, agreed, arbitration is a rightful avenue for the settlement of a dispute (assuming the arbitrator is not pre-disposed to a decision). The greatest power of our judicial system is "we the people" where the upholding of law is in the hands of you and I. The business of tort law has unseemly characteristics - again, agreed. However entities like the US Chamber of Commerce lobbying efforts when dissected are not taking the common working person's needs to heart. There must be a check and balance and as we have learned now our vote for elected representation is not that check.
4
If arbitration clauses only dealt with curtailing dubious class action lawsuits you might have a point. But that's not where it ends. Far from it.
4
What a TERRIBLE example. The article fails to describe any efforts Ms. Zoumer made to discuss her work duties or to get them altered. It fails to describe what alternatives she might otherwise have faced. Instead (seemingly like every spoiled 20 something who believe that they are entitled to have their understanding of the world shared by everyone else) she started organizing colleague to sue. To management she was disruptive. And sorry in the workplace you DO NOT have any right to be disruptive. Further, her spproach to the problem suggests that she was NOT suited to the job she had.
When I was one of the most senior people at Smith Barney I regularly took the time to clean up a mess if I saw it, answered phones, made and even fetched coffee, and cleaned up conference rooms if they needed it before a meeting. My title was senior managing director. Ms Zoumer's correct title is ungrateful spoiled brat. The work was "menial" and "beneath her."
Ms. Zoumer's Linked-In profile reveals a woman of nearly 30 who has had trouble holding steady employment. This article may explain why. Its called an attitude of "us" versus "them", "I am entitled" and "I know best"
A model employee she is not and unlikely ever will be. Ms. Zoumer did this to herself.
When I was one of the most senior people at Smith Barney I regularly took the time to clean up a mess if I saw it, answered phones, made and even fetched coffee, and cleaned up conference rooms if they needed it before a meeting. My title was senior managing director. Ms Zoumer's correct title is ungrateful spoiled brat. The work was "menial" and "beneath her."
Ms. Zoumer's Linked-In profile reveals a woman of nearly 30 who has had trouble holding steady employment. This article may explain why. Its called an attitude of "us" versus "them", "I am entitled" and "I know best"
A model employee she is not and unlikely ever will be. Ms. Zoumer did this to herself.
19
I totally appreciate your position - and I worked in the old school environment you describe. Times have changed, and the bill of goods theses start-ups are selling are ones of inclusion and a culture for all and a two way street for communication. Why be so surprised when the employees speak up to their senior "team members" and ask for more equality? The company sets the stage of "one for all, and all for one" that probably didn't exist at Smith Barney. Those companies were built on strict hierarchies.
This company says one thing and clearly does another. Her Linked IN profile may have gaps, but the company's hiring of Boies Schiller says they know they have a critical issue to tackle. And as a senior managing director versus a 40K employee - don't you think levels of vested interest might be slightly different?
This company says one thing and clearly does another. Her Linked IN profile may have gaps, but the company's hiring of Boies Schiller says they know they have a critical issue to tackle. And as a senior managing director versus a 40K employee - don't you think levels of vested interest might be slightly different?
3
I didn't visit Ms. Zoumer's Linked-In profile but I did find your on-line profile interesting. Did Ms. Zoumer ever collect a 30 million dollar settlement from her former employer? Was she ever banned from Wall Street by the SEC? Did she ever manage to avoid jail time after being found guilty of a crime? Did she ever make harassing phone calls to people she had issues with at their homes and place of business. Or is that a different disgraced senior executive from Smith Barney with the exact same name?
9
I think that Mr. Lissack is missing the point, which is that arbitration clauses remove a citizen's right to seek impartial and fair remedy for wrongs. The article did not delve into the merits or lack thereof Ms. Zoumer's particular case.
There were also many other cases cited in the article, which Mr. Lissack failed to mention. I take it that this commentator is in favour of arbitration clauses which require any dispute between an employer and employee to remain outside of the justice system and in the shadows. This can only a negative for citizens.
There were also many other cases cited in the article, which Mr. Lissack failed to mention. I take it that this commentator is in favour of arbitration clauses which require any dispute between an employer and employee to remain outside of the justice system and in the shadows. This can only a negative for citizens.
2
As the former director of a legislatively established and court supported and maintained statewide Dispute resolution office, I believe it is not the process of arbitration or mediation that is failing these workers, but rather the way the process has been designed. Arbitration can be open or confidential, can be mandated to include 3 arbitrators- one selected by each side of the conflict and a third selected by the two arbitrators, and can lead to quicker more equitable resolutions than court. Additionally, it can be binding or non-binding. I urge readers not to criticize the process when it may be the designers of that process who should be brought to task.
Additionally, I believe the individual selected as the subject of this article was a poor example of a "typical" worker- she accepted a job for a salary and then just didn't like what she was doing or the compensation and was seeking an out. She should have made a budget prior to taking the job.
Additionally, I believe the individual selected as the subject of this article was a poor example of a "typical" worker- she accepted a job for a salary and then just didn't like what she was doing or the compensation and was seeking an out. She should have made a budget prior to taking the job.
6
Silicon Valley aggressively brands and positions itself as being counter - culture to the stuffy corporations of yesteryear. Beer, ping pong, dress down code --fun. But the plaintiff here has hit a nerve. The company's hiring of Boies Schiller is as old school as one can get in fighting a corporate war, and she should be proud that she didn't accept their "wolf in sheep's clothing" request to sign that clause. I really hope she prevails.
