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

[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!