Uncomfortable Work Situation

[digitaldiscipline]

[C&P from Sil, with minor tweaks for parsing and add'l info]

angel_renewed and I have been tasked with creating modules on the new conflict resolution system being rolled out here. While I am a big fan of conflict resolution (and mediation) as a means to diffuse workplace stress, I am highly uncomfortable with the what's going on here.

Essentially, its telling employees that they must give up their rights to resolve conflicts in court if they wish to continue to be employed by this company. To wit:

(note: The program is called "Solutions")

The Company has adopted Solutions as the exclusive means of resolving workplace conflicts. This means the Company and all employees who accept or continue employment with the Company agree to resolve all legal claims against the Company or an employee through Solutions rather than through court. (emphasis mine)

Doing some research, she found that the Supreme Court has actually upheld this kind of intimidation in the past. We also discovered that such workplace 'arbitration' overwhelmingly favors the employers and that the 'neutral' arbiters are frequently ignorant of the law - in some cases they have *no* legal background.

Luckily, as a contractor this does not directly affect Sil. It does, however, affect me, since I'm technically a Seasonal Employee of the company. I feel dirty writing this crap into training.

I'm wondering a) how to broach the subject in a manner to management, b) include an appropriate level of subversive "educate yourselves about what arbitration means for you" into the training material without setting off management klaxons, and c) whether or not I'm qualified to pursue a career as a plumber (seriously, the Roto-Rooter guy was -that- compelling an evangelist for the job when he came out on Sunday).

This policy has made me uncomfortable enough that I'm seriously contemplating resigning over it, if I can line something else up that I can start right after CG2.

Comments

[tylorael.livejournal.com]

Run.

< law student >
I am NOT a fan of arbitration. I'm going to take Alternative Dispute Resolution next semester to learn more about arbitration and mediation. I am all for mediation, but not arbitration in such a wide-spread way.

I mean, this takes away your federal right to do things like sue the company for sexual discrimination. And Arbitration groups like that are never neutral. They want to keep their contract with the company, which means they're going to be biased for the company.

It would be one thing if they said "arbitration and mediation through the ---- group" (There are a bunch of national arbitration boards that are similar to small courts, in that costs of arbitration are split, and they're not held by retainer by large corps, and tend to be pretty neutral.
< / law student >

[tylorael.livejournal.com]

Well, let me note that I'm not sure exactly what federal rights it pulls from you, depending on how widespread florida supports these, but I know that it eliminates a lot of your rights as a worker.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm getting from the research as well. The happy face the literature that's being shown to management as well as being rolled out to the employees is a very slick sales pitch, and we're half expecting to be called on the carpet because of the emphasis we're putting on the less savory side of the initiative.

We're training the agents. It's our job to make sure they get what's important. That puts us between a professional rock and a moral hard place this time, it seems.

[rachellll.livejournal.com]

My parents vacation up in Massachusetts. And it's a pretty small community. But it is so impossible to get a plumber there. I mean, it's like applying to a top-notch college or something, you DEFINITELY need letters of recommendation. Just saying, I've certainly seen areas where it can be quite lucrative.

But on the flipside, septic tanks, yuck.

Good luck with this dilemma.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I figure it's one of those jobs that not only can you do anywhere, but there'll be demand for it everywhere, too. And R-R is the biggest name in the industry, afaik, so it's not like it wouldn't be a portable career option, should, for instance, MBI's nagging to move to Phoenix continue to become more strident. *laugh*

[bynner.livejournal.com]

Yikes... that is indeed an uncomfortable work situation. I can't say that I've ever encountered anything quite so awful, but I have found that many companies are either flat-out ignorant of how unjust a proposed system is, or are hoping the employees won't notice. Simply pointing out to management that the system is unjust and that you noticed may be enough to introduce a shred of reason.

I have publically refused to support a number of initiatives at my company I deemed unethical, and it has always garnered enough attention to get the executives to revise the policy. My opinion is pretty well-respected around here, though, so it is helpful if you have a long and successful relationship with the company if you're going to make waves.

Failing all else, can't you resign from the conflict management policy-drafting committee? If it's not part of your job description, they can't force you to do it, can they? Or do you have one of those "Other duties as required or assigned" clauses tucked in the bottom. I *hate* those.

If nothing else, sympathies. That's lame. :(

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Ummm. . . we work for a really, really BIG corporation. Red and white can, kinda brown and fizzy inside. You may be familiar with it.

We're not on any kind of policy committee - we're simply the information distribution conduit to the call floor for this building (about 400ppl).

[emzebel.livejournal.com]

Does this policy apply to all employees of the Red and White Can Company, or just to the local bottler? Not that it makes a huge difference from a legal standpoint...you are still being told that to continue to be employed, you give up your right to sue, which is, unfortunately, not illegal.

In theory, if you sign an employment contract, then you could cross out that clause, but it is questionable whether that would be recognized as a legal repudiation of that portion of the contract. I am not familiar enough with employment law to be able to wax profoundly about this issue, other than to say that it sucks and the employees here are getting the shaft. And that it is all perfectly legal...

[etcet.livejournal.com]

It is being rolled out on a division-by-division basis. We are, I believe, the third location to be implementing it. I am an employee of this facility, and the legalese in the documentation makes it clear that all employees of this facility are included in the tacit agreement, should they show up to work beyond X date. That's the finky thing - there isn't anything for existing employees to sign, just new hires. Current employees will have been assumed to have given tacit or implied consent, because the verbiage is laid out that way.

What bothers me more than the shady erosion of rights taking place here is that the company is probably counting on the ignorance or indifference of employees to wander blithely into this snare because they're not being handed something they can pore over or take to a lawyer to have what's involved explain to them, so it falls to Sil & I to try and trigger warning bells for the employees without coming right out and baldly stating what's going on, and drawing ire from on high.