9
Arbitration is not a bad dispute resolution method. It can be good for the employee and employer. It is quicker and cheaper for both parties and it includes mutual selection of a nuetral who is an expert in the field.
As for mediation, Michigan provides mediators for employment disputes for free. Perhaps other states do too.
In non-union arbitration the nuetral arbitrator has the authority to grant the same remedies as in a court of law.
Lawyers make a lot less money when arbitration is used. Many attorneys do not take arbitration cases because of this fact.
If the NY Times looked at the time it takes to try a case in court and the large legal fees that attend those law suits it would make an interesting comparison to total arbitration costs and time to final arbitration award.
The main problems with arbitration can be fixed.
Arbitration awards involving civil rights and discrimination law should be made public and free for viewing by the public. Class action suits should be permitted for both mediation and arbitration.
Mediation and arbitration have worked for unions and management for years. A major issue currently facing the NFL is whether or not the owners will grant the Players Association arbitration. The players are strongly in favor of arbitration.
Grand Valley State University has a free arbitration website for those who would like to know more about the arbitration process and read some arbitration decisions: www.gvsu.edu/arbitration/
As for mediation, Michigan provides mediators for employment disputes for free. Perhaps other states do too.
In non-union arbitration the nuetral arbitrator has the authority to grant the same remedies as in a court of law.
Lawyers make a lot less money when arbitration is used. Many attorneys do not take arbitration cases because of this fact.
If the NY Times looked at the time it takes to try a case in court and the large legal fees that attend those law suits it would make an interesting comparison to total arbitration costs and time to final arbitration award.
The main problems with arbitration can be fixed.
Arbitration awards involving civil rights and discrimination law should be made public and free for viewing by the public. Class action suits should be permitted for both mediation and arbitration.
Mediation and arbitration have worked for unions and management for years. A major issue currently facing the NFL is whether or not the owners will grant the Players Association arbitration. The players are strongly in favor of arbitration.
Grand Valley State University has a free arbitration website for those who would like to know more about the arbitration process and read some arbitration decisions: www.gvsu.edu/arbitration/
8
America's corporate plutocrats are assiduously dismantling our democracy, including access to courts.
America is a "free country" only for the rich.
America is a "free country" only for the rich.
7
" A bill in California that would have prevented companies from requiring employees to sign arbitration clauses suffered a similar fate when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it last yea" Funny I thought Mr Brown was supposed to be a democrat. Guess he sold out like the rest of them.
6
Dom, you've got it backwards. Jerry Brown did not sell out. Maybe he's the one good democrat out there!
This kind of 'protection' for employees reminds one of the 'protection' for whistle blowers act....only working one way.
This'protection' will also be in the TPP-arbitration courts(ISDS) set up for the corporations benefit, not an employee/country.
This'protection' will also be in the TPP-arbitration courts(ISDS) set up for the corporations benefit, not an employee/country.
6
"She said the employees who hold the job that Ms. Zoumer used to have were the “soul” of the company and its “brand ambassadors.” She said they performed tasks that were far from menial and were not suited to an hourly wage." Let's see, "tidying up, answering phones and changing the kegs". Orwell, "newspeak" "duckspeak" "It was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking....Every word of it."
8
"At WeWork, Ms. Berrent said, arbitration is part of a multistep process to resolve disputes."
Here is the process:
1. Employee files complaint.
2. Arbitration.
3. Company wins.
Here is the process:
1. Employee files complaint.
2. Arbitration.
3. Company wins.
35
you forgot the follow up steps:
4. Employee gets demoted to doing something they hate
5. Employee quits or is terminated for underperformance.
4. Employee gets demoted to doing something they hate
5. Employee quits or is terminated for underperformance.
10
Arbitration while theoretically useful for solving problems between two legal entities of comparable bargaining power has become a tool to quash workers and customers' rights in the US. Two instances where the power balance between the two parties is far from being neutral.
10
Arbitration, if properly regulated and limited, is actually a very useful alternative to litigation, which has become too expensive and too cumbersome for many. Although there were initially some important benefits to class litigation, for example, once it evolved into cases where consumers received a $5 coupon and their attorneys received legal fees sufficient to purchase yachts and offshore vacation homes and bank accounts, something had to give. Even individual fee-shifting cases increasingly resulted in the death penalty for small businesses for relatively minor infractions. When a plaintiff receives an award in 5 figures and his or her attorneys receive fees in the 6 and 7 figures, something isn't right. It is these abuses that eventually resulted in the rise of arbitration.
11
Should we ever be surprised when the bosses seek to oppress the workers? Capital always seeks to exploit labor. The fact that silicon chips are part of the story cannot change the basic fact of a system that the rich and powerful adore. They can never have enough riches nor enough power to feel satisfied, and they always seek new and creative ways to oppress the workers--mandated arbitration is just one new twist of the knife.
The political class is a wholly owned subsidiary of the rich and powerful, and the owners will pay whatever they need for the lawyers to enforce their ways, so the rest of us need to open our eyes and be ready to duck. Eventually we need to fight back if we are to find a even a modicum of dignity.
The political class is a wholly owned subsidiary of the rich and powerful, and the owners will pay whatever they need for the lawyers to enforce their ways, so the rest of us need to open our eyes and be ready to duck. Eventually we need to fight back if we are to find a even a modicum of dignity.
