Support NeoGAF

[Dartastic]

So, I have a phone interview tomorrow with a company for an Assistant Operations Manager position, and they asked me to finish filling out a second form online prior to my first phone interview. I figured sure, why not. Seems normal.

What DIDN'T seem normal however was the fact that I had to sign an arbitration agreement before my first interview. I've never had to sign one of these before, so needless to say I'm taking this with a ton of suspicion. For those of you who don't know what an arbitration agreement is, here's the first few lines of the agreement.

"To resolve employment disputes in an efficient and cost-effective manner, you and Company agree that any and all claims arising out of or related to your employment that could be filed in a court of law, including but not limited to, claims of unlawful harassment or discrimination, wrongful demotion, defamation, wrongful discharge, breach of contract or invasion of privacy, shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration, and not to any other forum. "

So yeah. I'm not signing this right now, for sure. I figure I'll discuss this tomorrow on my phone interview, but needless to say I'm not feeling good about this job anymore. GAF, what are your experiences with this?

 

[Byakuya769]

Who knows. I don't read that shit.

Seriously, final and binding? Fuck that. Don't know how much in need of this job you are, but I wouldn't sign that. Though I'm not sure that's even enforceable.

 

[Dartastic]

From what I can tell they're pretty enforceable, and pretty hard to get out of. I have a job right now but it sucks and I need a better one. That being said... yeah. I'm pretty sure I know how this is going to go. I'm going to bring up my doubts about signing that, and they'll end the interview.

 

[suoodS]

Hope you like anal.

Cause they're getting ready to fuck you.

 

[Dude Abides]

Who knows. I don't read that shit.

Seriously, final and binding? Fuck that. Don't know how much in need of this job you are, but I wouldn't sign that. Though I'm not sure that's even enforceable.

They are generally enforceable. You xan even be required to resolve federal employment discrimination claims via arbitration.

 

[t26]

They want to avoid going to court. Those cost a lot of time and money.

 

[Dartastic]

They want to avoid going to court. Those cost a lot of time and money.

Well, of course they want to do that. However, they should create a company culture where hopefully you'll never NEED to get taken to court. How common are these things anyway?

 

[rkn]

Never fully read my employment agreement, but I wouldn't doubt that something like this is in there. Question you have to ask is if any of those things above happened, would you sue? Or just move on to another obviously better job.

 

[entremet]

Sounds like a public company. It is, OP?

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Personally, I wouldn't sign it since they're enforceable as others have stated. I agree that the moment you show your concerns about signing it, that will effectively end the interview.

 

[joeblackisback]

Typically something like this would be presented upon offer of employment, like a non compete agreement. They're forms that some companies feel should be signed more as a precaution for them. I won't add my opinion, as I've signed neither for my job, but they're not unheard of. Having you sign one before your interview seems a little much, though.

 

[t26]

Well, of course they want to do that. However, they should create a company culture where hopefully you'll never NEED to get taken to court. How common are these things anyway?

It is not always the company fault where they have to go to court. Probably common in a large company

 

[ronito]

So wait, you're just interviewing? They haven't offered you a job yet? That's weird dude.

 

[...Scatter...]

Yeah - I had to sign one of these at my job. It's a nice way of keeping you from suing them effectively incase something goes down.

 

[Husker86]

Did they take you out to dinner first?

 

[fallengorn]

They're increasingly becoming more common I think. It's goddamn bullshit, but if you need the job, there's little else you can do.

If you're filling out employment applications, I wouldn't be surprised if it's there.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Typically something like this would be presented upon offer of employment, like a non compete agreement. They're forms that some companies feel should be signed more as a precaution for them. I won't add my opinion, as I've signed neither for my job, but they're not unheard of. Having you sign one before your interview seems a little much, though.

From the company's point of view it makes sense even before hiring. They open themselves to discrimination claims from people they interview and don't hire, and arbitration will lower the cost of defending those claims.

Arbitration can potentially stack the deck in favor of the corporation and against the employee, but not necessarily in every case.