[emzebel.livejournal.com]

Eew. That is *really* shady. You are right - most people do not really think about what they are "agreeing" to by showing up to work. Nor do most people ever think that they will be suing their employer, so why worry, heh.

It is possible that the provision could violate Florida law without violating federal law, although I am sure that the R&W Can Co. has lawyers looking at these things too...

[tylorael.livejournal.com]

I would suggest getting some (or ordering some) pamphlets that are anti-arbitration and anonymously dropping them off in break rooms/on employee bullitin boards, etc.

Or make sure there are links to anti-arbitration cites in the information you pass on to the agents. You could always claim neutrality by giving links to both positive and negative sites/information.

[angel-renewed.livejournal.com]

The pamphlet idea is spot on. In fairness, the company *is* giving training to everyone on this, beyond the stuff Rafe and I are documenting. However, the training pretty much glosses over the fact that showing up after 12/29 is implied consent to arbitration.

[geekers.livejournal.com]

Ick! So.Very.Not.Good!

[etcet.livejournal.com]

mein gott, he lives!

you just want to picture me with my asscrack hanging out, don't ya, spunky? ;-)

[angel-renewed.livejournal.com]

*twitch*

I hereby assing you *both* penalty shots. To be consumed in Miami.

Plumbing is a shitty job.....

[smaugchow.livejournal.com]

But is it less shitty than the one you've got now? Hard to say.

I work for a Nzai who would do shit like that if he had the power. He gets bent out of shape over little things, like people not displaying their corp ID badge at all times, or people taking naps in their cars on their lunch breaks. Neither is against company policy, but he gets a burning hatred in his gut when he sees it. It's funny to watch him smoulder in impotent fury.

So naturally I take naps in my car and keep my ID in my pocket. :-)

Re: Plumbing is a shitty job.....

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I used to get shit from a manager of a completely different department at my old job because one of his twit-minions got their panties in a twist from everything from the fact that I wore my combat boots laced loosely to my desktop wallpaper, so I'd come in every morning to find my monitor turned off.

I finally crucified a teddy bear on top of my monitor, and that didn't draw a single comment. Asshats.

Re: Plumbing is a shitty job.....

[smaugchow.livejournal.com]

Well, what was the desktop wallpaper?

Re: Plumbing is a shitty job.....

[etcet.livejournal.com]

from digitalblasphemy.com. the render in question was "cleansing."

it may exist on the /images directory of digi-dis, but if it doesn't now, remind me after hours and i can put it up there.

yes but...

[ross-winn.livejournal.com]

the fact is that we live in a litigious society. in some cases costing employers tens of thousands of dollars because some jackass sues over an lack of recognition of bastille day as is due his cultural heritage. i was a named defendant in one of these. it sucked. you may simply ask the question "what certification are we going to require of the arbitors?" or "if we don't make sure the mediators are certified we are getting sued anyway". FInally, in many states it is illegal to remove these rights. You may be right, but I would consider the problem from all angles.

Re: yes but...

[angel-renewed.livejournal.com]

Still, I don't think the way to handle frivolous lawsuits is to remove employees' rights to go to court for *anything*. Any lawsuit filed against our company (or a fellow employee) by an employee will be dismissed and referred to arbitration. The only way arbitration can be appealed is if the arbitrator is shown to have exhibited *gross* negligence and lack of any common sense.

Re: yes but...

[ross-winn.livejournal.com]

there is more too it than that. I am not an attorney, but you may want to talk to one. If you need a referral I have a great attorney.

Re: yes but...

[etcet.livejournal.com]

litigious society: yes, and that's entirely too prevalent.

the arbitors are, for instance, from AAA (amer. arbits ass'n), iirc.

the whole matter of state v. federal OK-ness is a whole 'nother morass (as em and tess pointed out above).

[ross-winn.livejournal.com]

I remember when I was asked to sign a noncompete for the first time. It wasn't binding under florida law, but I signed it. when they tried to come after me they were "suprised" at the veracity of my attorney.

Re: yes but...

[tylorael.livejournal.com]

< pre-finals law student soap box>

I agree that we live in a litigious society. My first year of civ pro can attest to that, but, I can tell you that while I'm pro-mediation and anti-most-arbitration (the 10th district's Judge Kane made a big impression on me in one of his papers about arbitration), my issues with the way the company is doing it arise from more than just "Arbitration bad!"

If they had it set up that they could find a third-party-neutral arbitrator, and exempted [most] federal question cases from arbitration, and made the change in an informed way for the employees (with potentially a fee-shifting set up for employees who were against arbitration, i.e. if you choose not to arbitrate and lose the court case, shift the court fees from the company to the plaintiff, no charge for arbitration), I'd support that. At least it would give employees more of a choice than "agree to arbitration or quit".
< / pre-finals law student soap box>

Not trying to argue. I've just been studying too many arbitration cases lately.

Re: yes but...

[tylorael.livejournal.com]

10th district = 10th circuit.

more caffiene?

Re: yes but...

[ross-winn.livejournal.com]

alternate opinions, presented civilly, are the soul of discourse.

thanks.

[ivy]

Agh. I second the "run" option, if you can't somehow get them to change it. Sounds like you're doing the right thing, though.

Wow, the world becomes more cyberpunk every day, doesn't it? All hail the increasingly powerful Corporation Government. Now gimme my leather kimono and deck. [grin]

[etcet.livejournal.com]

subversion may be getting sowed, as one of the more clueful folks downstairs was advised of the concern this policy might imbue, with a quiet exhortation to share the knowledge.