11
Young, naive, under-educated in the humanities and history; willfully, narrowly focused upon current definitions of success; "gotta live in the real world" realism
upstart startup, break new ground enthusiastic next-generation masters of the universe.
Some formulas for success are best avoided in the interest of supporting the dream and preserving the experiment that we, here, believe we are engaged in.
upstart startup, break new ground enthusiastic next-generation masters of the universe.
Some formulas for success are best avoided in the interest of supporting the dream and preserving the experiment that we, here, believe we are engaged in.
4
We can thank high tech heroes Jobs, Bezos and Sandberg for these serf like working conditions. When tech companies say they want to "change the world," what they really mean is bring back Dark Ages working conditions...
49
Millenials have been conned their entire lives. From helicopter parents who conned them into thinking they can always get their way to tech start-ups that con them into thinking that they're saving the world by emptying wastebaskets or coding 18 hours a day when in reality all they're doing is lining the investor's pockets who offer no security in return. It's all one big con, and people lap it up.
And that, folks, is how we end up with Donald Trump, a con man who is running the biggest con in our nation's history.
And that, folks, is how we end up with Donald Trump, a con man who is running the biggest con in our nation's history.
75
Like to see how life in the White House will be like under the great con Don – try this … http://tinyurl.com/go2op2w
Talk about running riot, it's a high-octane romp of the scamming overlords.
Talk about running riot, it's a high-octane romp of the scamming overlords.
4
Capitalism always behaves the same in the same predatious way. Such behavior is intrinsic to a system where profits are the only value. That is why regulation by government and by worker combinations (unions) is indispensable.
40
You have it wrong. Capitalism is about providing service to customers. Giving them something they want or need. I would challenge you to start a business that works on "predation" as you claim.
1
Since Obama has been president the word "transparent" has changed its meaning to deception. Millennials do not know the meaning of transparent, war, or friends and corrupt politicians know this. . DeBlasio claims his administration is the most transparent in NY history. What he means is that he is corrupt.
3
Quite a few unsupported allegations. Can you provide reputable source references/links to back up these claims?
3
Uber notifies drivers of changes to our contract by surprising us when we log into the app. Rather than sending an email a few days in advance, so that we have an opportunity to read the new contract on our computer, and possibly asks questions of legal counsel, Uber won't let you start driving until you accept the new terms. Drivers don't typically turn on the app until they're in their vehicle and ready to take rides and then, surprise! I guess they know how stupid the typical Uber driver is; a fact proven by the recent settlement between 350K Uber drivers and Uber, wherein the drivers accepted a paltry $100 million, and a few meaningless modifications to policy in return for dropping a class action suit that began before Uber attorneys realized they should have insisted on arbitration. No further class action suits will ever occur between drivers and Uber. However, karma comes in different colors. Uber keeps taking more and more money from drivers in an effort to become profitable (so they can go public), while simultaneously reducing rates and adding ridiculous services such as UberPOOL, which costs the drivers even more money. Now Uber is having trouble keeping drivers, especially experienced driver. This is the great flaw in the Uber biz model. Tell drivers they'll make great money, they don't, they quit, Uber fails. Seriously, that's the direction Uber is presently headed. It's called a House of Cards.
84
Travis Kalanick is a good republican.
Get it?
Get it?
1
Access to Court is the foundation of democracy, the right from which all rights flow.
37
If to obtain a reasonable commonplace of life -- car, mortgage, air travel, credit card, job, or whatever -- someone is for practical purposes required, due to monolithic behavior by all available providers in an industry, to sign a contract containing adverse clauses beyond the legitimate necessities of an exchange of goods or services for money, then those clauses ought to be seen for what they are: extortion by an industry-wide monopoly via the collusion channels of the open market. Such clauses should have no more legal force than they have moral value.
66
It is a little known fact that for many years, many employers have failed abused and disregarded Userra and the rights of military reservists. While those who serve are usually aware of their right under the law, it has been common for employers to not comply and for the employees to suffer after having to deploy. When Useraa cases have gone to court the service member almost always wins, but getting into court has ben extremely difficult, usually due the expenses associated with retaining an attorney. Attorneys don't take on Userra cases because there isn't any room for profit and junior service members cannot afford the $150 an hour and up legal fees.
This is another area where much of America publicly praises those who serve and then ignores them when there are troubles. A sad facade.
This is another area where much of America publicly praises those who serve and then ignores them when there are troubles. A sad facade.
22
A low down, dirty and rotten way to treat someone who sacrifices their life and liberty to protect their employer's way of life.
Absent knowledge of the facts, it is premature to accept one side's claim that this was the reason. The majority of workers are in a class. All too often, class membership is claimed as case of discrimination by the company when the work situation sours for whatever reason. Well laws can turn into hammers to use against good employers who are not discriminating but must defend claims that they are.
"Unprotected by an arbitration clause, companies can face litigation that could result in huge settlements. The drug company Novartis paid $175 million to settle a class-action suit brought by female employees over promotions and pay. And more than money can be at stake; Nike had to overhaul its business practices after African-American employees sued over discrimination."
Sounds right to me.
Arbitration clauses in employment should be outlawed so employers can be held to account.
Sounds right to me.
Arbitration clauses in employment should be outlawed so employers can be held to account.