 

[Ingrate]

I wouldn't sign one of these unless I was desperate for a job.

 

[Ingrate]

So wait, you're just interviewing? They haven't offered you a job yet? That's weird dude.

They know many experienced people won't sign one of these so they let them know beforehand about it so nobody's time gets wasted with interviewing.

 

[Dougald]

Sounds like they don't care about employees. I'd tell them to shove it unless I was desperate

 

[Saganator]

With how sleazy a lot of companies are, I'm surprised these aren't more common.

 

[Kamaji]

No. Arbitration clauses cannot be enforced in most employment contracts in my country. I haven't worked in any position where it would be able to hinder a trial in a public court.

It's a really shitty practice given that it's a clause that only the strong side (companies and such) benefit from. Wished it would be banned completely except for perhaps CEO:s and such that would actually have the muscle and resources to handle a Arbitration process.

This is a side-question but i'm just curious. Are arbitration clauses common and enforcable in contracts between a significantly weaker vs stronger part in the US? Like for example purchase agreement between a consumer and a corporation?

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

They are almost always enforceable.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

Well, of course they want to do that. However, they should create a company culture where hopefully you'll never NEED to get taken to court. How common are these things anyway?

Depends on the industry, in businesses that are heavily dispersed internationally arbitration is the norm as a way to avoid having to deal with court systems that

1) are known to be dysfunctional
2) are located far from the home office

Its not the end of the world, arbitration tends to be fair due to how the arbitrators are chosen. Usually both parties choose a single arbitrator. The two arbitrators then choose a third and the 3 of them then decide on the case. Due to that system arbitrators do their best to have a fair reputation since its their reputation that gets them hired.

You can and should get a lawyer for arbitration as well. They would be the ones to likely choose your arbitrator on your behalf as well as argue your case. Other than that its just like any other legal proceeding except only 2 out of three have to agree on the decision for it to pass. In the united states I know federal laws have been passed to make the civil decisions of an arbitration binding legally, so if you win they can't turn around and appeal in court.

I think a lot of people mix up arbitration with mediation where a single party makes the decision but it isn't as easy to manipulate an arbitration as it would be to manipulate a mediation.

 

[Dartastic]

Welp, that went exactly how I expected it to. They called, I asked if the Arbitration clause was mandatory, they said yes, and I said I didn't feel comfortable signing that. They thanked me for my time, and that was that. Ah well.

 

[rudieboy77]

It is because it was a management position, usually these are also followed up with a non compete.

 

[Stumpokapow]

After the US Supreme Court made it clear that if a piece of paper says you give up the right to sue, then you give up the right to sue, there's no reason for every business not to just require everyone to sign a piece of paper saying they give up the right to sue 100% of the time no matter the reason

 

[LowEndTorque]

Labor and employment litigation is on the rise so the company is trying to cover its ass. It doesn't mean the company is shady or is in a habit of fucking over its employees, it just means that the company is trying to avoid costly lawsuits and that its lawyers probably advised them to impose a mandatory arbitration policy.

Statistically, employers are more likely to win in arbitration than in litigation. And when employees do win, the awards are a lot less and you can't appeal the decision. The employer has the right to make it a mandatory condition for employment (which looks to be the case here). Again, it doesn't mean the company is shady, it just means they are not willing to subject themselves to civil litigation. So you will have to weigh your options and decide whether the job is worth giving up your right to sue and letting some arbitrator decide what your compensation is if you get fucked over.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Did they take you out to dinner first?

I'm am so dead at this lmao!

IDK OP. That's seems pretty messed up. I usually sign those after I get hired not before the first interview. I wonder if they wouldn't consider you if you asked why. It just seems a bit much, unless the company is like a Forbes 500.
.
Edit: ohh so you did ask. Oh well, there lost. That was extremely extreme for something that wasn't promised to you.

 

[Byakuya769]

They are generally enforceable. You xan even be required to resolve federal employment discrimination claims via arbitration.

Damn That's some Lochner shit.