Termination for not signing the new ADR?

[HYHYBT]

They're probably in the right, legally. You don't have to sign it, and they don't have to keep you on the payroll.

[Slytovhand]

They're probably in the right, legally. You don't have to sign it, and they don't have to keep you on the payroll.

The US labour laws allow this???? OMG! (ok, for casual employment, even in Australia, that would happen - but for anything else, no go!)

[Andara Bledin]

In a state with "at will" employment, either the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time for zero reason. However, if am employer terminates an employee and it can be shown that there was a discriminatory reason for it, then it ceases to be legal.

It's quite possible that when dealing with an issue such as the ADR taking away the employee's rights to seek redress without providing any compensation for that would be illegal in and of itself and thus illegal as a stated reason for dismissal.

However, the best way to know for certain would be for the person involved to discuss it with a lawyer specializing in labor issues.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

The US labour laws allow this???? OMG! (ok, for casual employment, even in Australia, that would happen - but for anything else, no go!)

We live in a mostly At Will country. The majority of our work force are "casual" employment.

Basically you don't get a contract in most jobs. Companies are very careful to make it clear that you do not and will not have a contract with them because there are a whole different set of laws regarding contractual positions versus At Will employment.

[Sarah Valentine]

Maybe I was reading it wrong but didn't it say somewhere in the original post that signing it was volintary, if it was they can't legaly say "sign it or you're fired".

[HYHYBT]

Voluntary doesn't mean all that much, really. Their continuing to employ you is also voluntary.

It's sort of like this: a cashier cannot be required to pay back a drawer shortage. A cashier can, however, be fired for their drawer coming up too short... and the employer can also overlook the offense, which they're much more likely to do if the money turns up.

Anyway, it's NOT "taking away your right to seek redress." it's requiring that you do so by arbitration rather than through the court system. On the condition that the arbiter is unbiased, that can actually be an advantage for both sides: it's faster and cheaper. It's just that that it's hard to know this far up front that they will be unbiased.

[Nekojin]

On the condition that the arbiter is unbiased, that can actually be an advantage for both sides: it's faster and cheaper. It's just that that it's hard to know this far up front that they will be unbiased.

I don't have a citation at the moment, but there was a study at some point that showed that somewhere around 90% of arbitrated disputes that were examined went in favor of the defendant (the corporation), and in many of the cases where the complainant prevailed, they were given a far lower settlement than they were estimated to have been given in a civil trial.

The arbitrators know who pays their paychecks, and they know that if they side with the complainants "too often," they'll stop being asked to serve as arbitrators. It's a huge conflict of interest, but nobody seems interested in reforming it in any substantial way.

[HYHYBT]

...which is why I said "on the condition that the arbiter is unbiased." The problem isn't so much that they require arbitration, as such. The problem is if they get to pick who does it.

[Palsgraf]

... that can actually be an advantage for both sides: it's faster and cheaper. ....

from http://www.citizen.org/congress/arti...ct.cfm?ID=7490

Isn’t arbitration a cheaper alternative than filing suit in court?

Generally speaking, no – this canard is repeated regularly without any substantiation. In fact, as Public Citizen’s comprehensive report on arbitration costs demonstrates, in most consumer and employment disputes, the high fees associated with mandatory arbitration make it impossible for consumers and employees to vindicate their rights. Most arbitration providers require hundreds of dollars in filing fees, and thousands more to be advanced for the arbitrator’s daily or hourly fees.

Consumers, particularly those who have just suffered a financial loss, are generally unable to pay these fees and are therefore precluded from any remedy. Similarly, high fees may preclude workers, whose financial future may already be endangered due to a wrongful discharge, from pursuing their anti-discrimination claims. These high up-front costs strip away the benefits of attorney contingency fee arrangements, by which plaintiffs receive legal representation without advancing any money.

[....]


P.S. Still unemployed and looking for a new job ...

[HYHYBT]

See, this is what I get for paying attention in class I was getting my information out of a textbook, though obviously I didn't bother quoting it. That does not, of course, mean it's accurate.