41
In the Willamette Law Review Janna Giesbrecht-McKee wrote all that needs to be said about employer-mandated arbitration:
"Employers who are repeat players fare better in arbitration than employers who only arbitrate once. The employer’s repeated use of arbitration creates an institutional bias 'whereby an arbitrator who desires future work will be hesitant to render a decision that is contrary to the employer’s expectations.' Employers that act rationally will use this knowledge to pick an arbitrator or arbitration association who will produce 'results biased in their favor.'
Even if arbitrators are not biased, employers still have an advantage as repeat players because they have superior knowledge about arbitrating disputes. Compared to employers, employees are at a distinct disadvantage because they lack relationships with and information about arbitrators. Therefore, arbitration benefits employers over employees regardless of whether bias is present."
This is what comes of destroying unions and the protections they gave to both workers and (yes) employers.
"Employers who are repeat players fare better in arbitration than employers who only arbitrate once. The employer’s repeated use of arbitration creates an institutional bias 'whereby an arbitrator who desires future work will be hesitant to render a decision that is contrary to the employer’s expectations.' Employers that act rationally will use this knowledge to pick an arbitrator or arbitration association who will produce 'results biased in their favor.'
Even if arbitrators are not biased, employers still have an advantage as repeat players because they have superior knowledge about arbitrating disputes. Compared to employers, employees are at a distinct disadvantage because they lack relationships with and information about arbitrators. Therefore, arbitration benefits employers over employees regardless of whether bias is present."
This is what comes of destroying unions and the protections they gave to both workers and (yes) employers.
51
I am a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, an organization of about 600 arbitrators who handle the bulk of workplace arbitrations in the United States and Canada that arise under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by labor unions and employers in both the private and public sectors. Arbitrations voluntarily negotiated by labor and management differ significantly from those that are the focus of the article, which is concerned with mandatory arbitration clauses required by employers as a condition of employment. As the article observes, these individual arbitration procedures often include waivers of class action rights. The Academy has adopted guidelines for insuring the professional standards of arbitrators hearing mandatory arbitration cases. We encourage the use of these standards to heighten the fairness of mandatory proceedings, until either legislative bodies, notably the Congress, or the courts change the law. The standards can be found at the following link to the Academy's website: http://naarb.org/Guidelines_for_standards.asp.
7
Nice of your organization to encourage following standards. But they don't have to, do they.
4
When words such as "guidelines" and "encourage" are used to suggest equal protection, rather than words such as "legally required", it is apparent that this arbitrator responder is well practiced in the art of subterfuge and doublespeak.
5
At this point, the standards do not have the force of law, but arbitrators can commit to adhering to them. They also can be required if negotiated by the parties when arbitration is invoked. It is possible that, one day, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), the main appointing bodies, will supplement their current rules with these improvements.
The private sector has always been worse than the public sector in the treatment of workers. The private sector that conservative love so much, is horrible and is also the most most discriminatory against women and minorities.
22
One has to play the game in the corporate gig or pay the consequences. If one does not problems occur and employment attorneys are a necessity in many cases. However, many people are too intimidated to use them.
3
These companies claim they want to disrupt the old ways, but really all they want to do is disrupt the old profit flows.
If they wanted to be a good employer, they could easily adopt a policy which says mandatory mediation and arbitration prior to filing lawsuit. The company can be collaborative and give people a chance to work things out informally, while not taking away the rights of employees.
Of course they won't do it, because they aren't interested in treating employees fairly. They're interested in making money at the expense of labor.
If they wanted to be a good employer, they could easily adopt a policy which says mandatory mediation and arbitration prior to filing lawsuit. The company can be collaborative and give people a chance to work things out informally, while not taking away the rights of employees.
Of course they won't do it, because they aren't interested in treating employees fairly. They're interested in making money at the expense of labor.
61
Welcome to the real world.... The pristine picture these young start-up companies paint with employing the "open floorplan" concept is just a façade.
Perhaps these start up companies, do not understand the concept and vaule of loyalty and just want to become billionaires...
Perhaps these start up companies, do not understand the concept and vaule of loyalty and just want to become billionaires...
14
Of course, every start up should set aside funds to deal with class action suits or other employee lawsuits. Why should employees have to quit if the job wasn't everything they expected?
And if start ups can't afford the prospective cost of such litigation, maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with.
"I can't worry about every undercapitalized business" Hillary Clinton in testimony to Congress.
And if start ups can't afford the prospective cost of such litigation, maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with.
"I can't worry about every undercapitalized business" Hillary Clinton in testimony to Congress.
2
Now you get the prize, this time for managing to blame Hillary for the weather.
4
I can't really blame many companies in wanting to shield themselves from litigation. When you have a society that thinks their first recourse is to file a lawsuit why wouldn't they seek a different path? As for class actions, of course many lawyers eagerly look for them - they're a cash cow, paying millions to the attorneys and generally a pittance to the "class", often for pretty trivial matters. Greed on both sides of the coin!
8
Going back and forth between startups and Google and between customer and employee arbitration makes for a borderline libelous characterization of Google. Nobody treats its employees like Google. After a year my son has 40k in stock options, 40k in his retirement plan and 40k in the bank. The sloppy reference to Google is inappropriate. Since when does the Times attack top notch employers in the same breath as an abusive startup? Shame, shame.
7
Arbitration is garbage. It amounts to little more than forcing litigants to submit to the will of the stronger party. At this very moment there is a lobbyist who works for the bar association, and he or she is crawling underneath the dinner table of Mitch McConnell, massaging his leg in an effort to make sure that nobody messes with the current reality, when it comes to arbitration.
