Google ends forced arbitration. Do not expect your employer to follow suit.



[ad_1]

Google announced Thursday that it was ending the forced arbitration of its workforce. This change means that employees will no longer have to submit their disputes with Google to an arbitrator. They will have the opportunity to pursue the company individually or together as a group.

Workers who have signed an arbitration agreement can not bring their claims to a public court. Instead, they bring them to an arbitrator, usually through an arbitration service paid by the employer. Companies prefer forced arbitration because it avoids expensive and costly lawsuits that result in heavy compensation for workers. It also helps to keep allegations of wrongdoing out of sight, since everything is pleaded behind closed doors in front of the umpire.

Google's recovery in arbitration follows months of employee criticism of the practice; 20,000 employees participated in a walkout in November that attracted international attention. Workers cited forced arbitration as one of the main grievances, claiming that it concealed abuses in the workplace and left them with little weight in the face of a powerful employer.

The upturn in arbitration by Google follows months of criticism from employees.


ASSOCIATED PRESS

Google's recovery in arbitration follows months of criticism from employees.

According to Google, no new employee will be given an arbitration clause to sign as a condition of obtaining a job. All current employees who have signed one in the past will be allowed to pursue their lawsuits. The new strategy will come into effect on March 21st, although it will not apply to Google's contractors or salespeople.

This change is a big win for Google's direct employees, who are not unionized but still act as a union. By eliminating the policy of arbitration by public pressure, they have given themselves even more collective power, allowing them to regroup and to sue in court for issues such as wage theft or discrimination. .

While some of Google's competitors in Silicon Valley can do the same, it is unlikely many other US employers will do it.

The use of forced arbitration has steadily increased in recent decades to such an extent that it is estimated 55% of American workers – about 60 million – are subject to such clauses, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The share of workers employed under forced arbitration has nearly doubled since the early 2000s, allowing workers to have less access to courts for civil rights, family leave and wage demands.

Of the employers who resort to forced arbitration, about a third also require workers to sign waivers in case of class action or class action, which means that they can not join group lawsuits against the company. The result is that many valid claims are never introduced because they are too small by themselves.

While some of Google's competitors in Silicon Valley can do the same, it is unlikely many other US employers will do it.

The trends in arbitration should not be reversed any time soon, largely due to a monumental decision made by the Supreme Court last year. In the case of Epic Systems v. Lewis, several workers had sued their employer for using class action exemptions in forced arbitration agreements, claiming that this went against the lawsuit. US law of bedrock entrenching collective bargaining rights.

The conservative majority of the court disagreed and rendered a 5-4 decision in favor of the employers – a decision that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg violated in her dissent.absolutely wrong. "The decision basically gave employers the green light to require workers to waive their right to sue collectively in court.

It is still too early to say how the decision encouraged employers to institute arbitration clauses. But it is likely that many were waiting for a court signal on the legality of the clauses before forcing the workers to sign them.

For Google, the Supreme Court's ruling meant that abandoning its arbitration agreements was entirely optional and necessary only after thousands of its employees invaded the streets. It is unlikely that other employers, even those with big names, will be under such pressure to reconsider their arbitrage policies.

Take the Chipotle burrito chain. This company began to include an arbitration clause in its job offers as it faced an increasing number of lawsuits for theft from current and former employees.

Once the Supreme Court decision was rendered, Chipotle used it to successfully deport nearly 3,000 workers from the lawsuit. The judge in the case said that the decision did not leave him any other choice.

[ad_2]

Source link