Hacker News
points by assimpleaspossi 14 hours ago | 0 comments
My son lost his job so did InstaCart for a while. He got really good at it and started making good money. Then they sent him to an apartment complex but didn't give him an apartment number.

He called support who contacted the customer and said they were on their way and could he wait five minutes. Of course he did but 30 minutes went by.

Contacted support again who said customer would be there in five minutes but, 15 minutes later, support said to just take the goods back to the store.

He took the goods back to the store but the store refused to accept them. Support said he could just donate them or keep them.

Despite showing the back and forth text messages, he was deactivated for not delivering to the customer.

[–] cowlevel 13 hours ago
We're supposed to sue companies when they treat us like this but few of us do because it's a difficult process. Companies know this and act with impunity.
[–] nikanj 13 hours ago
Did you mean "mandatory arbitration"? Suing is such a 20th century action.
[–] wakamoleguy 13 hours ago
I wonder if this would have affected the result, though. I haven't been through either process, but it seems like either would be a venue for making your case and getting a fair judgement. My understanding (which could be totally wrong, please correct me) is that companies mostly force arbitration because it is cheaper and less variable than trials, not necessarily because the results tend to be biased toward them. Is that true?
[–] freejazz 12 hours ago
Have you wondered why its cheaper and less variable than trials?
[–] wakamoleguy 12 hours ago
My understanding is that it's cheaper because it is mediated by largely by a single person in a conference room, rather than the heavier process of collecting a jury. And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

[–] freejazz 12 hours ago
Collecting a jury doesn't cost the participants of a lawsuit anything. And the vast majority of civil cases do not make it to trial.

>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.

>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?

> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.

[–] wakamoleguy 12 hours ago
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. (I admitted to not knowing and was open to being corrected. I appreciate you actually correcting my understanding, rather than assuming I hadn't even considered it.)
[–] cowlevel 12 hours ago
Have you proven why? To make my point again: we just feel like it won't work so we don't even try
[–] freejazz 12 hours ago
The issue of whether or not "forced" arbitration agreements are binding is different, but in this context I don't see it being something an employee can get out of. Some states have laws, for example, that destroy arbitration agreements in employment contexts for sexual harassment claims. If you have anything to offer, I'm more than happy to consider it. Short of that, I don't really see what point you're actually making besides "Maybe? I don't know!"
[–] OkayPhysicist 12 hours ago
Arbitration is not nearly as one-sided as people make it out to be. It's much more about making sure that the case can be completed quickly than it is about the company winning.
[–] cowlevel 11 hours ago
The company, of course, knows all the tricks to win consistently.
[–] OkayPhysicist 11 hours ago
That's just as true in real court.

If you have an absolute lay-up of a case (something like "my company fired me because I got pregnant, and lied about by pretending to change their mind about something they'd already approved of"), then you're going to win the arbitration case. Well, more accurately, the company's going to throw a pile of cash at you before it even gets that far, because they screwed up and the first time legal hears about it, the first words out of their mouth will be "you did fucking what?".

It is nigh impossible to cleanly fire an employee from the time you learn they're pregnant, to like a year after they come back from maternity leave. Unless they broke into your office and took a shit on the desk, the default opinion of every judge is going to be "I read about this exact scenario while studying for the bar, literally textbook".

[–] cowlevel 12 hours ago
See that's part of the difficult process. Mandatory arbitration clauses aren't even always valid.but we just assume they are.
[–] etc-hosts 12 hours ago
they want you to sue your phone
[–] chaosharmonic 12 hours ago
Instacart stole money from me.

When COVID hit, I got sick and had to spend several days inside ordering delivery. And more than once, the store was missing half my order. So I then had to make new orders for the food I wasn't able to get the first time -- while they refunded me only for the items they didn't have, leaving me to eat the (multiple) delivery fees and driver tips.