5
Jennifer Berrent, WeWork’s general counsel and "chief culture officer" implies that, because her company pays for arbitration "no matter who wins," the use of arbitration is fair.
She glosses over the fact that arbitrators are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. Few arbitrators will strive to be fair when their livelihoods depend upon them favoring those who write their paychecks.
She glosses over the fact that arbitrators are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. Few arbitrators will strive to be fair when their livelihoods depend upon them favoring those who write their paychecks.
89
There is a reason why The New York Times has not published any Op-Ed piece offered to give a view different from the folks writing this series. The Times can explain if it wishes. In the meantime, I will offer only one FACT. Arbitration is confidential. It is not secret. The distinction would not be lost on a journalist who chose to gets the facts and write about them. What a shame.
3
Disgraceful. Wework, Airbnb et al are the new plutocrats. A handful of "founders" wallow in their creamy billions while the sans-culotte like Ms. Zoumer get drippings at best. Any wonder we have Bernie and Trump feeding off these rivers of misery?
12
Literally not a single company mentioned in this article was a tech startup.
6
What a surprise … billionaire venture capitalists advising, indeed requiring, their start-ups to conform to corporate bullying rules. Similar law firms advising both, hence similar outcomes. We should expect nothing high-minded from start-ups, greed is the driving force in all (see Theranos). Get over start-up p.r. Looks at the fundamentals. Find all the facts. But that would be hard journalism from the get-go, perhaps too much to ask.
3
Shame on WeWork. And shame on these new startups that raise billions of dollars, but can't seem to give their workers a fair deal.
It seems that there's little innovation here, only the oldest story in the book- CEOs making their millions off the backs of workers.
Unions and a fair deal for all!
It seems that there's little innovation here, only the oldest story in the book- CEOs making their millions off the backs of workers.
Unions and a fair deal for all!
29
Start ups and entrepreneurs the new relgions of our rigged economy. Every time I HEAR AN ALLEGED "progressive" like Hillary Clinton talk about how she wants to work with entrepreneurs I wannt to scream. Even those of that group who talk a pro worker line are doing just that asking. They go on television or on line and wax poetic about their commitment to progressive ideals and trash those awful Relublicans and yet when you talk to their employees, who aren't actually employees they are Indeoendant contractors, they will tell you their jobs don't come with benefits or even paid sick days. They will tell you that their employers expect 100% loyalty but fire people at noon on Fridays without notice. Entrepreneurs and their start up companies are as bad as big multinational. We need a Labor department that enforces the rules and a Congress that works for the humans not the corporations.
8
I am a card carrying New York Times reading liberal who believes in unions, universal healthcare, and wealth redistribution. On the subject of arbitration, does anyone here realize how expensive class action lawsuits are to settle? Close to 6 figures and that's on the cheap end. And how frivolous many of them are and how easy they are to file? There are people who make a living getting hired and intentionally fired to file a lawsuit. There are lawyers that make a living filing the same boiler plate lawsuits against any company they can find a disgruntled former employee from. This is great business model for lawyers, most employers will try to quickly settle to avoid the legal fees and huge risk of a long jury trial. I was a small employer who paid above market , was generous with benefits, and yes forced my employees to sign arbitration agreements after getting hit with back to back lawsuits for FLSA violations that were frankly lies and cost us a fortune to settle. I wanted to go to court and with one we did and won but it cost us so much in legal fees and took almost a decade to wind through the justice system it just makes too much financial sense to bite the bullet and just settle and we did that with the other lawsuits we were hit with and then rolled out arbitration agreements. I will stop thinking arbitration agreements are OK when America institutes European style "loser pays" tort reform and stops making justice so expensive for employers
9
Well, if your employees had had a union contract (you say you believe in them, so why didn't you encourage your employees to organize?), perhaps you wouldn't have gotten hit with lawsuits. The terms and conditions of employment would have been set down in the contract. Your employees could then have gone though the grievance process and negotiated solutions to the problems instead.
14
I hate to sound like a company shill, but I guess that's sort of what I am, so I'll go ahead. I think it is important to remember in this discussion of employment arbitration that no federal judge can or will order any employee (or ex-employee) to arbitrate a dispute unless the individual has previously agreed to do so. If the individual has so agreed, then the Federal Arbitration Act, and simple contract principles, essentially mandate arbitration. I certainly can understand how in any given circumstance the individual (and his or her lawyer) might prefer to go to court rather than arbitration. But if the individual had previously promised to go to arbitration, and has accepted the benefit and value of what he or she received in exchange for that promise, the individual must live up to that promise. This is going to sound callous, but look at it this way: I certainly might wish now that I had not promised two years ago to pay this much per month for my Honda Accord. But I did promise, and so I must live my life accordingly. Regret for my current situation, no matter how sincere, is not a legitimate basis to excuse me from the consequences of my promises.
5
However, if you agreed to pay a certain amount for your Honda Accord, and then found that the vehicle had defects that made it unreliable to drive, how would you feel if the contract you signed gave you no recourse? Should the rest of us say "too bad," and have no sympathy if you were forced to pay for a vehicle that was continually in the shop? Arbitration clauses essentially ask us to take everything "as is," even when it comes to consequences we didn't reasonably anticipate. Most of us believe that a contract should be a mutual obligation, not simply a mechanism for the corporate party to extract wealth from an individual by restricting his rights.
