Bob, you say “And it’s not that “Oh, well then we’re in trouble here. Everyone knows that these arbitrators always rule in favor of the business.” Well no, that’s not true, because if it were true then the employees would never agree to that. Right, so there is a market force for an actually objectively fair arbitration process.” But someone who’s desperate for a job isn’t likely to refuse the job becasue they don’t like the arbitration clause. Lots of employment and other kinds of contracts have arbitration clauses already, and very few people investigate the quality and impartiality of the arbitrator. The quality of the arbitrator isn’t as important a factor as other aspects of the contract.
So I predict that what would happen in the society you’re envisioning is that whenever you have unequal power dynamics in any contract, the arbitrator specified in the contract will probably be biased in favor of the person with more power. In fact arbitrators might even advertise themselves as biased. Or you could even have contracts with clauses which just say “The employer always wins if there’s a dispute.”
“But someone who’s desperate for a job isn’t likely to refuse the job becasue they don’t like the arbitration clause.”
OK, and let’s say you are running a business that offers terrible arbitration benefits. What’s to stop me from offering slightly better arbitration benefits and taking all your employees? It’s like when people say a business can just pay whatever they want to an employee because they’re desperate for a job. No, they can’t. At least not for long. If an employer is offering terrible pay or benefits soon enough through competition they’ll be the one who is desperate for employees.
Assume there aren’t other opportunities. So they take the job with the crappy benefits. Then I see an opportunity to start a competing business doing the same thing, but I offer all your employees the same pay but with better benefits. You can either keep offering crap benefits and lose your employees or match the benefits I’m offering. Market competition will tend to prevent what you describe in the long run.
Without a video camera, I don’t believe it would be possible to justify entering a suspects property to take your TV back.
The reason is because people don’t have an obligation to prove that they *didn’t* commit a crime.
All the guy has to do is tell his accusers to go pound sand, and that would make perfect sense.
The solution, I think, is to stop prohibiting people from driving tanks (and such) on their own property so they can do a good job of prefenting crimes before they happen.
It used to be (forgot where I heard this) that Catholics – *way* back in the day – used to prohibit people from owning crossbows, and I think if they had them, everyone would have been better protected against the Vikings.
(I could be making that up, but I believe I saw it on something like the HIstory Channel.)
I believe the pope banned their use against other Christians, but this was 1139 an the Viking thing was pretty much over. I think Lord Vetinari banned some sorts of crossbows too – small ones which could be easily concealed.
Bob, you say “And it’s not that “Oh, well then we’re in trouble here. Everyone knows that these arbitrators always rule in favor of the business.” Well no, that’s not true, because if it were true then the employees would never agree to that. Right, so there is a market force for an actually objectively fair arbitration process.” But someone who’s desperate for a job isn’t likely to refuse the job becasue they don’t like the arbitration clause. Lots of employment and other kinds of contracts have arbitration clauses already, and very few people investigate the quality and impartiality of the arbitrator. The quality of the arbitrator isn’t as important a factor as other aspects of the contract.
So I predict that what would happen in the society you’re envisioning is that whenever you have unequal power dynamics in any contract, the arbitrator specified in the contract will probably be biased in favor of the person with more power. In fact arbitrators might even advertise themselves as biased. Or you could even have contracts with clauses which just say “The employer always wins if there’s a dispute.”
“But someone who’s desperate for a job isn’t likely to refuse the job becasue they don’t like the arbitration clause.”
OK, and let’s say you are running a business that offers terrible arbitration benefits. What’s to stop me from offering slightly better arbitration benefits and taking all your employees? It’s like when people say a business can just pay whatever they want to an employee because they’re desperate for a job. No, they can’t. At least not for long. If an employer is offering terrible pay or benefits soon enough through competition they’ll be the one who is desperate for employees.
Dan, what if there aren’t other employers who have job openings (or at least not job openings the employee in question is eligible for)?
Assume there aren’t other opportunities. So they take the job with the crappy benefits. Then I see an opportunity to start a competing business doing the same thing, but I offer all your employees the same pay but with better benefits. You can either keep offering crap benefits and lose your employees or match the benefits I’m offering. Market competition will tend to prevent what you describe in the long run.
But power dynamics aren’t unequal in employer / employee negotiations. So what’s your point?
I liked the cartoony stuff.
Without a video camera, I don’t believe it would be possible to justify entering a suspects property to take your TV back.
The reason is because people don’t have an obligation to prove that they *didn’t* commit a crime.
All the guy has to do is tell his accusers to go pound sand, and that would make perfect sense.
The solution, I think, is to stop prohibiting people from driving tanks (and such) on their own property so they can do a good job of prefenting crimes before they happen.
It used to be (forgot where I heard this) that Catholics – *way* back in the day – used to prohibit people from owning crossbows, and I think if they had them, everyone would have been better protected against the Vikings.
(I could be making that up, but I believe I saw it on something like the HIstory Channel.)
I believe the pope banned their use against other Christians, but this was 1139 an the Viking thing was pretty much over. I think Lord Vetinari banned some sorts of crossbows too – small ones which could be easily concealed.