Hacker News

points by wakamoleguy 15 hours ago | 0 comments

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 14 hours ago

Have you wondered why its cheaper and less variable than trials?

[–] wakamoleguy 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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!"