11
.
no wonder companies like arbitration
1) no more specious lawsuits
2) which means, most people may not even pursue it....because if you can't extort a settlement via a lawsuit, it's not worth your while to actually try prove your (likely bogus) case in front of an arbitrator
go arbitration!
.
no wonder companies like arbitration
1) no more specious lawsuits
2) which means, most people may not even pursue it....because if you can't extort a settlement via a lawsuit, it's not worth your while to actually try prove your (likely bogus) case in front of an arbitrator
go arbitration!
.
2
The start-up world has done an excellent job of representing itself as cool, progressive, motivated by high ideals, out to change the world (for the better, morally). For example, there Google's formal corporate slogan -- or, if you prefer, tag line: "Don't be evil."
It's all advertising. It's all the marcom of an industry doing everything in its considerable power to win the hearts and minds of a typically youthful workforce and, in many cases, customer base. In other words, its about about making oodles of money by looking good. Buyer beware.
It's all advertising. It's all the marcom of an industry doing everything in its considerable power to win the hearts and minds of a typically youthful workforce and, in many cases, customer base. In other words, its about about making oodles of money by looking good. Buyer beware.
4
Curbing labor rights is part and parcel of the corporate takeover of democracy. Read Hedrick Smith's "Who Stole the American Dream" or watch his youtube TED talk to understand that this is nothing new, but just a continuation of the erosion of the social contract between capital and labor, which began in the 70s. I guess everyone expected somehow Silicon Valley, with all its promise of sweat equity, would escape that trend of squeezing labor. We must open our eyes to the facts and brush away the romance ASAP.
4
Shamt, shame, shame on the venture caplitalists and private equity investors who, yes take the risk, but who wield Goliath-like power and wealth. And to the youngsters who wax rhapsodic over becoming the next Zuckerberg, shame on you too. My husband and I earn $400,000 to $500,000 a year, are very comfortable with our retirement funds and will be happy if the government introduces a tax rate of 90 percent on annual income above $10 million. Get rid of the ridiculous favoritism on real eatate and carried interest. The youug woman profiled in this article is a profile in courage, and the peoplen who are in her employee category should join forces with the minimum wage group and unionize in masse!
7
Employers who tell you you're part of a "family" or "community" are adopting the tactics of cults to control you and pull the wool over your eyes. Such cultish pretensions are all over the so-called New Economy, just like the Old Economy, with the added hazard that these fake touchy-feely smokescreens lure people into dropping such guards as were built up during the Old Economy (unions, hourly labor rates, overtime).
These arbitration clauses, non-disclosure clauses, clauses demanding open-ended amounts of unpaid overtime, and all the other managerial cover-up, gag and binding clauses inserted into work contracts are tilting the employment contract more and more towards a one-sided relationship, stripping employees of rights and recourses at law. The trendsters managing the New Economy are every bit as "corporate" in their managerial style as any other generation, with the added element of hypocritical family-community rhetoric. Cultishness plus corporatism makes for quite a cocktail.
The most basic tactic these managerial hucksters use is to isolate people in negotiations and convince us that these retrograde "innovations" are the new normal. That tactic will keep working if most of us keep letting the few who stand up to this go out on a limb that gets chopped off. Conversely, this sad trend will stop fast when instead we start having the guts to show more solidarity with each other in the face of these sneaky maneuvers.
Who gets what share in the "sharing economy"?
These arbitration clauses, non-disclosure clauses, clauses demanding open-ended amounts of unpaid overtime, and all the other managerial cover-up, gag and binding clauses inserted into work contracts are tilting the employment contract more and more towards a one-sided relationship, stripping employees of rights and recourses at law. The trendsters managing the New Economy are every bit as "corporate" in their managerial style as any other generation, with the added element of hypocritical family-community rhetoric. Cultishness plus corporatism makes for quite a cocktail.
The most basic tactic these managerial hucksters use is to isolate people in negotiations and convince us that these retrograde "innovations" are the new normal. That tactic will keep working if most of us keep letting the few who stand up to this go out on a limb that gets chopped off. Conversely, this sad trend will stop fast when instead we start having the guts to show more solidarity with each other in the face of these sneaky maneuvers.
Who gets what share in the "sharing economy"?
10
The reason we have courts and a system of civil justice is so that employees and other people don't find themselves facing judges hired by their adversaries, which is basically what an arbitrator is.
The lack of pride and faith in our legal system shown by these companies is quite stunning, not least for its smug and oblivious nature.
The lack of pride and faith in our legal system shown by these companies is quite stunning, not least for its smug and oblivious nature.
7
Startup? What are you talking about?
Startups are makers - these people, who are renting out office space, are clearly takers.
Greed is not an innovation. The folks at WeWork can call themselves anything they like; but they are cut out of the usual Real Estate Industry cloth - the same cloth Donald Trump is cut out of.
Startups are makers - these people, who are renting out office space, are clearly takers.
Greed is not an innovation. The folks at WeWork can call themselves anything they like; but they are cut out of the usual Real Estate Industry cloth - the same cloth Donald Trump is cut out of.
9
Ms Zoumer was very naive. I have no compassion for her. There probably was a clause in her contract that WeWork can hire/fire at will. She probably also had the opportunity for big stock options in the company if it went public.
I live in the heart of Silicon Valley and have seen the failure and successes of start-ups for 20+ years. As a matter of fact, one of my friends, Mike Maples, was the *very first* investor in Twitter before it was ever Twitter. http://www.floodgate.com/
This woman has also committed professional suicide. Maybe she might learn from this incident, but I doubt it.
I live in the heart of Silicon Valley and have seen the failure and successes of start-ups for 20+ years. As a matter of fact, one of my friends, Mike Maples, was the *very first* investor in Twitter before it was ever Twitter. http://www.floodgate.com/
This woman has also committed professional suicide. Maybe she might learn from this incident, but I doubt it.
2
Funny how some judges just dismiss arbitration clauses on whims.
There is no consistency to US "justice".
There is no consistency to US "justice".
1
The era of the robber barons has returned. Quickly amassing vast sums of money but suppress the rights of workers at every step. The new arbitration rarely finds for the complainant. It is set up that way. It is not the arbitration process that unions use where each side get to presents its case to a panel or sole arbitrator. The decision can be reviewed if there is an error in law. It is all about power and suppressing worker' rights. What happened to concepts of fairness, valuing workers, and justice. It is an attitude of casting people aside who challenge that notion and ignoring the injustice of your actions. It is totally shameful and very sad.
105
The robber barons were not small start ups. San Franciscans dislike Silicon Valley because its employees get paid so much. Coal mines and steel mills are unionized hellholes. Try to think for yourself. Would you rather work for US steel or Google?
What is the purpose of having law at all if people can be constrained by private interests - their employers - to sign away legal rights? What rights are they that can be taken away? We need this practiced banned as soon as possible. That may require mass mobilization, political change and more. But we approaching pre-French Revolution degrees of privilege and power.
10
I would hardly classify startup founders as "robber barons" or anything similar. You only hear about the startups the succeed and whose founders never have to have that last hour in the office, turning the lights off for the last time.
Yes founders are rewarded with wild sums of money. But they are also the ones taking the huge risk of deciding they can inject a new idea into the world and are willing to drop their safe paycheck for the risk.
Workers like the young lady in this article choose the safe pay check and are thus rewarded at that fixed rate. Founders could make millions or walk away with a massive personal loss.
"
Robber baron" is a 19th century criticism of cheats who got rich. I don't think it's reasonable to say someone who had, developed, and marketed a novel idea cheats their way to riches since, again, you only ever hear about the .001% of the 10% of startups who survive their first year.
Hardly the same as selling the mineral rights to two different people and skipping town.
Yes founders are rewarded with wild sums of money. But they are also the ones taking the huge risk of deciding they can inject a new idea into the world and are willing to drop their safe paycheck for the risk.
Workers like the young lady in this article choose the safe pay check and are thus rewarded at that fixed rate. Founders could make millions or walk away with a massive personal loss.
"
Robber baron" is a 19th century criticism of cheats who got rich. I don't think it's reasonable to say someone who had, developed, and marketed a novel idea cheats their way to riches since, again, you only ever hear about the .001% of the 10% of startups who survive their first year.
Hardly the same as selling the mineral rights to two different people and skipping town.
Arbitration and LLCs are two very pretty legal creations that screw everyone other than those relevant few holding the power. Of course, the poor employer and the poor (anonymous) owner(s) of the LLC simply want to keep from being exploited...
...because that's their job and/or purpose.
...because that's their job and/or purpose.
44
Why would anyone expect start-ups, including tech start-ups, to act any differently than any other company?
Why?
Sure, some don't have employees, they have associates, partners, whatever. Sure, some of them have lots of food, ping-pong tables, and bosses with tats. However, as the old saying goes, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Again I must ask, why would anybody expect anything different?
Why?
Sure, some don't have employees, they have associates, partners, whatever. Sure, some of them have lots of food, ping-pong tables, and bosses with tats. However, as the old saying goes, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Again I must ask, why would anybody expect anything different?
93
Because it's the decent, civil thing, Steve. Business IS people. Nothing more. To pretend they have special privileges to be uncivil and unethical is an outdated idea.
64
No njglea, it's not the decent to sue a start up that is not established financially and could go bankrupt. This woman did not have to take this job if she didn't like the pay.....She got herself into this mess....there are plenty -- plenty-- of start-ups or tech companies in the SF Bay Area she could have worked for. She was simply naive and *entitled*.
1
Wait a sec, njglea, what you appear to misunderstand is Steve's question, Why would a tech start-up behave any differently from, say, Philip Morris? The tech start-up is a capital investment. Capital protects and promotes capital. Nothing about capital's point of view (believe me, it has one) favors humans over itself. Your notion that "business IS people" in no way changes the overarching imperative of a tech start-up to put the interests of its capital investors above those of its sweat-equity investors. In fact, because of their indebtedness to capital investment, tech start-ups may be more determined to protect and promote capital than even the Philip Morrises.
2
Naturally the Times is looking out for the interests of lawyers. Software is already decreasing the need for them. We certainly don't want reasonable things like arbitration to further deprive them of business. Those nasty tech companies!
19
Sear Don, arbitration is rigged in favor of the employer. If you don't know that they you should read up. Don't like lawyers? The next time you are in a jam with the government or the police don't call one. Good luck.
By the way do you think employers don't use lawyers at arbitrations and who, my friend, do you think staffs these arbitration panels? Workers don't get lawyers and they get screwed. But who cares they are only hums so they don't matter.
By the way do you think employers don't use lawyers at arbitrations and who, my friend, do you think staffs these arbitration panels? Workers don't get lawyers and they get screwed. But who cares they are only hums so they don't matter.
3
Implying that arbitration is reasonable because it may or may not deprive attorneys of income is disingenuous and misleading. It is the corporations which employ arbitration (thereby denying employees their legal rights) that stand to benefit financially. Looking out for the interests of individual employees is not the same thing as looking out for the interest of lawyers. It's absurd to imply that The Times benefits whenever attorneys representing individuals litigate labor cases.
7
Arbitration is about crushing workers and consumers. Arbitration is as reasonable as a gun to the back of your head
10
Arbitration seems to be yet another method for companies to take advantage of employees. I do find it disheartening that the company spokesperson equated an hourly wage with menial labor. Is getting fair compensation for time at work somehow menial? I'm sure those of us professionals lucky enough to have a position that pays overtime should count ourselves lucky.
113
She got caught up in the"new" wave of calling new employees associates etc when she was apparently just a gofer. Give someone a fancy title . Sounds great but doesn't pay well.
4
Weighing the pros and cons of arbitration agreements or any other legal documents is like interpreting your own x-ray or biopsy. You need an attorney or a doctor. You are naive if you think you can successfully do it by yourself. At the very least, you must figure out the worst and best outcomes or decide there is little to lose or gain by signing. This is the complex world in which we live and why people invest in years of education and experience. Don't play lawyer or doctor.
53
Exactly how does a person making $42,000 come up with the money to retain a lawyer? And why should she need to do so? The Department of Labor is doing nothing to look out for the welfare of labor. Lawyers are being used to rig the system against consumers as well. How many terms of service agreements do you click "I agree" to every time you get a software update? You would need a full time lawyer to read all this garbage.
9
Let's see, give up my rights to judicial redress? Or keep my job? Sure, call a lawyer. Give the guy with the gun my money, or call a cop? Hmmmmmmmm.
2
Unfortunately, many people who sign these do not have the power to negotiate the papers they are signing. I'm sure the moment someone even asks to take a closer look or get advice would find their offer of employment rescinded. Never mind how fast that would happen if you asked for a change in that clause as would be your right if it were truly a contract that both sides enter into freely. The employee does not enter into this freely. It's either sign or not have a job.
9
There was no need for Ms. Zoumer to file an arbitration claim or lawsuit. If she had been improperly classified as salaried-exempt, she should have made a complaint to the local labor board. It's unfortunate that the lawyer she consulted didn't make that recommendation to her, forcing her to give up her dream job.
79
And if that wasn't covered, and prohibited at risk of firing, by her arbitration clause/agreement, then the employer has a malpractice claim against its corporate lawyers. Good try though. That's what it means for the corporate owners to have us proles by the short hairs.
2
That is exactly what I was going to say.
1
I'm often surprised by the "millennial" workforce who are often inexperienced, just embarking on their first credible, professional job and their primary concerns are what the company can do for them. Huge swaths of the career education experience deal with (modestly paid) internships, apprenticeships, and entry level responsibilities. This individual took on the position fully aware of the salary. Was she getting health care? Did she have access to a company matched 401? Could she set her own schedule? How many sick, personal and vacation days were part of her benefits package? How often could she comp a lunch on the company card if she was meeting with a client? Were there days in the week she could work from home? Perhaps those "perks" were comparable to the ominous ping pong table. She didn't say she worked past her standard 35 or 40 hours, she just didn't respect the work she was doing for the money she was making. It wasn't her job to send faxes and greet guests, apparently. For the myriad of personal greivances that can occur at work from lethargy to insubordinance, arbitration seems like the most effective process toward a solution, especially if someone expects to keep their position when it's over.
4
Startups are corporations and will always behave like them. To expect other from Silicon Valley would be to ignore ontology.
55
Thanks tbulen, I learned a new word today. Ontology!
1
Yes, corporations are busy figuring out more and more ways to evade responsibility. Tax evasion, LLCs to hide ownership, arbitration clauses that keep customers and employees from suing for human rights and liability. It's a travesty for average people in what these same corporate captains tout as the shining democracy in the world. America. It was once - no more.
150
LLCs are actually to protect personal assets from lawsuits. Its an old system that was put in place to make it possible for people to start and run businesses. Without LLCs small business would not be possible.
Niglea,
Are you kidding me? WeWorks has a policy of first requiring the employee to work with his/her manager. If that does not work, they go to mediation. Only then is arbritation involved. Don't know what world you live in, but in mine this is more than fair.
Apparently for this employee she wasted little time in trying to organize others to file a class action suit. I say good riddance
Are you kidding me? WeWorks has a policy of first requiring the employee to work with his/her manager. If that does not work, they go to mediation. Only then is arbritation involved. Don't know what world you live in, but in mine this is more than fair.
Apparently for this employee she wasted little time in trying to organize others to file a class action suit. I say good riddance
I have a lot of friends working in silicon valley who don't understand that anything more than 8 hours a day is overtime, no matter how much you earn or how you are paid. It's a games that all these companies play and its incredible they don't get caught more often.
California already has an administrative procedure for handling small workplace disputes called Berman hearings. The department of labor standards enforcement handles cases neutrally for free. Any honest employer should use the public system that already exists, and claiming that they are using arbitration to cover themselves is clearly dishonest.